\ ' \ T' '■ I ./ I'm: Mi'. Ill' i!l' !i f Hi 1 ■ 1 i ; i li! i|! 1 ! il • ( lifiiji till'' !;■*!'! il I '111 .'I l! !!''"" ^.ttC-' / ^A-- EPISCOPACY TESTED BY SCRIPTURE BY THE KIGHT REV, IIEXRY U. OXDERDOXK, D. D., ASSISTANT BISUOP OF THE PROTESTANT KPISCOPAL CHURCH IN THE COMMON- WEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA. 'To the law and to the testimony."— /saiaA, viii. 20. NEW YORK: PUBLISHED BY TUE PROT. EPIS, TRACT SOCIETY. 18G0. CONTENTS. Introduction, ......•,» Traoc, '• Episcopacy Tested by Scripture," .... Postscript to " Episcopacy Tested by Scripture," , Appendix.— Notes to " Episcopacy Tested by Scripture," Timothy an Apostle, . Review of " Episcopacy Tested by Scripture," Answer to tliat Review, Essay — on the Question — When did Paul place Timothy over tlie Churcli at Ephesus 1 ...... . Second Review of" Episcopacy Tested by Scripture," &c., . Answer to tiie Second Review, ...... Review, from the Biblical Repertory', of " Episcoj)acy Tested by Scripture," Answer to the Third Review Dissertation on the False Apostles mentioned lu Scripture, Paj50. V 1 C9 'jn 47 53 93 114 130 175 200 2-29 •267 ADVERTISEMENT. The Essay, " Episcopacy Tested by Scripture," had been pub- lished more than three years, before an attempt was made to reply to it. Early in the year 1834 it was reviewed in the " Quarterly Christian Spectator," by the Rev. Albert Barnes, o. Pliiladelphia. This review was immediately followed by an answer, in the "Protestant Episcopalian," by Bishop H. U. Oii- derdonk. Of this answer a further review appeared in the periodical first mentioned, in tJie spring of tiie present ye;ir. by the same Rev, Author; which was replied to by Bisiiop Ouderdouk in the "Protestant Episcopalian" for June. For the full information of the Christian public, on the subject ol Episcopacy, so far as these productions throw light upon it, the whole of them are how republished, in order, the reviews and replies from the respective journals, by the Protestant Episcopal Tract Society. Another review of " Episcopacy Tested by Scripture," having appeared in the " Biblical Repertory," for April, 1835, that also, and the reply of Bishop Onderdonk, are republished by the Society. Two short pieces on the Aposlleship of Timothy, from the " Protestant Episcopalian," are inserted, after the Tract and its Appendix, that the whole of that argtunent may likewise be before llie reader. A Dissertation on the case of the False Apostles is appended at the close of the publication. CiH ) FURTHER ADVERTISEMENT. JSiwoii the second reply to Mr. Barnes was printed in the " Protestant Episcopalian," we have observed, in turning casually over the pages of his little volume, that he has the7'e extracted at large, what he merely referred to in the first edition of his fiist review, the argument of the late Dr. Wilson, that Timothy was placed at Ephesus by Paul at the time the latter fled from that city, in consequence of the riot or "uproar" mentioned in Acts XX. 1. We did not deem it necessary to answer a mere reference to an argument contained in a different work from the one then before us. But as the full reprint of it may seem to make our reply incomplete, particularly to the assertion of Mr. Barnes, which he of course deems more fully illustrated by the extract from Dr. Wilson, that Timothy was placed at Eplie- sus only " temporarily," we refer, in return, to the arguments of Macknight, concerning the date of the first epistle to him, and his connexion with the church in that city. (See his Pre- face to the Epistle, sect. 2; and Life of Paul, chap, xi.) We also ask the reader's attention to an essay on the subject, from the " Protestant Episcopalian," for May, 1831 ; which is here reprinted after our answer to Mr. Barnes' first review. ^'^^ H. U. O. INTRODUCTION. In his Answer to the Review of "Episcopacy Tested by Scripture," by the Rev. Mr. Barnes, the author of that tract affirmed that the presumptive argument is with the advocates of Episcopacy, and the burden of proof on its opponents. This consideration is not without weight ; and, as it was omitted in the Tract, a statement of it is here prefixed. By the presumptive argument is meant, a reason or reasons for presuming- a proposition to be true, before the main discus- sion is entered upon. By the burden of proof, so far as it is con- trasted with this argument, is meant, the necessity of refuting a reason or reasons for preswming-jbefore commencing the decisive investigation, that a certain proposition is untrue. When it is alleged, as it sometimes is, that the burden of proof m this controversy lies on Episcopalians, the only ground of the allegation is, that the claims of Episcopacy displace all Non- episcopal ministers, and unchurch all Non-episcopal denomina- tions. The latter consequence is disclaimed by the author of the Tract. And cs to the former, and indeed both, if both are supposed to follow, they may indeed, as being unacceptable to the feelings, require cogent and decisive arguments for our claims ; but they do not affect what is logically called the burden of pruof. Because a thing is, is no presumption that it is right. Because there are Non-episcopal ministers, is no presumption tliat their ministry is valid. The comparative merits of Chris- lianity and Mahomedism, for example, are to be discussed ; if Christianity shall have the better of the argument, it will dis- flace the latter religion and its ministers ; does this consequence '^row the burden of proof, as distinguished from the argument proper, on the former 1 Surely not: because Mahomedism and Mahoinedan ministers exist, is no presumption that they have truth on their side. Again: the question between the Quakers and those who hold to an ordained ministry and visible sacra- ments, is to be discussed ; if the latter party prevail, they un- church the former and displace their ministry j but against the 1* (5) VI INTRODDCTION. justice of these consequences there is, for the reason given, no logical presumption. So, when some Romanists deny our ministry; though we have this presumptive argument against them, that, as no one civil ruler and government has ever swayed the whole world, it may be supposed that no one ecclesiastical ruler and government ought to have dominion over all churches; yet we make no further claim to throw on them the burden of proof. And our Non-episcopal brethren must submit to the same obvious rule. A presumptive argument for a ministry is, that in all civil society the people have officers over them. A similar presump- tive argument {or Episcopacy is, that in all large civil societies, the officers over the smaller portions of the people have higher offi- cers over them. The number of grades among the officers may vary, as expediency shall dictate ; but there is always the feature in civil governments of magnitiule, that many officers, and several grades of them, have a common head above all. The exceptions to this rule are few, if any, and are of course unavail- ing in this discussion. We find the same rule in armies, navies, corporations, colleges, associations. Human wisdom then, or COMMON SENSE, as indicated by almost invariable practice, declares for grades of officers, and a chief grade superior to the rest. And the presumptive argument is obviously on this side of the question between clerical imparity and parity; it is in favor of Episcopacy ; and the burden of proof, whether that proof be sought in Scripture or elsewhere, is on those who act in opposition to this all but universal rule. Another presumptive argument for Episcopacy is, that in the ministries of all false religions, if extensively professed, there are different grades, with a common superior. This feature cannot, without a petitio principii, be deemed one of the errors of these religions; nay, it is sanctioned, as will immediately be shown, by dispensations allowed to be from God. From these dispensations was the Heathen and Mahomedan imparity bor rowed ; or else it was instituted in accordance with the dictates of human wisdom and common sense. Take either view, and we have a further presumptive argument for clerical imparity, or Episcopacy. A third presumptive argument in our favor is found in the Patriarchal Church. Abraham was a priest, as well as Melchi- sedec : yet he paid tithes to him ; which proves the superior priestly rank of Melchisedec. To the same effect, the Epistle to INTRODUCTION. Vll the Hebrews declares our Lord to be both a "priest" and a "high-priest" after the order of Melchisedec ; and there could have been no high-priest in that order without inferior priests. Hence a third presumption — and one peculiarly strong, if the order of Melchisedec be that of the Christian ministry — for more than one grade in the latter. A fourth presumption is drawn from the Mosaic priesthood, which consisted of a high-priest, priests and Levites, This ana- logy with the three grades of Episcopacy is too obvious to need amplification. We adduce, then, the almost universal voice of human wisdom, COMMON SENSE, and the universal rule of all widely-spread RELIGIONS, false and true, as presumptive arguments that when our Saviour organized his ministry he would organize it on the principle of imparity. With this almost conclusive pre- sumption in favor of Episcopacy, let the reader enter upon the "testing" of that model of the sacred office by "Scripture." This presumption is so weighty, that nothing but perfectly clear and explicit passages against ministerial imparity can overturn it ; yet sitch passages there are none. Only obscure texts, of doubtful meaning at best, are adduced in opposition to this argument, and the claims of Episcopacy. The whole clear current of revealed evidence is with these presumptions, and decides in favor of our ministry. • H. U. Onderdonk. Philadelphia, 1835. EPISCOPACY TESTED BY SCRIPTURE. Thb clnim ci episcopacy to r,e of d'vine iiuti'ri'i""! md therefore obligatory on tlie Church, rests limdainemaily or, (he one question — has it the authority of Scripture? If it has not, it is not necessarily binding. If it lias, the next and only other question is — has an}' different arran^ment of the sacred minis- try scriptural akithority 1 If there be any such, that also has divine sanction, and must stand with episcopacy. If, hon-ever, none such can be found, then episcopacy alone has the counte- nance of the word of God. Such a statement of the essential point of the episcopal con- troversy is entirely simple; and this one point should be kept in view in every discussion of the subject ; no argument is worth taking into account that has not a palpable bearing on the clear and naKcd topic the scriptural evidence of episcopacy. It is easy indeed to make a plain topic seem complicated ; infi- delity casts its flimsy shadow over the doctrine of a God ; scep- ticism weaves its webs about the evidence of the senses ; Socini- anism cannot discern in Scripture proof that the death of Christ was a proper atoning sacrifice ; and the same cavilling persecu- tion attends almost all simple truths, and that usually in propor- tion to their obviousness, or the facility of their demonstration. Episcopacy does not escape these inflictions of forensic injustice. Its simple and clear argument is obstructed with many extrane- ous and irrelevant difiiculties, which, instead of aiding the mind in reaching the truth on that great subject, tend only to divert it, and occupy it with questions not affecting the main issue. These obstructions we must remove, and make ourse.ves a free and unimpeded course, if we desire to go forward with singleness of mind in testing episcopacy by Scrpture. It will therefore be the first object of this essay, to point out some of these extraneous questions and difficulties, and expose either their fallacy or their irrelevancy. The next object will be, to state the scriptural argument. — Little or no reference will here be made to the fathers ; not because their testimony is depreciated ; for it is of paramount value, in showing how the Scriptures, connected with this controversy, were interpreted by thosf, who knew how the apostles themso.'vos under?«,oo'.' ♦'leni. Hut tnc present writer believes that Scripture aione wm lufiiish such authority for episcopacy as will convince an unsophisti- cated judgment, and be held obligatory by an unprejudiced coiior.ier.c 4 EPISCOPACY TESTED BY SCHIPTCRE. I. In order to keep the judgment and the conscience tlms clear, all e.rtraneons considerations must be sot aside. To effec\ this purgiition ci the argument is our first object. 1. An objection or allegation, entirely extraneous to scriptur?- reasoning, but often made lo bear on the episcopal controversj J3 — that our ecclesiastical system is inimical to/7"te civil govcri\ ment. We first answer to tliis objection, that it is irrelevant for if episcopacy be set forth in Scripture, it is the ordniance o God ; of course, free civil governments must, in that case, acced< to its unqualified toleration ; and the citizens professing Chris tianity are mdividually bound to conform to it. No serious per son will set any rights of man above the will of God. We nex* answer, that the allegation is proved to be false by experience In this country, no firmer friends of civil liberty could or can be found, formerly or at present, than in the Protestant Episcopal Church ; nor is there any class of men belonging to that body who are not ths friends of civil liberty ; and in Great Britain the same remark holds true, according to the standard of freedom there deemed constitutional. But we have a third answer — the allegation is false in theory. No free government need fear any reputable denomination, which is not established, and does not intermeddle with political aflfairs. Should any denomination be tempted thus to intermeddle, the re-action of the spirit of free dom will give it a lesson not to be forgotten in a century. And as episcopacy is more adverse than non-episcopacy to setting in motion popular currents, or to taking advantage of them, thai ecclesiastical system is less likely to fall into such an error. Moreover, when we add to this consideration, that all free governments must desire, from their very nature, to keep popu- lar influence and impulse to themselves, we may securely aflirm, that episcopacy is pecit/j'arZy adapted to free government: not affecting mere popularity, it leaves that field of competition en tirely to politicians. Whatever be the reverence and attachment felt towards our bishops, they can seldom, probably never, attain to general notoriety and favour in any branch of civil affairs , none of them have thus far sought any thing of the kind ; out of their ecclesiastical sphere, their influence, other than pertains to all virtuous citizens, will ever be but small, or harmless, or exceedingly transient. An arbiti^ary government may indeed find the case different. If the people at large are prostrated by or to the civil power, they may be equally or more subservient to ecclesiastical domination; in which case, bishops (like all reli- gious leaders) may sometimes prove less tractable than that government desiies. But are not such interferences as likely to be favourable to the subject, and his few rights, as against them? And, whether this suggestion be granted or denied, the operation of episcopacy in and on an arbitrat'T/ government is not the point before us. — We assert that the allegation that epis(;opacy is, in any sense, unfavourable to free civil government, is in- correct, both in theory and in fact, and that the whole objection EPISCOPACY TESTED BY SCRIPTCHE. 5 IS irrelevant to the inquiry, whether episcopacy be according to the word of God. 2. Another of these extraneous considerations is — the com- f.arative .standing in picttj, as evinced by the usual tokens of moral and spiritual character, of the members respectively of the episcopal and non-episcopal Churches. This question is highly important in itself; but it has no bearing on the areumcnt for or against episcopacy. We have the authority of our Sa- viour for the utter moral and spiritual worthlessness of the Scribes and Pharisees of his day : but we have also his authority for declaring that, in spite of their bad character, ihey " sat in Moses' seat :"» and that ihe people were therefore bound to obey them, while yet they were to avoid following their evil example. Suppose, tiien, llie reader were persuaded that all the bisiiops in the world were " hypocritas,-' «Stc. &c., and that all episcopal Churches were in a corresponding state of degradation, still if Scripture be alleged for the claim that " bishops sit in tiie apostles' seats," it is but right, in testing that particular claim, that tliere be no reference whatever to the personal character of bishops, or to any real or supposed want of spirituality in the Churches under their government. Our Saviour clearly taugiit, in the passage alluded to, the entire distinctness of these two questions. Balaam also was a wicked man, but a true prophet.'' The sons of Eli, bad as they were,' ceased not to be priests. The Israelites at large were often corrupt and idolatrous ; but they never lost their standing as the earthly and visible Church, till their dispensation was superseded by that of the gospel. 'J'hose, therefore, who even maintain that episcopacy is essential to the being of a Church, are not to be worsted by the extraneous argument now before us, the comparative standing in piety of Episcopalians and Non-Episcopalians. And, though the present writer subscribes not to that extreme opinion, his moderation nas no afiinity with the illogical temperament of mind which allows the question of comparative piety to be obtruded upon the investigation of the simple point — is episcopacy to be found in Scripture ? In justice, ho\A'ever, to Episcopalians, he deems it proper to add, that he does not believe they will suffer by any comparison of their character with those of other denominations. 3. A further suggestion, allied to the one last mentioned, and like it extraneous to the scriptural claim of epi''copt\cy, is — that the external arrangements of religion are but o( inferior im- portance, and that therefore all scruple concerning the subject before us may be dispensed with. Now, that there are, in the word of Go», tilings more important, and things less im])ortant, is unquestionable; and that the sin of omitting a lesser duty i.s not so deep as that of omitting a greater, will be allowed. Still, iJie leiist sin is sin. Perhaps there was no part of the old law a MiU. xxiii. 2. b Num. xjcii. to xxiv. and x*d. 16. c 1 Sam. iL 1* 6 EPISCOPACY TESTED BY SCRIPTURE. that stood lower in the scale of importance than " paying tithes of mint, anise, and cummin ;" yet our Saviour declared to the Jews tliat even tliis was a duty which they " ought not to leave undone."'' — Can then episcopacy, though regarded as an affair of tlie merest outward order, be rated lower than these insigniri- CAut tithes ? If it cannot, it has a sufficient claim to consideration ; high as we deem the obligation lo conform to episcopacy, ii is enough for the present branch of our argument, that it "ought not lo be left" unheeded. "4. An apparently formidable, yet extraneous difficulty, often raised, is — that episcopal claims unchurch all non-episcopal de- nominations. By the present writer this consequence is not al- lowed. But, granting it to the fullest extent, Avhat bearing has it on the trutli of the simple proposition, that episcopacy is of divine ordinance? Such a consequence, as involving the exclusion from the covenant of worthy persons who believe themselves in it, is unquestionably fraught with painful reflections, and that to the serious of both parties : but so are many undeniable trutlis. Considerations of this kind cannot affect any sound proposition. — Some other considerations, not without value, here present themselves. If Job lived about the time of Moses, or later, he was not in the Church ; yet he was eminently pious, and in fa- vour with God : and the same, with some qualification, may be said of his friends. Balaam was not in the Church, yet he was an inspired prophet. Jethro, the father-in-law of Moses, a ser- vant of the true God, of whose sacrificial feast, Moses, Aaron, and the elders of Israel participated,' was not in the Church. Tlie descendants of Jethro, who lived with Israel,*" and must have shared the benefit of the divine oracles, belonged not, we think, to the Chiirch. but were uncircumcised, at least for many centuries : and, under the name of Rechabites, these people tlius living with Israel, though not of Israel, and calling themselves " strangers," were highly commended by the Deity, at the very lime he passed a severe censure on his Church or covenant peo- p]e.° The countenance given to other proselytes of the gate,'" is a further illustration to the same effect — viz. that, though all who hear the gospel are bound to enter the Church by baptism, yet if any, honest in their error, think they are not thus bound, there is Scripture for the assertion, that worthy professors of the true religion, innocently without the covenant-pale, are accepted with God. — Viewing, therefore, the objection before us in even its largest form, it is not of a kind to be driven away from decorous consideration. To say that other denominations of d Mult, xxiii. 23. Luke xi. 42. c Exod. xviii. H, 12. f Judges i. 16., iv. 11. p Jer. XXXV. The ([iiestion wlietlier tlie descendants of Jethio were circumcised Bind belonged lo tlie Cliurch, is discussed, and a negative conclusion drawn, in the Protestatit Episcopalian, for October, 1830, p. 368. Should, however, any reader incline to a ditferent opinion, he will please regard as omitted so much of the above argument as is involved in that question : it aflbrds only an incidental illustration of tlie subject, without havinsj; tlie least bearing on our main point. ii See Hammond on Matt, xjciii. 15., and Calmet's Z>iciionary. EPISCOPACY TESTED BY SCRIPTURE. 7 Christians belong not to the Church, by no means implies that they are cast out from the mercy of God through tlie Saviour— or, "that they are inferior to the Church in moral and spiritual character — or even, that they are not superior in these respects to its members. Still, none of these concessions, supposing even the last of them were made, can render void the divine appointment of the Church, the divine command to " all na tions," and of course to all mankind, to be united witli it, or the scriptural evidence for episcopacy as the divinely sanctioned or ganization of its ministry. * Many Episcopalians, however, disclaim the unchurching ol those who disallow the episcopal model of the sacred orders Tlicir reasons for doing so pertain not to the present field of controversy. They think that episcopacy is a sufficiently dis- tinct question, to be separately carried into Scripture, and there separately investigated. They think that its scriptural claims can be sufficiently proved to make its rejection a clear contra- vention of the word of God, of the intimations there given us concerning his will in this matter. And, if this amount of proof can be offered for the point before us, what serious and con- scientious believer will ask for either more evidence, or for its embracing other points, with which the question of episcopacy is not essentially involved 1 5. We proceed to other extraneous matter, which, though scarcely plausible even in appearance, is akuost uniformly dwelt upon by both parlies in this controversy. It is — the adducing of the authority of individuals, who, though eminent botli for learning and piety, seem at least to have contradicted themselves, or their public standards, on the subject of episcopacy ; and , who therefore are brought into the fore-ground by either side as may serve its turn. Now, is it not clear, that the only effect of appeals to such authorities is to distract sound investigation and the unbiassed search for truth? If the writers in question absolutely contradict themselves or the standards they have assented to, their authority in the case is void ; if they seem to do so, their opinions cease to be convincing ; they should there- fore, all of them, be surrendered. The consistency of such in- dividuals is a question for their biographers ; it may also belong to the Ohurches which acknowledge them as leaders ; but it cer- tainly is not relevant to the main issue concerning the claims, whether of episcopacy or of parity. A similar rule will apply to all cases of instability or indecision concerning truth. Men of the highest standing for information, for integrity, and in public confidence, are not only fallible, but are often in situations of such perplexity, that they attach themselves to an opinion, or select a course of conduct, without perhaps sufficient inquiry or insight into the case ; which opinion or condiu^t may be at the time, or may afterwards' be found, som(nvliat at variance with their more doliberate judgments. In [)uh\\c life especially, such difficulties are verv appalling. Tliu uic«eiit writer would not 8 EPISCOPACY TESTED BY SCRIPTURE. regard the mistakes of this sort into which the eminent indivi- duals lie now has in mind may have fallen, as blemishes which vien are called upon to censure, much less to exaggerate or vilify , let it suffice that we do not imitate them ; their and our Master 'ive doubt not, remembers in mercy that we all are but dust.— Most of the principal reformers are to be enumerated under thit head of our subject, Luther, Melancthon, Cranmer, Calvin, Beza we need not extend the list ; they have all been somewhat in consistent on the subject of episcopacy ; not much so perhaps t( #candid, or at least to a mild judgment ; yet enough to impaii the mithnri'tj/ of iheir individual opinions in regard to the scrip tural constitution of the ministry. — Another class of illusfriou and good men have been yet more inconsistent ; those who, be longing to the Episcopal [English] Church, and acting in the various grades of her ministry, not excepting the highest, were the friends of parity, or at least were not friendly to the episco- pacy in or under which they acted. In regard to these also, let it be conceded that even Episcopalians will not criminate them. But let them not be quoted as having authority in this contro- versy, no, not the least ; for, however innocent may have been the motive of their inconsistency, that unfortunate quality is too visible to allow their opinions on this subject to have, as such, the least wciglit in an impartial mind. — A third class may be here added ; those who changed their deliberate sentiments concerning the claims of episcopacy ; among whom Bishop Stillingfleet is conspicuous. Perhaps, in such cases, the later and maturer opinion should be regarded as outweighing the earlier one abjured. But we prefer setting them both aside, as having none of the authority due to the individual decisions of "the learned. The arguments indeed of all the above classes of persons are worth as much as they ever were, and may be again adduced, if they have not been refuted. And what they placed in their respective public standards, or allowed to be so placed, cannot be retracted, till it be denied as solemnly as it was affirm- ed. But their individual changes of opinion, or vacillations, or concessions, ought not to be deemed of any force whatever, for or against either party.' We reject, therefore, this whole extra- neous appendage of the controversy before us. The inquirer after truth has nothing to do with it. Let the admirers of these i Should it be argued, that, from the inconsistency with which these learned and pious men have expresseJ themselves on this subject, wc may infer their belief in the non-importance or uncertainty of the point here controverted — I answer, thai such a conclusion is not warranted by the premises. If these eminent persons had deemed the question nugatory, they would have said so plainly. Or, if any of them give such intimations, tliat is a separate question, extraneous to the one now before us, and we have answered it in a previous paragraph, marked 3. These persons, however, generally take sides respecting episcopacy, but do not inflexibly adhere to them. The true infericnce therefore is, either that they were not entirely consistent, or tha' they had not full information or full mental discipline in this argument. Take any view of their case, and it will be found that iheir opinions ca.nnot, as such, have weight in our controversy. EPISCOPACY TESTED BY SCRIPTURE. d eminent individuals endeavour to clear away the slight shades tlius resting npon their memories; it is a proper, it is even a pious undertaking ; and it may, in some of the cases, have been done sulficiently for personal' vindication. But nothing of this kind can make them rank as either authorities or guides in the present controversy. Appealing to every candid and impartial mind for the sound- ness of the above rule, we would add — that the rule applies to the fathers, as much as to later ornaments of the Cliurch. One, at least, of the fathers has written in a contradictory manner concerning episcopacy. It will indeed be with reluctance tliat our non-episcopal brethren surrender Jerome, their chief, if r.<>t only authority among these ancient Christian writers. But i; will be hard fo show that he was ii\ no degree inconsistent in his views of episcopacy ; it is impossible to show it in such a manner as may, without question, claim to be convincing to both parties. •■ Believing this ourselves, and believing also that it will appear self-evident to most who are duly informed, we appeal to th? calm and conscientious decision of ihe reader, whether the opinions of Jerome must not be set aside, as having no authority in the main issue before us. His opinions, we say, for he asserts nothing as a fact, on his personal knowledge ; and much of what he does assert is contrary to the testimony of ear lier fathers. 6. The last objection we shall notice, as, however plausible, not affecting the ultimate decision of our controversy, is— that thougli the examples recorded in Scripture should be allowed to favour episcopacy, still that regim.en is not there explicitly com- nanded. Now, tliis allegation may be fully conceded on our lart, without endangering the final success of our cause. We say, may be conceded ; for if episcopacy be allowed to be the model exemplified in Scripture, it was of course to that model the apostle alluded when he desired the brethren to " remember, obey, and submit themselves to those who had the rule over them, who had spoken to them the word of God, and who watched for their souls ;'" which passages, we may justly affirm, were, in that case, an inspired command to acknowledge a ministry constituted on the episcopal scheme. Without surren- dering this argument, we may, in the present stage of the dis- cussion, proceed without 'it. Let then any candid and conscientious believer say, whether a mere hint or intimation contained in Scripture, (always ex- it Jerome, as quoted in favour of parity, is glaringly inconsistfnt. On the ppiscopal gido, howfvcr, sornc writers endeavour to reconcile his incongruous opinions. (Si>e Disliop White on the Cutechisni, y. 106; and Dr. Cooke's Essay, p. 101. [p. 2S3, 2d ed.] &.C..) F)ut the fact speaks lor itsi-lf that he is usually adduced on both sides of this coniroversy. Enough to prove his inconsistency may be found in Potter mi Church Uuve.rr.ment, p. 180, A r. Edit.; in Bishop' Hon Am 's.4/;o/o;'y, p. 1*9, &r. ; in DowDRN's Letters ; in the Episcopal Manual, p. 33 ; acd in the Protectant Epinropatian, No. 3. p 90, 97, 98. I Hub. xiii. 7, 17 10 EPISCOPACY TESTED BY SCRIPTURE. cepting what refers to things or circumstances declared to ba transient, or such in their nature,) though it have not the force of an express command, is not sufficiently binding on every servant of God ? St. Paul says of the Gentiles, " these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves ;"™ they had not the positive revealed law, yet the light of nature, which only inti- mates wliat we ought to do, but docs not specifically prescribe it, was " a law" to tliem, having sufficient obligation to make its suggestions their duty, and to give those suggestions full autiior- ity in " their conscience :" and surely the hints recorded by the Deity in his word are not inferior in obligation to those afforded in his works. Take a few examples, i'here is no record of a command to observe a sabbath, during the whole antediluvian and patriarchal ages ; will it then be alleged that the mere de- claration that God " blessed and sanctified the seventh day"" did not sufficiently imply that it was the divine will that the seventh day should be kept hol)^ ? Again : there is no recorded com- mand, in all that early period, to observe the rite of sacrifice, and thus express faith in the great truth, that sin is remitti d only by the shedding of blood; shall we then presume — will it be pre- sumed, by any whose chief controversj^ witli us is concerning episcopacy — that tlie records of the example of Abel in the an- tediluvian age, and of those of Noah, Abraham, &c., afterwards, were not sulficient iyitiinatiotis from God that to offer this sacra- mental atonement was a duty?" Yet again: will any humble Ctiristian deny, that the mere fact of the creation for each other of one man and one woman, is sufficient to show that polygamy is contrary to the will of God ?p To proceed to the New Testament. There is no positive command for infant baptism ; but, its analo- gy with circumcision,i the declaration that little children are models for conversion,'' the direction to suffer them to come to Christ, since of such is the kingdom of God," the records of the baptism of "households" or families,' and the declaration that " children are holy" or saints" — are not these sufficient, whether as examples or as intimations, to satisfy us of the dic- tate of inspiration in this matter, and to authorize us to regard infant baptism as resting on scriptural authority? And will not the same mode of reasoning be decisive concerning the change of the day of rest and devotion from the seventh to the first ?' m Rom. ii. 14. 15 Gen. ii. 3. o If it be alleged that the "skins" (Gen. iii. 21.) in which the Deity clothed Adam and Eve, were from sacrificed animals, and tliat the record of that fact is the same as divine appointment and a positive commanil^ — we admit the fact, but deny that the inferences aie thus identical with iu All that appears in that passafre is an fxample of sacrifice. The obligation and permanency of the rite were but jn-isumed frmn that example, as in the other instances mentioned. This record is but an intimntioti ro fipocting such a duty : yet an intimation of that sort was, we contend, inipeiative. p Gen. i. 27. ii. 24. v. 2. Mai. ii. 15. Matt xix, 4, 5. Mark x. 6. q Col. ii. H, 12. Rom. iv. 11, 16. Gal. iii. 7. r Matt, xviii. 3. 6 Mark X. 14. Matt. xix. 14. Luke xviiL 16. • Acts xvi. 15, 33. 1 Cor. L ifl w 1 Cor. vii. 14. « Joha XX. 1, 26. Acts ii. 1—4. xx. 7. 1 Cor. xvi. 2. Rev. i. 10. EPISCOPACY TESTED BY SCRIPTURE. 11 Now, to apply this body of reasoning : Is it claiming too much, if the above illustrations be duly weighed, to assert that the mere example of the apostolical Church in regard to the model of tl.e «>acrcd ministry is obligatoiyj-as an intimation of the divine will, without any explicit enactment 1 And if that example, as de- duced from Scripture, be episcopacy, nay, be episcopacj' rather llian parity — if the balance of sound interpretation favour epis- copacy ever so little more than any other scheme — will the duty of conforming, if possible, to that ministry be evaded ? can such conformity be, ia this case, refused in foro conscienticB animoque integro ? The above remarks, if allowed their due force, will greatly simplify the controversy before us, and will help us to investi- gate the bearing of Scripture upon it, with a clear judgment and an unsopliisticated love of Irutli. Let then all extraneous topics be now forgotten ; let none of them again make their appearance in tills discussion. II. Proceeding to the second deparlment of our essay — an exhibition of the scriptural evidence relating to this controver sy — we begin by stating the precise point at issue. Passing by the feeble claim of lay-ordination and a lay-minislry, wliich, we suppose, will scarcely pretend to rest on either scriptural com- mand or example, we consider this issue as between two systems only, episcopacy, and parity or the presb)'terian ministry.* Parity declares that there is but one order of men authorized to minister in sacred things, all in this order being of equal grade, and having inherently equal spiritual riglits. Episcopacy de- clares that the Christian ministry was established in three orders, called, ever since the apostolic age. Bishops, Presbyters or Eiders, and Deacons ; of whicli the highest only has the right to ordain and confirm, that of general supervision in a diocese, and tliat of the chief administration of spiritual discipline, besides enjoy- ing all the powers of the other grades. The main question he ing thus conc;erning the superiority of Bishops, and the riglits of the next order being restricted only so much as not to be in- consistent with those of the highest, we need not extend our investigation of Scripture beyond what is requisite for this grand point. If we cannot authenticate the claims of the episcopal olFice, we will surrender those of our Deacons, and let all power be confined to the one office of Presbyters. But, if Me can esta- blish the rights of our highest grade of the ministry, there can be little dispute concerning the degrees of sacred authority as- signed by us to the middle and lower grades. This is a further clearing of our argument, not indeed from extraneous or irrele vant matter, but from questions which are comparatively ujiim- portant. w Other Jonominations besides tliase called Prcshvt.Tians practise preslivterinn •irdinalion, as ilie Congrc^atiorialist*, Biiplisls, «tc. Tin; nnliiialioii also of tlie l.u- tli.^rans and McllicxJisls is prosliyleriaii, Liillirr ami WisU^y (and Dr. Coke, Uifl «OHrce ofMclhudist urdoru in tliis cuuiilry) Laving only been Prcbbytcrs. 12 EPISCOPACY TESTED BY SCRIPTURE. The main issue then is — whether Presbj'^ters (or, more strictly, Presbyters alone) have a scriptural right to ordain, or whether the agency of a minister of liiglier grade than Presbyters is not essential to the due performance of that act 1 Whichever way this great issue be decided, all subordinate questions go with itj if not necessarily, yet because they will no longer be worth con- tending for, by either party. As some readers of this essay may not be familiar with the episcopal controversy, it is proper to advert to the fact, that the name " Bishop," which now designates the highest grade of the ministry, is not appropriated to that office in Scripture. That name is there given to the middle order, or Presbyters ; and all that we read in the New Testament concerning " Bishops,"^ (in- cluding, of course, the words "overseers," and " oversight, "^ which have the same derivation,) is to be regarded as pertaining to thut middle grade. The highest grade is there found in those called " Apostles,"' and in some other individuals, as Titus, Timothy,'' and tlie "angels" of the seven Cliurches in Asia Minor, who liave no official designation given them ; all which posillf)ns will be made good in the progress of this essay. It was after the apostolic age, that the name "Bishop" was taken from the second order and appropriated to the first ; as we learn from Tlieodoret, one of the fathers.'' At first view, this difficidiy respecting the names of the sacred orders may appear formida- ble ; but, if we can find the thing sought, i. e. an office higher than that of Presb3^ters or Elders, we need not regard its name. Irregularity in titles and designations is of so frequent occur- rence, yet occasions so little actual confusion, that it ouglit not to be vie\ve<] as a real difficulty in the case before us. Examples to this effect crowd upon us. The original meaning of 'emperor' {imperaior) was only a general, hut it was afterwards appro- priated to the monarch ; and the original meaning of ' Bisiiop' was only a Presbyter, but the name passed from that middle grade to tiie highest. There are, again, the ' president' of the United States, 'presidents' of colleges, and ' presidents' of soci- eties; there are the 'governor' of a c(jmnioiiwealtIi, 'governors' of hospitals, and the ' govevuor' of a jail ; there are ' ministers' of stale, and ' ministers' of religion ; tliere are ' provosts' of col- leges, and ' provosts-mart'al ;' there are 'elders' (senators) in a X Pliilip i. 1. 1 Tim. iii. I, 2. Tit. i. 7. In I Prt. ii. 25. the word "bishop" is figur-:itivKly applied to our Saviour ; a.<: " ministor" [deacon] is in Koin. xv. 8 ; rnd "aidistle" in Hc-b. iii 1. It is worthy of note, that in the last passage, "apo.-.ilo and high priest" are coupled togetlier, as " bishop end siiepherd," or pastor, are in the first. y Acts XX. 28. 1 Pr» v 2. z That the nposlle.? alone nrcl at ned w'\\\ be proved. In 1 Cor. ;v. 19 — 2'; v. 3 — 5, 2 Cor. ii 6; vii. I'J; x. 8; xiii. 2, 10; and I Tim i. 20, are recorded innicliona and renii.^sioiis uf discipline perP)nned b\ an A|ioslle, or ihreati.'niiviis on his part, allhough there irmst have been Elders; in Corintli, and certainly were in Epiiesus. a Tiniotiiy is usually supposed not to have the name " apostle'' given to liim )■ Scripture, and our main argument conforms to timt supposition. b See Note A, EPISCOPACY TESTED BY SCRIPTURE. 13 legLlatnre, 'elders' (aldermen) in a city government, 'elders' (Presbyters) in the Church, and lay 'elders' in some denomina- tions; there were 'consuls' in Rome and in France who were supreme civil magistrates, and there are ' consuls' who are mere commercial agents ; there are ' captains' with a certain rank in the army or militia. ' captains' with much higher rank in the navy, and ' captains' with no legal rank ; in France, ' monsieur' and ' madame' are (or were) among the highest titles in the court, and are also the common appellation of respect among all ranks of the peopie. Here, one would say, is an almost un- limited confusion of names or designations ; yet tins confusion is but apparent ; there is no real or practical difficulty in the use of them ; custom renders it all easy and clear. So, a little re- flection and practice will enable any of our readers to look in Scripture for the several sacred offices, independently of the names there or elsewhere given them. Let us say, in analogy witli some of the above examples, that there are Bishops of parishes and Bishops of dioceses ; and when we find in the New Testament the name " Bishop," we must regard it as meaning the Bishop of a parish, or a Presbyter ; but the Bishop of a diocese,' or the highest grade of the ministry, we must there seek, not under that name, and independently of any name at all. Vie are inquiring for the thing, the fact, an order higher than Pres byters : the name is not worth a line of (controversy. There was at least as much difference between the inferior kings, Herod, Archelaus, and Agrippa, and the supreme king Cesar,'' as theie is between the Presbyter-bishops of Scripture and the Bishops who succeed the Apostles ; the mere title " king," common to all these, was far from implying that tliey were all of one grade. One irreg\ilarity in regard to the application of names is par- ticularly worthy of notice. The word " sabbath" is applied in Scj'ipture to only the Jewish day of rest ; by very common vsc nowever it means the Lord's day. Now% " the sabbath" is abo- lished by Christianity, and the observance of it discountenanced;' yet ministers of Christian denominations are constantly urging their Christian flocks to keep " the sabbath." Does any confu- sion of the mind resii.t from this confusion of names'? we sup- pose not. All concerned understand, tliat 7/i Scripture the word means the Jewish sabbath, while on I of .Scripture the same word is commonly applied to the Christian sabbath. Let the same justice be dont to the word "Bishop." In Scripture, it means a Presbyter, prop.jrly so called. Out of Scripture, iiccordin^ to the usage ne.xl to universal of all ages since tlie s;is are certainly incliiiled in that iesignation in 1 Tim. v. 19., and probably in Acts ilv, 23. xxi. 16. and James v. 14. and possibly in Acts xi. 30. g Acts XV. 0, 23. Tit. i 5. Acts xx i7. 1 Pet. v. 1. h Acts xii. 15. Rev i. 20. ix. 14. i Deut. X. 17. Ps. xcvii. 7. cxxxvi. 2. k Exod. XX. 3 xxiii. 21, &c. 1 E.^oi^l. vii. 1. xxS. 28. Ps. Ixxxii. 1,6. cxxxviii. 1. John x. 35. m Sec Parkhurst on Aiaxovoj n Acts xv. 2, 4, 6, 22 ; xvi 4. Acts IV. 23. Philip i. 1 EPISCOPACY TESTED BY SCRIPTURE. 15 to be fli?;tinct orders, if " Apostles arid brethren,"i are also allow- ed U) bo distinct orders, llien on the same principle, that the; con- lunctiou is not exegetical, "Apostles and Elders" may fairly be accounted distinct orders likewise. And as, in the expression "Apostles and Elders and bretliren," severally is unquestionably implied between the latter of these three classes and the others, it must as clearly be intended between the former two. Apos- tles were therefore one class, and Elders another class, just as the laity were a third class. — Noav, the Apostles were not thus distinguished because they were appointed by Christ personally; for some are named " Apostles" in Scripture who were not thus appointed, as Matthias, Barnabas, and probably Ja)nes the bro- ther of the Lord,"" all ordained by merely human ordainers ; Silvanus also and Timothy are called ' Apostles ;"= and, besides Andronicus and Jvmia, others could be added to the list.' Nor were tlie Apostles thus distinguished because they had seen our Lord after his resurrection ; for " five hundred "brethren" saw him." And, though the twelve Apostles were selected as special witnesses of the resurrection, yet others received that appellation who were not thus selected, as Timothy, Silvanus, Andronicus, Junia, &c. Nor were the Apostles thus distinguished because of their power of working miracles ; for Steplien and Philip, who were both Deacons, are known to have had this power." — It follows, therefore, or will not at least be questioned, that llie Apostles were distinguished from the Elders because they were superior to them in ministerial power and rights.* And, con sidering the nature of inherent rights — that they cannot (ex-cept in tlio way of uunitive discipline) be taken away or justly sus- pended, but are always valid — we do not allow that this superi- ority of the Apostles was but transient, that they kept full power from the Elders for a time, and conceded it to them afterwards. What is given in ordination, is given unreservedly : and, as it is never ^except for discipline) retracted, or suspended, or modified q Acts xi. 1. r Acts i. 26; xiv. 4, 14. Gal. i. 19 Compare the latter witli Mark vi. 3, ana John vii. b; and see Hammond on St James' epistle, and Bishop White on tlio Catechism, p. 431. s S(^e 1 Thrr.s. ii. 0, compared with i. 1. Paul, Silvanus, (nr Silas,) and Timothy, are a£l included as " A|)ot'.les." In verso 18, Paul speaks el" him.<;i/lf iiidi. viihialiy, not probably before. It is not unusual, indeed, for St. Pnvd to use the plural nunilier of himself only ; but the words " Apostles" and " our own souls' (verse 8.) bcin^ inapjilicable to tlie sin<^ular use of the p..ira number, sliow thai the tliree wliose names are at the head of this e|>islle, are here sfjoken of joinlly. And Uius, Sil-js and Timothy are, with Paul, recognized, in this passage of Scrijfture, as " Apostle*.'' I It will here he sufficient to remark, that in 2 Cor. xi. 13, and Rev. ii. 2, " false Apostles" arc spoken of These could not have Injeii, or have |.rrt(iided lo be, anv of the eleven, or of the five next abeen ordcin ed. not by Christ, but by men who had his cnmniission. — Calvin allows An- dronicus and Junia (Roiru xvi. 7.) to have Ijecn Apostles. Iiistit. b. IV c. iii. sect. 5 n 1 Cor. XV. 6. » Acts vi. 8 ; viii. 6. w Soo note z, on |)age 12. 16 EPISCOPACY TESTED BY SCRIPTOHB, by the piver or givers, and particularly, as in the case o*' tha first " Elders" there is no record, and no evidence whatevpr, of sny public decree or private agreement relating to such a re- traction, or suspension, or modification, we cannot but regard that theory as mere hypothesis ; and against the taking for i?ranted of any mere hypothesis, all sound reasoning protests. — We repeat, therefore, that the "Apostles and folders" were of distinct orders ; as truly so, as were the "brethren" or laity a third class, different from both the others. If these views of Scripture and of the nature of inherent rights of office, be allowed, as we think they ought to be, then we have proved in favour of episcopacy, that there was originally a sacred office superior to that of "Elders" or Presbyters. And this is substantiating nearly the whole episcopal claim. But the defenders of parity reject these our views of Scripture and of official rights, and build their S3^stem on tlie theory which we have pronounced to be mere hypothesis. While they grant the superiority of the Apostles, they contend that the subordination of the Elders was but a transient regulation, required by the exi- gencies of tlie then new Cliurch ; and that as churches became sfttled, the whole ministerial power rested in the Elders, no part of it being any longer withheld from them. The proof they allege is, that the "Elders" are said in the New Testament to have ordained and exercised full government and discipline. Jn answer we assert, 1. that there is vo scriptural evidence that " Elders" ever obtamcd or exercised the right [or the complete right] of ordination ; but that, 2. there was continued, as had begun in tlie Apostles, an order of ministers superior to the Elders. Both these assertions we can prove. And under the latter head it will appear that Elders did not exercise discipline over tlie clergy. 1. There is no scriptural evidence that mere Elders [Presby- ters] ordained. Excluding a few unavailing appeals to Scripture made by some of our opponents, but wiiich we think will be allowed to have the effect of weakening their cause,^ there are but two pas- sages which can even plausibly be claimed in favour of presby- terian ordination. Yet by neither of these passages can thai practice be substantiated. 'I'iie first is Acts xiii. 1, 2, 3. Five persons called "prophets and teacliers," at Antioch, among whom Barnabas is named first, and Saul last, are directed by the Holy Ghost, " separate me Barnabas and Saul for the iror/c whereuuto I have called them ;" wliich the other three accordingly did, by fasting and prayer, and the imposition of hands, and then sent them away. This transaction is sometimes presumed to have been the ordination of Barnabas and Saul to the one sacred order of parity ; and as it was performed by those who were only " prophets and teach- X As the facts, that there was more than one ordainer in Acts i. 26. and xiv. 23 Tne answer is, that the ordainers were Apostles, not mere Presbyters. EPISCOPACY TESTED BY SCRIPTURE. 17 ers,'' it is claimed as a scriptural example of prcsbyterian ordi nation. But, tJiis claim may be unanswerably refuted. *!. H;*-- nabas and Saul are themselves here called " prophets and teach- •ers," and are said to have " ministered to the LoRn," as well as the other three; of course, if these three were in orders, the other two were likewise, before this hiving on of hands. 'J'iiis transaction, tlieuefore, //"an ordinaliun, luust have been a second and of course hisjherone; which is inconsistent with parity. If it was not an ordmation, as it certainly was not. it was a mere seating apart of those two Apostles to a particular field of dutj'-, vhich has no bearing on tiie question before us. 2. Paul had been a preacher long before this occurrence,^ and Barnah;is aliso ;^ which facts, together with that of their " ministering to the Lord," as already mentioned, are proof positive that they held the sacred commission before this laying on of hands : wliich of course, we repeal, must have been either a second and higher ordination, which is fatal to parity, or else no ordination, but only a separation to a particu-lar field of duty, to a special "work." 3. That this transaction at Antioch related only to a special missionary "work," Vv ill be foiuid sulliciently clear by those who will trace Paul and Barnabas through that work, from Acts xiii. 4. to xiv. 26. where its completion is recorded — "and thence sailed to Antioch, from whence they had been recom mended to the grace of Gon for the u-ork which ihey fiiljiilri/.'^ This "work," their missionary tour, being "fulfilled," all was fulfilled tiiat had been required by the Holy Ghost when he had them "separated," or "recommended to the grace of God," " for the ico)-k to which he had called them." This call, there- fore, this separation, this work, related only to a particular mis- iicn. And t/u's laying on of hands was no ordination, iait a lesser ceremony, which has no bearing on the controversy between parity and episcopacy. 4. The most explicit proof that this was not an ordination, is found in Gal. i. 1. where i'aul de- clares himself to be "an Apostle, not of men, neither by man, but by Jescs Christ and God tiie Father." Not o/'men, neither bij man : is.not such language an absolute exclusion of all human agency in Paul's ordination ? What other language could add to its strength ? None but that which inmiediately follows:"^^ Jf.sus (JiiinsT and (Jod the Father." Paul having been made an Apostle by the Saviour in person, when he appeared to him on the _road to Damascus," it could not have been that the transaction at "Antioch was his ordination.'' — And if in his case that ceremony y Actsix. 20—22. 27 — 29. z Acts xi. 23, 2G. a Acts xxvi 16, 17, I?. 1) Tlie folliiwiiig af]ilit!on;il proofs are wortliv of notice. 1. In Rom i. 5. 1 Cor. i. 17. and 1 Tiiii. i. I. Piml assei^sliiat liis apostoiical loiniiiifsioii was troni Chimst. 2. Fn the first verses reppeclively of I Cor. 2 Cor. Rplirs. Col. and 2 Tun. iie d<;- clares liiiiipclf an Aptisile "lliron^rli" or "by llie will of God." 3. Iji Ga.. i. 17. e^^sKlr.g of tlie p<-riod '' inniiedialply" after ids conversion, he says that lie went nv)t lo tlio.ift who " wi^e Ajwuths hefjrfi him,' r)f conrso ho ri'fiarilcd IniuHi'lf as an AjKjstIo at lliat period, and from the nioineiit thai CnuisT iiad appeared to idin. 1. In 1 Tiin. ii. 7. lie a.^scrts liia Bpostleship vvilh a sUong asseveralioii — " whco 2* 18 EPISCOPACY TESTED BY SCRIPTURE. meant not ordination, it of course meant it not in the case of Barnabas. Wlicn the latter liad been made an Apostle, Ave know not ; neither do wc know when James the brother of the Lord, Silvaniis, Timothy, &c. were admitted to that office. This first claim to Scripture in behalf of presbytcrian ordina- tion cannot therefore be substantiated ; inasmuch as an act of ordination is not, and cannot be implied in the passage appealed to. Should any tnink otherwise, they must not only refute the above arguments, but make it appear also from Scripture that the supposed ordainers were mere Presbyters ; for the appella- tions " prophets and teachers" are far from settling this point. If Barnabas and Paul, to whom those titles are given, are to be regarded as laymen about to be ordained, why not regard the other three as laymen also, holding a lay ordination 'I the one may as well be taken for granted as the other ; for we read that laymen and even lay-women "prophesied" in the age of inspiration. "^ Or if the three supposed ordainers called "prophets and teachers" were clergymen, they may have been Apostles, superior to Elders, since Silas is called both a " prophet" and an " Apostle"'' and the prophets are called the " brethren" of the Apostle John;' the Apostle Paul calls himself a " teacher."'' Be- sides ; it has been shown tliat Paul, here classed with " prophets and teachers," was also at this time an Apostle ; and docs not this fact afford presumptive argument that the other four whose names stand above his in the list contained in the passage, wera also of apostolic rank? In view of these many ditSc-Jsliies, we may securely afhrm, that it is impossible to bring any evidence whatever that this transaction at Antioch was an ordination by Presbytfe.'s. We have, indeed, shown that it was not an ordina- tion of any kind. And Ave therefore dismiss the claim of non- episcopalians to this passage of the New Testament. Only one other passage is claimed for prcsbyterian ordination — " neglect not the gift that is in thee, which Avas given thee by prophecy, Avith the laying on of the hands of the pi^eshytery." (1 Tim. iv. 14.) This is regarded by our non-episcopal brethren as the record of a presbytcrian ordination. Let us inquire, how- ever, Avhether the transaction was an ordination ? and whether, if so, it Avas a presbytcrian ordination? Was the laymg on of hands on Timothy here mentioned, an unto I am ordained a prcaclier and an Apostle, (/ speak the truth in Christ and lie not,) &c." Hud his ordination been performed by men, it would have been well known, as in ordinary cases ; had it been pertornied, as alleged, at Antioch, it would have had peculiar publicity and sue); a mode of asserting it would liave been out ot place and even impniper in St. Paul. But his commission having been given hir^i by Christ pensonall)', and the men present at t!ie time not understanding the words then pronounced, (Acts xxii. 9.) it was both natural and correct, in declaring that he was thus commissioned, to use solemn asseverations and pledge his veracity. This was enough for ordinary purposes. The final proof of his declaration and i*js asseve rations was the performance of miracles. c 1 Cor. xi. 5. Acts xix. G. and xxi. 9. d Acts XV. 32. 1 Thess. ii. 6. comp. witli i. 1. • Rev. xxii J. f 1 Tim. ii. 7 STim.LU. to? EPISCOPACY TESTED BY SCRIPTPRE. 19 ordination ? It cannot, at least, be proved. And, compnring Scripture witli Scripture, are v,e not justified in regardir-g it as a transaction similar to the one we have just seen in tlie case of Barnabas and Saul ? In both cases there was the ceremony of the imposition of hands. And the dictation of the Holy Ghost to the " prophets" in the one case, corresponds w'th the " prophecy," or inspired designation of ihe individual in the other case ; a designation previously adverted to by St. Paul, " this charge I commit unto thee, son Timothy, according to the prophecies which went before on thee."° We submit this view of the transaction performed by those called the " prcsbj'tery" to the candid judgment of our readers. If they should allow that it probably refers to an inspired separation, of one already in tiie ministry, to a particular field of duty — to the "charge com- mitted to him" in lorm by St. Paul, corresponding with '• the work" to which Saul and Barnabas were separated — a practice which must of course have ceased with the gift of inspiration — they will see that it was not an ordination that was performed by the "presbytery," but only a " recommending of Tiinotliy to the grace of God for the work he was to fulfil." The ordina- tion of Timothy may. be alluded to by St. Paul in tlie second epistle, " the gift of God, which is in thee, by the putting on of my hands."*" If so, it was an ordination by an Apostle, as is the uniform record elsewhere in the New Testament. If not, then Timothy's ordination is nowhere specifically mentioned, out is to be inferred, as in other cases : and, in this view, both these passages are unconnected with the controversy before us. But our non-episcopal brethren generally regard the passage m question as referring to the ordination of Timothy. Let us meet them on this ground. Was it a presbyterian ordination? We first reply, that emi- nent authority has declared the word " presbytery" to mean the office to which Timothy was ordained, not the persu/is who ordained him ; so that the passage would read — " with the lay- ing on of hands to confer tlie presbyterote" or presbytcrship, or the clerical office : in which view, the ordainer of Timothy ■was St. Paul himself, as mentioned in the clause just quoted from tlie second epistle. On this point, we adduce a passage from Grotius. Speaking of Presbyters laying on their hands near those of a Bishop, he proceeds — " I do not dare to bring in confirmation of this, that expression of Paul's of the imposition of tlie hands of the presbytery^ because I see that Jkrome, Am- hKOSE, and other ancients, and Calvin, certainly the chief of all the moderns, interpret ' prcsbTjteriuni' in that place not an assem- bly^ but the office to whicli Timothy was promoted : and indeed he wlio is conversant with the councils and the writiiigs of the fathers, cannot be ignorant lliai^presbT/teriuni,'' as^ e])iscop(iins^ aiul '■diaconalus' are the names of oflices. Add that it appears g I Tim. i. 13 See also M'Knighx's note on the passage. h 'i, Tii». i. 6. 20 EPISCOPACY TESTED BY SCRIPTURE that Paul laid hands ol Tiniolhy."' By this interpretation of th* word " presbyierj- " — thai it means not the ordainers, but the office conferred — we remove all appearance of discrepancy be- tween that passage and the one in which Paul speaks of the im- position of his hands. And, to make the least of the above opinion of several fathers, and Calvin, and Grotius, does not tlieir an thority render doubtful the application of the passage before us to a body of presbyterian ordainers ? — Should it be said, however, that the word " prcsbyterate or presbytership" proves Timothj' to have been then ordained a Presbyter merely, we would neu- tralize that argument by appealing to 1 Thess. ii. 6, (comp. with i. 1.) where he is called an "Apostle." We would also advert to the fact, that however distinct may have been the three above Latin names for the three gradesof sacerdotal office, those names of office were, in the Greek, and at an earlier period, applied but loosely. At least, they were so in the New Testament. Thus we read, " this ministry [deaconship] and apostleship^^'^ for the office to which Matthias was admitted : " I am the apos- tle of the Gentiles, I magnify mine office" [my dfC!C07TsIiip,1 " the ministry [deaconship] which I have received," " approving ourselves as the ministers [deaco7is'] of. Goo,"' are passages applied by St. Paul to himself; we also read, " who then is Paul, and who is Apollos, but ministers '[deaco/is'\ by whom yc be- lieved ;"" and " do the work of an evangelist^ make full prool of thy ministry" [draco nsliip,'] " thou shalt be a good minister [deacoii] of Jesus Christ," are ac'monitions addressed to Timo- tiiy." These passages, not to cite here other like ones, while they may be said to go far towards proving that ?/ there be only one sacred order, it must be the order of Deacons, answer irre- fragably all that might be suggested to the disadvantage of episcopacy from the application of the word " presbj-tery" to the sacred office to whicli Timothy was ordained: since, if prcs- byterate or presb3'tership means that he was but a Presbyter, deaconship must mean that he, and Matthias, and Paul, and Apollos, were but Deacons. In short, as all experienced inter- preters are aware, and as in this controversy Episcopalians always assert, we look not to Scripture for official names of any kind, but only for official powers ; and Timothy, we there find, has a higlier degree of power than the word Prcsbytermivi, as distinguished from Episcopatus and Diaconatns^ would allow him. The word "presbytery" then, according to the niode ol interpretation now before us, though it refer to office, does not designate a subdivision of office, but alludes generally to the cler-ical office conferred on Timothy. But, granting to our opponents that " the presbytery" means here, not tlie office given to Timothy, but, as they contend, a body of Elders, and that his ordination is the transaction referred i See Dr. Cooke's Essay, p. 192. [363. 2ded.| k Acts i. 25. 1 Rom. jci. 13. Acts .\x. 24. 2 Cor. vi. 4. ml Cor. iii. 6. n 2 Tim. iv. 5. 1 Tim. iv. 6. EPISCOPACY TESTED BY SCRIPTURE. 2. |!- — WO again meet them on the question, was it a presbyterian &>- f\ and more especially " Apostles, prophets, evangelists," &c. are all said to have been given " for the work of the ministry" [deaconffhip ;\v in all which passages the word deaconship, ItaKovia, the appellation strictly of a sacred bodj' of men, or of their office, includes, nay binnities cluelly, those who were .superior to Deacons. 'Hie word "presbytery" therefore, being no more definite than " ministry or deaconship," cannot explain ilsclf'm favour of our oj»ponenls. It can only be defined " a body of clergymen."'' o 1 IVt. V. 1. 2 J.ilin 1. 3 John 1. p 2 Cor. V. 18. vi. 3. iv. 1. 1 Tim. i. 12. E|ihcs. iv. 11, 12. H Thij word " prcsbyterate or jiresbvlersliip" also means, as 'usl sliown, notliing 2*4 EPISCOPACY TESTED BY SCRIPTCRE. And these clergymen may have been in part or entirely ApoB* tics, who were superior to Presbyters. It is evident, tlierefore, we repeat, that this passage, ?/it refer loan ordination, cannot be interpreted without light from otlier Scripiures. To this light, theretore, we refer. '^I'lie " presbytery," we have seen, may have consisted of Apostles only, or of one or more Apostles joined with others. In conformity with this suggestion, we find St. Paul writing to Timothy, " that thou stir up the gift of God, which is in thee by the putting on of my hands.""" Now, the same reasons which make the passage respecting the laying on of the hands of tlie presbytei-y apply to ordination — the same reasons will make this other passage, respecting the putting on of PauVs hands, apply to that identical ceremony ; unless indeed a second and higher ordination be here supposed, which however destroys parity, and which of course parity cannot adduce in. its own behalf. In the ordination, therefore, of Timothy, Paul had at least a share ; that Apostle laid on his hands, whoever else be longed to the ordaining " presbytery." It cannot of course be claimed as a presbyterian, but was an apostolic ordination. And tluis tlie allegations of our opponents from this passage, in sup- port of the ordaining powers of mere " Elders," are overturned. We have proved th.at Presbyters alone did not perform the ordi- nation, granting the transaction to have been one, but that an Apostle aciuaUy belonged, or else was added for this purpose, to the body called a" presbytery."' It is worthy also of note, that St. Paul makes the following distinction in regard to his own agency and that of the others in this supposed ordination — " by the putting on of my hands" — ^'■wit.h the laying on of the hands of the presbytery." Such a dis- tinction may justly be regarded as intimating that the virtue of the ordaining act flowed from Paul ; while the presbytery, or the rest of that body if he were included in it, expressed only coufient. On the whole: Can it be denied, that a cautious and candid interpretation of the two passages said to relate to tlie ordina- tion of Timothy, requires that a minister be present who holds the [ordinary and uninspired portion of the] rank and rights of an Apostle, to give ordaining power to any body called a pres- bytery '? Were there even no explicit evidence in our favour in the other parts of Scripture, the episcopal theory would be at least as good a key as that of parity to the meaning of the word more specific tlian " the clerical office." Tlie word " bishopric" (Acts i. 20.) has, on the same principles, no stricter signification. The present writer is not auaie of any instance in Scripture in whicii the specific incaning of a name oioffice has necessarily the preference; perhaps the word " apostlusliip" is an exception; it is jjsed only ofthosc known la have been Apostles. r 2 Tim i. 0. s Igxatius, well known (iir his zeal for ^.-piscopacy, and martyred about theyeat 'ilGl, calls the Apostles the " {nesby levy of the Church." Epist. to the Philadtl^ phi'ina. Sect. 5. EPISCOPACY TESTED BY SCRIPTURE. 23 " preso\'1cry." And considering the above distinction of " by' and " witli," our theor}^ is obviously the better of the two. Yet here the non-episcopal argument from Scripture is exhausted- Its strongest proof has been demonstrated to be but barely con- sistent with parity, while it is more consistent with episcopacy. ^^'e dismiss therefore the claim of our opponents to tliis, the only passage of Scripture, besides the one before dismissed, to which they coidd raise any pretensions. Let our readers now be reminded, that we before showed "Apostles and Elders" to have been distinct classes of ministers, as distinct as were the " brethren" or laity from both. That the former ordained, is allowed on all hands, and is clear from Scrip- ture.' But we have now demonstrated that there is no inspired autliority for the claim that mere folders [Presbyters] ordained — none, at any period of the apostolic age. Of course, there is no scriptural proof that such Elders have the right to ordain. To ad- duce evidence of their enjoying such a right, was incumbent on parity ; but having failed to do so, it cannot ask of us to allow such a right without evidence. It cannot be proved, and it is not to be allowed without proof, that mere Presbyters either performed the ordinations mentioned in Scripture, or are there said to have tlie right to perform such acts. This position cannot be overturned. 2. All that is now incumbent on episcopacy is — to show that the above distinction between Elders and a grade superior to them, in regard especially to the power of ordaining, was so perse- vered in as to indicate that it was a j)erinanent arrangement, and not designed to be but temporary To this final brancli of our argument, which is also an independent and very prominent argument for episcopacy, we now proceed. Let any one read Acts xx. 28 to 35, and consider well what St. Paul there gives as a charge to the i:^/r?er.9 (Presbyters or Pres- byter-bishops) of Ephesus. Then let him read the two epistles to Timotliy, and reflect candidly on the chf,rge which tiie same Apostle gives to him personally, Timothy at Ephesus. And, after this comparison of the charges, let him decide whether Scripture does not set that one individual above those Elders, in ecclesiastical rights, and particularly in regard to the power of ordaining. — Or, if such an inquirer feel any doubt as to the positiveness with which the superiority of Timothy is asserted, let him conscientiously determine what are the intimations o! Si;ripture on this subject — wliich way the balance of proof in- clines. To us the proof seems absolute ; but it is enough for a rightly disposed mind that it only preponderate. Examine then, these two portions of the New Testament; and first, that relating to the Elders. In Acts XX. 28, «S:c. the Elders of Ephesus are charged — to lake heed to themselves — to take heed to all the flock over which t AcU i. 26. vL 6. viv. 23. 8 Tim. L 6. 24 EPISCOPACY TESTED BV SCRIPTURE. the Holy Ghost had made lliem ovei seers — to feed the Church of God — and. remembering the Aposthj's warnings for three years, to watch against tlie grievous M'olves that wonld assail tlie flock, and against, tliose from among themselves who would s])eak. perverse things. These are the four points (or three, if tlie second and third lie united) of the admonition left with tliem by St. Paid; to wliich another may be added, from verse 35, concerning industry, and charity to the " weak." Mow, what is there in this admonition or charge which shows that these Elders had the power of clerical dicipline? surely nothing. Tliey are to he cautious themselves, and to watch against false teachers ; but no power is intimated to depose from office either one of their own number, or an unsound mmister coming among them. They are to " feed," or perhaps (as the word is sometime^ translated) rule" the Church ; i. e. they are to "tend it as sheplierds."' The "Church" of course lueans here the "flock" betore mentioned, orthe laity;" for shepherds do not tend or rule shepherds, unless it be that there are superior shepherds aiuong them, who have received such authority from their common master or employer. Government of the clergy, therefore, these Elders had not, as far as appears, witliin tlieir own body. And not a trace or hint is there of their having l^ad the right to ordain. We luay here add, that the right of these Elders to govern and ordain cannot he claimed as resulting from construction or implication ; for every passage in Scripture which asserts or intimates power over the clergy, gives that power to Apostles, or else to Timothy and Titus, or to the " angels" of the seven Churches in Asia ; and these cannot be proved to have been mere Presbyters, but w^re, as we have shown ir> regard to the Apostles, and are now .showing in regard to the rest, distinct and superior oflicers. Constructive or implied powers can only be inferred in the absence of positive evidence; and as there is positive evidence in other passages, nothing of implication can be valid here. The positive evidence is against uarity ; nor can construction be resorted to for its relief. — Nor is a resort to such construction suggested by the spirit of Paul's address to these Elders, since the theory which asks no construction is qtnte as congenial with its several expressions as that which requires it. On the episcopal theorjr, indeed, there can be no final autliority over the clergy without a Bishop ; but it is not contrary to that theory, that Presbyters, in such a case, exercise much spiritttal discipline over the laity: they may re])el from the commimion, which is a very high act of "ruling;" and, there being no Bishop, there ran be no appeal from sucli a sentence. Among us, a diocese without a Bishop " rules the Hock" in man}' respects u See Note B. V See Parkhubbt on 7ro(; Kach of those Cliiirclies is addressed, not through its clergy at large, but through its " ansipp' or chief ollicer ; this alone is a very strong argument against parity and in favour of episcopacy. One of tliose Churclies was Ephesus ; and when we read con- cerning its angel, " thou hast tried tiicm which say they are Apostles, and are not, and hast found thern liars,'" do we require further evidence that wliat 'J'iuiotliy, tlie chief officer there, was in the year 65, in regard to the supreme right of discipline o\'er tlio clergy, the same was its chief ollicer when this book was written, in the year 96 1 Let us examine also other [lassagcs. In each of these small epistles, the "angel" is made responsible individually for the errors of the respective Churches, and is commended individually for their respective merits ; and this., altliough tliere nmst have been several or many Elders in each of those Churches, as there were in Ephesus thirty or forty years before.'" Observe the enjphatic use of the singuhxr number in tlie address to each of the an^gels — " I know thy works,"" is the clear and strong language directed to them all succesaively, im- plying the responsibility, not of a Church at large, or of its cler- gy at large, but of the head or governor individually. 'J"o the same effect we read, as commendations of these angels — " Ihnii, holdest fast my name" — " thou hast a few names which have not defiled their garments" — " I have set before thee an open door" — " thnv, hast a little strength, and hast kept my w^ord"= — and, on the other hand, they are" thus rebuked—" I have a few things against thee''' — " bectause thou hast tliem that hold the doctrine of Ualaam" — " thou sufferest that woman Jezebel ... to teach, ccc." — " if thou shalt not watch, I will cuirie on thee as a tliief" — '■•thou art neither hot nor cold."'' Similar to these are the warnings of Christ to these '• angels," all implying their indi- vidual responsibility for the faults of the Churches,—" remember \thox] from wlience thou art fallen, and repent [thou] and do Ithouj tlie tirst works" — " repent [thou] or else I will come unto thee (juickly" — "be [thon] watchful, and strengthen [thou] the things which remain"—" hold [thou] fas» that which thou iiast" — " be [thou] zealous, and repent [thou]. i There are other like passages ; ind(!ed these seven epistles are nearly mad(! up of them, 'i'lie individual called " tlie angel" is, in each case, idi'ii- tified with his Church, and his Church with him. And in the few places wliere the language addressed to the ('hur(;hes by the Saviour is in the plural number,'' it is addressed to them gene- rally, no particular reference being made to their Elders, as if they shared the responsibility.' On the contrary, we iind this k Rov. ii. iii. » Rov. ii. 2. m A.-I.S XX. 17. n It v. ii. •?., 0, 13, 19; iii. t, 8, !». '1 R.v. ii. i:^; iii. A, 8. ,) llv. ii. II, •■^" : iii. 3, 15 (| R'.v. ii. ."). 10; iii '.J. II, 19 r Rt-v. ii. W,'Si~'Zo. • Svx; Niilo C 28 EPISCOPACY TFSTED BY SCRIPTURE. peculiarly strong expression in the admonition to the angel o/ the Ephesian Church, Avhere, as has been fully sliown, there were many Elders or PrcsbjMei-s, " I will remove thy candlestick [thy Church'] out of his place, except thou repent"' — not :he Church of the presbytery, nor even of thy presbytery, but '■'■thy Church." Surely a»diocesan is here! Test then by these seven epistles, by each of them and all of them, the episcopal and presbyterian theories, and see which best agrees with their letter and their spirit: most assuredly they are episcopacy from beginning to end. Connect tnese epis- tles with those to Timothy and Titus ; and decide whether they do not all proclaim episcopacy. Compare this entire connected evidence with all that is recorded concerning the powers of mere Elders ; and let the spirit of candour and impartiality determine wheiher episcopacy does not even triumph in the abundance of Its scriptural proofs." And let it be observed, that we have made no use of those scriptures which merely oj^ree with episcopacy, or tend to iHks- (rate the affairs of the apostolic Church according to that theory, but only of those which are its demonstration. And this, we think, is complete. All minds, however, do not appreciate evidence equally. Let then our argument be rated at its lowest value, and it will still be sufficient. Is there any thing like positive proof in Scripture, that mere Elders [or Presbyter-bishops] had the power of su- preme di.» transriclioii is mrntiiinpii in EusEBlUs' Life nf ConxKintine, \A\>. III. cli. (VI. "llM'ir city, (Holiopolis,) wliicli was Ijlimled wiili siipi'islilioii, was licooine Ji'- Cliiiroli o.'' iCicD, and filled with Prie.sls and Deacons, aJi 1 tlicy bad a JJi.^hojj to gorr-rn tln'in." M EusEB. Hist. Lib. VI ch. vii. xlii. Lib. II. cli. i. Lib. III. cli. x.v. Lib. IV. ch. XIV V. " P-id, Lib. III. ch. iv — xi — xi.x — xx.vii. Lib. IV^ cb. v — .\ix. Lib. V. ch. xi. Lib. VI. ch. ix. Lib. VII. ch. xxxi. Lib. VIII. ch. i. Ac. etc. p Lib. 11. ch. i. Lib. I. ch. xiv. ; sec paruculaily what llicrc follows an ejji.lle «ui(i tc have been written by our Saviour. 34 EPISCOPACY TESTED BY SCRIPTURE have showed such a willing mind towards the publishing of the doctrine of Christ, that he became a preacher of the Gospel unto the eastern Gentiles, and was sent as far as India. For there were, I say, there were then many Evangelists, prepared for this purpose, to promote and to plant the heavenly word with godly zeal, after the ginse'i of the Apostles. Of these PantcEnus, being one, is said to have come mto India."'' On this extract, which we believe completes the evidence on the subject before us, contained in Eusebius, these two remarks suggest themselves. 1. It is not said that this Evangelist, Panl«nus, or- dained ; he may, like the emperor Constantine, have procured ordination by others for the clergy set over the churches lie founded. 2. Taking for granted even that he did ordain, we read that he " planted the heavenly word after the guise of the Apostles,''^ conforming to their model or standard ; of course his ordinations were after the apostolical example, which has been fully shown in the above essay, and was certainly believed by Eusebius, to have been according to the episcopal scheme. Such ordinations he could not have performed without being a proper Bishop himself. We think then that parity gains nothing by going to Eusebius for an account of the office and powers of Evangelists. On the contrary, the gain, such as it is, is on the side of episcopacy. After what has now been said, no impartial person will, we tliink, contend that Eusebius meant to say that all Evangelists (of all grades) had the power of ordaining. If, however, such a proposition be maintained concerning this father, we neutralize the evidence thus claimed, by counter-evidence of the same kind, that of an ancient but uninspired author, who, in conformity with Scripture, asserts that there were among the Evangelists persons who had no right to ordain. We quote from Ham- mond:^ — "For, as the office of Evangelist, being to preach to unbelievers, requires not the donatior of all the episcopal powers, VIZ. of ruling, nor the power of ordination necessarily, because when the Evangelist hath planted tiie faith, the Apostle himself may come and confirm, and ordain Bishops, as we see in Sama- ria, Acts viii. 17. (and therefore the author of the Commentaries on the Epistles under St. Ambrose's name, saith on this place. Qtcaiiivis nan sint sacerdotes, evangelizare taynen possnnt sine cathedra, qvemadmodum Stephanus et Philippus, though they be not priests, [that is. Bishops,] yet they may evangelize with- out a chair:) so the donation of that superior power doth not yet make them cease to be Evangelists." Stephen and Pliil-p, both Deacons, and having no right to ordain, or to occupy tlie episcopal " chair," are yet, we see, reckoned Evangelists by this writer. Stephen, who we know died a Deacon, is called by him an Evangelist. And Philip, who when called in Scripture ai/ q uifirjfiaras, conformitj' to a moilel, example, or Etandard ; copy, close imitation, r Lib. V. ch. ix. being ch. x. in tlie Greek. 9 0« Ephe-s. iv 11: note b. rPISCOPACV TESTED BY SCRIPTURE. 95 Evangelist, is also denominated " one of the severV rfeacoju, is said by this writer to have been, equally with Stephen, " withoiii a chair" of sacerdotal office. This then is uninspired proof, to be added to that of revelation, that Evangelists had not, M.c-iCi> as such, the right to ordain. And taking into view tlie whole oi this sort of proof, the definition which we quoted above ftoii^ an eminent Presbyterian divine, will, we think, be allowed to be iu this respect, too unqualified. This appeal to the fathers has been made only to meet Oiu opponents on tlieir own ground, in their attempt to define frein those writings a word, the meaning of which cannot be cleaily made out from Scripture. We have shown that wdiat the falhets add towards its elucidation, is entirely in our favour. Returning to Scripture, we conclude with yet another an-wei to tlie assertion of parity — that the superior powers of Tim itbv, being founded on his being an "Evangelist," were to be exei' cised only during the early and unsettled state of the Church a Ephesus. And here we shall take the case according- to parity's own showing. Most Presbyterian controvertists (as also, in lpe<.J many other writers) suppose Timothy to have been placed at Ephesus so early as at the sudden departure of Paul for Mace- donia after the riot there.' His duty, as an Evangelist, was (say anti-episcopalians) to settle the alTiiirs of the then new Church in that place. If so, be it remembered, he soon performed one part of what (they say) was required of him as such an extraordina- ry ofKcer ; he soon ordained Elders in tliat city or region which (they say) was before destitute of them ; for its Elders are ad- dressed by Paul in less than a year after his flight from Ephe- sus." These Elders, be it next remarked, are there declared (they say) to have power to "rule" tlie flock and their own ■body, besides that of ordaining. If so, the government of that Church was fully organized : and thus was fulfilled the othei part of the function of Timotliy, as a special and extraordinary officer. Of course that extraordinary officer, the Evangelist, was no longer required ; the Ephesian Church had obtained a body of Elders, competent, if any such body is, and at least said by parity to be competent, to ordain and " rule." Nay. Paul, it is alleged, had c//f//-^e(Z these Elders to "rule the Church ol God." It sufely was time fur Timothy, if a mere Evangelist, to " pass en to other countries and nations." Nov/, how does this obvious cessation of their need of the sup- posed extraordinary officer, agree Mith the undeniable fact tliat li.e second epistle was written to him almost seven years after tlie supposed 'date of his being placed in Ephesus, and more than six years after the interview of Paul witli its Eldens — t!iis same Timothy still exercising his ecclesiastical powers in that city? In the .s^er-o7if^ epistle, and that only — eleven years after the first preaching of Paul in Ephesus,* more than nine years t AcU XIX. 23, &c. ; xx. 1. 1 Tim. i. 3. u Actsxx. 17. v AcU xviii. 19 36 EPISCOPACV TESTED BY SCRIPTURE. after the establishment of a Christian body there distinct from the Jews/" nearly seven years after tiie^iipposed commission to Timothy to settle tlieir affairs, and more than six years aftei Paul addressed their Elders — in that late second epistle, and that onlj^, is Timothy called an "Evangelist," and desired to "do the ■work" of such a functionary. That is (says parity) Timothy was still reqnired for the purpose of ordaining," although there had so long been Elders there competent to ordain ! Timothy (sa}* parity) was still required for the governing of that body of ciergy, although that body had had, for so considerable a period, an intiinsic ecclesiastical power to " rule" its own mem bers 5 Is il not obvions then, that the tM'o hypotheses of parity, that concerning the right of mere Presbyters to ordain and govern, and that concerning the rights of Evangelists, are inconsistent with each other? The Evangelist Timothy (they are forced to say) held restrained till at least the year 66, the power to " rule," which Paul had charged the Elders to exercise in the year 60 ! Or else, they must say that tlie Evangelist Timothy siipplanied, in the year 66, the rights of the Elders who had been planted in Ephesus by the same Evangelist Timothy, in the year 59 or 60! May v/e not asi<, when did he, or any other apostolical man, plant those rights again ? Does not tlie scriptural evidence on these points leave the supposed rights of Presbyters either with held or taken from them, wiihout a hint that the restriction oi depri\ation was afterwards removed ? And may we not justly declare, that such incongruities in the best theory of our oppo- nents — for they certainly have none better, or as good — are something very like an absolute disproof of parity, and, of course, a strong indirect proof of Episcopacy ? w Acts xix. 9. X III the second epistle to Timothy, as well as in tlie first, allusion is made to hja ordaining power ; see 2 Tim. ii. 2 : and in another place, after iiririnsi hiiv. to "do the work of an Evangelist," the Apostle adds, "make full proof [fuUil all the p«.r(a} of tliy ministry," which of course included ordaining. 2 Tim. ' " . IV. 5. EPISCOPACY TESTED BY SCRIPTURE. 37 APPENDIX, NOTE A— PAGE 12. Refer to Potter on C.'iurc/> Government, t^. IIZ. Amcr. edit, and to the Protealdnt Ilpiscopalian, No. 3, p. 94r. \'!i)En-js, a noi<-cj)iscopal writer, says of Clemens Romanus, mentioned in Plii'. iv. 3. that alter the death of Linus and Cletus, wlio were L'ishops of Koine l>cfore liim, " Clemens solus Episcopi nomen retinuit quia jam tnvah'.eral distinctio Episcopi et Prcsbytcri — Clement alone retained the name of !5ishop, hec^iuse there had now i^rown into use the distinction he- tween Bishoi) and Presbyter." Our (juotation is taken from the answer of Charles 1. to tiie divines who argued with him in the Isle of Wight, p. 1 1 and it shows that a learned non-episcopalian allowed the use of the title Bishop, as liaviiig been surrendered by a |iortion of those clergy who had I'oriiR'rly enjcnid it, and made superior to that of Presbyter, to have been common in the age just after the apostolic, and before the death of St. .John;* and this is equivalent to the assertion of Episcopalians, that that title was very early taken from the second order of the ministry, and approj)rialeJ to tlie highest, wliich had previously been called Apostles. NOTE B— PAGE 24. Our argument allows the word " feed" to bo changed to " rule ;" hut tliia is more concession. The venerable translators have given the true meaning of Toi/iaivw as adapted to the passage : the context usually deciding the choice between the several meaniniisof a word. In Matt. ii. Ct. the word "govern or," and in Rev. ii. "27. xii. 5. and xix. 15, the phrase " rod [sceptre] of iron," [Kijnt to the rieting power of a shepherd. But in the present passage " Hock" is the pn)pcr deh'ning word in the context; and " feed" is its correlative. II it be alleged that "overseers" is tlie defmmg wonl, wc answer, that, as a literal shephenl is never called in Seri[)ture an "overseer" £«-io- rendered in the latter passage. If, however, this arbitrary mode of translation be tlisallowcd, rule cannot be what Paul meant bi addressing the Eldc>rs of Ephcsus. Campbei.i. translates J;-hn xxi. IG. '■'■tend my shcep,"and hasan eixcellcnt note. Bf.z \ has priA'ce "feed," both there and (';;(i.vct;nf/«m) in Acts xx '28. C\ALVi>f and Ehasmus give pasce "feed'' in the former, but use the strong * Clement sticceedod as Bishop of Rome, A. D. 91 ; St. John died A. D. 10.0, Seo Calmet's Dictionary 4 38 EPISCOPACY TESTED BY SCRIPTURE. word regcndain " oovcrii,'' in tne latter; which was either a great oversight or a groat inconsistency. Observe especially this further consideration. When the Romanists urge that, in their sense, Peter was to "rule" Christ's sheep, we answer, that this notion is fully disproved by other Scriptures ; as, Paul's withstanding Peter to ilie face, and James' presiding in a council held at Jerusalem, though Peter was jiresent. (Gal. ii. 1 1. Acts xv. 13, 19.) And when the advo- cates of parity assert, that, in oints. In ourojiinion, the last of the above questions can never be justly answercJ in the ailirmalivc ; no plea can be strong enough to release us from divine apjiointments. What Goo has instituted for his Church he will preserve ill his Church, and dilTuse though it, till the institution be abrogated by him. oi is about to be so. This appears to us so clear a dictate of iaith, so funda- mental a religious truth, that we will not argue for it; it is an axiom, or al least an undeniable jiostulate. And it ought to settle the whole matter. Bui we shall carry the discussion through. As then to tiie other two questions — v.'e doubt whether the difliculty of ob taining an apostolic ministry, has ever been insuperable for any greater period than might naturally and fairly be allowed for the purpose — and vvc deuj that the difficulties, be they what they might, have ever been long insupera Lie. And thus far, having used only the phrase apostolical or scriptural niipistry, we suppose that Parity agrees with us. We now icmind our readers that we have, in our essay, proved the apos- lolicai ministry to lie episcopacy. And, to come at once to the great case, we think it doubtful wb.ethcr Luther and his associates, and Calvin and his associati's, were prevented from obtaining episcopacy by diilicultics strictly insuperable. It is well known to those acquaitited with ecclesiastical his- tory, tliat Novatian, a schismatic Bishop, induced three obscure Bishops to consecrate him :* and among the multitude of papal Bishops, could nol ♦ MiLNEK, Vol. I. p. 351. and Eusebius, Book 6. EPISCOrACY TESTED BY SCRIPTDRE. 41 those Reformers have found three, clovateil or obscure, to give them the sue- cessirn, or else to join with llieiii, and pri'sidc over tlieir [jurilied Cliureh ? and this, without resorting to the culpahle methods ascribed to N'ovatian ? if this was not clearly im(iracticahlc, our present argument has all that it asks Again : it is known to the readers of church liislory, that Krumeu- tiu>, artercolliH-ting to<;etlier a few Christians in India (perhaps Ahyssiina,] and converting some of the natives, applied to Athanasius, llisiiop of Alexan- dria in Fgvpt, for a Bishop to govern them, and ordain pastors I'or thorn •*■ and could "net the Reformers alluded to, faihii^r with Romish Bishops, hive gone or sent, to the Greek, or other Eastern cimrches, for the e|)iscopal suc- cee made the basis of the plea of necessity ? Now, he it recollected, we question not the motives of these eminent servants ofGuD; we iH-lieve them to have been pure; but, on that poiut, they ami we sUind or fall only to our common master; motives have nothing to do witii the claims of truth. All that we assert is, that be the diHicuities what they miir.'.t in pnx-uring episcopacy, it is doubtful whether they were insuperable; ami that if thev Were not insuperable, the case of ' necessity ' did not exist. \N e may indeed carry this part of our argument yet further, and ask, whether ani/ diflicultv of' magnitude can he alle^ed— if we may draw, from the fol- lowing quotations from Milner. the conclusion, that Bishops so friendly to Lutht'T would have consecrated him ? " . . . . John Thurzo, Hishoi) of iJres- law in Silesiii. This e taken for granted that mere monarchical "powers" Were meant iri this passage. But bu.sides this : It could not have been ircant • Sc-i PoOLE'8 Synopaia on 1 Pet. ii. 13. and M'Knioht on do. 44 El'ISCOPACY TESTED BY SCRIPTURE. that the then existing Roman authorities were ordained of God for perpetuity; for both proi)hei;y (Dan. vii. 26. 2 Thess. ii 7.) and history attest the con- trary ; wliieli propiu'cy is scriptural proof against that iiiterprction. Neither were the then existing "|)Owers" fieyond t!ie Roman empire ordained to be perpetual. Tliey were all, therefore, ordained oJ Gon in only tlii.s lower sense — to serve the purpose of civil government while they sho\ild respect ivelv last. In our opinon, " the powers that be" means ' tlie estalilished civil au- thorities that at any time exist ;' submission to these is made bindingon Chii«- tians by the Christian law; just revolutions, as incidental to every ordinance or creation of man, being exceptions to this rule. The object of such {)a3S- ages is, we think, to consecrate the social principle which leads to civil ma- gistracy, and atiix the seal of the divine Author of Christianity to the Hiaxiin, that men are not individual! ij sovereign, hut either jo;ji//y so, or else subject to some other common sovereignty ; and that maxim, thus divinely rati/ied, decides that men must submit to the lawful public authority under which they hve. But this has no bearing on the case of the ministry, which was not only created and ordained of Goo, but concerning the abolition or change of which no prophecy or hint is uttered, wiiich all history attests to have been perpetuated in the episcopal form, and which, if it ever fail, must be again ai)pointed by God, and " ordained" anew, not by men. but " for men ;" since its business is " in things pertaining to Gi^o," since the ministry of recon- ciiiatioti is "gi\en" by Goo, and by him " conmiitted to" men, or "put in'' men, and since it is an embassy from Chuist. (Heb. v. I. 2 Cor. v. 18, 19, 20. j Such an office must either be perpetuated or be lost: it cannot be renewed or changed, like the civil olHces which are the creation of man. It is clear then from Scripture, that civil government, though of perpetual general obligation, is not so in any one of its kinds ; while ecclesiastical po- lity is permanently binding in the form set forth in the New Testament. 3. It has been said, that t!ie appointment of a king for Israel by the Deity, is an intiniation of the divine will in favour of royal government, and that therefore that form of civil magistracy must be as innding as ejiiscopacy. We replv, that i/such an intimation of the divine will existed, it would unques- tionably be binding on Christians. But this is not the fact. On the con- trary, liy the proi>het Hosea, (xiii. 2.) God declares "I gave tliee a king in mine anger." And the history of the attairs which led to the appointment of Saul .<:hows, that it was human perverseness and ambition which insisted on having a king, while the Deity opposed it, and even " jjrotested" against it. (1 Sam. viii. 5 — 20. See also the margin of verse 9.) This fact ncu- trulize.s, not only the inference in favour of royal government drawn froir. that case, but all other allegations of the kiixl pretending scriptural authority This fact shows, in(lisi)Utably, that God permits men to choose for them- selves a form of ciiiil government. Not till the Israelites had freely and even irreligiously declared for a monarchy, did the Almighty select the indi- vidual who should be their king. In forming, however, the government of the Christian Church, man was not even consulted; the ministry was a])- point*d by Christ; its appointment was placed on record by the Holv Spirit ; from that record we gather that its model was epi.scopacy : and this we think a sufficient intimation of the will of God that all Christians should conform to that model. The case of monarchical government is in no respect analogous with this. —4. I'arity contradicts its ov\m principles in raising Dbjections to our argument from the precepts contained in Scripture to obey kings. Sound Presbyterians, as well as sound Episcopalians, believe that the ecclesiastical system delineated in Scripture is of permanent obligation. We both insist on ordination by succession from the Apostles. If this succession is broken, ordination becomes neither ejnscopal ncr presbyterian, but, as wo both affirm, of mere lay or human authority. Now, if Parity thus EPISCOPACY TESTED BY SCRIPTURE. 45 claims prrprtnitv because it is said to be found in Pcripturf, yet. rejects tbo perpctuitv of kini^ly gov eminent, also found tlioiv, uliv .should R|iisc(>|)iilians be cen.-iured for doini^ the very same in behalf of /Ac/r system! The same arijuments which l-'arity uses in regard to this point, Episcopalians may also Use. If its friends are satisfied that " the king, as supreme," was a tran- sietit apjiointment, so are we. If they aie satisfied, on the other hand, that the scriptural model of ecclesiastical i)olity is nut a transient appointment, so a'jain are we. The only questii^n remainin Isle of Wight, with th'' Presbyterian DiviiHs, very soundly remarks — (p. (!.) "settinir aside men's con j<'ctures, vou cannot make it a])[)ear by any text of Script urr, that theollice ol'aii I''.vaiitr<'|ist IS such as you have described it. The work ol' an Evangelist which St. Paul exhorteth Timothy to do, seems l)y the context (2 Tim. i\'. .'>.) to be nothing out ry or ilincr;nit ; ray, that sort of jiroof favours the opposite opinion, tliat they did not travel merely in the fuUilmeiit of their evangelizing function. And we therefore assert, that, so far as appears from the inspired recorti, Timothy might have "done the work of an Evangelist," without being in any sense a missionary Bishop, but exclusively a diocesan. We say this, only because it is due to truth and accuracy, not because our argument requires it. That Timothy was a proper Bishop we have proved in the essay; and it is of no consequence whether he exercised that oilice as a missionary, or a tliocesan, or both. It is expedient, probably in the highest degree, that every Bishop-, whatever extra duties he may pertbrm as a mis- sionary, be a diocesan or coadjutor ; but thisis not essential. In the first found ing of Christianity, the apostoliail or episcopal labours of a hno.st every indi vidual in the office were necessarily tJillused widely. Yet the docile student of Scripture will not fail to remark, that it leaves Timothy in Ephesus, and the seven "angels" connected with their respective Churches; to whicl, the case of James is to be added, in the Churcli of Jerusalem. (Ac's xv. t3, 10: xxi. IH.) Thus much may be serurelv claimed, in additien ta thf, revealed argument for episcop;icy in itself, in favour of dioccaan arrangft- m«nl8. Coverdale translates 2 Timothy iv. 5, " do the work of a preacher of tho Gespcl." No. 47. TEX EKD. TIMOTHY AN APOSTLE. In tlie essay entitled, " Episcopacy Testec" by Scripture," it was noticed that Timothy is called an "apostle" in that sacred volume. Almost no use, however, was made of that fact in the main argument of the essay, as it was believed to be new matter, and indeed was not discovered by the author till his piece was wriuen. It was chiefly adduced to show the fallacy of ascrib- ing Timothy's superior power to his being an evangelist, when he had supreme power as an apostle. Tlie grounds on which it was asserted tliat Timothy has this title in Scripture, were briefly given in a note : — ' See 1 Thess. ii. 6, compared with 1 Thess. i. 1. Paul, Silva- nus (or Silas,) and Timothy, are all included as " apostles." In verse 18, Paul speaks of himself individually, not probably before. It is not unusual, indeed, for St. Paul to use the plural number of himself only; but the words "flpos^/es" and "our own soids,^^ (verse 8,) being inapplicable to the singular use of the plural number, show that the three whose names are at the head of this epistle are here spoken of jointly. And thus Silas and Timo- thy are, with Paul, recognised in this passage of Scripture as " apostles." ' The passage thus referring to Paul, Silvanus, and Timothy, is — " we might have been burdensome, as the apostles of Christ ; but toe were willing to have imparted unto you our own so;t/s." The words "apostles" and "souls" are obvi- ously plural in the plural sense, and show that Paul was not speaking of himself alone, but of all the three who joined in the epistle. A writer in the Connecticut Observer (February 14th) denies the application of this language to the tiiree individuals men- tioned, and asserts that these plural words have the singular sense, and are meant of Paul only. His remarks are as follows : — " The proof adduced is a comparison of 1 Thess. ii. 6, with the same, i. 1. The writer says, ' Paul, Silvanus, and Timothy, are all included as apostles.' Paul unites Silvanus, or Silas, and Timothy, in the salutation with himself, I Thess. i. 1 ; and in the next chapter, verse 6, he says, ' fVe miglil have been biirden- .some to you as nposUes of Christ.' The question is, did Paul mean to include the others with himself in this passage? The writer in the Protestant Episcopalian alTirms that lie did. We say he did not — at least, it cannot be proved that he did. The use of tlie plural ' we'' does not prove it. For Paul often "" ' we' A'hen Ik; intends only lain self ; and in letters too ■ ers are joined with him in tiie salutation. To ni , .ve 48 TIMOTHY AN APOSTLE. have an instance in this very chapter, verse 18. Compare, also, I Thcss. iii. 1, with tlie same, verse 6. Neither do the plural expressions, ^apostles'' and ' our own smils^ prove it. We have instances of similar modes of expression in other parts of his wrilincrs, when he himself only is intended. For example of tlie first, '■apostles,'' compare 2 Cor. i. 24, with the same, i. 23, where ' helpers'' is used to denote the singular, as ' we^ is to denote the same. For parallel example to '■ 07ir own souls, ^ as denoting the singular, vide 2 Cor. vii. 3, compared with verse 7, where ' in our hearts'' refers to Paul solely." On this extract several observations may be made in reply. The note from " Episcopacy," «Sic., allows that St. Paul often uses the plural for the singular in speaking of himself. So far we all agree. Tlie reference to 2 Cor. i. 23, 24, will not help the cause of parity ; it only shows a transition from the singular to the plural in the plural sense, which is very usual where the writer alludes to both himself and others bearing any siiTiilar relation to the persons addressed ; " to spare you /came not as yet not that ire have dominion over your faith, but are helpers of j^our joy." 1. Surely common sense will suggest that if more "helpers" than Paul can be found, that expression would be sounder than if applied to him alone. Hence it would be com- petent to say, without express proof, that by '• we" he here means apostles or ministers in general. 2. We find, however, only five verses before, the persons specially alluded to as we;" they are "Paul, Silvanus, and Timotheus," (verse 19.) These, then, are the "helpers" of the passage; and thus that word is proved by the context to have, not a singular, but a plural meaning. 3. McKnight gives a general plural sense ; not that " we apostles" lord it over you, but are joint workers of your joy. 4. Doddridge gives another general plural sense, " but we, even I, and all the faithful ministers of our Lord Jesus Christ, are joint helpers of your joy." Instead, therefore, ol weakening the argument that Timothy was an apostle, the Observer has rather strengthened it, by pointing to an additional case of Paul's using the plural number without giving it the meaning of the singular. The appeal to 2 Cor. vii. 3, is not more fortunate; the word " hearts" has there imqueslionably its natural plural signification, including other "hearts" beside that of Paul, "for I have said before, tliat ye are in our hearts." 1. Common sense %s before urged, requires us to give plural meanings to such plural words, if it can be done consistently, which is the case here, making "our hearts" to allude to ministers generally. 2. St. Paul, in this passage, refers to a previous expression nsed by him, " I have said before." This reference carries us* to verses 11, 12, of the sixth chapter, " O ye Corinthians, our moulh is open * See margin, McKnight, Poole's Synop., Poole's Annot. c TIMOTHY AN APOSTLE. 4U unto you, our /jearf is enlarged." Well, the Observer ma3'^s;t\. die " hearts" plural of the one passage, must mean tlie " hcnri'' sin- gular of the other, and both refer to Paul's affection only. No, we reply, "our heart" is a general or collective phrase, (see Rom. XV. 6,) equivalent to "our hearts;" and thus others than Paul are included. What, then, shall decide between tiiese opposite assertions 7 the context. From the words "our heart," (vi. 11,) back, to the beginning of the chapter continuously (except one verse in a parenthesis,) Paul is speaking of tlie "ministry." 'I'o that body he alludes every time the first person plural is used throughout the passage. Most certainly, then, "our mouth and our heart" relate not to St. Paul alone, but to "the ministry" spoken of, with a special reference to those of that sacred order connected with the Corinthians, or perhaps to himself and Tim- otiiy, who address this epistle to them. Now, what t/iis passage means, the other quoted by the Observer means, since Paul reft^rs from the latter to the former. Of course the words "our hearts" have a plural signification, applying not to Paul alone, but in con- junction with others. And thus falls the Observer's remaining objection to the scriptural proof of the apostleship of Timothy. In the Connecticut Observer of September 17th, there is the following passage respecting the apostleship of Timothy ; it is comprised in a reply to a writer in the Episcopal Watchman, under the signature of Ignatius. "Ignatius insists upon it that Timothy was an apostle in the same sense in which raul was an apostle. This argument is so wrought into the texture of some modern treatises on Episco- pacy, that it deserves a passing remark. The claim has been but lately made by Episcopalians, and rests solely on 1 Thess. i. 1, compared with chapter ii. 6. In our remarks on the reviewer of the ' Tribute to the Memory of the Pila-rims,^ a few montlis ago, we introduced the opinion of a biblical critic second to none in this country, that the use of the plural ' apostles' in 1 Thess. ii. 6, and of ' our oion soiils,^ verse 8, does not prove that Timotiiy was an apostle. Moreover, according to the author of ' Episcopacy tested by Scripture,' who first, so far as we know, urged these passages in proof of the apostleship of Timo- thy, this epistle was written ten years, at least, before Paul admonished Timothy, 'Let no man despise thy youth.' If he had been at least ten years an apostle, he was admitted to that office very young, probably at about the age of twenty. And how shall we account for it that when Paul joins Timothy with himself in salutation to churches, he calls himself an 'apostle,' and Timothy only a ^ brother V — vide 2 Cor. i. 1; Col. i. 1; Philemon verse 1. He speaks of Timothy just as he does of Sosthenes, who, we believe, was never supposed to be an apos- tle; vide 1 Cor. i. 1. At this very time, too, when it is iu)w claimed that Paul calls Timothy an apostle, according to Arch- bishop Potter, Timothy was attending on Paul as a deacon." so TIMOTHY AN APOSTLE. On this passage the following remarks suggest themselves — The fact that Timothy was an aposlle, may, perhaps, be said to be " wroiijjlit into the texture of ilie treatise^'' entitled " Epis- copacy Tested by Scripture," but it is not "wrought into ihe texture" of the main argument iberein contained. All that relates to that fact might be struck from the "treatise" without essential injury. Still it is a fact, and is therefore adduced with perfect propriety in its bearings on the controversy between our cause and that of parity. Tliis is the second time the Connecticut Observer has " wrought into the texture" of its columns the opinion of " a biblical critic, second to none in the country," that Timothy was not an apos- tle. Is this reasoning? Who can answer a name? Let the critic's arguments be given, and it may be seen whether they are sound. If the remarks in the Observer of February 14, were the arguments of this eminent critic, they were answered in the Protestant Episcopalian for March, vviiicli answer has never, so far as known, been replied to. And if wliat is now added, in the above extract, be also his, may it not be feared that his fund of reasoning on this subject is running low 7 At all events, these additional observations, whether his or not, are peculiarly weak, as will now be shown. First among these new objections to the apostleship of Timo thy, at the time 1 Thessalonians was written, is the remark, that he must have been made an apostle very young. The answer is easy, being nothing more than the objection itself — he, was an apostle at a very early age. Does this fact prove or disprove any thing? Certainly not. Timothy, we know, was very early pious and versed in the Scriptures; wiielher this was one of St. Paul's reasons for placiug him so soon in the apostleship, cannot now be determined, and is of no consequence ; it is enough that Scripture calls him an apostle in the year 54, the date of the epistles to the Thessalonians, when he may have been no more than twenty years old, but was probably twenty- two or three. Next objection : Why does Paul, In some places, call himself an aposlle, and Timothy only a brother? asks the Observer. Really it is too late to inquire, but the fact has not the least bearing on the point in question. The apostles were brethren to each other, the elders were brothen of the apostles, so were the deacons, so were the laity. The circumstance, therefore, of Paul's calling Timothy a brother, while he calls himself an apostle, proves no more that Timothy was not an aposlle, than it does that he was not a clergyman at all, but only a layman. Next : Paul's calling Sosthenes a brother, proves just as much as his giving Timothy that appellation. Lastly : As to Archbishop Potter's opinion, that Timothy was but adeacon at the time St. Paul terms him an apostle, in 1 Thess. ii. 6, it is obviously a mistake, since that passage decides against him. The cause of the mistake of this able TIMOTHY AN APOSTLE. . 51 defender of Episcopacy seems to have been twofold. He over- looked the passage referred to, whicli speaks of Timothy as an aposth^ ; and he was misled by the word StaKuvowTav in Acts xix. 22, where it is said that Tinwlhy and Erasiiis " niinisiered' inito Panl ; wliicli he supposes to mean *' were Paul's deacons." This is but tlie old error, so often exposed, of arguing from names instead of facts. On the next page (105.) the Archbisliop repeals it ; stating tliat elders were proper bishops, because they are said i-:TiaKoirciv. He might as well have allowed that Paul liiniself was but a deacon, because it is written, "Who then is Paul, and wiio is Apoilos, but ministers Siaxavoi, by whom ye believed ? But on the fallacy of reasoning from words only of this kind, without facts, or against facts, nothing more need be added; it is fully exposed in " Episcopacy Tested by Scripture." May I not, in conclusion, venture to express the hope that the evidence for the aposileship of Timothy is strengthened by these inellectual attempts to overthrow it ? H. U. O. Prom the Quarterly Christian Spectator. REVIEW. Eptscopacy Testkd by Scripture. By the Right Reverend Henry U Onderdonk, D. D., Assistant Bishop of the Prvtcstant Kpiscopa Church, in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. New- York : pub lished by the Protestant Episrcopal Tract Society, pp. 46. The history of this tract is this. It was first published as an essay, in llie " Protestant Episcopalian" for November and December, 1830. It was tlien issued in a pamphlet form, without tlie name of the author. It was next requested for publication by the " Trustees of the New-York Protestant Episcopal Press;" and after being amended by the author, with an addition of several notes, it was printed in tiie form of a tract, and as such has had an extensive circulation. The tract is one which has strong claims on the attention of those who are not Episcopalians. The name and standing of tiie author will give it extensive publicity. The fact that it comes from the " Press" of the Episcopal Church in this coun- try ; that it is issued as one of their standing publications, and that it will, tlierefore, be circulated with all the Zeal wiiich usually characterizes associations organized for defending tlie exclusive views of any religious body ; and, most of all, the character of the tract itself, and the ground assumed by it, give it a title to our attention which can be claimed by hardly any single tract of the kind ever published in our country. Our views of it may be expressed in one word. It is the best written, the most manly, elaborate, judicious, and candid discussion, in the form of a tract, which we have seen on this subject. Our Epis- copalian friends regard it as unanswerable. They have provided amply for its circulation, and rely on its making converts wherever it is perused ; and, in a tone which cannot be mis- understood, they are exulting in the fact, that to this day it has been left entirely unnoticed by the opponents of prelacy.* And xce wonder, too, that it has not been noticed. There are men among us who seem to consider the external defence of the Church as intrusted to their peculiar care; who delight to be seen with the accoutrements of the ecclesiastical military order, patrolling the walls of Zion ; who parade with much self- complacency, as sentinels, in front of the temple of God; who are quick to detect the movements of external enemies ; * Has the tract ' Epi.«copacy Tested by Sciiptnre' been answered? This, we beheve, is neitlier the first time of asking, nor the second, nor the third. Protestant Episconalian. ( 52 ) REVIEW — EPISCOPACY TESTED BY SCRIPTURE. 53 and who are admirably adapted to this species of warfare. Tiiey seem lo have lilUe heart for the interior operations of the Ciiurch, and seldom notice them, except lo suggest doubts of . tlie expediency of some new measure proposed, or to promote discord and strife by laying down rules for the conduct of those who are laboring in the direct worlv of saving souls. Much do we marvel that these men have suffered this tract to lie so long unnoliced. We have never regarded the Episcopal controversy with any very special interest. Our feelings lead us to dwell on subjects more directly connected with the salvation of the soul. We ifiave no taste for tlie species of warfare which is often waged in guarding the outposts of religion. Christianity, we have sup- posed, is designed to act directly on the hearts of men, and we regard it as a matter of very little moment in what particular church the spirit is prepared for its eternal rest, provided tiie great object be accomplished of bringing it fairly under the influence of the Gospel. But we propose, for the reasons already suggested, to examine the arguments of this tract. We do it with the highest respect for the autlior; with a full conviction that he has done ample justice to his cause; that he has urged on his side of t!ie ques- tion all that can be advanced ; and we enter on the task with sincere pleasure at meeting an argument conducted with entire candor, without misrepresentation, and with a manifest love of truth. Our wish is to reciprocate this candor; and our highest desire is to imitate the chastened spirit, the sober argumentation, and the Christian temper evinced in this tract. It is firm in its principles, but not illiberal ; decided in its views, but not censo- rious ; settled in its aims, but not resorting to sophism or ridi- cule, to carry its points. There is, evidently, in the author's mind, too clear a conviction of the truth of what he advances to justify a resort to the mere art of the logician ; too manifest a love of the cause in which he is engaged to expose himself to the retort which might arise from lofty declamation, or the expression of angry passions toward his opponents. One object which we have in view in noticing this tract is, to express our gratification that the controversy is at last put where it should have been at first, on an appeal to the Bible alone. Never have we been more disgusted than at the mode in which the Episcopal controversy has usually been conducted. By common consent, almost, the writers on both sides have liir»ed from tlie New Testament, where the controversy might liane been brought to a speedy issue, to listen to the decisions oi ttie fathers; and, as might have been expected, have " found no end, in wandering mazes lost." Jt was the policy of the friends of prelacy to do so ; and it was the folly of their opponents to suffer them to choose the field of debate, and to weary themselves in an effort to fix the meaning, 5* 54 HEVIEW — EPISCOPACY to secure the consistency, and obtain l8i« suffrages of the fathers. Full well was it known, we believe; by tlie friends of Episco- pacy in other limes, tiiat the New Testament could furnish a most slender support for their claims. In the times of the Papacy it had always been defended by an appeal to tlie fathers. The system had risen sustained, not even professed/ y, by the authority of the Bible, but by the traditions of the elders. 'J'he ranks and orders of the Papal priesthood could be defended only by the authority of a cliurch which claimed infallibility, and which might dispense, therefore, with the New 'J'eslament. The reformers came forth from the bosom of the Papacy with much of this feeling. They approaclied this subject with high reverence for tiie opinions of past times; with a deference for the fathers, nourished by all the forms of tlieir education, by all existing insiiluiions, and by the reluctance of the human mind to break away from the established customs of ages. On the one hand, the advocates of Episcopac}^ found their proofs in the common law of the Cliurch, the institutions which had existed "time wiiereof the memory of man runneth not to the con- trary ;" and, on the other hand, the opponents of prelacy were equally anxious to show that theij had not departed from the cusioms of the fathers, and that the defence of their institutions might be found in times far remote, and in records which received the veneration, and commanded the confidence of the Christian world. Into this abyss both parlies plunged. In this immense chaos of opinions and interpretations, into these mov- ing, disorganized, jostling elements, where, as in the first chaos, light struggled with darkness, and confusion reigned, tliey threw themselves, to endeavor severally to find the support of their opinions. "Whatsoever time, or the heedless hand of blind cliance," says Milton, " hath drawn down from of old to this present, in her huge drag-net, whether fish or sea-weed, shells or shrubs, unpicked, unchosen, those are the fathers." With those who, according to Mosheim,* deemed it not only lawful, but commendable to deceive and lie for the sake of truth and piety, it would be singular if any point could be settled that involved controversy. With men who held to every strange and ridiculous opinion ; to every vagary that the human mind can conceive ;t it would be strange if both sides in this controversy did not find enough that had the appearance of demonstration to perplex and embarrass an opponent ad libitum. In examin- ing this controversy as it was conducted in former times, we have been often amused and edified at the perfect complacency witli which a passage from one of the fathers is adduced in defence of either side of the question, and the perfect ease with wliicli, by a new translation, or by introducing a few words of the context, or more frequently by an appeal to some other part * IMurdocli's Mosheim, vol. i. p. 159. t See Tiilemont's Ecclesiastical History, passim. TESTED BY SCKIl'TURE. 55 of llie same author, not studious liimself of consistency, and probablv liaviiis no settled principles, the passage is shown U\ mean jiist tiie contrarx ; and tlien again a new version, o^■ yet another quotation, shall give it a mnv aspect and restore it to its former iionors.* 'J'lius the fatliers became a mere football between the contendingr parties; and thus, in this contro- versy, the weary searclier for truth finds no solid groimd. Eminently iiere '• he which i>i first, in his cause seemeth just ; but iiis neiglibor cometii and searclielh him." Prov. xviii. 17. To tliis wearisome and unsatisfactory toil he is doomed who will read all the older controversies on Episcopacy. There he, " O'l^r bng, or steep, tliroagh strait rough, dense or rare, NViili liead. haiiils, win^s or leet, pursues liis way, And swiins, or sinks, or wados, or creeps, or flies." Were we to add\^ the most striking instance of the plastic natm-e of liiis kind of proof, we sliould refer to the epistles ol Ignatius. To our eyes, they seem to he a plain straigiil forward account of the existence of Presbyterianism in his lime. They are substantially such a description as a man would give, writing in the inflated and exaggerated inanner in which the orientals wrote, of Presbyterianism as it exists in the United States. Yet it is well known that with the utmost pertinacity niose letters have been adduced as proving the doctrine of Epis- copacy. And so confident have been the assertions on the sub- ject, tliat not a few Non-episcopalians have given them u[) as unmanageable, and have st<»ully contended, what may be very true, that no inconsiderable part of them are forgeries. Any man can see what a hopeless task is before him if lie endeavors to settle this controversy by the authority of tiie fatliers. The waste of time, and talent-, and learning, on this subject, is fitted deeply to humble the heart. And even yet the passion has not ceased. Even now, men high in ofl[ice and in rank, leave the New Testament and appeal to the fathers. Episcopacy is discarded, not principally because the New Testa- ment is a stranger to it, but because Jerome was not a prelatist ; it is rejected, not because it cannot be made out from the Bible, but because it is a matter of debate whether the fathers teach it or not. From this unprofitable and endless litigation we are glad to turn to the true merits of the case. We rejoice sincerely that one man can be found who is willing to bring to this subject the great principle of the Protestant reformation, that all religious opinions are to be tested by the Scriptures. And we especially rejoice to see this principle so decisively advanced by a man of the talents and official rank of Dr. Onderdonk ; and that it is so prominently avowed, by sending forth from the " Protestant Episcopal Press" a tract defending this principle, * Sue; llio licltprs of Dr. Miller and Dr. Bowden on Episcopacy, pateiin. 56 REVIEW — EPISCOPACY . It indicates a healthy state of things in llie Episcopal Church in this country. It will save endless disputes about words, and much useless toil in endeavoring to give consistency aud sense to the fathers. This mode of reasoning, too, will soon decide the controversy. Long have we wished to see this matter brought to so obvious and so just an issue ; and long have we expected that, when this should be the case, the matter would be soon decided. Hereafter let it be held up as a great prin- ciple, from wliich, neither in spirit nor in form, we are ever to depart, that if tlie peculiar doctrines of Episcopacy are not found in tiie Scriptures they are to be honestly abandoned, or held, as Cranmer held them, as matters of mere expediency. Let lliis trutli go forlli,nevertobe recalled, and let every man who attempts to defend the claims of bishops appeal to the Bible alone. On this appeal, with confidence, we rest the issue of this case. The great principle on which the argiflllient in this tract is conducted is indicated in its title; it is further stated at length in tlie tract itself. Thus, in the opening sentence, " The claim oi Episcopacy to be of divine institution, and therefore obligatory on the Church, rests fundamentally on the one question — Has it the authority of Scripture 1 If it has not, it is not necessarily binding." Again, on the same page, " No argument is worth taking into the account, that has not a palpable bearing on the clear and naked topic — the scriptural evidence of Episcopacy." Having stated this principle, the writer proceeds to remark, that "the argument is obstructed with many extraneous and irrele- vant difficulties, which, instead of aiding the mind in reaching the truth on that great subject, tend only to divert it and occupy it with questions not affecting the main issue." The first object of the " essay" is then stated to be, "to point out some of these extraneous questions and difficulties, and expose either their fallacy or their irrelevancy." " The next object will be to state the scriptural argument." In pursuing this plan, the writer introduces and discusses, as one of these extraneous difficulties, the objection that Episco- pacy is inimical to a free government. He next notices, as " another of these extraneous considerations, the comparative standing in p/e///, as evinced by the usual tokens of moral and spiritual character, of the members respectively of the Episcopal and Non-episcopal churches." A third "suggestion" noticed is, "that the external arrangements of religion are but of inferior importance, and that therefore all scruple concerning the sub- ject before us may be dispensed with." p. 5. A fourth, " appa- rently formidable, yet extraneous difficulty often raised, is, that Episcopal claims unchurch all Non-episcopal denominations.'- p. 6. This consequence, the author of tlie tract says is not by him allowed. " But granting it to the fullest extent," it is asked, " what bearing has it on the truth of the single proposition that Episcopacy is of divine ordinance ?" A fifth among these extra- neous points, is " the practice of adducing the authority of TESTED BY SCRIPTURE. 57 individuals, who, althniish eminent in learning and piety, seem at least to have contradicted tlieaiseives or lliese public standards on tile subject of Episcopacy." p. 7. 'I'lie last objection noticed, as not affecting tlie ultimate decision of tlie controversy, is, " tliat though the examples recorded in Scripture should be allowed to fa°vor Episcopacy, still that regimen is not there explicitly commanded." p. 9. To most of the observations under these several heads we give our hearty assent. And it will be perceived that the con- troversy is thus reduced to very narrow limits; and tliat, if these principles are correct, numberless tomes which have been written on both sides of the queslioa.are totally useless. We aue glad that all this extraneous matter is struck, off", and should rejoice if every consideration of this kind were hereafter to be laid out of view. In discussing the second topic proposed, "the scriptural evi- dence relating to this controversy," (p. 11,) the first object of Dr. Onderdonk is to state the precise point in debate. It is then observed that " pariiy declares tliat there is but one order of men authorized to minister in sacred things, all of this order being of equal grade, and having inherently equal spiritual rights. Episcopacy declares that the Christian ministry was esTablished in three orders, called ever since the apostolic age, bishops, presbyters or elders, and deacons, of which the highest only lias a right to ordain and confirm, that of general super- vision in a diocese, «&c." p. 11. Tlie main question is then stated, correctly, to be, that " concerning the superiority of bishops;" and the object of the essay is to prove that, according to the New Testament, such an order existed, and was clothed with such peculiar powers, p. 11. Let it not be forgotten that this is the main point in the case, and that if this is not made out, so as to be binding on the Church every where, the claims of Episcopacy fall to the ground. In endeavoring to establish this point, the author maintains, " that the apostles ordained," and denies that elders (presbyters) ever did. p. 14. In supporting this position the plan of argu- ment is to show, that " the apostles and elders had not equal power and rights." p. 14. An attempt is, therefore, made to prove tliat the difference between the two orders is, that the f(jrmer had the power of ordination, the latter not. In pursuing the reasoning (p. 10) the writer endeavors to show, that "there is no scriptural evidence that mere elders (presbyters) ordained." Under this branch of the argument, he examines the texts which have usually been adduced in favor of Presbyterian ordination. Having shown, as he supp.oses, tliat those passages do not prove that tluiy did thus ordain. Dr. O. next proceeds to the last branch of the suiijecl, viz., tliat " this distinction betw(;en elders and a grade superior to them, in regard especially to the power of ordain- ing, was so persevered in, as to indicate that it was w permanent arrangement, and not designed to be but temporary." p. t'i. 58 REVIEW — EPISCOPACY This is the outline of the argument. It manifestly embraces the essential points of the case. And if these positions cannot be maintained, Episcopacy has no binding obligation on men, and such a claim should be at once abandoned. This argument we propose, with great respect, but with entire freedom, to examine. And we expect to show that the point is not made out, that the New Testament has designated a superior rank of church officers, intrusted with the sole power of ordination, and general superintendence of tlie Church. In enterircj on this discussion, we shall first endeavor to ascer- tain the real point of the controversy, and to show that the scripture authorities appealed to, do not establish the point main- tained by Episcopalians. In pursuance of this, we remark, that the burden of proof lies wholly on the friends of Episcopacy. They set up a claim — a claim which they affirm to be binding on ail the churches of every age. It is a claim which is specific, and which must be made out, or their whole pretensions fall. In what predicament it may leave other churclies is not tlie question. It would not prove Episcopacy to be of divine origin, could its friends show that Presbyterianism is unfounded in the Scriptures ; or that Congregationalism has no claims to support; or that Independency is unauthorized; or even that lay-ordination is destitute of direct support. The question after all might be, whether it was the design of the Apostles to estab- lish any particular form of church government, any more than to establish a fixed mode of civil administration? This question we do not intend to examine now, neither do we design to express any opinion on it. We say only, that it is a question on which much may be said, and which should not be considered as settled in this controversy. The specific point to be made out is, that there is scriptural authority for that which is claimed for the bishops. And we may remark further, that this is not a claim which can be defended by any doubtful passages of Scrip- ture, or by any very circuitous mode of argumentation. As it is expected to affect the whole organization of the Church ; to constitute, in fact, the peculiarity of its organization ; and to determine, to a great extent at least, the validity of all its ordi- nances, and its ministry ; we have a right to demand that tlie proof should not be of a doubtful character, or of a nature which is not easily apprehended by the ordinary readers of the New Testament. We repeat now, as of essential importance in this controversy, that the burden of proof lies on the friends of Episcopacy. It is theirs to make out this specific claim. To decide whether they can do so, is the object of this inquiry. Tlie first question then, is, What is the claim ; or, what is the essential point which is to be made out in the defence of Epis- copacy ? This claim is stated in the following words: (p. 11:) " Episcopacy declares, tliat the Christian ministry was estab- lished in three orders, called, ever since the apostolic age,.bishops TESTED BY SCRIPTURE. 59 presbyters or elders, [if so, why do Ihey noio call the second order priests?'] and deacons, of which the highest only has the risfht to ordain and confirm, that of tlie chief adminislration in a diocese, and that of the cliief administration of spiritual disci- pline, besides enjoy in" all the powers of the other grades." The main question, as thus stated, relates to the authority of bishops, and the writer adds, '-If we cannot authenticate the claims of the Episcopal office, (the office of bishops,) we will surrender those of our deacons, and let all power be confined to the one office of presbyters."* The same view of the main point of the controversy is given by Hooker, in his Ecclesiastical Polity, b. vii. § 2. It will be seen that several claims are here set up in behalf of bishops. One is, the right of ordination : a second, that of con- firmation ; a third, tiiat of general supervision ; a fourth, that of the general administration of discipline. These are separate points to be made out, and a distinct argument might be entered into to show that neither of them is founded on tlie authority of the Scriptures. To enter on this discussion would require more time and space "than we can now spare. Nor is it necessary, for we presume the Episcopalian would be willing to stake the whole cause on his being able to make out the authority of ordi- nation to lie solely in the bishop. For, obviously, if that cannot be made out, all the other pr&teusions are good for nothing; and, as the writer of this tract limits his inquiries to this single point, we shall confine our remarks to this also. Th-e question then is, Has a bishop the sole power of ordain- ing ? Is setting apart to a sacred office, — to the office of preach- ing and administering the sacraments, confined in the New Test- ament exclusively to this order of ministers? The Episcopalian claims that it is. We deny it, and ask him for the explicit prof of a point so simple as this, and one which we have a right to expect he will make out, with very great clearness, from the sacred Scriptures. The first proof adduced by the author is, that the apostles had the sole power of ordaining. This is a highly important point in the discussion, or rather, the very hinge of the controversy. We cannot, therefore, but express our surprise, that a writer who can see the value and bearing of an argument so clearly as Dr. Onderdonk, should not have thought himself called upon to devote more than riaiuiv. Tliesc passages sliow, beyond a question, tliat the name is often used in the New Testament in its generic signification, and, consequently, the mere fact that it is applied to an individual, is not proof that he was an apostle in its specific sense, — the only sense which would be of value jn the argument of the Episcopalian. The connexions, the circumstances, are to determine its meaning. We make this remark, in accordance with the judicious observation of Dr. Onderdonk, p. 13, ".4 little reflection and practice will enable any of our readers to look in Scripture for the several sacred ovF\c£9, independently of the names tliere or elsewhere given to them.:' The question then is, whether tlie name apostle is so given to the persons here designated, as to show that it is used in its strict specific sense. The first case is that of " Matthias." The reason why the name was given to him we have already shown. He was an apostle in the strict, proper sense, because he was chosen to be a " witness" of the resurrection of the Saviour. Acts i. 22. The second case is that of Barnabas. He is once called an apostle. (Acts xiv. 14.) That he was not an apostle in the strict, proper sense. Dr. Onderdonk has himself most laboriously and satisfactorily proved. In his argument against Presbyterian ordination, (pp. 16, 17,) he has taken much pains to show that IJarnabas was set apart (Acts xiii. 1-3) " to a special missionary work;" " was merely set apart to a particular field of duty ;" that is, was sent as a messenger of the Church to perform a par- ticular piece of work. It is observable that before this, Rarnabas is called merely "a prophet and teacher;" (Acts xiii. 1-11;) that he is called an apostle in immediate connexion wilh this designation, and nowhere else. Acts xiv. 14. How Dr. Onder- donk, after having shown so conclusively, as we think, that the transaction at Antioch was not a Presbyterian ordination ; that it was a mere designation to a particular fidd of lalxir, should persist in maintaining that Barnabas was an apostle, in tlie strict 68 REVIEW — EPISCOPACY sense, as having a " siiperiorily of ministerial rights anfl powers," we profess our inability to conceive. We shall tlius dismiss the case of Matthias and Barnabas. The next case is " probably James, the brother of our Lord." The use of the word probably, here, sliows a wish to press cases into the service, wiiich we ngret to see in a tract maiiing strong pretensions to strict demonstration: (comp. pp. 3, 11, 16, 23, &c. :) but it evinces a deficiency o{ strong, palpable instances, which betrays tiie conscious feebleness of the argument. " James, the Lord's brother," is once, mentioned as an apostle: Gal. i. 19. Rut it could not have escaped the recollection of Dr. Onderdoiik that there were two of the name oi James among the Apostles in the specific sense of the term ; viz. James the brother of John, and son of Zebedee, and James the son of Alphens. Matt. x. 3; Luke vi. 15. Nor can it be unknown to iiim, that the word brother was used by the Hebrews to denote a relative more remote than that which is designated by the ordinary use of ilie word among us; and \hai Alpheiis w^s probably a connexion of the family of our Lord. What proof, then, is there, that he was not referred to in the passase before us? As this case is alleged to have only a probability in its favor, we consider it disposed of. Sylvanus and Timothy are the next mentioned. As their claim to be considered apostles rests on the same foundation, so far as the name is any evidence, we shall dispose of these cases by considering that of Timothy at length in a subsequent part of the argument. The remaining cases are those of Andronicus and Junia. The foundation for their claim to be enrolled as apostles, is the fol- lowing mention of them by Paul: Rom. xvi. 7: "Salute Andro- nicus and Junia, my kinsmen, who are of note among the Apos- tles,'''' Utrivif uciv imaijiioi h roTs dirownSAoif. On this claim we remark ; (1.) Admitting tiiat tliey are here ca/ZerZ apostles, the name, as we have proved, does not imply that they had any " superiority of ministerial rights and powers." They might have been distin- guished as messengers, or laborers, like Epaphroditus. (2.) It is clear that the Apostle did not mean to give them the name of apostles at all. If he had designed it, the phraseology would have been different. Comp. Rom. i. 1 ; 1 Cor. i. 1 ; 2 Cor. i. 1 ; Philip, i. 1. (3.) All that the expression /aiVZ?/ implies, is, that they, having been early converted, (Rom. xvi. 7,) and being acquainted with the Apostles at Jerusalem, were held in high esteem, bi/ them; the Apostles regarded them with confidence and affection. We consider this case, therefore, as disposed of.* The next point of proof in the tract before us, " that the dis- * Dr. Onrlei-donk Srtys that CiiU'iii, in his Institutes, " allows Androniciif Jiuiia to li:ive been apostles ;" lint lie onglit to have added that Calvin, in his mentai-y on the passage, written at a later period, denies that they were apostl the specific sense of the term. liens and Cnm- ies in TESTED BY SCRIPTURE. 69 tinction between elders and a grade superior to them, in regard especially to the power of ordaining, was so persevered in as to indicate lliat it was a permanent arrangement," is drawn from the charge given by the Apostle Paul lo the elders of Ephesus. Acis xx. 28-35. The point of this evidence, as we understand it, is this. Paul charges t;ie elders at Epiiesus to ''lake heed lo themselves," — '■ to take heed to all the flock over whicli the Holy Ghost had made them overseers, — to feed the Cliurch of Gop, — lo watch against the grievous wolves tiiat would assail the flock," &c. In all this, we are told, there is not a word respecting the power of ordaining, nor any tiling which shows that they had the power of clerical discipline. "No power is intimated to depose from office one of their own number, or an unsound minister coming among them." They are lo " tend" or "rule" the flock as shepherds; "for shepherds do not tend and ride shepherds." pp. 23, 24. This IS atlirmed to be the sole power of these elders. In con- nexion with this we are asked to read the Epistles to Timothy, — the power there given "personally to Timothy at Ephesus,''^ (p. 23.) or as it is elsewhere expressed. " Compare now with this sum total of power assigned to mere elders, or presbyters, that of Timothy at Ephesus, the very city and region in which tliose addressed by Paul, in Acts xx., resided and ministered." p. 25. In those epistles it is said that the "right of governing the clergy, and ordaining, is ascribed to him personally ;" and numerous undisputed passages are then adduced, to show that Timothy is addressed as having this power. 1 Tim. 1. 18; iii. 14, 15; iv. 6; i. 3; v. 19-21, &c., &c. Now this argument proceeds on the following assumptions, viz. — 1. That Timothy was called an apostle ; was invested with the same powers as the Apostles, and was one of their success- ors in the office. 2. Thai he was, at the time when Paul gave his charge to the elders at Miletus, bishop of Ephesus. 3. That the " elders" summoned lo Miletus, were ministers of the Gospel of the Second order, or as they are now termed, usually, priests, in conlradistinclion from bishops and deacons. If these points are not made out from the New Testament, or if any one of tiiem fails, this argument for " Episcopacy Tested by Scripture," will be of no value. We shall lake them up and dispose of them in their order. The first claim is, that Timothy is called an " apostle," and was, therefore, clothed with apostolic powers. This claim is advanced on p. 15. "Silvaniis also, and Timothy, are called 'apostles,"' and the claim is implied in the whole argument, and is essential to its validity. The proof on which this claim is made to rest, is contained in 1 Thess. i. 1, compared with 1 The-ss. ii. 6. Paul, Silvanus, and Timothy, are joined together in the commencement of the epistle, as writing it to the Church at The.ssalonica ; and in ch. ii. 6, the following expression occurs, ' Nor of man sought we glory — when we might have been bur- 70 REVIEW — EPISCOPACY densome as the apostles of Christ." This is the sole proof of the apost'eship of Timothy. — of wiiich so miioh is made in the Episcopal controversy, and which is usually appealed to as itself siilhcient to settle the question. Now, without insisliiig on the point whicli we have made out, that the apostolic office was conferred not to impart "superi- ority of ministerial rights and powers," but to establish every wiiere the great doctrine of the triitii of Chrislianit}', and that, consequently, //"Timothy is called an apostle, it is only in the generic sense of the word, to which we have adverted, and that Paul migiit also on tliis occasion speak of himself, as joined Willi 'i'imothy and Silvanus, as a messenger of the churches; (coiiip. Acts xiii. 2 ; xiv. 14 ; Rom. xvi. 25 ; 2 Cor. viii. 23 ;) not to insist on this position, we shall dispose of this claim by the following considerations. 1. The passage does not fairly imply that Timothy was even called an apostle. For it is admitted in the tract, (p. 15,) that " it is not unusual for St. Paul to use the plural number of himself only." It is argued indeed, that the words " apostles," and ''our own souls," (v. 8.) being inappli- cable to the singular use of the plural number, hence the " three whose names are at the head of the epistle, are here spoken of jointly." But if Paul used the plural number as applicable to himself, would it not be natural for him to continue its use, Jttid to employ the adjectives, &c., connected with it in the same number? Besides, there is conclusive evidence that Paul did not intend to include the " three" named at the head of the epistle, in his expression in ver. 6. For in the verses immediately preceding, mention is made that '■'■we had suffered before, and were sliamefully treated, as ye know, at Philippi," &c. Now it is capable of demonstration, that Timothy was not present at that lime, and was not engaged in those labors, or subjected to those sufferings at Philippi. Acts xvi. 12, 19; xvii. 1-4. It follows, therefore, that Paul did not intend here, to imply that " the three named at the head of the epistle" were apostles; and that he either intended to speak of himself alone, in ver. 6, or what is more probable, that he spoke of himself as one of the apostles, and of what the apostles might do in virtue of their office; that is, that they might be burdensome, or might "use authority," as in the margin. Our next proof that Timothy was not an apostle, is, that he is expressly distinguished from Paul, as an apostle; that is, in the same verse, Paul is careful to speak of himself as an apos- tle, and of Timothy as not an apostle. Thus, 2 Cor. i, 1, '' Paul an apostle of Jesus Christ, and Timothy our brother." Again, Col. i. 1, "Paul an apostle of Jesus Christ, and 'I'imothy our brother." Now, our argument is this, that if Paul regarded Timothy as an apostle, it is remarkable that he should be so careful to make this distinction, when his own name is men- tioned as an apostle. Why did he not also make the same honorable meiitioa of Timothy ? — Will some of our Episcopa TESTED BY SCRIPfDRE. 71 friends be kind enough to state %chy this distinction is made? — Tlie distinction is the more remarlcable, from the next con- sideration to be adduced, which is, that Paul is so cautious on this point, so resolved not lo call Timothy an apostle, that when llieir names are joined together, as in any sens.; claiming the same appellation, it is not as aposlles, but as servaiiis. Philip, i. 1 : " Paul and Timotheus, the servants of Jesus Christ." See also, 1 Thess. i. 1 ; 2 Thess. i. 1. These considerations put it beyond debate in our view, that Timothy is net called an apostle in the New Testament. Tliis, it will be perceived, is an important advance in our argument. The second claim for Timothy is, that he was bishop of Ephesus. This claim is essential to the argument of Dr. Onder- donk, and is everj' where implied in what he says of Timotliy. See pp. 23, 25. Proof is not indeed attempted ; but it is assumed as a conceded point. Now this point should have been made out, for it is not one of those which we are disposed, by any means, to concede. It is to be remembered, too, that it is a point wliich is to be made out from t/ie New Testament, for our inquiry is, whetlier Episcopacy can be defended " by Scripture." Let us see how this matter stands. It maj' be proper liere to remark, that the subscription at the close of tlie Second Epistle to Timothy, "ordained first bishop of the church of the Ephesians," &c., is admitted on all hands not to be inspired, and, therefore, is of no authority in this argu- ment. Assuredly Paul would not close a letter in this way, by seriously informing Timothy that he wrote a second epistle to him, «S;c., and by appending- this to the letter. By whom these subscriptions to the epistles were added, is unknown. Some of Ihem are manifestly false ; and none of them, though true, are of any autliorily. The subscription here belongs, we believe, to the former class. Now, how does the case stand in the New Testament, with respect to Timothy? What testimony does it afford, as to his being " bisliop of Ephesus?" A few observations will save furtlier debate, we trust, on this subject. 1. It is admitted that he was not at Ephesus, at the time when Paul made his address to the elders at Miletus. Thus, p. 25, " Ephesus was without a bishop when Paul addressed the elders, Timothy not having been placed over that church till some time afterward." Here, then, was one diocese, or one collection of churches, which is admitted to have been constituted without a bishop. The presumption is, that all others were organized in the same way. 2. 'J'he charge which Paul gives to the elders proves that Timothy was not there ; and proves furtlier, tliat they, at that time, had, no bi.shops, and that they previously had none. Tiiey are charged to take heed to themselves, and to all the flock, " to feed" or " to rule" the flock, &c. But not one word is to be 72 REVIEW — EP'.SCOPACY found of their having then any prelatical bishop; not one word of Timothy as their Episcopal leader. Not an exhortation is given to be subject to any prelate; not an intimation that they would ever be called on to recognise any such bisliops. Not one word of lamentation or condolence is expressed, that they were not fully supplied wiih all proper Episcopal authority. All of whicii is inexplicable, on the supposition tliat they were then destitute, and that tliey would be supplied with an officer "superior in ministerial rights and powers." Nay, they are themselves expressly called bishops, without the slightest inti- mation tliat there were any higher, or more honorable prelates than themselves. Acts xx. 28 : " Take heed, tlierefore, to your- selves, and to all the flock over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you bishnps,^^ lirtaKdnovi. 3. It is admitted by us that Timotliy subsequently zros at Ephesus, and that he was left there for an important purpose, by the Apostle Paul. This was when Paul went to Macedonia, 1 Tim. i 3. This is the only intimation that we know of, in the New Testament, that Timothy was ever at Ephesus at all. It is important, then, to ascertain whether he was left there as a permanent bishop? Now in settling this, we remark, it is no- where intimated, in the New Testament, that he was such a bishop. Tlie passage before its, 1 Tim. i. 3, states, that when they were travelling together, Paul left him there, while he himself sliould go over ittto Macedonia. The object for v.hich he left him is explicitly stated, and tliat object was not that he should be a permanent bishop. It is said to be " to charge some that they teach no other doctrine, neither to give lieed to endless genealogies,"' &c. ; that is, manifestly, to perform a temporanj office of regulating certain disorders in the Church ; of silencing certain false teachers of Jewish extraction ; of producing, in one word, v/liat the personal influence of the Apostle himself miglit have produced, but for a sudden and unexpected call to Macedonia. Acts xx. 1. Hence it is perfectly clear that the Apostle designed this as a temporary appointment for a specific object, and that object was not to he prelate of the Cliurch. Thus he says, 1 Tim. iv. 13, " Till I come, give attention to reading," &c. : iinplying tliat his teinporary office was then to cease. Thus, too, referring to the same purpose to return and join Timothy, he says, 1 Tim. iii. 14, 15: "These things I write unto thee, hoping to come unto thee shortly ; but if I tarry long, that tiiou niightest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself ill the house of Gon," &c. ; implying tliai these direc- tions were particularly to serve him during his appointment to the specif c business of regulating some disordered afl^;iirs pro- duced by false teachers, and which might require the discipline of even some of the bishops and deacons of the Church, eh. v. vi. These directions, involving general principles indeed, and ol value to regulate liis whole life, yet had, nevertheless, a mani- EPISCOPACY TESTED BY SCRIPTURE. 7S fest special reference to the cases which might occur lhrn\ in putting a period to the promulgation of erroneous doclriius liy Jewisli teachers. 1 Tim. i. 3. 4. It has been shown by the late Dr. "Wilson, of Pliihidrlphiu, from the New Testament itself, that Timothy was not liu- inshop of the church at Ephesus. To this argument, which is loo long to be inserted here, and which cannot be abridged, we can only refer.* [In the second edition of his review, Mr. Barnes has inserted at large the argument here referred to. We extract it, tiierefore, from the work of Dr. Wilson. A different view of the subject will l)e found in some of our subsequent pages.] "That Paul and Timothy were together at Ephesus, and that Paul left him there when he went on some occasion into Mace- donia, may be plainly inferred from 1 Tim. i. 3. 'I besought thee to abide still at Ephesus, when I went into JIacedonia.' The time to which there is here an allusion is the w.are easily ascertained, because the Apostle is recorded to have been twice only at Ephesus; on the first occasion, he merely called on his voyage from Corinth and Jerusalem ; on the second, he went from Ephesus into Macedonia, according to the words of the epistle. "That Timothy was left at Ephesus, when Paul, e::pelled by the riot, went into Macedonia, obtains satisfactory proofs. Before he wrote his first epistle to the Corinthians, Paul sert Timothy and Eraslus into Macedonia, but he himself re mail: d in Asia for some time. Acts xix. 22 ; 1 Cor. v. 17; xvi. 10. -U the first letter to the Corinthians, which lie wrote at Ephesus, and sent by Titus to Corinth, he mentioned his purpose of coming to them, but not immediately ; of which Luke also informs us, Acts xix. 21, and desired them, if Timothy came to them, 1 Cor. xvi. 10, 11, to conduct him forth in peace, that he might come to Paul, then at Ephesus, for he looked for him, with the brethren. When he closed that letter he was expecting Timo- thy's return, which that letter might also have hastened. Paul remained at Ephesus, on this visit, the space of three years. Acts XX. 31. There is, therefore, no reason to suppose that he was disappointed in his expectation of the arrival of Timothy, from Corinth, at Ephesus, before he went into Macedonia; and if so, he migl)t have left liim there, as he at some period cer- tainly did. 1 Tim. i. 3. He had intended to go by Corinth into Macedonia, 2 Cor. i. 15, 16, but changed his mind and went by Troas thither. 1 Cor. xvi. 5 ; 2 Cor. ii. 12, 13. Whilst in Mace- donia, he wrote his first letter to Timothy, for he proposed tjo him to remain at Ephesus until he should call there on his way to Jerusalem. 1 Tim. i. 3 ; iii. 14, 15. The words imply that ♦ The Priraitive Government of the Cliristian Churches, pp. 251-262. 7 74 REVIEW — EPISCOPACT Paul might tarry some time ; and that he did so before he went into Greece, is fairly implied in the expression, ' And when he had gone over those parts, and §iven them much exhortation, he came into Greece.' Acts xx. 2. Timolliy was advised, solicited, or besought {vapcK(i)<7;aa} to abide slill at Ephesiis, which gave him liberty to exercise his discretion, but several motives must have influenced him to go to the Apostle. The enemies at Ephesus were niuiieroiis and violent; Timothy was young; his affection for Paul ardent; the request of Paul that he should abide at Ephesus was not peremptory; and Paul told liim he expected to tarry a long time. Also Timothy iiad been, from their commencement, familiarly acquainted with the churches in Macedonia and Greece. Accordingly we find Timothy in Macedonia when Paul wrote his second epistle to llie Corinth- ians. 1 Cor. i. 1. The Apostle went from Macedonia into Greece, Acts xx. 2, as he had promised in that letter, chapter xiii. 1, and abode tliere three months. Acts xx. 3. 'J'iinolhy was ■with him at Coriiitli, for he sends his salutations to the Romans, Rom. xvi. 21, in that famous epistle written from thence.* " That there was sufficient time for Paul to have written from Macedonia to Timothy at Ephesus, and for Timothy to have spent some moiilhs at Ephesus, before he came lo Paul in Macedonia, appears from the time he waited for Titus at 'J'roas, 2 Cor. ii. 12, 13; his determination not to go to Corinth till he could do it without heaviness, 2 Cor. ii. 1 ; his distress in Mace- donia before Titus arrived, 2 Cor. vii. 5; and his success in raising charities for the saints in Judea, 2 Cor. viii. 2, 3; ix. 4. He had mtended to tarry at Ephesus until Pentecost, 1 Cor. xvi. 8, but went sooner. Acts xx. 1. He passed on to Jerusalem at another Pentecost, Acts xx. 16; all wliicli time he was in Mace- donia, except three mouths. Acts xx. 3. " That Paul expected to spend so much time in Macedonia and Greece, may be collected from his intimation, 1 Cor. xvi. 6, that he might spend the winter with the Corinthian church. The Apostle's purpose of sailing from Corinth, was disap- pointed by the insidiousness of his own countrymen; he there- fore went up into Macedonia again, that he might pass over to Troas with his companions. Timothy was among those who crossed first. Acts xx. 3, 5. Paul's disappointment ni sailing from Corinth, and his wish to reach Jerusalem by Pentecost, prevented the call he intended at Ephesus, 1 Tim. iii. 14, 15, but he landed at Miletus, and sent for the elders of the church at Ephesus. " The directions of the Apostle in the third chapter of the first epistle to Timothy, fairly imply that he had left the churcli at Ephesus, according to his usual practice, without oflScers, for he gives this evangelist, not a new commission, he already had ♦ Compare Acte xviii, 2, with Rom. jcvi. 3. Vide Acts 19, xviii. 26; 1 Cor xvi. 19. TESTED BY SCRIPTURE. 75 power to ordain, but instructions as to the choice of bishops, that is, presbyters and deacons. These had been complied wiiU before lie landed at Miletus. Acts xx. 17. This record of the existence of elders at Ephesus, compared with tlie directions given to Timothy, not only renders it probable that Timothy had ordained them, but fortifies tlie presumption tliat the tirst epistle to Timothy was written in Macedonia, before this visit to Jerusalem, and consequently before his imprisonment. '■ Tiie language, ' I going (ropcvoixuoi) into 3Iacedonia, besought thee to abide still at Epiiesns,' did not form a permanent con- nexion between Timotliy and Ephesus. At the very greatest extent, the instructions given in this letter were of a cf)nlinuance only till Paul should come to liiin, (tuj epxoiial.) 1 Tim. iv. 13 ; iii. 14. But it is certain that Timothy did not remain at Ephe- sus till Paul passed on his way to Jerusalem. '• Tlie second tpislle to Timothy will prove itself written by Paul when a prisoner at Rome ; and at least establishes the absence of the evangelist from his spiritual failier at the time it was written. But he was at Rome in the time of the first imprisonment, as has been proved by his having been joined with Paul in the letters to the Colossians, Philippians and Phi- lemon. Deinas and Mark were also there in the first imprison- ment, Col. iv. 10. 14, but absent at the writing of the second to Timothy. 2 Tim. iv. 10, 11. " It is llierefore an error to suppose it to have been written before the epistles to the Colossians, Philippians, and Philemon, during tlie first imprisonment. Also in 2 Tim. iv. 20, Paul tells hnn Erastus abode at Corinth, but tliia needed not to have been told to Timothy, if Paul meant that Erastus abode at Corinth when lie went to Jerusalem, and so to Koine, for Timothy was Itien with him, and must have known the circumslance had it been so. In like manner he says, ibid, 'Trophimus have I left at Miletum, sick.' But Trophimus was not left at any phice on the voyage to Jerusalem, for he was there, and the occasion of the jealousies of the Jews. Acts xxi. 29. •' These two facts, compared with this, which appears in the episile, that it was written by Paul, a prisoner at Rome, afford sufficient certainty that there was a second imprisonment when this letter was written. " But it by no means follows, that Timothy was at Ephesus wlieu the second epistle was written. This ought not to be assumed, but sliown. l[ Timotliy was then at Ephesus, why should he have been told, 'I have sent Tychicus to Ephesus ?' 2 Tim. iv. 12. He must have arrived at that place before the letter, and the fact could have been then known. Also Tychi- cus needed no introduction to Timotliy. Had Timothy been at Ephesus, Paul would not have sent him to 'i'roas for articles he had left there. It appears more jirobahle that Timothy was, at the time the epistle was sent to him, at Troas, or in the neigh- 76 REVIEW — EPISCOPACY borhood of that place. The salutations will not establish the destination of llie epistle. Oiiesiphoriis resided in Asia, but the particular place of his abode is not known. He helped Paul both at Ephesus and Rome. Also Aquila, who had resided at Rome, at Corinth, at Epiiesus, and again at Rome, was a native of Pontus, on the margin of the Eu.vine. Trophimus, whom Paul had left at Miletuni, was an Ephesian. Acts xxi. 29. Mile- tus was near Ephesus, -and Timothy would have known the facts, unless Milelum in Crete was the place. " If Timothy was not at Ephesus when the second letter was written lo him, there is no evidence of his being in that' city after Paul's first imprisonment. But if he had been at Ephesus he must have then left it, tlie letter calling him to Rome, and the sacred records speak not of his return lo that city. The second epistle assigns to Timothy no other duties than those proper to his general office of evangelist; and bears no relation to a par- ticular oversight of any church or churches. "Some writers suppose tiiat Paul, when he landed at Miletus, on a subsequent voyage to Jerusalem, left Timothy with the elders of the church at Ephesus, ' to govern them in his absence.' But nothing of the kind was spoken on the occasion ; and instead of a temporary absence, Paul assured the elders they should ' see his face no more.' In 1 Tim. i. 3, it is not said, ' when I went to Jerusalem,' but expressly, ' I besought thee to abide still at Ephesus, icheii I went into Macedonia.'' Also it has been asserted, that the Apostle having placed Timothy at Epiiesus prior to iiis first imprisonment, 'wrote both his epistles to Timothy while -a prisoner at Rome.' But 'I'imothy was with Paul at Rome during a part of the first imprisonment, for he is joined in tiie epistles to the Phiiippians, Colossians, and Philemon. Salutations also might have been expected in the first epistle to Timothy, had it been written from Rome, as in those to tiie Phiiippians, Colossians, Philemon and the Hebrews. He was indeed absent from Rome during a part of the time of the first imprisonment, but Paul expected his return, Heb. xiii. 23, and so far was he from hoping to come unto Timothy shortly, as expressed in 1 Tim. iii. 14, he promises, if Timothy come shortly lo Rome, with him to visit the Hebrews. Also it seems strange, if Timothy had been at Ephesus when the epistle to the Ephesians was sent by Tychiciis, Eph. vi. 21, that no notice whatever should have been taken of the beloved youth. " Another hypothesis is, that Paul, when the Jews deterred him from sailing from Corinth, and he determined to go through Macedonia to Jerusalem, besought Timothy to abide still at Ephesus ; to which, when Timothy agreed, he went forward to Troas, with Aristarchus and the rest; and whilst waiting there for Paul, Timothy received the first epistle from the Apos- tle, written in Macedonia. But this is a departure from the TESTED BY SCniPTURE. 77 correct meaning of the passage, which is, that Paul besought Timolhy irpoff/itnui, to continue or remain at the place wiiere Timolliy was al ilie time he was thus entreated. Those wiio went before with Timothy to Troas, are represented to have accompanied Paul into Asia. Acts xx. 4, 5. Tliis circumstance renders it an improbable supposition, that Paul should write so long and important a letter to his fellow-traveller, whom he must overtake in a few days, and wholly unaccountable, that he should say in the letter, 1 Tim. iii. 14, 15, ' These tilings write I unto you, hoping to come unto thee sliortly ; but if I tarry long,' &c. That Paul should have thus purposed to come to Timolhy unto Ephesus, but really at Troas, and in a few weeks afterward, without any apparent cause for a change of views, should have said at Miletns to the elders of the church of Ephe- sus, ' I know that ye all shall see my face no more,' Acts xx. 25, exhibits a fluctuation approximating versatility. If Timolhy was on this occasion left with the officers of the cliurch at Ephesus, and especially, if he was to be thenceforth their dio- cesan bishop, it is strange that not a word of either of those circumstances should have been mentioned to those elders. But so far was the Apostle from mentioning their subordination unto, or support of the authority of young Timothy, that he enjoins them, — ' Take heed unto yourselves, and to all the flock over which the Holy Ghost hath made you cvtaKo-rrovg bishops, to feed the Church of Goo,^ &c. But as not a word is said of leaving Timothy at Miletus, so it is improbable that he should have parted from Paul there, because he appears to have been of llie company of the Apostle when he arrived at Rome, where he is joined with him in the letters which have been mentioned. " Others allege that Paul visited Ephesus after his first impri- sonment, left Timothy there, went into Macedonia, and from thence wrote to him his first letter. They build upon the cir- cumstances, that whilst at Rome he had written to Philemon to prepare him lodgings at Colosse ; and tliat he had told the Philippians, by letter, he trusted he should shortly come tc them. " This opinion is much more respectable than either of the former ; and although several of the fathers have positively asserted, what is incompatible with if, that Paul went into Spain after his first imprisonment, according to his purpose expressed, Rom. xv. 28, yet, however credible these holy men were, their conjectures deserve often but little regard. That Paul was atPhilippi after his imprisonment is probable, because he left Eraslus at Corinth. 2 Tun. iv. 20. Also ^ may have been at Colosse, if he left Trophimus at Miletus ; but tlie place was Miletum. Ibid. He entertained a purpose subsequent to those, of visiting Judea with Timothy. Heb. xiii. 23. This may have been first accomplished, and Timothy left in the neighbor- 7* 78 REVIEW — EPISCOPACY hood of Troas, where he remahied till the second epistle was sent to him. But if these purposes were effectuated, which is matter of uncertainty, there is not a word to prove even an intenlion to visit Ephesus. The letter to the Ephesians neitiier mentions Timothy, nor any coming of Paul. But Tyciiicus, a faithful minister of the Lord, and companion of tlie Apostle, was named as sent to them. Eph. vi. 21. To the Ephesians Paul had said, that he knew they sliould 'see his face no more,' and it is nowhere siiown that they did. The supposition that iKn'erlheiess Paul afterward went to Ephesus with Timothy, left him there, with tiie request to tarry till he should return to him, and then went into Macedonia, and wrote his first epiistle to Timothy, is entirely gratuitous, and without tlie least reason appearing in any exigencies of the Epiiesian church, which had luid three years of Paul's labors, and had been afterward long blessed with tlie regular administration of the ordinances by pastors of their own, besides help from Tychicus, and perhaps oiliers. " If Paul constituted Timothy bishop of Ephesus, it is an affirmative, and ought to be proved. But Paul tells the presby- ters of Epliesus, at Miletus, that the Holy Ghost had made them bishops (eirtuKowovg) of that churcli. Tliose elders had previously received the powers whicii were necessary to ordaining others; on Timothy a similar presbytery laid their hands at his ordina- tion. If this circumstance will not sliow that a presbytery could have ordained an evangelist, an apostle not being present, because evangelists were extraordinary officers of a higher grade; yet it must prove that a presbytery have some power to ordain. They were the highest fixed officers in a church, and the power of ordination was necessary to their succession. They could not have been appointed coadjutors to Timothy, in the ordination of themselves. And it does not appear they were ordained before the riot, when he was left at Ephe- sus. If thus, there were no officers in that church when Paul left it, the direction to 7'imotliy, wiio was an evangelist, to ordain bishops, that is, elders in Epliesus, was to do no more than his duty ; which, when accomplished in any church, gave such bishrtps or elders power to continue the succession. If the presbyters of particular churches had not the power of ordina- tion, there has been no succession in the Church of Christ since the deaths of the apostles and evangelists ; for their offices expired with tliem, and there were no officers of a higher order. The office of Timothy was given to him prior to his visiting Ephesus. The duty assigned him was afterward declared to be the work^of an evangelist. 2 Tim. iv. 5. His appointment to Ephesus was temporary, being limited, at the furthest, to the time when Paul should come to him ; but an earlit^r period of its termination was evidently left to his discretion, which he exercised by coming to Paul into Macedonia. Thus there was TESTED BY SCRIPTURE. 79 a disruption of the connexion, if any had been fixed, bnt none such was intended ; tlie epistle was neither a commission, nor an ordination, but a mere letter of instruction, directing him in the discharge of his high and important office of evangelist. "If Timothy returned to Ephesus from Rome, which is not recorded in the Scriptures, and died tliere, it will not eslablisli that he ever exercised, or had any other office than tliat of an evanoelist." 5. The claim that Timothy was bishop of Ephesus, is one that must be made out by Episcopalians from tlie New Testament. But this claim has not been made out, nor can it ever be, 6. The epistle to the Epiiesians shows further, that at the time of writing that, there was no such bishop at Ephesus. Though the Apostle herein gives the church various instruc- tions about the relations whicli existed, there is not the slightest hint that 'I'imothy was there; nor is there the least intimation that any such officer ever had been, or ever would be set over them. Now, if it cannot be made out that Timothy was bishop of Ephesus; if tlie point is not established beyond a doubt, then in reading Paul's charge to the elders at Miletus, we are to regard them as intrusted with the care of the church at Ephesus. It is not necessary to our argument to inquire whether they were ruling elders, or presbyters, ordained to preach as well as to rule. All that is incumbent on us, is to show that tlie New Testament does not warrant the assumption that tiiey were subject to a diocesan bishop. We affirm, therefore, simply, that Paul addressed them as intrusted with the spiritual instruction and government of the church of Ephesus, without any refer- ence whatever to any person, either then or afterward placed over them, as superior in ministerial rights and powers. And this point is conclusively established by two additional consider- ations; first, that they are expressly called bishops, c-iriirKd-rcvf, themselves, a most remarkable appellation if the Apostle meant to have them understand that they were to be under the administration of another bishop of superior ministerial powers and rigiits ; and secondly, that they are expressly intrusted with the whole spiritual charge of the church, notiiahctv t!iv iKKXritrtav kt\. But every tiling in this case is fully met b)' the supposition that they were invested with the simple power of rulivff. Dr. Onderdonk himself admits that the word translated " feed," roifiaiviv, may be rendered to " rule." p. 37. And if this point be conceded, the idea that they were elders, in the Pres- hyleriau sense, is all that can be proved from the passage. It is essential to the argument of Episcopalians, that they slioiild be able to make out that these elders not only nded, but also preached the Gospel, and performed the other functions of their " second order" of clergy. 80 REVIEW — EPISCOPACY Let us now gather the results of our investigation, and dispose of the case of Timothy. We have shown that he was not an apnstle. We have further shown that he was not bishop of EpliPsus. We have thus destroyed the claim of the permanency of the apostolic office, so far as Timothy is concerned. And we now insist, that the readers of the New Testament, they who wish to defend Episcopacy by "Scripture," should read the two epistles to Timothy, without the vain and illusory supposition that he was bishop of Ephesus. Agreeing with Dr. Onderdonic, that this point must be settled by the New Testament, and that " no argiiment is worth taking into the account which has not a palpable bearing on the clear and naked topic — the scrip- tural evidence of Episcopacy," (p. 3,) we now insist that these epislles should be read without being interpreted by the unsup- ported position that Timothy was the permanent bishop of Ephesus. We insist, moreover, that that supposition should not be admitted to influence the interpretation. With this matter clear before us, how stands the case in these two epistles 1 We answer, thus : — (1.) Timothy was sent to Ephesus {or a special purpose, — to allay contentions, and prevent the spreading of false doctrine. 1 Tim. i. 3. (2.) This was to be temporary. 1 Tim. i. 3 ; comp. iii. 14, 15 ; iv. 13. (3.) He was intrusted with the right of ordi- nation, as all ministers of the Gospel are, and with the authority of government. 1 Tim. i. 3; v. 19-21; v. 22; 2 Tim. ii. 2. (4.) Laying out of view the gratuitous supposition that he was bishop of Ephesus, the charge given to Timothy was just such a one as would be given to any minister of the Gospel autlior- ized to preach, to ordain, to administer the ordinances of the Church, and its discipline. It is just such as is given now to men who hold to the doctrine of ministerial parity. The " charges" which are given to Presbyterian and Congregational ministers at ordination, are almost uniformly couched in the same language which is used by Paul in addressing Timothy; nor is there any thing in those epistles which may not be, and which is not, in fact, often addressed to ministers on such occasions. With just as much propriety might some antiqua- rian, hereafter, — some future advocate for Episcopacy, — collect together the charges now given to ministers, and appeal to them as proof that the churches in New-England, and amon Presbyterians, were Episcopal, as to appeal now to the epistles to Timothy, to prove his office as a prelate. (5.) The epistles themselves contain evidence of the falsehood of the supposition that there was an order of men superior to the presbyters in " ministerial powers and rights." There are but two orders of ministers spoken of or alluded to in the epistles, — bishops and deacons. There is not the slightest allusion to any other order. We call the attention of our readers here, to an emphatic remark of Dr. Onderdonk, p. 12 ; " All that we read in the New Testament concerning ' bishops,' is to be regarded as per cr TESTED BY SCRIPTURE. 81 tainins: to the 'middle grade ;' i. e. nothing in these epistles, or elsewhere, where lliis term is used, lias any reference to a rank of ministers superior " in ministerial powers and rights." The case here, then, by the supposition of the Episcopalians, is this. Two epistles are addressed by an apostle to a successor of the apostles, designated as such, to retain and perpetuate the same rank and powers. Those epistles are designed to instruct him in the orjanization and government of the churches. They contain ample information, and somewhat protracted discussions on the followins topics: The office of a presbyter. The qualifica- tions for that office. The office of the deacons. The qualifica- tions for that office. The qualifications of deacons' wii^es. I Tim iii. The proper discipline of an elder. The qualifications o," those who were to be admitted to the office of deaconesses. 1 Tim. V. The duties of masters and servants. 1 Tim. vi. The duties of laymen. 1 Tim. ii. 8. And of Christian females. 1 Tim. ii. 9-11. Nav, they contain directions about the Apostle's cloak., and his 'parchments; (2 Tim. iv. 13;) but from the beginning to the end, not one single syllable respecting the existence of a grade of officers in the Church superior " in ministerial rights and powers ;" not a word about their qualifications, of the mode ot ordaining or consecrating them, or of Timothy's fraternal intercourse with his brother prelates; nothing about the subjec- tion of the priesthood to them, or of their peculiar functions of confirmation and superintendence. In one word, taking these epistles by theniselve^'no man would dream that there were any such officers in existence. We ask now, whetiier any can- did reader of the New Testament can believe that there were any sucli officers ; and that two epistles could have been written in these circumstances, without the slightest allusion to their existence or powers ? " Credat Judceus Apella." We ask whetiier th^re can be found noio., among all the charges which E[)iscopal bishops have given to their clergy, any two in which there shall not also be found some allusion to the " primitive and apostolic order" of bishops in the churches? It remains for our eyes to be blessed with the sight of one Episcopal charge.^ reminding us, in this respect, of the charges of Paul to Timothy. We now take our leave of the case of Timothy. The case of Titns, the next in order, pp. 26, 27, we must despatch in fewer words. The argument of Dr. Onderdonk, in defence of the claim respecting Titus, does not vary materially from that used in reference to Timothy, p. 20. It is, that he was left in Crete to ordain elders in every city, and that the powers of "ordi- nation, admonition, and rejection, arc all committed to Titus personally." Titns i. G-9 ; iii. 10. The only point here which requires a moment's examination, in aildiiion to what we have said on the case of Timothy, is tiie purpose for which he was left at Crete. Titus i. 5. The claim of the Episcopalians here is, that this indicates such a perseverance in the " distinctior 82 REVIEW — EPISCOl'ACi between elders and a grade superior to them," as to prove that it was " to be a 'permanent arrangement." j). 23. In otlier words, Titus was to be a pennanent bishop of Crete, superior to the elders " in ministerial rights and powers." This claim it is necessary for them to establisli from the New Testament. If there are any intimations that it was not designed to be permanent, ihey will be fatal to their argument. We affirm, then, in oppo- sition to this claim, that the case is fully met by the supposition that Titus was an extraordinary officer, like Timothy at Ephesus, appointed for a specific purpose. 1. The appointment Itself looks as if this was the design. Paul had himself com- menced a work there, which from some cause he was unable to complete. That work he left Titus to finish. As it cannot be pretended that Paid had any purpose of becoming tlie perma- nent bishop of Crete; so it cannot be pretended that 'I'itus' being left to complete what Paul had begun, is proof that Paul expected that Titus would hepermanent bishop. An appointment to complete a work which is begun by another, when the ori- ginal designer did not contemplate a permanent employment, cannot surely be adduced in proof of a permanent office. If I am employed to complete an edifice which is commenced, it does not suppose that I am to labor at it all my life ; still less that I am to have successors in the undertaking. We presume that this passage, to most unbiassed minds, would imply that Paul expected Titus, after having complete what he had left him to do, should leave the island of Crete, and accompany him in his travels. 2. That this was the fact ; that he liad no expectation that Titus would be a permanent bishop of Crete, superior in " ministerial rights and powers," is perfectly apparent from the direction in this same epistle, ch. iii. 12, " When I shall send Artemas unto thee, or Tychicus, be diligent to come unto me at Nicopolis." Here we find conclusive proof, that the arrange- ment respecting Titus in Crete was a temporary arrangement. To suppose the contrary, is to maintain a position in the very face of the directions of the Apostle. Every thing in the case shows that he was an extraordinary officer, appointed for a spe- cific purpose; and that when that work was effected, which the Apostle supposed would be soon, he was to resume his station as the travelling companion and fellow-laborer of the Apostle. 3. That this was the general character of Titus; that he was so regarded by Paul, as his companion, and very valuable to him in iiis work, is further apparent from 2 Cor. ii'. 12, 13; vii. 6-13. In the former passage he says, that he expected to meet him at 7'roas, and intimates that his presence and help were very necessary for him. " I had no rest in my spirit, because I found not Titus my brother." In the latter place, (2 Cor. vii. 6-13,) we find him the companion of the Apostle Paul, in Philippi. Again, (2 Cor. xii. 18,) we find him employed on a special embassy to the Church in Corinth, in respect to the collection for the poor saints at Jerusalem. Corap. Rom. xv. 26. And TESTED BY SCRIPTURE. 88 again we find him on a mission to Dalmatia, 2 Tim. iv. 10. Assuredly these various migrations and employments do not appear as if he M'as designed by the Apostle as the permanent bishop of Crete. 4. It is to be presumed that Titus regarded the apostolic mandate ; (Titus iii. 12 •,) that he left Crete in accordance with Paul's request; and as there is no intimation that he returned, as the New Testament throws no light on that point, as indeed there is not the slightest proof any where, that he died there, we come to the conclusion that he was employed for a temporary purpose, and that having accomplished it,' lie resumed his situation as the companion of Paul. Compare Gal. ii. 1. It must be admitted, on all hands, that the Episcopalian cannot pi-ove the contrary. Since, moreover, our supposition meets all. the circumstances of the case as well as his, and we are able to show that tliis was the general character of the labors of Titus, we shall dismiss his case also. The last argument of Dr. Onderdonk is derived from the epistles to the seven churches of Asia. Rev. ii., iii. This argu- ment is embodied in the following position: "Each of those churches is addressed, not through its clergy at large, but through its 'angel,' or chief officer; this alone is a very strong argument against parity in favor of Episcopacy." " One of those churches is Ephesus ; and wlien we read concerning its angel, ' T/iou hast tried them which say they are apostles, and are not, and hast found them liars,' do we require further evidence that what Timothy, the chief officer there, was in the year 65, in regard to the fliprcme right of discipline over the clergy, the same was its chief officer when this book was written, in 96 ?" The singular number, it is added, is used emphatically in the address to each of the angels, and " the individual called ' the angel,' is, in each case, identified with his church, and his church with him." pp. 27, 28. This is the argument; and this is the whole of it. We have souglit diligently to see its bearing; but our labor in doing it has not been crowned with very flattering success. We can see, indeed, that those churches were addressed through their ministers, or pastors, called " angels;" but it requires more penetration than we profess to have, to discover how this bears on the precise point, that there is an order of men superior to others " in ministerial rights and powers." Such an argument can be founded only on the following assumptions: 1. That there was an inferior body of clergymen, called here " clergy at large." A.tsnmin^ this point, it would not be difficult to make out an argument from the address " to the angel.'' ]3ut this is a point to he provefl, not to be assumed. We would respoctfiiily ask the writer of this tract, where he finds an intimation of the existence of an order o^^^ clergy at large,'" in these churches. In the epistles themselves there is not the slightest hint of tiie existence of any such personages distinct from " the angels." \ay, the very style of address is strong presumption that 84 REVIEW — EPISCOPACY there were not any such inferior clergymen. The only mention which occurs, is of the angel and the church. We hear nothing of an inlermediale order; noUiing of any supremacy of "the angel" over "the clergy at large;" not the least intimalion of any duty to be performed by the supposed prelatical "angel" toward the inferior presbyters. Why is a reference to t!iem omitted, if they had any existence? Is it customary, in address- ing "bishops" now, to omit all reference to their duties over tlie inferior "clergy at large?" This is a point of too nmch conse- quence to be left now so unguarded ; and accordingly the rights and duties of the order, superior "in ministerial rights and powers," are sedulously marked out and inculcated.* 2. It must be assumed, in this argument, that there were in each of those cities more churches than one; that there was a circle, or con- federation of churches, that would answer to the modern notion of a diocese, over wliich " the clergy at large," of inferior' " ministerial rights and powers," might exercise a modified jurisdiction. If this is not assumed, the argument has no force : since if there were but one church in each of those cities, the " angel" was not a bishop in the Episcopal sense, but a pastor in the ordinary acceptation. Now this is a point, which, in an argument like this, should not be assumed, it should he proved, or at least rendered highly probable from the New Testament. But there is not the slightest hint of any such divided and scat- tered diocesan organization. In each instance the church is addressed as one and undivided. "The angel of the church,^^ — not the churches, — " of Ephesus;" Rev. ii. 1. "The angel of the church in Smyrna;" ii. 8: "the angel of the church at Thyatira ; ii. 18: "the angel of the church in Sardis;" iii. 1, &c. In every instance the address is uniform. The point of inquiry now is, whether in this address the Saviour meant to intimate that there was a p/wro7?7?/ of churches, an ecclesiastical, diocesan organization? This is a point for Episcopalians to prove, not to assume. Light may be tiirown on it by comparing it with other places where a church is spoken of. The pre- sumption is directly against the Episcopalians. It is that the Apostles would not organize separate churches in a single city ; and that if it were done they would be specified as the churches. Accordingly, we learn that the Apostle organized " a church" at Corinth. 1 Cor. i. 1, 2. Thus, also, at Antioch. Acts xiii. 1. Thus, also, at Laodicea. Col. iv. 16. And in the epistle to one of the very churches under consideration, that at Ephesus, it is mentioned not as the churches of Ephesus, but as the church. Acts XX. 28. When Paul addressed this same church in an epistle, it was directed, not to the churches, but to the .saints at Ephesus. Eph. i. 1. But where there were distinct churches * We of course lav ont of view, here, tlie case of the " elders at Epliesiis," as being atread}' disposed of; and as not being relevant to Dr. Onderdonk's argument, since that they were " clergy at large," is to be proved, not assumed. TESTED BY SCRIPTURE. 85 organized, there is a specific mention of the fact of the plu- rrtlily. They are mentioned as being many. Tlius, Acts XV. 41: "Paul went through Syria confirming (i.e. strength- ening, establishing,) the churches?'' Rom. xvi. 4: " The churches of the Gentiles." 1 Cor. xvi. 1: "The churches of Galatia. Ver. 19 : '• The churches of Asia. 2 Cor. viii. 1 : " The churches n Macedonia. See also, 2 Cor. viii. 19, 23; xi. 8; Gal. i. 22; Ro.v. i. 4. Now it is neither proved that there was a body of ■' clergy at large," nor that there were separate churches in each of those cities ; we ask, What is the force of the argument of Dr. Onderdonk from this case ? How does it bear on the point at issue ? What has it to do with the subject? With one or two additional remarks, we shall dismiss this point. Tiie first is, that it cannot be argued from the term angel, given to those ministers, that they were Episcopal bish- ops. That term, as is well known, has no such exclusive appli- cability to a prelate. It is nowhere else applied to the ministers of religion ; and its original signification, "a messenger," or its u^ual application to celestial spirits, has no special adaptedness to an Episcopal bishop. An ordinary pastor, — a messenger, sent from Gon ; a spiritual guide, and friend of the church, will as fully express its sense, as the applicaiion to a prelate. With- out invidiousness, we may observe, that prelates have not usually evinced any such extraordinary sanctity, or devotion, as to appropriate this title to themselves alone by prescriptive right. Our other remark is, that the supposition that these angels were pastors of the churches, presbyters on a parity with each other, and with all others, will fully meet every tiling which is said of them in the Book of Revelation. This supposition, too, will meet the addresses made to them, better than the assump- tion that they were prelates. Their union, as Dr. Onderdonk remarks, to ihe church is intimate. "The angel is in each case identified with his church, and his church with him." Now to which does this remark best apply,— to the tender, intimate, endearing relation of a pastor with liis people; to the blending of their feelings, interests, and destiny, wiien he is with them continually ; when he meets them each week in the sanctuary ; when he administers to them the bread of life ; goes into their abodes when they are afl^icted, and attends their kindred to the grave: or does it best apply to the union subsisting between the people of an extended diocese, — to the formal, unfrequent, and, in many instances, stately and pompous visitations of a diocesan bishop; to the kind of connexion formed between a people scattered into many chnrclies, who are visited at intervals of a year, or more, by one claiming " a superiority in ministerial rifjlits and powers," robed in lawn, and perhaps with the crosier anil mitre, as emblematical of office, state, and power ; who must be a stranger to the ten thousand tender ties of endearment, which bind as one the hearts of a pastor and his people? To our minds it seems clear that the account which Dr. Onderdonk has 8 86 REVIEW — EPISCOPACY given of the " identity" of the angel and the church, applies to the lormer, and not to the latter. It speaks the sentiments of our heart, as respects the union of a pastor and people. And wliile we would not allow ourselves to speak with disrespect ot the Episcopal office, we still feel that the language of the Saviour, by the mild and gentle John, to the churches of Asia, breathes far more of the endearing " identity" of the pastoral relation, than it does of the comparatively cold, and distant functions of one, who, in all other lands but this, has been invested witii his office by the imposing ceremony of enthroning, and who has borne, less as badges of affection than of authority, the crosier and ihe mitre. We have now gone entirely through with the argument of Dr. Onderdonk, in proof that there is an order of men superior "in ministerial rank and powers." We have intended to do justice to his proofs, and we have presented the whole of them. Our readers have all that Episcopalians rely on from the Scriptures, in vindication of the existence of such an order of men. It will be remembered that the burden of proof lies on them. They advance a claim which is indispensable to the existence of their ecclesiastical polity. These are the arguments on which they rely. Whether their arguments justify the lan- guage of assumption which we sometimes hear; whether they are such as to render appropriate the description of all people but tlie members of Episcopal churches, as left to " the-uncovenanted mercies of God ;"* whether they are such as to prompt, legiti- mately, to a very frequent reference to " the primitive and apostolic order" of the ministry; or to the modest use of the term " the Church," with an exclusive reference to themselves, must now be left to the judgment of our readers. It was our intention, originally, to have gone somewhat at length into a defence of the scripture doctrine of ministerial parity. But the unexpected length of our article admonishes us to close. We are the less dissatisfied with this admonition, because we conceive the point already made out. If Episcopalians cannot make good their claims in reference to their bishop, it follows of course that ministers are on an equality. The whole argument is concentrated in iAeir claim. , We take our stand * We do not charste Dr. OndertJonk with having any such views and feelings. We have great pleasure in recording his dissent from tlie use of such language, and from such consequences, p. 6. "An apparently formidable, yet extraneous diffi- culty, often raised, is, that Episcopal claims wichurch all Non-episcnpal denomina- tions. By the present writer this consequence is not allowed." We simply state this, with high gratification. We are happy also that we are not called upon to reconcile the admission with the claim set up in this tract, that " the authority of Episcopncy is pormanent, down to the present age of the world ;" (p. 40;) that tiie oliligation of Christians to support bisliops, i. e. to conform to Episcopacy, is not ended ; (p. 40;) that of" any two ministries now existing, the former (Episrcopacy^ is oblisrator_v, to the exclusion of the latter ; Qiaritv, p. 39 ;) and that the position cannot be evaded, 'iiat Episcopacy is permanently binding, ' even to the end of tli« world.' " p. 39. TESTED BY SCRIPTDRE. 87 here. It is admitted on all hands, that there is somewhere in the Church a right to ordain. Episcopalians, with singular boldness, in not a few instances with professed, and in all wnh real exclusiveness, maintain that tiiis power lies onli/ in ihe bishop. Tiiey advance a claim to certain rights and powers ; and if that claim is not made out, tlie argument is at an end. The power of ordination must remain with those over whom Ihey have set up the power of jurisdiction and control. This claim, as we have seen, is not made out. If from the authority of the New Testament, they cannot succeed in dividing llie ministers of religion into various ranks and orders, it follows that the clergy remain on an equality. On this point, also, they are compelled, as we conceive, to admit the whole of our argument. So manifest is it, that the sacred writers knew of no such distinction; that they regarded all ministers of the Gospel as on a level ; that they used the same name in describing the functions of all ; that they addressed all as having the same Episcopal, or pastoral supervision, that the Episcopalians, after no small reluctance, are compelled at last to •imit it. They are driven to the conclusion that the term bishop in the New Testament, does not in a single instance designate any such officer as now claims exclusively that title. Thus Dr. Onderdonk says, that " that name (bishop) is there., (i. e. in the New Testament) given to the middle order, or pres- byters ; and all that we read in the Neic Testament concerning ' bishops,^ (including of course the ivords ' overseers,' and ' over- sig-ht,' which have the same derivation,) is to be rcffarded as pertaining to that middle grade. It was after the apostolic age that the name ' bishop' was taken from the second order and appropriated to the first." p. 12. This admission we regard as of inestimable value. So we believe, and so we teach. We insist, therefore, that the name bishop should be restored to its primitive standing. If men lay claim to a higher rank than is properly expressed in the New Testament by this word, we insist that tiiey should assume the name apostles. As they regard themselves as the successors of the apostles; as they claim that Timothy, Titus, Andronicus, Junia, were called apo.s- tles, why should nOt the name be retained ? The Christian community could then better appreciate the force of their claims, and understand the nature of the argument. We venture to say, that if the name " apostles" were assumed by those who claim that they are their successors, E[)iscopacy would be soon " shorn of its" beams," and that the Cliristian world would dis- abuse itself of the belief in the scriptural authority of any such class of men. We admit that if" the thing soughV (p. 12) were lo be found in the Scriptures, we would not engage in a contro- versy about the mere name. But we maintain tiial the fact here conceded is strong presumptive proof that " the thing sought" is not tliert!. The name, therefore, is to be given up ; that is it is conceded by Episcopalians, that the name bishop does not 88 REVIEW — EPISCOPACY any where in the New Testament designate any such class of men as are now clothed with the Episcopal office. We rfmark, now, that the thing itself is practically abandoned by Episcopalians themselves. Jf other denominations can be true c/mrches, (see the remark on p. 6, that the Episcopal claims do not '■'■ vnchurch all Non-episcopal denominations,") then their ministers can be true ministers, and their ordinances valid ordi- nances. Their ministers may be ordained without the impo- siiion of the Iiands of" a bishop;" and thus the whole claim is abandoned. For what constitutes " Non-episcopal denomina- tions" churches, unless they have a valid ministry, and valid ordinances'? Still furtlier. It is probably known to our readers that even ordination is never performed in the Episcopal Church by the bishop alone. In the "Form and Manner of Ordering Priests," the following direction is given. " Tiie bishop with the priests [presbyters] present, shall lay their Iiands severally upon the head of every one that receiveth the order of priest- hood ; the receivers humbly kneeling, and the bishop saying: Receive the Holy Ghost, for the office and work of a prie.st in the Church of God now committed unto thee by the imposition of OUR hands" &.C. We know that there is among them a dilference of opinion about the reason why this is done. One portion regard ihe bishop as the only source of authority.* The other suppose that ilie presence and act of the presbyters express the asseut and confidence of the churches, and that it is essenlial to a valid ordination. But, whichever opinion is maintained, it is, in fact, a Presbyterian ordination. If not, it is an unmeaning and idle ceremony ; and the presence of the presbyters is mere pageantry and pomp. We have now paj^sed through the argument. Could we enter farther into it, we could prove, we t\nnk, positively, that there were no ministers in the apostolic churches superior to pres- byters "in ministerial powers and rights;" and that a pres- bytery did actually engage in an ordination,, and even in the case of Timothy.f But our argument does not require it, nor have we room. We have examined the whole of the claims of Episcopalians, derived from the New Testament. Our readers will now judge of tlie validity of those claims. We close, as Dr. Onderdonk began, by saying, that if the claim is not made out on scriptural authority, it has no force, or binding obligation on mankind. Who can resist the impression, that if the New Testament had been ihe only authority appealed to in other times, Episco- pacy would long since have ceased to urge its claims, and have sunk away, with other dynasties and dominations, from the notice of mankind ? On the basis which we have now examined, tliis vast superstructure, this system which has heretofore spread over the entire Christian world, this system which, in some * Hooker's Ecc. Pol. book yii. § 6. t 1 Tim. iv. 14. TESTED BY SCRIPTDRE. 89 periods at least, has advanced most arrogant claims, lias been reared. The world, for auies, has been called to snbniit lo vari- ous modifications of the Episcopal power. The world, with the single exceptions of the Waldenses and Albigenses, did for ages siibujit to its authoriiy. The prelalical domination rose on the rnins of the liberties of cities, stales, and nations, till all tiie power of the Christian world was concentrated in the hands of one man — " the servant of the servants of God !" The exercise gf tliat power in his hands is well known. Equally arrogant Tave been its claims in other modifications. The authority has 'een deemed necessary for the suppre>^sion of divisions and leresies. "The prelates," says Milton, "as they would have it thotight, are the only maids of schism." That power was felt n the days when Puritan piety rose to bless mankind, and to advance just notions of civil and religious liberty. Streams of tlood have flowed, and tears of anguish have been shed, and housands of holy men have been doomed to poverty, and want, and imprisonment, and tears, as the result of those claims to supremacy and validity in the Church of Goo. It may surprise our readers to learn, that all the authority from the Bible which could be adduced in favor of these enormous claims, has now been submitted to their observation. And we cannot repre^-s the melancholy emotions of our hearts, at the thought that such power has been claimed, and sitch domination exercised by man, on so slender authority as this ! We have little love for controversy — we have none for denunciation. We have no war to wage with Episcopacy. We know, we deeply feel, that much may be said in favor of it, apart from the claim which has been set up for its authority from the New Testament. Its past history, in some respects, makes ns weep ; in others, it is the source of sincere rejoicing and praise. We cannot forget, indeed, its assumptions of power, or hide from our eyes the days of the Papacy, when it clothed in sackcloth the Christian world. We cannot forget the days, not few, or unimportant, in its history, when (ven as a part of the Protestant religion, it has brought "a numb and chill stupid- ity of soul, an inactive blindness of mind, upon the people by its leaden doctrine;" we cannot forget "the frozen captivity" of the Church, " in the bondage of prelates ;"* nor can we remove from our remembrance the sufferings of the Puritans, and the bloody scenes in Scotland. But we do not charge this on tin; Episcopacy of our times. We do not believe that it is essential to its existence. We do not believe that it is its inevitable tend- ency. With more grateful feelings, we recall other events of its history. We associate it with the brightest and happiest days of religion, and liberty, and literature, and law. We remember that it was under the Episcopacy that the Church in England took its firm stand against the Papacy; and that this • Milton. 8* 90 REVIEW — EPISCOPACY was its form when Zion rose to light and splendor, from the dark night of ages. We remember the name of Cranmer, — Cranmer, first, in many respects, among the reformers ; that it was by his steady and unerring hand, that, nnder God, tlie pure Church of tlie Saviour was conducted through the agitating and distressing times of Henry VIII. We remember that God watclied over that wonderful man; that he gave this distin- guished prelate access to tiie heart of one of the most capricious, cruel, inexorable, blood-thirsty, and licentious monarchs that has disgraced the world ; that God, for the sake of Cranmer, and his Church, conducted Henry, as " by a hook in the nose," and made liim faithful to the Archbishop of Canterbury, when faithful to none else; so that, perhaps, the only redeeming trait in the character of Henry, is his fidelity to this first British prelate under the Reformation.* The world will not soon forget the names of Latimer, and Ridley, and Rodgers, and Bradford ; names associated in the feelings of Christians, with the long list of ancient confessors " of whom the world was not worthy," and who did honor to entire ages of mankind, by seal- ing tlieir attachment to the Son of God on the rack, or amid the flames. Nor can we forget that we owe to Episcopacy that which fills our minds with gratitude and praise, when we look for examples of consecrated talent, and elegant literature, and humble devoted piety. While men honor elevated Christian feeling; while they revere sound learning; while they render tribute to clear and profound reasoning, tliey will not forget the names of Barrow and Taylor, of Tillotson, and Hooker, and Butler; — and when they think of humble, pure, sweet, heavenly piety, their minds will recur instinctively to the name of Leigh- ton. Such names, with a host of others, do honor to the world. When we think of them, we have it not in our hearts to utter one word against a Church which has thus done honor to our race, and to our common Christianity. Such we wish Episcopacy still to be. We liave always thought that there are Christian minds and hearts that would find more edification in the forms of worsliip in that Church, than in any other. We regard it as adapted to call forth Christian energy, that might otherwise be dormant. We do not grieve that the Church is divided into different denominations. To all who hold essential truth, we bid God speed ; and for all such we lift our humble supplications to the God of all mercy, that he will make them the means of spreading the Gospel around * It may be proper liere to remark, that Cranmer by no means entertained the modern views of tlie scriptural authority of bishops. He would not have coincided witJi the claims of the tract which is now passing nnder our review. He maintained " that the appointment to spiritual offices belongs indifferently to bishops, to princes, or to tlie people, according to the pressure of existing circumstances. He alhrined the original identity of bishops and presbyters ; and contended that nothing more than mere election, or appointment, is essential to the sacerdotal office, without con- eecration or any oilier solemnity. — Le Bus' Life of Cranmer, vol. i. p. 197. TESTED BY SCRIPTURE. 9 . the globe. We ourselves could live and labor in friendliness and lovp, in the bosom of the Episcopal Church. While we have an honest preference for another depariment of the great field of Christian action ; while providential circumstances, and tiie suggestions of our own hearts and minds, liave conducted us to a different field of labor; we have never doubted that many of the purest flames of devotion that rise from the earth, ascend from the altars of the Episcopal Church, and tliat many of the purest spirits that the earth contains, minister at those altars, or breathe forth their prayers and praises in language consecrated by the use of piety for centuries. We have but one wish in regard to Episcopacy. We wish her not to assume arrogant claims. We wish her not to utter the language of denunciation. We wish her to follow the guidance of the distinguished minister of her Church, whose book we are reviewing, in not attempting to "unchurch" otiier denominations. We wish her to fall in with, or to go in advance of others, in the spirit of the age. Our desire is that she may become throughout, — as we rejoice she is increasingly becom- ing, — the warm, devoted friend of revivals, and missionary operations. She is consolidated ; well marshalled ; under an efficient system of laws ; and pre-eminently fitted for powerful action in the field of Christian warfare. We desire to see her what the Macedonian phalanx was in the ancient army ; with her dense, solid organization, with her unity of movement, with her power of maintaining the position which she lakes; and with her eminent ability to advance the cause of sacred learn- ing, and the love of order and of law, attending or leading all other churches in the conquests of redemption in an alienated world. We would even rejoice to see her who was first in the field at the Reformation in England, first, also, in the field, when the Son of God shall come to take to himself his great power; and whatever positions may be assigned to other denominations, we have no doubt that the Episcopal Church is destined yet to be, throughout, the warm friend of revivals, and to consecrate her wealth and power to the work of making a perpetual aggres- sion on the territories of sin and of death. Concerning tho opinion of Cranmer, given at the foot of the opposite page, Le Bas adds, " But whatever might be the source of the notions here expressed by him, it is perfectly clear that he did not long retain this system of opinions." ANSWER TO A REVIEW OF EPISCOPACY TESTED BY SCRIPTURE." Odr readers will recollect that at various periods since this tract first appeared, now more than three years ago, we have reminded all concerned that it had not been answered. At length, however, a cliampion appears, to take up the gauntlet thrown down, and do battle for — really we cannot say for what — but against the claims of Episcopacy. He advances to the field wiih the courtesy of a perfect knight, saying so many civil things of his opponent, that we regret that the withholding of his name deprives us of the opportunity of being personally courteous in return. This, however, we can see, though his armor is closed, and this we say with unfeigned gratification, that he is a gentleman of elevated feelings and honorable principles. And now to the discussion. The Reviewer has fixed upon one point in the line of argument in the tract, and on it directed his main attack. Our reply must, of course, correspond. First, however, we offer some preliminary observations. Because the author of the tract* rested the claims of Episco- pacy finally on Scripture — because he fills a high office in the Church — and because the tract is issued by so prominent an Episcopal institulyjn as the " Press," the Reviewer seems to tlunk that Episcopalians are now to abandon all arguments not drawn directly fmm the holy volume. Not at all. The author of the tract, in his sermon ai the consecration of the four bishops in October, 1832, advocated Episcopacy, besides on other grounds, on that of there being several grades of office in the priesthoods of all religions, false as well as true, and in all civil magistracies and other official structures, — and, in his late charge, he adverted to the evidence in its favor contained in the fathers. And the "Press," at the time it issued the tract, issued also with it, in the " Works on Episcopacy," those of Dr. Bowdcn and Dr. Cooke, wliich embrace the argument at large. There is no reason, therefore, for thinking that, however a single writer may use selected arguments in a single publication, either he or other Episcopalians will (or should) narrow the ground Ihey Bisiiop H. U. Ondei'donk. (■93 ) 94 ANSWER TO A REVIEW OP have usually occupied. The fathers are consulted on this subject, because tlie fabric of the ministry which they describe forms an hisicrical basis for interpreting Scripture. And gene- ral practice, in regard to distinct grades among officers, tlirows a heavier burden of disproof on those whose interpretations are adverse to Episcopacy : this latter topic we shall again notice before we close. The reviewer thinks that, in discussing the exclusive claims of Episcopacy, " the burden of proof lies wholly on its friends.'-' But tiie correctness of this assertion depends on the sense in which the phrase " burden of proof" is taken. In a loose way, it may be said that the burden of proof so far lies on him who advances a proposition, i. e. on him who happens to make the first assertion in any given discussion, as that he must adduce arguments for his opponents to reply to; and it is sometimes one of the arts of controvertists to manoeuvre upon this rule. But the rule is only technical : it may further an orderly discus- sion, but it does nothing more toward the development of truth. We s'lppose the reviewer to mean this sense of the phrase, as he speaks of nothing more than the •' specific assertion" of the tract; but, in this sense, the tract fulfilled its duty in giving proofs. The " burden of proof" lias, however, a meaning far more important. It is the opposite of the " presumptive argu- ment." In some cases, the presumptive argument is clear, and it holds its ground till disproved ; and in such a controversy, the burden of proof is a burden indeed. In other cases, it is doubtful on which side the presumptive argument lies, and then it is a waste of time to talk aboutthe burden of proof. Does the reviewer think that the presumptive argument is clearly against the exclusive claims of Episcopacy? Let him go to Ignatius, in the age next the apostolic, and read about the " bishop, pres- byters, and deacons" — he puts on such language a Presbyterian construction— while Episcopalians put on it theirs; does this give him a clear presumption? Does it throw the burden of proof on us? Let him go to the period when the Reformation began — then all the Christian world was Episcopal — he excepts, though we do not, the Waldenses ; does this grand fact give a presumption against Episcopacy? Let him, again, look on Christendom now, and estimate the majority of Episcopalians as he pleases — a vast majority it is, by any estimate; does he find in such a state of things any clear consideration that throws the burden of proof on the exclusive advocates of the Episcopal ministry? We judge not. We rather think it would not be difficult to show that this " burden," so far as these topics may be allowed to decide it, lies upon the impugners of Episcopacj'. We therefore most respectfully suggest to the reviewer, that it probabli/ lies — on a minority in controversy with a majority, i. e. on Non-episcopalians — on those who left Episcopacy at the Reformation — on those who, to make Ignatius interpret the Scriptures relating to the ministry as they do, adduce, not fact EPISCOPACY TESTED BY SCRIPTDRE. 95 or evidence, or even the historical chain of proof, but merely their own interpretation of those Scriptures, as the key to Ignatius. We were much pleased to find the reviewer agreeing, in the main at least, to the exclusion of extraneous arguments from this controversy, as proposed and largely insisted on in the tract — " to most of the observations under these several heads, we give our liearty assent." Yet such is human forgelfulness, in even the best of men, that he strays once or oflener into every one of these extraneous or inconclusive arguments, as a few exemplifications, under the heads given in the tract, will show. 1. The notion that Episcopacy is adverse to c\\\\ free- dom., is extraneous and irrelevant: does the reviewer "assent" to excluding this notion ? He says, " If the New Testament had been the only authority appealed to in other times, Episcopacy would long since have .... sunk away with other dynasties and dominations, from the notice of mankind." 2. Another extraneous argument is the accusation tliat Episcopalians are not pious enough: does the reviewer "assent" to putting this imputation out of view? He says of Episcopacy, in certain former periods, "Even as a part of the Protestant religion, it lias brought 'a numb and chill stupidity of soid, an inactive blindness of mind, upon the people, by its leaden doctrine;' we cannot forget ' the frozen captivity' of liie Church, ' in the bondage of prelates.'" 3. That the external appointments of Christianity are of inferior moment, is, argues the tract, another irrelevant matter: does the reviewer "assent" to having this plea set aside? He says, "We regard it as a matter of very little moment, in what particular church the spirit is prepared for its eternal rest." 4. That some Episcopalians uncJuuxh the Non-episcopalian denominations, is an extraneous argument: does the reviewer " assent" to keeping it out of the discussion? He says, " Whether their arguments are such as to render appropriate the description of all people but the members of Episcopal Churches, as left to ' the uncorenanted mercies of God ;' whether they are such as to prompt, legitimately, ... to the modest use of the term • the Church,' witli an exclusive reference to themselves,* must now be left to the judgment of our readers." 5. Referring to authorities, on either side, who are thought to have contradicted themselves, is, according to the tract, irrelevant, extraneous, and even futile: does the reviewer "assent?" lie adduces the opinions of Cranmer, concerning "the original identity of bisliops and presbyters," and that neither " consecr.ition, nor any other solemnity," is essential to make a minister of Cniusr; while yet Cranmer sanctioned our Ordinal, which declares that (Jon "appointcil divers orders of ministers in the Church;" and which decrees that no man shall ♦ Twice, in his spcond parriffrapli, the reviewer uses Uio term " the Church," with, ap[)arcntly, an excluaive reference to Presbyterians. 96 ANSWER TO A REVIEW OP officiate "in th'S Church," without "Episcopal consecration or ordination ;" conlradiciion enough, we apprehend, to set aside Crannier's anthofity on tiiis point. 6. The trad argued tliat a scriptural "■hint or intimatiun'' was enougl'., in matters of a permanent l\ind, without an exj licit command, and that to argue oilierwise is inconclusive: does llie reviewer " assent " to ihis? He asks repeatedly for "explicit proof" of Episcopacy, and thinks that Episcopalians can do notliing without it. 'llnis, in regard lo all the six arguments set aside in the tract, the excision of whicii was " assented " to, " mostly " indeed, yet •' heariijy," by the reviewer, he has been so unfortunate as to forget him- self, and employ the mutually condemned weapons. We do not say that he lias employed them unkindly, or, any but the last of the six, as essential lo his cause; all we remark is, that those who "assent" to that preliminary portion of the tract ought not to use tiiem at all. These topics are valueless lo the .sound reasoner — among the weaker brethren, some of them are aj)t to "produce irritation. Another preliminary remark mny be offered. The reviewer takes no side on the quesiion of valid ordination. Judging from his very flattering notice of llie Episi-opal Churcli,lie may be an Episcopalian in principle, on the ground of expediency. Judg- ing from the periodical in which his review appears, he may be a Congregationalisl in sentiment, and may regard lay orders as good. Judging from his writing aijainst the tract, uhicii argues only against a I'resbylerian ministry, "passing by the feeljle claim of lay-ordination,"' he may be a Presbyterian. Hut he makes no profession of his opinion on this subject. He says ; — "The question after all might be, whether it was tlie design of the Apostles lo establish aiiy |)articular form of church govern- ment," including, of course, any particular rule of ordination — and he adds, " This question we do not intend to examine now, neither do we design lo expre^^s any opinion on it." Now he has a right, if he choosesj in aliacking other opinions, to reserve his own ; but it is much the same right ihat a rifleman haslo fight behind a tree — it is a lawful act, but not indicative of peculiar valor. In the pursuit of abstract truth, the sentiments of the investigators are little to the purpose. But when a quesiion has immediate reference lo practical arrangements, it is strictly rele- vant to ask an objector to any onesyslein, what sysleni he proposes as a substitute; because the issue, when practical, is a complex one, including not only the questions raised upon the system attacked, but those also llial may occur concerning the one brought forw:ird in its place. To oppose one plan, and yet name no other, is not to treat the matter praciically. The reviewer says, " If Episcopalians cannot make good their claims in reference to the bishop, it follows of course that all ministers are on an equality." True, but it does not follow that all called ministers are such ; the question would still be open between presbyterian ordination, laj -ordination, election to the ministry EPISCOPACY TESTED BY SCRtPTURE. 97 without ordination or laying on of hands, and assuminw ihe office without either election or ordination. Let any one tiuly conrider the respective principles of tlie tract and the review, concerning good order in tiie Church — the one presents a sys- tem for maintaining it, the other opposes that system, yet offers none whatever in its place, it leaves the ministry open to any and every claimant, — let any one, we say, consider this differ- ence between tlie two productions, and then determine wliether the tract and its system have not been allowed to hold a material advantage by this indecision or this reserve of the reviewer. While on this point, we must notice a contradiction, or some- thing very like one, into which the reviewer has fallen. In one paragraph, " It would not prove Episcopacy to be of divine origin, could its friends show that Presbyterianism is unfounded in the Scriptures ; or that Congregationalism has no claims to support ; or that Independency is unauthorized ; or even that lay-ordination is destitute of direct support" — yet, in another paragraph, " It is admitted on all hands, that there is somewhere in the Church a right to ordain." Now, a right to ordain is a divine right, be it exercised as it may: if Scripture is so inter- preted as to give that right to laymen, or to presbyters, or to bishops, the right is rested on Scripture, whether its support be "direct" or indirect; and, if sustained by Scripture, it is of "divine origin." The reviewer declares this right to exist " somewhere in the Church." Yet he argues that if all kinds of ordination were overturned except the Episcopal, it would not prove the latter to be of " divine origin." In other words, he argues that all sorts of ordinations may be without authority, and so the right to ordain exists nowhere, while yet it does exist somewhere. If the reviewer denies this conclusion from his premises, he must speak more plainly concerning "lay-ordina- tion," and say whether it has "indirect support" in Scripture. For ourselves, we think that if there be an ordaining power somewhere, yet not in either of the other alleged places of deposit, it must be in the bishops. And now we proceed to the main objections to the tract, as urged by the reviewer. These relate to two points. I. The as- sertion, in the tract, " That the Apostles ordained, all agree." 2. The inference or assumption, in tlie tract— after stating the distinction between " the apostles and elders," and after show- ing that this distinction did not arise from other causes—" It follows, therefore, or will not at least be questioned, that the aj)Osiles were distinguished from the elders because they wexe superior to them in ministerial power and rights." 1. To the assertion, " That the apostles ordained, all agree," the reviewer objects, "If this means any thing to the purpose, It means that they ordained as apostles; or that they were set apart to the apostolic office for the purpose of ordaining." Fes- tina lente, not too fast. Episcopalians believe undoubtedly that 98 ANSWER TO A REVIEW OP they 'ordained " as apostles," and that they were " set apart for the purpose of ordaining,'' besides other purposes. But neillier of iliese points were involved in that portion of the argument of the tract — where tlie fact that tiie apostles ordained was mentioned merely as a fuel, without regard to the why or how. This mere fact was assumed, as agreed to by al! ; yet it was proved also from Scripture, on a subsequent page. Tiien followed tlie next proposition in the train, " That elders (presbyters) did [ordain], we deny" — which second proposition is made good as the tract proceeds — nor does tlie reviewer gain- say it, upon evidence, though he ' thinks' he could, ' if liis argu- ment required it, or if he had room.' Here, let our readers recollect, thai the argument of llie tract is with Presbyterians only, not with those who maintain lay-orders, and tiiat it was ol course unnecessary to deny that laymen ordained. The/acts relating to Episcopacy and parity were first to be ascertained, as the basis of the argument — the structure to be erected on that basis was a different affair. And the two great facts, that apos- tles ordained, and that presbyters did not, were so sufficiently ascertained in the tract, that the reviewer does not controvert either of them, by stating facts of a contradictory sort. To the facts only should attention be given in the first place, and no consti-uction or reasoning should be intermixed witii tlie develop- ment of them. If, after tliis development of facts, it should be argued or denied that the apostles ordained " as apostles," or were set apart for that " purpose" among others, very well — only let the assertion or denial wait till tiie foundation is laid. The tract, in the portion of it under consideration, draws no inference from the two facts mentioned, but proceeds to an entirely different line of argument to prove ministerial imparity. It quotes the expression, from the record of the council held at Jerusalem, " apostles and elders," and asserts that it shows the two sets of persons so named to have been as distinct from each other, as were the laity from both, in the passage " apostles, and elders, and brethren" — and from the former, in the passage " apostles a7id brethren" — adding, " apostles were therefore o?ie class, and elders another class, just as the laity were a third class." This seems clear enough, nor does the reviewer ques- tion it. The tract then proceeds to sliow, that the apostles were not thus distinguished because appointed by Christ personally — nor because they had seen our Lord after his resurrection — nor only (as the tract further states, though the reviewer forgets that it does so,) because they were special witnesses of that event — nor because they worked miracles — for sustaining all which propositions reasons are given. It then draws the conclnsion, that the apostles were thus distinguished from the elders because they were " superior to them in ministerial power and rights." This is the line of argument which introduces the reasoning against parity. And it brings us to the second of the main objections to the tract, offered by the reviewer. EPISCOPACY TESTED I.Y SCRIPTURE. 99 2. In bringing this portion of the Episcopal argument o the inference mentioned, apostolic pre-eminence, the author of the tract says-^" It follows, therefore, [from the premises just enu- merated,] or at least will not be questioned, that the apostles were superior to the elders in ministerial power and rights." Here are two assertions — •' it follows" — " or it will not be ques- tioned" — either is sufficient for the reasoning of the tract. The assertion ''it follows," means, of course, ' if the previous statement holds good ;' and that in this case the inference is just, the reviewer does not controvert. And it would be difficult to do so ; for, so far as we recollect, every other point in wliich distinction could even plausibly be claiiijed for the apostles, had been set aside by the tract, (as the reader will see in our para- graph next but one above,) leaving only the one distinction of " ministerial" superiority. The inference, therefore, tiiat this was the distinction implied in the expression " apostles and elders," is neither forced nor unreasonable, it follows justly from the premises stated. And when it is considered that the distinc- tion was made in an ecclesiastical council, it will be acknow- ledged that this ground for it was the most natural one that could be assigned. But it was important to add, that the ministerial superiority of the apostles " would not be qncstionedy Yet here the reviewer* is all astonishment ! Here is a link of straw in the argument of the tract, wiiatever be the material of the rest of the chain ! What! trust any portion of the proof of Episcopacy to an asser- tion that " will not be questioned !" Even so : tlie author of the tract has been guilty of this most egregioirs oversight, and he -must submit to the due castigation. We shall see. I3ut first let tiie reviewer speak for himself. " He next attempts to show, that this distinction [between 'apostles and elders'] was not made because they [the apostles] ' were appointed by Christ personally,' nor because ' they had seen our Lord after his resurrection;' nor 'because of their power of working miracles:' and then the writer adds, ' It fol- lows, therefore, or will not at least be questioned,'' — a qualifica- tion which, by the way, seems to look as if the writer had him- self no great confidence in the consecutiveness of. the demon- stration, — ' that the apostles were distinguished from the elders because they were superior to them in ministerial power and rights.' This is the argument, and this is the whole of it. On tlie making out of this point, depends the stupendous fabric of Episcopacy. Here is the corner-stone on which rests the claims of bishops ; this the position on which the imposing and • At this point of oTirtnaniiscript we receive a copy "f tlie Review, separate from the rest ofllie perio(Iic;il in wliicli it ;ippfared, and ciiiilliil " l-'xaniinalion of ' Epis- copacy Ti-sted bv Sciiptiire.' " We nii^lit tlLerrfi)re, [leiliaps, to RKy ' examiner," instead of " reviewer." Hut as llie latter woid is coiiiinoiily used in sudi articles M the present, we retain it. 00 ANSWER TO A REVIEW OP mighty superstructure has been reared. Our readers will joir Willi us ill our amazement, that this point has not been made out with a clearer deduction of arguments, than such as were filled to lead to the ambiguous conclusion — ' It follows, there- fore, or .' " Now, what will be the reviewer's " amazement," when we assure him that " this is the whole of his argument" affecting the tract ! Yet such is the case: for the reasonings, throughout his article, are much the same with those usually brought against Episcopacy ; and where not the same, they are so much minus the former ground, wliich the tract left far behind in proceeding with its inductive demonstration, as we deem it, of that form oi the ministry. No one, for three years, brought those old reason- ings against the tract — no one, till the reviewer fancied he had discovered a weak spot in it, and might therefore reproduce some of them with effect. Here, then, is the grand — we may say the one point of contest ; for if we can make good our cause here, we may leave the rest of the old matter of the review, or so much of it as we please, where it has reposed for three years. The present is only a start in its slumber. " Amazement !" Does the reviewer deny the assertion, that "it will not be questioned that the apostles were superior to the elders in ministerial power and rights?" we should be "amazed" if lie did — ought we to be " amazed" that he neither denies nor allows if? His uninitiated readers, however, will understand his article as contradicting the tract on this point. He says, indeed, with Non-episcopal writers generally, that the apostles held only an extraordinary and temporary power over other ministers ; but this is not the point in that portion of the argii- > ment of the tract; which was only to show W\e fact that the apostles were superior to them, leaving to subsequent investiga tion to decide whether this superiority was temporary or not extraordinary or not. Is it not, then, a fact, that the apostles were "superior to the elders in muiisterial power and rights?' was it not fair to say, that this assertion would " not be ques- tioned ?" To settle this matter we shall adduce Non-episcopal authorities, and in sufficient number, we trust, to satisfy our readers; merely addin?, that we do not recollect any who "question" it, unless they question or deny also an ordained ministry — unless they are other than Presbyterians (proper,) with whom only the tract was in controversy. In substantiating this assertion by the authorities we shall quote, we apprize our readers that they include " evangelists" with the apostles, and that they regard the superior powers of both as extraordinary and temporary. Their allowing rights over llie clergy to evangelists, shows that they did not regard those rights as confined to the thirteen principal Aposlles — which is something for Episcopacy. Their opinion that these rights were extraordinary and transient, has no bearing on the simple /aci that they existed. With the Non-episcopal tone oi EPISCOPACY TESTED BY SCRIPTORE. 101 the language of these writers we have, in using them for this fact, nothing: to cio. The late Dr. Wilson. " But it so happens, that the conformity in duties between the diocesan bisliop and the apostle and primitive evangelist ; and the contrast of the oversight of an individual church by its presbyters, with an Episcopate in after ages; are now adopted as arguments to prove, contrary to the verity of facts, that diocesan bishops are actually the successors in office of the apostles and evangelists, and not of the presby- ters ill the churches." (p. 252.) That is, the apostles and evan- gelists held an ''office" tlie "duties" of which conformed to those of diocesan bishops; of course they were superior to pres- byters in ministerial power and rights. Again, speaking of the office of Timothy, as an evangelist, "This office was superior to that of pastors even teachers." (p. 253.) Again : " There is little more propriety in bringing the apostolic office down to a level wMtli that of presbyters or bishops, or of elevating the hUler to the grad'^ of the former, than of supposing every governor an alderman, or every alderman a governor of a slate, because commissioned by such." (p. 268.) Dr. Miller. '- It is evident, from the whole tenor of Scripture, that the apostolic character was superior to that of the evan- gelists : and Paul, especially, always addresses Timothy and Titus in a style of authority^ Again, " We hold that all the authority over other ministers, with which the apostles and evangelists were vested, was extraordinary, and necessarily arose from the sacred canon not being yet complete, and the Church not yet settled." (pp. 107, 108, 1st edit.) That is: the elders were inferior to the evangelists in " vested" authority, and these inferior to the apostles — greatly superior then must the apostles have been to the elders in " vested" authority — so " we hold," says Dr. Miller, we Presbyterians. To this eminent divine, then, the author of the tract may transfer the responsi- bility of saying, that " the ministerial superiority of the apostles will not questioned," by that denomination, — their "vested" official superiority.* Dr. Campbell. " No doubt they [the apostles] may be styled bishops or overseers, but in a sense very different from that in which it is applied to the inspector [presbyter-bishop] over the inhabitants of a particular district. They were universal bishops ; the whole Church, or rather, the whole earth was their charge, and they were all colleagues one of another." (p. 77.) Matthew Henry. " The officers which Christ gave to his Church were of two sorts; extraordinary ones, advanced to a higlier office in the Church; such were apostles, prophets, and evangelists. The apostles were chief And then there * Wc hivo Romowhat amplified tliis p.Tra^raph in (lie rfiprint to (jive us tlia benefit of Dr. M'llcr's name agaiiLst the Biblical Itepcitoiy fur Ai)ii), 1835. 9* 102 ANSWER TO A REVIEW OF are ordinary ministers, employed in a lower or narrower sphere, as pastors and teachers." (On Eph. iv. 11.) The Divines who argued with Charles /., in the Isle of Wight. "Tiiose thai would cany it (Episcopacy) higher, endeavored lo imp it into the apostolical office and so the apostolical office, (excepting the gifts, or enablements confessed only extra- ordinary) is brought dawn to be Episcopal, and the Episcopal raised up lo be apostolical. Whereupon it follows that the highest officers in the Chnrch are put into a lower orb; an extraordinary office turned into an ordmary distinct office, con- founded with tiial which in the Scripture is not found, a tempo- rary and an exlnicl office n-vived." (p. 6.) In other words, those divines allow the official, i. e. the "ministerial" superioiity of the apostles over presbyters to have been even greater than that claimed by bishops — but this latter claim they reject. Calvin. "So those twelve individuals, whom the Lord chose to promulgate the first proclamation of iiis Gospel to the world, preceded all other in order and dignity." Again ; " By ' evan- gelists' I understand those who were inferior to the apostles in dignity, but next to tiiem in office, and who performed similar fuucti((ns." (Inst. b. 4, c. 3, .'«. 4, 5.) Til us, from Calvin downward, it is proved to be the belieJ of Presbyierians, as is asserted in the tract, that " the a[)Osiles wrre distiiigiiisiied from the elders because they were superior to them in ministerial power and rights." No Presbyterian, in the proper sense of ilie appullalioii, "(jueslious" it — none tliat we know of — thougii some, into whom we have just looked, are not explicit on this parlicuhir point. As to tiiis superiority having been part of the extraordinary prerogative of the thirteen Apos- tles, we refer to the tract itself, where it is shown liiat the pre- eminence of certain officers in the Church over elders is recog- nised in other individuals, and as perpetual. We may add a word or two, on tliis point, as we proceed. S(» far, then, the tract is safe: nay, those who are versed in the Episcopal cttntroversy will think this part nf our labor supererogatory; but many, we are sorry to say, know little of the arguineni concerning tliis branch of the institutions of our Lord — and these may learn that there was no cause for the " amazement" of the reviewer. We have now further to remark, that the reviewer says that the passacre we quoted from him contains the "whole" argu- ment of the tract on the point just discussed. This is an over- sight. The tract, at this very point, referred to a previous note, whicli reads thus: — " That the Apostles alone ordained will be proved. In 1 Cor. iv. 19-21; v. 3-5; 2 Cor. ii. H; vii. 12; x. 8; xiii. 2, 10; and 1 Tim. i. 20, are recorded inflictions and remissions o[ discipline performed by an Apostle, or threateiiings on his part, althougii there must have been elders in Corinth, and certainly were in Ephesus." (Tract, p. 12.) EPISCOPACY TESTED BY SCRIPTURE. 103 This note, as referring to several passages of Scripture, should be considered as part of the argumenl of wliicli the reviewer inadvertenlly says, he gives •' llie wliole of it"— the argument, in the tract, for llie ministerial superiority of apostles over elders. Lei us examine this note in detail, and see how much proof to tliis effect it condenses in a few lines.' There must have been elders in Corinth when the epistles were written to them. We prove lliis by the language of Paul — " As 3 wise master builder I have laid tlie foundation, and am-.ther buildelh thereon." We prove it by the language, hyper- bolical indeed in the number, yet decisive of the fact — "Tl)ough ye have ten llioujand instriicters in Christ." We prove it by llie language, v.i reference to the riglu of the clergy to be m:iin- tained by iheir flocics — "If others be partakers of this power over you, are not we ratiier ?" We prove it by the fact that the "Lord's Supper" was celebrated in that church, which required an elder, at the least. We prove it by tlie language, roncerning some of the Corinthian teachers — " Are they minis- ters 0/ Christ I am more." Not only then do we say, with the author of tiie tract, "there must have been elders in Corinth," but we assert it positively, there tcere, at the lime Paul wrote the two epistles to that cliurch. Yet, without, noticing these elders in the matter, so far as the epistles show, though they doubtless were noticed and consulted as much as courtesy and their pastoral standing made proper — without putting the matter into their hands, or even passing it tlir^ugh their hands, Paul threatens, inflicts, and remits disci- pliiie limong the people of their cliarge. This is a " minisieria: " act. And Paul's doing it himself, instead of committing it to the elders, shows that he, an apostle, was ^^ superior to them in ministerial power and rights." This conclusicyn is unavoidable, if the fact be sustained. Let us then look to the fact — our readers, we trust, will accompany us patiently. " Bui / will come to you shortly, if the Lord will, and will Ivuow, not the speech of them which are puffed up, but the power. For ihe kingdom, of God is not in word, but in power. Wiiat will ye? shall /come to you with a roc/, or in love, and in the spirit of meekness?" (1 Cor. iv. 19-21.) Here is " power" and " a rod," to be exercised under God's " kingdom " or sovereignty, and by one man, an apostle, if those who were "puffed up" did not humble themselves. Here is ciiurch discipline threatened, not by or through the elders, but by an apostle individually, and with the rod in his hands. " For / verily, as absent in body but present in s[)irit, have jiulg-ed (in the margin determined) already, as though I were present, concerning him that hath so done this deed. In the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, when ye are gathered together, and my spirit, with the power of our Lord Jksus Christ, 104 ANSWER TO A REVIEW O*' To deliver such a one unto Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus." (ICor. V. 3-5.) Here is an act of church discipline, nothing less tlian excom- munication ; and who inflicts it? tlie elders at Corinth ? By no means. Paul doe's it. The Apostle "judges" and determines to " deliver to Satan " the unworthy Christian — and to do it when that church, and "his spirit" were assembled together, himself being in that sense present when his sentence was exe- cuted. Who read his sentence in the assembly, we are not informed; probably one of the elders. Who ejected the man personally, if that mode of executing the sentence was added to the reading of it, we are not told. It is enough that the "judg- ment," the decision, the authority for the discipline, was that of an apostle alone, and evinced his superiority, in ministerial functions, to the elders of that church. The excommunication led, of course, to the exclusion of the man from the friendship and kind offices of the brethren ; and this is called his " punish- ment inflicted of many," in the passage we are next to quote. " Sufficient to such a man is this punishment, which was inflicted of many. To whom ye forgive any thing, /forgive also ; for if /forgave any thing, to whom / forgave it, for your sakes forgave I it in the person o/" Christ." (2 Cor. ii. 6, 10.) Here is a remission of discipline, not by the elders, but by an apostle ; he pronounces the punishment to be " sufficient." The brethren forgive the scandal of the man's conduct, he having become penitent; and Paul forgives him, by removing the sen- tence. They forgave as men and fellow Christians — he forgave " in the person of Christ." With such illustrations of an apostle's power to threaten dis- cipline, to inflict discipline, and to remit discipline, we shall understand the force of the other passages in the epistles to the Corinthians, referred to in the note we have quoted from the tract. " Wherefore, though I wrote unto you, I did it not for his cause that had done the wrong, nor for his cause that suffered wrong, but that our care for you in the sight of God might appear unto you." (2 Cor. vii. 12.) " But though I should boast somewhat more of owr authority, (which the Lord hath given us for edification, and not for your destruction,) I should not be ashamed." (2 Cor. x. 8.) " I told you before, and foretell you, as if I were present the second time ; and being absent, now I write to them which here- tofore have sinned, and to all other, that if I come again / will not spare." " Therefore I write these things being absent, lest being present /should use sharpness, according to the pou'cr which the Lord hath given me to edification, and not to destruction." (3 Cor. xiii. 2, 10.) EPISCOPACY TESTED BY SCRIPTURE. 105 So much for the Corintliian church an* its elders. The reviewer was certainly mistaken when he said lie liad given " the argument" of tlie tract, " the wliole of it," for the assertion that "the apostles were distinguished from the eiders because they were superior to lliein in ministerial power and rigliis." He gave but a fraction of it. Now turn we to tiie further proof of that assertion, alhided to in the tract, in the case of the church at Ephesus. There " cer- tainly were" elders in Ephesus, when Paul wrote the first epislle to Timothy. We prove this fact from the language, " That thou mightest charge some that they teach no other doctrine:" teachers then there were in that church, public teachers, author- ized teachers, and such are not the ruling elders or deacons of I)arily, nor, (except under the bishop's license,) the deacons of Episcopacy ; therefore both these parties, the only ones con- cerned with the tract, must agree that they "certainly" were elders or presbyters. We prove it by the Apostle's condemna- tion of Hymeneus and Alexander, for " making shipwreck con- cerning faith," i. e. making shipwreck in teaching the faith, teaching it publicly and with authority — and these teachers were elders, for the reasons just given. We prove it also from the fact that there were elders at Ephesus, when Paul said to them, in Acts xx., " Grievous wolves shall enter in among you . . . also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things;" Paul thus declaring tliat the false teaching at Ephesus would he by elders, and would occur afterward, it not having occurred as yet: that the false teaching would be by elders, seems decisive in favor of the assertion that the false leaching there icas by elders, as we have just maintained: that the false teaching was ijet to occur, when there were already elders in Ephesus addressed by Paul, in Acts xx., is proof that that church had its elders when this evil indoctrination had occurred, which was the case when Paul first wrote to Timothy, as our extracts from that epistle show. This latter argument we consider final : the epistle enumerates, as errors then existing there, "fables, endless genealogies, swerving from charity and faith to vain jaiigling,'queslions and strifes of words, perverse disputings of men of corrupt minds and destitute of the truth, profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called;" yvuacui, pf^liaps guosticism, as Hammond argues. This was the state of things at Ephesus, when Paul wrote the epislle. But when he addressed the " elders," in Acts xx., he spoke of nothing of the sort as having existed, or as existing tlien, but only as to exist at afnture time. If then there were elders there before these mischiefs appeared, there "certainly w(;re" when tliey were afterward developed — i. e. when Paul wrote the first epislle to Timothy. Well then — is the discipline of the church at Ephesus intrusted tothe.se elders? Nothing like it. As in the case of the Corinthians, that " power was given by the Loud " to an 106 ANSWER TO A REVtEW OP apostle, and only an apostle exercised it. Read the proof of this fact. "Of whom is Hymeneus and Alexander; whom / have delivered imto Satan, that they may learn not to blaspheme." (1 Tim. i. 20.) It is the apostle that inflicts the discipline; the elders do not appear in tlie matter. And discipline is a " ministerial " function ; and excommunication its highest exercise. Again, therefore, we repeat, that this part of the tract must have escaped the reviewer's notice, when he declared that he had given its "whole argument" for the " ministerial superior- ity" of the apostles. , Perhaps it would have been better had the author of the tract expanded his note, so as to have presented the argument more at length, or have given it in a larger form in tiie appendix. But the note, as it stands, adverts to every point that here occupies three or more of our pages. As to the plea that the apostles exercised these rights and powers as extraordinary officers, not to be continued in liie Church, we remark, in the first place, that it is an admission that they had, these rights and powers. It is the usual plea of Non-episcopal writers, as we have shown, and having brought this fact to the recollection of the reviewer, he will be " amazed " at himself we think, for having been " amazed" at tlie assertion of the tract, that it " would not be questioned." But, in the next place, the plea is not a sound one, for these powers and rights passed beyond the thirteen Apostles to other men, as Barnabas, Timothy, Titus, and the angels of the seven Asian churches ; see the tract. Not so fast, says parity; these, or some of them, were " evangelists," and they also were extraordinary and tem- porary officers ; to which we reply, that Timothy alone is called an evangelist in Scripture, the rest are not. Perhaps, however, the reviewer thinks, and if so, we agree with him, that the tract has routed the plea commonly rested by Non-episcopalians on the title "evangelist," as he does not name the word, but merely says that Timothy and Tilus had a "temporary" function in regulating churches and ministers. This was certainly prudent in him, for the postscript to the tract has fairly given that plea to the winds. But let the re_viewer examine where his new position leaves him. Thus, — Timothy and Titus have but tem- porary duties, not because tliey are evangelists, but because they do not remain permanently in one station, call it a diocese, or any thing else — we ask, then, do elders, or did they, remain permanently in one station, call it a parish, a congregation, a church, or what you please? if not, then elders also, by tlie same argument, exercised only a temporary function, and so we have no ministry left. Take Apollos, for example ; was he not an elder, at the least? is he not called a " minister" by Paul, and did he not " water" at Corinth what Paul had planted ? if the reviewer says he was more than an elder, he contradicts the EPISCOPACY TESTED BY SCRIPTURE. 185f parity he would defend, for he then makes two orders in the ministry ; if he calls him an evangelist, he retreats from his new position, o{ not adducing tliat title, and so falls under the demo- lisliing power of the postscript to the tract. Well, tlieii, does Apollos, an elder at the least, remain stationary at Corinth, or in any other parish, chnrch, or congregation? No: he had left Corinth wlien Paul wrote the first epistle to the church there ; he had gone elsewiiere ; j^et not even then to be stationary, for Paul desired to bring him back to Corinth, and he himself meant to come back " when he should have convenient time." (1 Cor. xvi. 12.) Here are three successive points occupied in the ministry of [elder] Apollos, down to the year 59. The next we read of him is in the year 65, when he was on a "journey " or voyage, from some place not mentioned, to Crete, and was to proceed on from Crete to (probably) Nicopolis.* Similar migrations could be traced in the ministry of various other per- sons named in the Acts and the Epistles; as Erastus, Tychicus, Trophimus, Crescens, Sopater, &c., &c. ; and, provided, the reviewer will allow that they were elders at the least, which " will scarcely be questioned," we suppose, of tlie most of them, and will not put in the plea that they were evangelists, which is precluded by his new position, tlien there will be so many more cases in proof, that elders were as little fixed in one station as were Timothy and Titus. At all events, we have tiie case of Apollos to this effect. And the result is this alternative — if Timotiiy and Titus had only temporary superior functions, because they exercised them in more than one place, the elders had only a temporary function for the same reason ; and then we have no iniaislry left : if, however, tlie functions of the elders were permanent, though they moved from place to place, the superior functions of Timothy and Titus were also permanent, in spite of this same objection ; and thus we have Episcopacy a permanent institution in the Church. Our deepest thanks, therefore, are due to the reviewer, for co-operating with the tract in brushing away this rubbish of the parity argument — that portion of it which is made out of tlie name evangelist — and resting the discussion on tlie mere facts of the case. This is, indeed, a happy agreement — a real advance toward settling tlie controversy between Episcopalians and Presbyterians; for the latter will scarcely take the ground o{ no ministry ; and, if they do not, the only alternative is Episco- pacy, as we have just seen. Let any candid Presbyterian renounce the evasion of calling Timothy and Titus evangelists, ami he will have a straight-forward and unincumbered argu- ment. The apostles were "superior to the elders in ministerial power and rights." Timothy and Titus were also superior to the elders in tiiose respects. The "angel" of the churcli at • Tilus iii. 12, 13. The reviewer has peculiar ideas of the time of Paul's visit to Nicofx-jlis, wlicn he connects this passage with Gal. ii. 1. 108 ANSWER TO A REVIEW OP Ephesiis, where there had long been elders, was superior to them ; for he alone is addressed as " trying" false apostles, tnd the church there is called his "candlestick," not theirs: and this case brings the "superior" office down to the year 36. Further, the other six "angels" must have resembled the one at Ephesus. Nor is there a particle of scriptural evidence that this "superior" office was to cease ; not a particle, though those wlio filled it may not then have been fixed in one station or dio- cese ; as also there is not a particle of evidence that the office of the elders was to cease, thougii they too were not always fixed in one station or parish. Nay, the fact that inspired epistles were written to Timothy, Titus, and the seven " angels," and made part of the New Testament, for fcrmanent use in the Church — epistles which recognise the right to ordain and inflict discipline on both clergy and laity, as existing in the " superior" officers, but do not recognise this right in the elders — this fact alone proves the "superior" office, i. e. Episcopacy, to have been intended for permanency. Add to this, that Timothy was to "keep this commandment [the 'charge' given him as a 'superior' officer in the church] lill the appearing of our Lord Jesus Christ ; " which implies that there were to be such officers as Timothy, to keep the same " charge," till Christ should appear — till the end of the world. Let any candid Presbyterian examine this train of proof, particularly as staled more fully in the tract, leaving out of the question, as the reviewer does most creditably, the evasion concerning " evangelists," and he will wish, at least, to be an Episcopalian. We have finished the main discussion we proposed. We have defended, and we hope to purpose, the portion of the tract chiefly assailed by the reviewer. We have shown that the only link supposed to be weak, the grand link, "the point, on the making out of which depends the stupendous fabric of Episco- pacy," the " corner-stone, on which rest the claims of bishops;" we have shown that this now very distinguished link in the chain of the tract's inductive proof of Episcopacy, is firm as steel. This done, all the work incumbent on us is performed. There is no more necessity for coping with the common and diffiisive arguments against us, which may appear subsequently to the tract, than there was for it to notice all arguments of this kind that had appeared before. No one, we believe, has blamed the tract for pushing on its train of inductive reasoning, witliout regarding these interminable discussions ; and no one can blame us, if we now say to the reaaer, " Go^o the tract itself, read it carefully and with impartiality, and then decide, before God and your own conscience, whether it does not prove Episcopacy from Scripture." He who will do it this justice, will want no other arguments for that ministry, and will fear none against it. Our duly therefore is sufficiently discharged. But rather than be uncivil to one whom we suspect to be a new comer into this field of controversy, we will extend our EPISCOPACY TESTED BY SCRIPTURE. 109 ^TUde, and notice some of liis other remarks, more especially those in which he has somewhat of novelty, or differs from the most of his predecessors. He says that the apostles were ordained, as such, early in our Lord's ministry. He regards the words addressed to them, after the resurrection, as recorded by Mattliew, Mark, and Luke, " Go ye into all the world," &c., as but " instructions," not as per- taining to a fresh ordination to a higher office. But he omits entirefy the record of John, relating to that subsequent period. " As my Fatlier hath sent me, even so send I you .... receive ye the Holy Ghost : whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them, and whose soever sins ye retain, they are retained." This looks very like the substance of an ordination —the eleven are " sent ; " they receive the " Holy Ghost," in the ecclesiastical sense, we presume, just as the elders of Ephesus were " made overseers [presbyter-bishops] by the Holy Ghost ;" and they are told that they have the power of absolving true penitents, the nature of which power in the clergy is foreign to our present discussion. Are we not right in thinking that an ordination is here ? Would the reviewer, having asserted the previous ordination of the apostles, would he, or would he not, if this passage had occurred to him, have seen a second ordina- tion in it? If he had, he would have seen that which is fatal to the rule of parity, that there is but one order in the ministry. The reviewer asks for explicit proof that Paul or the twelve ■were invested with superiority of office; we might ask him, in return, for explicit proof of their investment with the power of ordaining. He infers their right to ordain from the facts of Scripture, and we also infer their superiority of office from the same kind of evidence. Both inferences are unavoidable. [The ri^ht of Timothy and Titus, individually, to ordain, is recorded ; that they did ordain is therefore justly presumed.] The reviewer, in order to show what he thinks was the point in which the apostles excelled the elders in the matter in ques- tion, dwells largely on the fact that they were special witnesses of our Lf)rd's resurrection ; and with the help of Capital and Italic letters, he has certainly made a showy argument. But nobody denies that they were the special witnesses, or that they were thus distinguished from the elders, as well as from others called apostles; the tract gave due attention to both these parti- culars. The point is, was this distinction the one that led to the expression " apostles and elders?" Surely not. Among those apostles was Barnabas, and perhaps Silas, (Acts xiv. 14 ; xv. 2, 4, 22 ; 1 Thess. i. 1 ; ii. 6,) neither of whom was a special wit- ness of the resurrection. Besides: the ex()ressions, "apostles and elders," " apostles, and elders, and brethren," are used with immediate reference to the council at Jerusalem, and the reviewer is more acute than we pretend to be, if he can say why, in a council acting on questions concerning^ '' idols, blood, things 10 110 ANSWER TO A REVIEW OP Strangled, and licentiousness," the special witnesses of the resur- rection should, as such, have peculiar authority. We really think the tract argues with more consistency, when it says that the apostles were ministeriallij above the elders. [For the' " pro- bability " that there was a third James, see Hammond.] On the point of the Apostleship of Timothy, the reviewer thinks he was not included in the expression, " We .... the apostles of Christ," in 1 Thess. ii., which epistle begins, "Paul, and Silvanus, [Silas,] and Timotheus, unto the church of the Thessalonians" — Why? — Because it is said just before, " W^e had suffered, and were shamefully entreated at Philippi," and Tnnothy, he asserts, was not at Philippi at the time these severities were endured. Now, we argue these passages the other way; we think Vney, of themselves, prove tliat Timothy •jca* at Philippi, and "suffered, and was shamefully entreated," though he was not beaten and put in prison, as Paul and Silas were. We turn also to the history in the Acts, (xvi., xvii.,) where we find that before going to Philippi, " Paul would have Timothy to go forth with him;''^ and after leaving Philippi, Timothy was xcith him at Berea, without a word or a hint that he had left Paul, or returned to him in the meantime. The evi- dence is all on our side, and connecting that in the epistle with that in the Acts, it is conclusive. The reviewer says, " We would respectfully ask the author of this tract, where he finds an intimation of the existence of an order of ' clergy at large,^ in these churches," the seven churches in Asia. We " respectfully " answer, that he has not said one word of " an order of clergy at large," but has only spoken of the "clergy at large" in those churches, an expression which we are "amazed" to see misunderstood. His remark is — " Ob- serve the emphatic use of the singular number in the address to each of the angels ; ' I know thy works,' is the clear and strong language directed to them all successively, implying the respon- sibility, not of a church at large, or of its clergy at large, but of the head or governor individually." The reviewer is first, we believe, in imagining an '■^ order of clergy at large," though he does not believe in his own imagination. And now, we would " respectfully ask " in return, Why does the reviewer " lay out of view the case of the ' elders at Ephesus,' " when considering the case of the "angel" at Ephesus? Were there no pastoral elders [presbyter-bishops] in that church, in the year 96, though Timothy had been there so long previously, thirty years or more, " intrusted with the right of ordination ! ! " If there were such elders there in that year, 96, as there certainly was also an " angel," then our Lord's directing an epistle concerning the state of the church, and the trying of false apostles, to the " angel " individually, and not to the elders at large, or to the " clergy at large," i. e. including the angel with the rest, is a good argument for Episcopacy. The alternative thus reached, is, either Timothy committed a much grosser oversight than EPISCOPACY TESTED BY SCRIPTURE. llj will be ascribed to him, in not ordaining pastoral elders in that city, or the reviewer has committed an oversight of some mag- nitude, in "laying out of view" those elders, in his argument upon the case of tlie seven churches. We frankly acknowledge that we do not understand what the reviewer means (p. 79) in recognising as a question, respecting the elders at Eptiesus, mentioned in Acts xx., " whetlier tliey were ruling elders, or presbyters, ordained to preacli as well as to rule." They are there called "overseers" or bishops; we regard such persons as presbyter-bishops, the second order, and Presbyterians give the name bishop to their ojily order of clergy proper. If ruling elders are bishops also, then they have two orders of bishops, wliich destroys parity. Equally above our comprehension is it, tliat the reviewer, after thus recognising " ruling elders," should say in the next para- graph but one, " There are but two orders of ministers spoken of, or alluded to, in the epistles [to Timothy,] bishops and deacoJis." Are not ruling elders "spoken of" in those epistles, according to Presbyterian interpretation? If Presbyterian dea- cons are " ministers," are not Presbyterian ruling elders, who rank above them, " ministers" also? Here again we are sadl}' in the dark. If the reviewer disallows the office of a ruling elder, dis- allowed also by his opponent, why recognise it in his argument? and why say that the epistles of Ignatius, full as they are of "bishop, presbyters and deacons," seem to [bis] eyes to be a plain straiglit-forward account of the existence of Presbylerian- ism in liis time?" If he allows tliat office, wliy intimate lliat it is not part of the " ministry " of his denomination, while that of a Presbyterian deacon is ? The reviewer says that if our bishops, claiming to be the suc- cessors of the apostles, were to assume the name " apostles," Episcopacy would soon be "shorn of its beams." Very likely. Tliey have lost that name since the first century : those of the present day arc not responsible for the change : yet it no doubt was wisely made. Let us try tlie converse of the proposiliun. Presbyterian ministers of the thorough sort claim likewise to be successors of the apostles ; suppose then that they were to assume that name, what would become of liie "beams" of Presbyterianism? Again, the reviewer favors the idea that the '■'■^angels'' were pastors of the churches, presbyters on a parity with each other;" suppose then Presbyterian pastors were to assume tlie name of " angels," the Angel of the church in Arch- street, the Angel of the church in Pine-street, the Angel of the diurch in Washington-square, would the " beams" of their ciiurciirs be less in jeo{)ardy than those of our church Mould be from the titles, the Apostle of the church in Pennsylvania, the Apostle of the church in Virginia, the Apostle of the church in Tennessee ? The reviewer thinks that as presbyters lay on hands with the bishop when a presbyter is ordained, " it is in fact, a Prcsbyte 112 ANSWER TO A REVIEW OF rian ordination." We think otherwise. When Presbyterians ordain, the tlieory is, so we understand their writers,* that the autliority comes from that one of their presbyters who presides on the occasion, the others being present to express the consent of the Church, in other words, as a canonical or church regula- tion to prevent any one man from performing so important an act by himself alone. This is Presbyterian ordination ; the authority flows, not from a presbytery, but from a Presbyterian presbyter'. So precisely in the case of our ordinations. The authority flows from the bishop ; the presbyters lay on hands to denote the consent of the Church, to show that the bishop acts canonically, and not according to the mere impulse of liis individual will. And tiiis is Episcopal ordination, because the act derives its virtue from the bishop. Ordination by one pres- byter would be valid among Presbyterians, and the ordination of a priest by the bishop alone would be valid among Episcopa- lians ; but neither would accord with church regulations. One word more concerning the " burden of proof," as con- trasted with the " presumptive argument." Tiie tract claimed no presumption in its favor, in seeking for the scriptural proofs of Episcopacy. We do — a presumption founded on common sense, as indicated by common practice. Set aside parity and Episcopacy, and then look at other systevis of office, both reli- gious and civil, and you find several grades of officers. In the Patriarchal Church there was the distinction of "high-priest" and " priest." (Heb. v. 10; vi. 20.) In the Jewish Church, (com- mon sense being in this case unquestionably divinely approved,) there were the high-priest, priests, and Levites. Among Pagans and Mahommedans there are various grades in theoflice deemed sacred. Civil governments have usually governors, a president, princes, a king, an emperor, &c., as the heads of the general, or state, or provincial magistracies. In armies and navies there is always a chief. If the reviewer should claim exceptions, we reply they are exceptions only, and ver)' few in number. The general ride is with us. That general rule next to universal is, that among officers there is a difference of power, of rights, of rank, of grade, call it what you will. And this general rule gives a presumption that such will also be the case in the Chris- tian Church. We go to Scripture then with the presumptive argument fully against parity. If we should find in Scripture neither imparity nor parity, still common sense decides for the former. If we find the tone of Scripture doubtful on this point, imparity has the advantage, common sense turning the scale. If we find there intimations, less than positive injunctions, in favor of imparity, common sense, besides the respect due to Scripture, decides for our interpretation of them. And if any thing in Scripture is supposed to prove or to justify parity, it must be very explicit to overturn the suggestion of common • 9 ;ee Form of Government, chap. 14, sect. 12. EPISCOPACY TESTED BY SCRIPTDRE. 113 sense. The '• presiimpli%'e aramnenl," tlien, is clearly with us, and ihe "■ burden of proof" lius on j)ariiy. We have exceeded the limits to which we intended to confine ourselves — and though there are some other points in the review which we are tem|)lod to notice, we must be content with extracting part of its truly elegant and courteous tribute to the Episcopal Chn;cli. " We remember that it was under the Episcopacy that tlie Church in England took, its firm stand against the Papacy; and that this was its form when Zion rose to iiglit and splendor froiii tlie dark niglit of ages. We remember Cranmer, — Crannier first, in many respects, among the reformers; that it was by his -Steady and unerring hand, that, under God, the pure Cli-urch of the Saviour was conducted through the agitating and distressing times of Henry VIII. We remember tliat God watched over that wonderful man ; that he gave this distinguished prelate access to the heart of one of tlie most capricious, cruel, inexora- ble, blood-thirsty, and licentious monarchs that has disgraced the world ; that God, for the sake of Cranmer, and his Cluiich. conducted Henry, as ' by a hook in the nose,' and made hiin faithful to the Archbishop of Canterbury, when faithful to none else." "She [the Episcopal Church] is consolidated; well mar- shalled; under an etlicient system of laws; and pre-eminenily filled for powerful action in the field of Christian warfare. We desire to see her what the Macedonian phalanx was in the ancient army ; with her dense, solid organization, with her unity of movement, with her power of maintaining the position which she lakes; and with her eminent abiliiy to advance the cause of sacred learning, and the love of order and of law, attending or leading all other churches in the conquests of redempiion in an alienated world. We should even rejoice to see her who was first in the field, at the Reformaiion in England, fiist, also, in the field, when the Son of God shall come to take to himself his great power," &c. A truly splendid eulogium on our Church, — and one which does credit to the candor, the benevolence, the superiority to prejudice, of the elevated mind that conceived it, and the lionoral)le frankness wliich Rave it public utterance. With the feelings of such a heart as that of the author of these paragraphs, we have, we can have, no controversy whatever — we ratlu r desire to copy them more perfectly ourselves, and be tauulit more of the grand duty oi' love by an opponent who so noblv and so delighlfully exemplifies it. We would only ask — 11 Episcopacy is to lie found liie "first" in the Church, at the second advent of the Son of Man, is it probable that he left no Episcopacy in tlie Church, when his fii&t advent terminated. H. U. O. 10* ESSAY, On the Qgestion, — When did Paul place Tin.jthy over ilie Church at Ephesus? The date of this event is of some interest to those wlio examine the controversy between Episcopacy and parity. It is very far, however, from being essential to the Episcopal cause, as a few remarks will show. Parity alleges, — such at least is its usual and most advantageous view of the case, — that Timothy was placed at Ephesus before there were any clergy there, and that his functions were to ordain a supply of them, and settle the new church. To this Episcopacy replies, that, even granting there were no clergy there at tlie date assumed, it is evident, from the epistles to Tmiothy, that he individuaUy had supreme power, both in governing and ordain ng, and that there is no evidence that this supreme power of tliat m- dividual chief officer passed afterward to tlie body of clergy, or was in any respect modified or restricted ; and that besides this want of evidence that parity took the place of this arrange- ment equivalent to Episcopacy, the second epistle afftjrds positive proof that it did not, since in that epistle, wiien there certainly were clergy at Ephesus, Timothy is still addressed individually, and as the head of its church. Episcopacy further declares, that it is oiot to be taken for granted that there were no clergy at Ephesus, at even the earliest date of Timothy's being placed there by St. Paul ; and moreover, that the proper date of this event is later, when there were at that place the elders addressed by Paul, (in Acts xx.,) with others to keep up or increase their number. And an irrefutable argument for Episcopacy is drawn from comparing that address to IheEphesian elders, which con- tains not a liint of tlieir right to ordain and exercise clerical dis- cipline, with the epistles to Timotiiy individually, as connected ■witli the same church, which recognise those rigiits as existing ill him. in all fulness and perfection. It will thus be seen, that the question concerning the proper date of the placing of Timothy at Epiiesus, though not vital in this controversy, is yet one of much interest. Three dates of this event have been suggested, and, as far as the present writer's information extends, three onl3\ St. Paul writes, " I besought thee to abide still at Ephesus, when I went into Macedonia," (1 Tim. i. 3;) of coui'se the date to be assigned must be consistent with some journey of that apostle into Mace- donia. Of Paul's journeys into that region, after the founding of a church at Ephesus, there were three. Tlie first was after a riot had driven him from that city.* The second was soon after, ♦ Acts XX. 1. Tliis journey liad been intended by Paul, (1 Cor. xvi. 5, 6,) but tlie riut hastened his departure. ( 114) TIMOTHY AT EPHESCS. 115 when havintj been in Greece, he returned to Syria circnifcusly, through Macedonia, on account of the machiiialions of the Jews, (Acts'xx. 3.) The third was still later, after his first imprison- ment in Rome, when he again visited the eastern churches, as will be sliown under the proper head of tliis essay. We sliall borrow a portion of the following remarks from Macknight's preface to the First Epistle to Timothy, and from several pieces entitled "Timothy at Ephesus," ia the Church Register, for March and April, 1827. 1. Presbyterian controvertists generally, as also many other writers of high authority, favor the opinion, that Paul placed Timothy at Ephesus wlien he fled from that city, and went into Macedonia, after the riot mentioned in Acts xix. 23-41. And thev allege, in behalf of parity, that there were tlien no clergy in the Ephesian churcli, and that Timothy was to ordain a sup- ply of them, in his supposed temporary relation to that church as an evangelist. As to Tiinothy's having had supreme power in Ephesus, or any where else, merely as an evangelist, a full refutation of that opinion will be found in the postscript to " Episcopacy Tested by Scripture," contained in the Protestant Episcopalian for Decena- ber, 1830 ; that essay is now circulating as a tract. As to there having been no clergy in Ephesus when Pawl fled thence, after the " uproar," into Macedonia, it is an assertion infinitely improbable. He had now been there "three years." He had previously made a short stay in that city; after which, Apollos '• taught dilioenlly ttiere the things of the Loko," liaviiig Aquila and Prisciila to help him, and so advanced tlie great cause, that some were called " the brethren." (Acts xviii. 19-28.) When Paul readied them again, some who had received only Jolin's baptism, were baptized in the name of Jesus, with a will- ingness which sliowed tliat Christianity had taken root among them, (Acts xix. 1-5.) After three months, Paul " separated the disciples"fromthesynagogue,( Acts xix. 9:) and when Jewish con- verts would bear any thing like such a separation, thev certainly were past the most difficult part of their noviciate, and some of them either were, or could soon be, prepared for tlie ministry. Shall we believe, then, that Paul would leave this Christian church, now fully severed from the synagogue, for two years, or nearly three, without providing it ministers, when he knew tlie dangers to whicli he was constantly exposed ^ Shall we believe that, when "the word of God had miglilily grown and prevailed" in that citv. he would send away Timothy and Eias- tus, (Acts xix. 22.) without having ordained others, or else doing it without delav? The supposition is not credil)le. Nor is it countenanced by other parts of the lioly record : for that apostle and Uarnibas had ordained elders, in other Asiatic cities, in much less than two years, (Acts xiv. 23.) Long before Paul fled from Ephesus, clergymen must have been appointed for tliat church; il not, he made' less provision for the numerous converts in tUsit 116 TIMOTHY AT EPHESUS. most important city, than was made for fewer converts in cities less important ; wliicli is a supposition infinitely improliable. As to tliere liaving been no clergy in Epiiesns wlien Timotliy was placed there, be the date of that occurrence early or late, we know to the contrary. St. Paul writes to liim tliat he was placed there, " that he might cliarge some that tiiey teach no other doctrine," (ITim. i. 3;) which implies that there were already ^eac/iers in that church, "some" of whom inculcated error. It follows, that many authorized teachers, or ordained clergymen, were in Ephesus wlien Timothy was directed to as- sume the superintendence of that body of Christians. As then these clergymen required such a superintendent among them, both to govern them, and to ordain olliers, it is rightly concluded tliat they had not within tliemselves the power of either ordina- (ion or clerical discipline. And tliis destroys the claim of parity, and establishes that of Episcopacy. In this view, it may seem unnecessary to discuss the question. When was Timothy placed at Ephesus as the cliief officer of its church 1 But, as any one trutli strengthens any other related to it. this point will now be considered. We assert that Timothy was not placed over the church at Ephesus when Paul fled thence to Macedonia, after the riot. Here let the point of tlie argument be distinctly noticed. Paul says, " I besought thee to abide still at Epiiesus, when I went into Macedonia." Of course Timotliy must have been there, or had his residence there at tiie time of tliis requesl,-or else been so connected with tliat church as tliat it was his ecclesiastical home; and his residence or ecclesiastical home was also to be there for a considerable period afterward, or rather permanently, since tliere is no hint any where in Scripture, that his functions in Ephesus, when placed over that cliurch, would at any lime cease. Now, Timothy was not at Ephesus when Paul fled, after the riot, into Macedonia. He and Erastus had been sent away some time previously to Macedonia, and Timothy also to Corinth, (Acts xix. 22 ; 1 Cor. iv. 17 ; xvi. 10;) and there is no evidence that he returned before the Apostle lied from Ephesus.* Nay, there is evidence of the contrary, as will readily appear. Thus: Paul wrote the first epistle to the Corinthians from Ephesus, and in it Timothy is spoken of as then on his mission [to Mace- donia first, and then] to Corinth ; he probably took this epistle, (1 Cor. iv. 17; xvi. 8. 10.) The second epistle was written after the riot and Paul's flight, which are there mentioned, (2 Cor. i. 8-10.) In the first epistle, several abuses among the Corinth- ians are censured ; and Paul would have heard from Timothy whether his censures were effectual, had he returned to the * St. Paul expected Timotliy to '''come unto him" from Corinth, but where, does not appear ; it may have been in Macedonia, as probably as in Ephesus. (1 Cor. xvi. 5, 8, 10, 1)-.) TIMOTHY AT EPHESUS. 117 Apoptle while yet at Ephesus ; instead of which he obtains the first intelligence, not from Timotlij-, but from Tiliis, after reach- in? Macedonia. (2 Cor. ii. 13 ; vii. 6-16.) Titns, it appears, was reiiirning from Corinth before Timothy, wlio also left lliere soon afterward, in time to meet Panl in Macedonia, wiiere the two latter united in the second epistle to tlie Corinthians. (2 Cor. i. 1.) Let lis notice more fully the above particulars. St. Panl flies from Ephesus to Troas, where he hoped to meet Titus, and get the intelligence from the Corinthians that he so much desired, (2 Cor. ii. 12, 13;) and this his looking for Tilus only, implies that the Apostle scarcely expected that Timothy, who certainly cannot (without the clearest proof) be supposed to have aban- doned his mission to Corinth, had yet left the latter place ; and this, obviously, further implies that he could not, at tlie date of the "uproar" whicli drove away Paul, have returned thence to Ephesus. Paul continues his journey from Troas to Macedonia, yet still has no tidings from the Corinthians, till Tilus "comes" to him, and "comforts" his "cast down" spirit by tlie intel- ligence that he had rectified the abuses among those brethren. (2 Cor. vii. 6, &c.) Not once does Paul refer to any news from them, favorable or unfavorable, brought by Timotiiy. If these facts do not prove, in the absence of all intimations wliatever to the contrary, that Timothy had not returned to Ephesus when Paul fled, no confidence can be placed in the strongest circum- stantial evidence. And if Timothy was not there, when Paul then " went into Macedonia," it could not be said that Paul then " besought him to abide there still." In other words, it was not on the occasion of this departure of the Apostle for Macedonia tiiat Timothy was placed over the church at Ephesus. Neither was Timothy so connected with Ephesus at that time, as to make it his ecclesiastical home; for his principal duties were just now in Macedonia and Corinth ; and even previously, his clerical connexion had rather been with Paul than the Ephe- sians. (Acts xix. 22.) Nor vvas he at Ephesus for some time after; for he was with Paul awhile in Macedonia, when he join- ed in the second epistle to the Corinthians, and still with him in Greece, from a port of which region he and others sailed to rejoin that apostle at Troas; (Acts xx. 1-5;) and as Paul, in thus prosecuting his voyage to Jerusalem, did not go to Ephe- sus, (Acts XX. 16, 17,) and said nothing to the elders of that church whom he met at Miletus, of Timothy's being then left among them, we conclude with commentators in general, that tlie latter did not then tarry there, but went onward to Jerusa- lem with the great Apostle. 2. The next opinion is, that Timothy was placed over the Ephesian church at a period some inonihs later than the riot, when Paul, being prevented by the Jews from sailing directly from Greece to Syria, (as we have just seen,) went circuitouely thither through Macedonia. (Acts xx. 3, 6.) We have shown, however, that Timothy was not in Ephesus at this time, nor so Il8 TIMOTHY AT EPHESUS. specially connected with it as to make it bis ecclesiastical home; of course Paul could not with prnpripty say to him, "I besought thee to abide slill at Ephesus." For lliis reason, we cannot allow ;/n".9 journey of Paul into Macedonia to have been the date of Timothy's beiug placed over the Epiiesian cliurcli. Another argument of great force precludes ihe supposition that Tiniotliy was phiced ihere at any lime before Paul deliver- ed his address to the clergy of that city, as stated in Acts xx. ; and this argument applies to both the present theory of tlie dale in question, and tiie one we have beAn'e noticed. In that address Paul speaks of the errors and misleadings of false teach- ers, as y^i future ; he makes no complaint of them as then existing in Ephesus ; but says they "shall arise," and "shall enter in." (Acts xx. 29, 3U.) But, in the first epistle to Timothy, he desires him to "charge some to teach no other doctrine," intimating that the false teachers had, at the date of that epistle, begun their mischievous proceedings; he enumerates as errors then existing there, fables, endless genealogies, swerving from charity and faith to vain jangling, questions and strifes of words, perverse disputiugs, profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called ; he also names Hymeiieus and Alexander, whose doctrines had been so hurtful, that "he had " delivered them unto Satan." (1 Tim. i. 3-6; vi. 4, 5, 20 ; i. 20.) Now, besides that it is wholly improbable that all these evils could have befallen the Ephesian church in ihe few months that elapsed between PauTs flight and his address to their elders, it is impossible that so much false teaching could have existed there at the very time he told the elders that the false teachers were yet to spring up. It follows nnavoidably that the station- ing of Timothy there was subsequent to the address of St. Paul to the elders in Acts xx., and indeed that there must have been an interval of some duration, to allow so extensive a develop- ment of error and delusion among the Ephesian clergy. And hence, we again assert, that as both Paul's flight into Macedonia, and his going thither again from Greece, were previous to the address referred to, neither of those dates can be allowed for the placing of Timothy at Ephesus. To the present writer, this argument appears to have the force of demonstration. It is to be observed, however, that if this second date could be allowed, there would be a remarkable proof of Episcopacy in the fact, that the first epistle to Timothy and the address to the elders would both have issued from the great Apostle at the same period, the one assigning Episcopal duties to Timothy, the other enjoining only pastoral duties on the elders. The Apostle would thus have delivered siniidtaneously the records of the functions of each, showing that the one was superior, and llie ojliers inferior in the sacred office. But as the evidence is against the supposition that these two charges were delivered at tl'.e same time, this striking view of tliat proof of Episcopacy cannot be maiiitaiiied. The substance, however, of that j,roof TIMOTHY AT EPHESUS. 119 is fully ours; no iiig-cmiity can impair llic seripUual demonstra- tion of Episcopacy founded on the comparison of tlie address to tlio elders as pastors, with llie epistles to Timothy as supreme officer or bishop. 3. A tliird date for tlie connexion of Timothy with the Ephe- siaii church has been mentioned, and this now claims our atten- tion. We assert that Timothy was in Epliesus some years after the above two dates, and tliat Paul likewise "went" (or "was jjoins," as the word may be translated,) into Macedonia after llie two journeys lliitlier already referred to. After that apos- tle's first imprisonment in Rome, is the date we assign as llie only one tliat can be defended. We find it plainly recorded, that botii he and Timothy were again at that later period m tiiose eastern parts, tliough it is not mentioned in the Acts, as that book, ends witli Paul's first detention in the imperial city. The reader will see in the following proofs that Timothy was certainly in Ej)!iesus, and that Paul probably " went," and cer- tainly '""was going" into INIacedonia after tliat apostle was first in Rome. Timothy was with him, be it recollected, in the latter city. (Phil. i. 1, 13.) A\'e shall first adduce the evidence of their iuiention to go eastward from Rome, and then the evidence that tlicy did so, first as regards St. Paul, and then as regards Timothy. Paul intended to visit Philippi in Macedonia after leaving Rome. He wrote to the Piiilippians when he was in that city, where his "bonds in Christ were manifest in all the palace," or " Caesar's couct," as in the margin. He assures the church in Pliilippi, tliat he " trusted in the Lord tliat lie would come shortly" to them ; nay, he writes more strongly, "I know that I shall abide and continue with you all . . . that your rejoicing may be more abundant ... by my coming to yon again ;" he seems even to intimate the possibility of frequent visits, " That wheliier I come and see you, or else be absent." (Phil. i. 13; ii. 24; i. 25-27.) This is evidence sufllcient that Paul designed going into Macedonia wlien he sliould leave Rome. Paul intended to visit Philemon after his release from Rome, and even ordered a " lodging" to be prepared for him in Colosse, wliere Piiilemon resided.* Colosse was in Phrygia, in Asia Minor, and snfllcienlly near Efihesus. Of course, it was Paul's inten- tion to visit the countries on that side the yEgean Sea, and in the neigiiliorhood of Ephcsus, after leaving Romt; ; for tiie epistle to Philemon was written while Paul was yet a prisoner in tliat citv. (See. V. 10.) i'aul intended to visit the Hebrews after his release at Rome. He wrote the e[)istle to llmin from Italy, ami says expressly, " I will see you," (Heb. xiii. 19, 23, 21.) The Hebrews weie either ♦ Pliiinrn. 22. Tl;c proof llint Piiilenion irsided in CoIos.=!C will l)C BCfe.i by com- paiiii!< l*liili!iri. 2, willi Col. iv. 17; in Iji.ili wliicli passaiie.< Aicliippus is nairie.d as ^ iniiii.sler liviii;^ at tin; |i!a(C to wliicii liutli cpi.svlos wpic btiil ; bulli being sent at \ic same lime Ity One.siinu.s. (Uol. iv 1); Pliil in. 1'2.) 120 TIMOTHY AT EPHESUS. llie Jewish converts in Jiidea, or tlie Jewish converts at large. If those in Judea are meant, he promised to proceed to that country after leaving Italy. If those at large are meant, we are secure in saying there were vastly more of tiiem east of Ital)'^, tlian in any otiier direction; and, in this view, he promised to visit, after iiis release, the eastern countries of the Mediterranean ; and tliere were so many new churches, including Jewish con- verts, on both sides of the iEgean Sea, that we may justly regard iiis promised voyage as including them : among these churches, tiiose at Ephesus and Pliilippi (in Macedonia) were conspicuous. Paul did visit Miletum or Miletus, after his release at Kome , he writes to Timotliy that he had left Trophimus sick at that phice. (2 Tim. iv. 20.) There was a Milelus near Epliesus, where Paul met the elders, and another in Crete. (See Caimet. Acts XX. 17.) If tlie former be here meant, then Paul, after leav- ing Rome, was in the very neighborhood of Ephesns. But as, at the date of tiiis second epistle, Timothy was himself in fcphesns, and Paul now again in Rome, he would not probably write to him respecting Trophimus if lie were in Ihat Miletus, so near Timotliy's residence; and it therefore is more justly pvesnmed that the Miletum in Crete was the place where Trophicius was left sick. If tills latter was the Miletum intended, I'u^n Paul was again in Crete after his first imprisonment, for the date of this second epistle to Timothy, is his second imprisonment;* and if in Crete, he was among the eastern churches, and suffi- ciently near the iEgean Sea to visit its coasts, including Ephesus and Macedonia ; the latter visit he had almost posiuvely promised the Philippians, as was shown in a former paragraph. Paul did visit Corinth afier leaving Rome. Besides mention- ing to Timothy, as above stated, that he had left Trophimus at Miletum, he also says, in the same verse, "Erastus abode at Corinth." He could not mean that he had remained there ever since his mission to that city, six or seven years before, for Timothy had been often with Paul since that time, and would have been fully informed that Erastus had continued thus sta- tionary. No ; Paul connects the tarrying of Erastus at Corinth with his leaving Trophimus at Miletum, meaning that the two incidents had occurred at the same period, and recently. Hence Doddridge remarks, "It seems by this clause that [Erastus] was in Paul's company when he parted with Timothy, as it is likely Trophimus also was. And, as none can suppose Paul would have mentioned these things to Timothy in this connexion, if they had happened many years before, (Acts xix. 22,) I look ♦ 2 Tim. i. 8, 16, 17; ii. ; iv. 6, 16. Paul lind been in Crete on hi.s firpt voyafre to Rome 3S a prisoner." (Acts xxvii. 8.) But this was long before tlie date of this epistle; and the sickness of Trophimus is mentioned as a recent occnrience. Hf- sides, Timothy liad been wilh Panl in Rome since l/iat hindincr in Crete, and wonid know of this sickness, had it then occnrred, wilhont any aUusion to it in the epistle. Of conise, Tro])liimiis was left at Miletum afterward, i. e. subsequently to Paul's discharge from his first imprisonment in Rome ; Paul beina then again in Crete. TIMOTHY AT EPHESUS. 121 upon this as a very matecial argument to prove lliat lie reliinu'd iiuo these enstcrn parts, between his first aiul second nnpnson- nient at Rome; tliough probably, if he ever saw Eplicsii.s agmii, most of the ministers of that and the neighboring places, wiUi whom he had the celebrated interview at Miletus, meniiuued Acis XX., were either dead or removed." Paul did visil eastern parts after his first imprisonment at Rome. In Tit. iii. 12, we read that he had determined to spend a winter at Nicopolis. There were several cities of this name ; in Macedonia, in one or more of the neigiiboriug provinces, and m Poiilus in Asia Minor; it matters not, at present, which of them is here meant. When tiien was Paul in Nicopolis, or so near it as to " determine there to winter?" it was after leaving Titus in Crete. (Tit. i. 5.) Now, the first we know of Paul's being in Crete, was his landing there, when on his voyage to Rome ; then, however, he was a prisoner, and could have had no expectation of wintering in Nicopolis. It must, therefore, have been after his release at Rome, that he left Titus in Crete, having been airain in that island. And subsequently to this, he was in or near the Nicopolis which he selected for his winter residence. This brings back that apostle from Rome to either Macedonia or Asia Minor ; and he doubtless revisited both these regions. Paul did visit Troas after his first imprisonment in Rome. He desired Timothy to bring thence his cloak, books and parch- ments. (2 Tim. iv. 13.) That he left them there after his first visit to Rome, is exceedingly probable ; for the last lime he was at Troas before being a prisoner, was in A. D. 60; and we cannot suppose he would leave these things there till A. D. 66, when he wrote to Timothy to bring them ; we know that, while a prisoner, botli in Crsarea and Rome, he could send and receive mes- sengers freely. (Acts xxiv. 23 ; Phil. ii. 25; iv. 18; Eph. vi. 21 ; Col. iv. 7, 9, 10.) If to this probability we add the evidence already adduced, that Paul returned from Rome to the east, it will appear indisputable that he was at that period in Troas, and left there the things mentioned. Troas was near Macedonia, and on the same coast with Ephesus. Let us now recapitulate the evidence of Paul's return eastward from Rome. His inlenliun was to visit Philippi, Colosse, the Hebrews. He actually was at Miletum, at Corinth, at or near Mcopolis, at Troas. AH tliis we prove from Scripture. Who can doubt then that he was on the shores of the ^gean Sea, after his release from the tribunal of Caesar, when brouglit before it the first time? Or, who w^l say that our evidence is insufficient, when we assert, that, as the first two dates assigned for his placing Timothy at Ephesus are indefensible, it must have been now, m these later voyages, that he connnitted tliat church to this his favorite son iu the faith, and went on himself to Mace- donia? But we shall strengthen this body of argument by showing that Timothy also returned to tiie cast, after being with Paul in Rome. 11 122 TrMOTHY AT EPHE9US. Paul intended to send Timothy to Philippi, when he should bo free to depart from Rome — " 1 trust in tlie Lord Jesus to send Tiniotheus shortly unto you;" "him, theielore, I hope to send presently, so soon as I shall see how it will go with me." (Phil, ii. 19, 23.) Paul intended, that Timothy should accompany him to the Hebrews — " Our brolherTimolhy is set at liberty, with whom, if he come shortly, I will see you." (Heb. xiii. 23.^ From this passaije it appears that Timothy had also been a prisoner in Home, but was now released. At the moment of Paul's wriiing Timothy had, for a short time, left him ; according to Grotius, this excursion was into Gaul, but he was soon expected back to accompany Paul on his eastern voyage. Timothy actiialli/ was among the eastern clinrches, after leav- ing Rome. Wliile in Rome, Paul writes to the Colossians con- cerning Marcus or Mark, — " If he come unto you, receive him :" (Col. iv. 10:) which shows that Mark was expected to go to Colosse. In the second epistle to Timothy, written after Paul's first, and during his second imprisonmeut, he writes — '• Take Mark, and bring him with thee" to Rome. (2 Tim. iv. 11.) Mark, therefore, had gone to Colosse; and Timothy was now again so near tliat place, that Paul desired the latter to summon the former, or " take" him on his way, to rejoin himself, again in bonds in Rome. Timothy actually was, after leaving Rome, so near Troas, on the JEaean coast, that Paul, in the second epistle to him, desired him to slop there for his cloak, books, and parchments, or else to obtain them from that place, and bring them with him to Rome, where the great Apostle was now again imprisoned. (2 Tim. iv. 13.) This, be it remarked, is positive evidence, depending in no degree on construction. And it renders it infallibly certain that Timothy was in the regions not far from Ephesus at this late period, the second epistle to him being of the date of A. D. 60. With such a positive basis, conjecture uses but moderate license in adding, that Timothy was in Ephesus itself, when this epistle was addressed to him. Timothy actualhj was, we now further assert, in Ephesus itself after being Paul's companion in his first imprisonment at Rome. The second epistle to him, written after that period, is still our authority. 1. Paul, as was not unusual with him, names the messenger by whom he sent this epistle, and says that he had despatched him to Ephesus — "Tychjcus have I sent to Ephesus." (2 Tim. iv. 12; see also ^om. xvi. 1 ; 1 Cor. iv. 17; xvi. 10; 2 Cor. viii. 16, 18 ; Eph. vi. 21 ; Phil. ii. 25 ; Col. iv. 7, 9 ; Philem. 12; also 1 Pet. v. 12.) 2. Paul, in this second epistle, desires Timothy to salute the family of Onesiphorus ; and this excellent person's residence was in Ephesus. (2 Tim. iv. 19; comp. do. i. 16-18.) 3. In the first epistle, when Timothy was confessedly at Ephesus, Paul mentions Hymeneus and Alex- ander, as unfaithful ministers of that church ; in the second, TIMOTHY AT EPHESDS, 123 epislle he again names the same persons to Timothy, (1 Tim. i. 3'3; 2 Tim. ii. 17 ; iv. 11 ; see also Acts xix. 33,) whicli implies that the latter was then also in that city. 4. Against this Alexander, a resident of Epiiesiis, though just then in Rome, opposing virulentlj' the persecuted Paul, that apostle specially cautions Timothy, (2 Tim. iv. 14, 15,) which implies that Tim- olliy was even to continue in Ephesus after Alexander should return thither. Timothy actiiaUy xcas with Paul in those eastern parts, after their release at Rome. The language, " Erastus abode at C(M-inlh, but Trophimus have I left at JMiletum sick," implies that the whole four had recently been companions somewhere ^n those regions, as is allowed by Doddridge in the extract already given. We may here put together some of the incidents now proved so as to throw much light on ttie proper date of the placing of Timothy at Ephesus. Paul and Timothy, with probably otiierSj return from Rome to the eastern churches, visiting excursivelj' among them, including Crete, where Titus was " left," and not forgetting Philippi. Erastus and Trophimus are then in com- pany with them on the shores of Asia Minor. They are in or near Ephesus. Paul desires Timothy to remain there as the head of that church, and proceeds without him through Troas to Macedonia, spending a winter at Nicopolis, in that province, or in Epirus. From Macedonia or Nicopolis, he goes on to Corinth, where Erastus remains, that city being his home. (Rom. xvi.) Thence he sails to Ciele, where he leaves Trophi- mus sick at Miletus. And after that he is again at Rome, and again a prisoner, when he writes the second epistle to Timothy. Let the candid reader examine what has been offered under this third head, and determine whether this specification of some of the later travels of Paul, is not supported by sufficient scri|)tural evidence, and whetiier we have not here assigned the true date of the connexion of Timothy with the Ephesian church, as its ecclesiastical superior. Before proceeding, we ask the reader's further attention to another and interesting proof that Timothy went eastward, and to Ephesus, after he and Paul were at Rome, and that i\\G first epistle to him was also written at this late date. We have seen that Timothy was imprisoned at Rome, and " set at liberty.''* An allusion to his trial on this occasion, is found in * Hi'b. xiii. 23. Some translnte Uiis expression " sent away," lliii.s denyintr that Timothy had been a prisoner ; biit we can find notliintj to oiitwei.^h the n-nderin^ of our translators, " set at liliertv :" with wliich al.so am" :it th.il period. F/p:iphras, another roin- panion of Paul, was alao a prisoner with hiin ,ii Rome. (See Pliilcm. 23.) So like 124 TIMOTHY AT EPHESUS. the first epistle, (vi. 12,) '• and liast professed a good profession before niaiiy witnesses." Tiie words " professed a good profes- sion," may witli equal propriety read " confessed a good confts- sion,'''' and rjjv Ka\t]v ojxaXoyiav is SO translated in llie next verse, concerning Christ. Sucli language at once presents tlie idea that Timoliiv was a confessor, a term afterward applied lo those Christians who were tried or severely dealt with by their persecutors, but escaped with life ; tlie name martyr being appropriated to those who suffered death in the cause of their reliifjon. In this view of Tiniotliy's sufferings we see tije con- nexion between tliis verse and tlie next, viz. Timothy confessc-d a good confession before many witnesses, as the Saviour wit- nessed a good confession before Pilate. This confession of Timothy was of course connected with his imprisonment at Rome, (or in Italy,) for we nowhere read of his being in i)tison, or suffering peculiar persecution, or any persecution in wiiich he was so prominent as to be a conspicuous confessor, in any otlier place.* This explanation of the passage before us will, we think, bear investigation. And tlie result is, that Timothy had been in Rome witli Paul, and had returned to the east, before he was placed over the church at Ephesus, and before the first epistle was written to him. To the late date thus given to the first epistle to Timothy, and his being stationed in Epliesus to govern its churcli, " tliere are three plausible objections, (says Macknight,) which must not be overlooked. " 1. It is thought that it this epistle was written after the Apostle's release, lie could not, with any propriety, have said to wise was Aristarclnis. (See Col. iv. 10.) And these cases of the imprisonment of Piiiil's friends at that time, showing that sncli occurrences then took place, appea.' to ns to settle tlie ti-an.»latian of tlie passage respecting Timothy, that lie had been " set at liberty" from prison or arrest. * Commentators differ concerning tile "profession" or "confession" of Timothy ; some makincr jt a baptismal profession ; some, a profession when he was ordained ; some, a profession throut;hout liis minislry, in the midst of opposition. None of the.se interpietations, however, agree willi the comparing of Timothy's confession to that of Christ, in the next verse. Hence, other aut!:ors refer it to some Ephesian persecution of Timothy ; but of this, though much is recorded of Ephesian affairs, (Acts xi.x.) tliere is no evidence whatever. Aretius urges that it was a confession before heathen judges, in bonds, and with peril of life, "because the Apostle terms it K(i\riv, a ' good' confession, that is, conspicuously excellent or illustrious, (specio- earn,) and attended with danger ; moreover, because he adds that this confe.ssion was made before many witnesses, that is, with intrepidity, all danger of life being dis- regarded." This author notices, likewise, that such were aftcrwi-d called "con- fessors," and were ne.vt in estimation to martyrs. He assigns not the time or place of this "confession" of Timothy ; but, as the only time we hear of his being under restraint was when he was in Rome (Italy) with Paul, the evidence, all that we have, favors our assertion that it was tlien and there that Timothy acquired the honor of ranking with "confessors." Calmet agrees that Timothy was a " con- fessor" at the hazard of his life. Hammond regards the "confession" as a "great persecution Icir the faith of Christ." We may add, that the margin, being one of much excellence, of a Scotch edition of the Bible, refers from each of the passages, now under notice, to the other — from the "good confes.sion" to the " set at liberty,' Bad vice versa. 1 Tim. vi. 12 ; Heb. xiii. 23. TIMOTHY AT EPHESUS. 125 Timnlliv iv. 12, '• Let no man despise lliy i/onfh." But it is re- pliei, thai ServiusTiiliius, ill classing the Roman people, as Aulns G(!liins relates, (I. x. c. 28.) divided their age i-nto three periods. Childhood, lie limited to the age of seceni^en : youlh, from that in forty-six : and old age, from forty-six to the end of life. Now, supposing Timotliy to have been 18 years old, A. D. 5(t, when he became Panl's assistant, he would be no more than iW, A. D. 64, two years after the Apostle's release, when it is sup- posed this epistle was written.* Wherefore, being then in the period of life wiiich, by the Greeks as well as tiie Romans, was considered as youth, the Apostle with propriety might say to him, ■ Let no man despise thy youth.' " 2. It is asked, What occasion was there, in an epistle written after the Apostle's release, to give Timothy directions concerning the ordination of bishops and deacons in a church where there were so many elders already? (Acts xx. 17.) The answer is, tlie elders in the year 58 may have been too few for the church at Ephesus, in her increased state, in the year 65. Besides, false teachers had then entered, to oppose whom more bishops and deacons misiht be needed than were necessary in the year 58. Not to mention that some of the first elders having died, others were wanted to supply their places.-' [The reader will observe that tills argument of Dr. Macknight's implies that elders or presbyter-i)ishop3 were not allowed to ordain ; for if they had had that power, those already in Ephesus could have ordained as many as the growing clfucch required : nor would Timothy's staying there to ordain have secured a majority of sound minis- ters ; for tlie nnsound elders, if they could have ordained, might liave added to their numbers as fast as they pleased, and so have defeated this object. Dr. Macknight was an eminent Presbyte- rian divi'.ie.] "3. Because tlie Apostle wrote to Timothy that he ' hoped to come to him soon,' (1 Tim. iii. 14.) it is argued, that the letter in which this is said, must have been written before he said to the Epiiesian elders, (Acts xx. 25,) ' I know that all ye, among whom I have gone preaching the kingdom of God, shall see my face no more.' But, as it was no point of either faiih or practice which he spake, he may well be supposed to have declared nothing but his own opinion, resulting from his fears. He had lately escaped the rage of the Jews, who laid wait for him in Cenclirea, to kill him. (Acts xx. 3.) This, with their fury on former occasions, [see also Acts xx. 22, 23, 24,] filled him with ?uch anxiety, that in writing to the Romans froni Corinth, he * Dr. MacltnigVil's clironolog:y difTers from that of Bisliop Lloyd, tlio one usually jdoptcd, in lliai the former calcnliiti-s tlie "fiurteen v«irs aflor," (Gal. ii. 1,) from hf conversion of Paul, instead of iiis first vi.si to .Jernsaloin, three years later, (G.il. i. \K) Accordin<; to IJisliop Lloyd, Timotliy became I'aul's as.'^iw'.aiil, A. D. r.:3, rtified as was indispensable. As instances of tiiis sensation, we might notice the train of remarks in pp. 8, 9, and especially in the following expressions: "The reasonings throughout his article," (the reviewer's,) "are much the same as those usually brought against Episcopacy ; mid where thev are not the same, they are so much minus the former ground," &c. "No one, for three years, brought these old reasonings against the Tract — no one, till the reviewer fancied he had discovered a weak spot in it. and might, therefore, re- produce some of tliem with effect." "The present is only a start in its slnmber." And again, on page 15, the author of the reply speaks of the reviewer as one whom he suspects "to be a new' comer into this field of controversy," if not with the inten- tion, at least with the appearance, of designing to disparage the force of the arguments which the reviewer had urged. Now, it is unnecessary for us to remind Dr. Onderdouk, that the inquiry is not, whether the arguments are old or new, but whether they are pertinent and valid. Nor is the question, whether one is a " new comer" into this controversy. Arguments may not be tlie less cogent and unanswerable, for being urged by one who has not before entered the lists; nor will arguments from the Bible be satisfactorily met by an affirmation that they are urged by one imknown in the fiel'd of debate. It may be proper, however, for us to observe, in self-vindication, that the arguments which we urged were drawn from no other book than the Bible. The " Tract" and the New Testament were the only books before us in the preparation of the article. The course of argument sug- gested was that only which was producec by the invesiioation of the Scriptures. "Whether we have fallen into any train of thinking which has been before urged by writers on this sub- ject, we do n'tt even now know, nor are we likely to know; as it is our fixed purpose not to travel out of the record before us, — ilif. inspired account of the matter in the sacred Scriptiir(>s. If, liowever, the argiunents which we have urged, be "the same with those which are usually brought against Episcopacy," (p. 8,) 132 REVIEW — ANSWER TO A REVIEW OP it furnishes a case of coincidence of results, in investigating the New Testament, which is itself some evidence that the objec- tions to Episcopacy are such as obviously occur to different minds, engaged in independent investigation. When the reply appeared, it became a question with us whether the controversy should be prolonged. A perusal of the " Answer" did not suggest any necessity for departing from our original intention, not to engage in such a controversy. It did not appear to furnish any new argument, which seemed to call fur notice, or to invalidate any of the positions defended in the review. Almost the whole of the " Answer" appeared to be simply an expansion of a note in the Tract, (p. 12, note z,) which, when tlie review was prepared, seemed not to furnish an argu- ment that required particular attention. The fact, too, that then the argument was expressed in a 7iote, in small type, and at the bottom of the page, was an indication lliat it was not of much magnitude in the eye of the author of the Tract himself. Why it is now expanded, so as to constitute the very body and essence of the reply, is to us proof, that the subject, on the Episcopal side, is exhausted. This fact is of such a nature, as to impress the mind strongly with the belief, that henceforth nothing remains to be added, in the effort to ''test Episcopacy by Scripture." In departing from our original purpose, it is our wish to reciprocate the kind feeling and candor of the author of the "Tract," and of the "Answer." Truth, not victory, is our object. We have but one wish on this subject. It is, that the principles upon which God designed to establish and govern his holy Cluirch, may be developed and understood. We resume the subject with profound and undiminished respect for the talents, the piety, and the learning of the author of the Tract and Answer; and with a purpose that this shall he, final, on our part, unless something new, and vital to the subject, shall be added. In this, as well as in all other things, our desire is, not to write one line, which, dying, — or in heaven, — we would wish to blot. Still, this desire, so deeply cherished, does not forbid a full and free examination of arguments. Our conscientious belief is, that the superiority " in ministerial power and rights," (Tract, p. 15,) claimed by Episcopal bishops, is a superiority known in the Episcopal churches only, and not in the New Testament; and this we purpose to show. In entering upon our examination of the "Answer," we may remark, that the scriptural argument for Episcopacy is now fairlv and entirely before the world. On the Episcopal side, nothing material to be said, can remair. Tiie whole argument is in the Tract, and in the Answer. If Episcopacy is not estab- lished in these, we may infer that it is not in the Bible. If not m the Bible, it is not "necessarily binding." (Tract, p. 3.) To this EPISCOPACY TESTED BY SCRIPTURE. 133 conclusion, — that the whole of the material part of the scriptural argument is before tiic world, in these pamphlets, — we are con- ducted by tlie fact that neither talent, learning, zeal, nor time, have been wanting, in order to present it; that their autlior en- tered on tiie discussion, manifestly acquainted with ', and tiicn look at other systems of office^ both religious and civil, and you find seceral grades of oliicers. In tlie Patriarchal Clnirch, lliere was the distinction of ' high priest' and 'priest.' In the Jewish Church, (common sense being, in this case unquestionably, divinely approved,) tliere were liie liigh-priest, priests, and Leviles. Among Pagans and Mahomed- ans, there are various grades in the office deemed sacred. Civil governments have usually governors, a president, princes, a king, an emperor, ttc, as the heads of tiie general, or stale, or provin- cial magistracies. In armies and navies, there is always a chief. Jf the reviewer should claim exceptions, we reply, tliey are ex- ceptions only, and very few in number. The general rule is with us. That general rule, next to universal, is, that among officers, there is a difference of power, of rights, of rank, of grade, call it wlmt you will. And this general rule gives a presumption that such' will also be the case in the Christian Church. We go to Scripture, then, with tlie presumptive argument fully against parity. If we should find in Scripture neither imparity nor parity, still common sense decides for the former. If we find the tone of Scripture doubtful, on this point, imparity has the advantage, common sense tiu'ning the scale. If we find there intimations, less than positive injunctions, in favor of imparity, common sense, besides the respect due to Scripture, decides for our interpretation of them. And if any thing in Scripture is supposed to prove or to justify parity, it must be very explicit, to overturn tlie suggestion of common sense. The 'presump- tive argument,' then, is clearly with ?{s, and the 'burden of prof)f' lies on parity. Let the reviewer peruse tlie Tract again, bearing in mind the principles laid down in this paragraph, and he will, we trust, think better of it." These observations, it will be remembered, are made by the same vyriter, and in connexion with the same subject, as the declaration, that " no argumf.nt i.s wouth taking into the ag- cocNT, that has not a palpable hearing on the clear and naked topic, — the Scriptural evidence of Episcopacy.'''' Now, against the principles of ialerprelation here stated, and Avhich the Tract led us to suppose were abandoned, we enter our decided and solemn protest. The question, — the only question in the case, is, whether Episcopacy "has the authority of Scrip- lure?" (Tract, p. 3.) The affirmation is, tliat if it has not "it is not necessarily binding." (p. 3.)- The principle of intcrpret- aiion, which in the Answer is introduced to guide us in this inquiry, is, that "the fathers are considted on the subject, because the fabric of the ministry wliicii they describe, forms an historical basis for interpreting Scripture." (Answer, p. 3.) In order to understand the bearing of tiiis rule of interpretation it is necpssary to know what it means. A "basis" is delinecl to be "the foundation of a thing; that on which a thing stands or 136 REVIEW — ANSWER TO A REVIEW OP lies* that on whieh it rests; the ground-work or first principle; that which supports." Webster. "An his/an'cdl basis'' nuisi uican, therefore, that the opinions, or facts of history, tliat-is, in this case, tlie tesumony of the fathers, constitute ihefuuiuialiun, the g>-ound-work, or first principle of the interpretation of the Bible; or that on which such an interpretation rfsi.s, or by which it is supported. It wouhl seem to follow, therefore, tliat unless we first become acquainted with tliis "historical basis," we are wholly in the dark about the proper interpretation of the Bible, and that our interpretation is destitute of any true support nnd authority. To this principle of interpretation, in this case, and in all others, the objections are obvious and numerous. (1.) Our first objection lies against the supposed necessity of having any such previously ascertained basis, in order to a just interpreta- tion of tiie oracles of God. We object wholly lo the doclrine, that the Scriptures are to be interpreted by historical facts to be developed long after the book was written. The great mass ot men are wholly incompetent to enter into any such " historical" inquiry; but the great mass of men are not unqualified to un- derstand the general drift and tenor of the New Testament. (2.) The statement is, that "the fabric of the ministry which they describe," is to be the basis of such inlerprelation. But who knows what the fabric of the ministry which they describe is? It is to be remembered, that the question is not respecting the ministry in the fourth century and onward: but the inquiry, — and the only one of material value in any supposition, — per- tains to the fathers previous to that period. And there every thing is unsettled. Prelacy claims the fathers in that unknown age. The Papacy claims the fathers there. Presbyterianism claims the fathers there. Congregationalism and Independency, too, claim them there. Every thing is unsettled and chaotic. And this is the very point which has been the interminable subject of contention in this whole inquiry, and from which we hoped we had escaped, by the principles laid down in the Tract. Yet the position 7iow advanced, would lead us again into all the difficulties, and controversies, and jostling elements, and contra- dictory statements, which have always attended tlie appeal to the fathers. If we are to wait until we have ascertained "the fabric of the ministry" which these fathers describe, before we have a "basis'' for interpreting Scripture, we may close the New Testament in despair. (3.) This canon of interpretation is contrary to the rule which Dr. Onderdonk has himself laid down in the Tract itself (p. •^3.) In that instance, the authority of the Scriptures was declared to be ample and final. And throughout the Tract there is a manifest indication of a belief, that the Bible is susceptible of interpretation, on the acknow- ledged rules of language, and the principles of common sense. We hailed such a manifestation, not only as auspicious to the cause of truth in regard to the claims of Episcopacy, but because it evinced the spirit »o which the Church must come, — of a EPISCOPACY TESTED BY SCRIPTURE. 137 direct, unqualified, and fim^l appeal to the Word of Gon, — to determine religious doctrine. To lliat standard we mean to adhere. And, as far as in us lies, we intend to hold it up to the view of men, and to insist on the great truth from which nothino; shall ever divert us, and from which we fer- vently pray the Church may never be diverted, that we are not to look for the discovery of truth, by ascertaining ^/-A-i an '■historical basis," or, a set of instruments by which we are to measure and adjust tlie proportions of trntii which we find in the revelation of God. Without any design to disparage or under- value llie fathers, whom we shicerely reverence, as having been holy, bold, and venerable men; without any blindness, as we believe, to the living lustre of that piety which led many of them to the stake; without any apprehension, that their testimon\-, when examined, would be found to be on the side of Episcopacy, — for it remains yet to be seen, that the fathers of the first two centuries ever dreamed of the pride and domination which sub- sequently crept into the Church, and assumed th« form of pre- lacy and popery : without any thing to iuJiueiice us, so far as wr know, from any of these '• extraneous" souraes, we intend to do all in our power to extend and perpetuate the doctrine, that the ultimate appeal in ail religious inquiry, is to be the Bible, aiul iIk; Bible oidy. " Tiie Bible," said Chiliingworth. " is ihe religion of the Protestants." We rejoice to hear this sentiment echoed from the Assistant Bishop of Pennsylvania. And without mean- inn to insinuate, that this sentiment is not as honestly acted on by Episcopalians as by any other denomination of Chrislians. we may add, that we deem the first sentence of the Tract worthy to be written in letters of gold, on the posts of every Episcopal sanc'uary, and over every altar, and on the cover of every " Book of Common Prayer." " The claim. ofEpiscnpacy to be n/Divin,? ittstitntinn, and therefore oblig-atnnj on the Church, readi fnnila- rnentallij on the one qneslion, — Has it the artthoritij nf Scripture ? If it has not, it is not necessarili/ binding:" (4.) Our fourth objection to this rule of interpreialioii is, that it is, substantially, that on which rests the papal hierarchy. We do not know that the Papist would wish to express his principles of inierpretalioii in stronger language, than that "the fat.!iers are consulted on this subject, because the fabric of the ministry which they de- scribe, forms an historical basis for interpreting Scripture." To us it seems, that this woiiM express all. that they ask ; and as we doubt not that Dr. Onderdonk would shrink from any approxi mation to the Papacy, quite as firmly as ourselves, we deem :i lecessary merely to simgest the consideration, to render tb.i objection at once satisfactory to his own mind. We objf'ct, also, to the prinei[)le of interpretation advanced on p. 18, of the Answer, which we have alr(;ady quoted. The (lei there assumed, is, that various orders of men are observable i'l civil oovernmeiils, &c. ; and hence, that there is presumptive evidence, that such orders are to be found iu the Scriptures. We 12* 138 REVIEW — ANSWER TO A REVIEW OF are not ignorant of the purpose for which this fact is adduced. It is to show, that the ''burden of proof" does not lie so entirely on the Episcopalian, as wo had affirmed in the Keview. We admit, to some extent, the modifying force of the circumstances, so far as the "burden of proof" is concerned. But it. merely lightens the burden ; it does not remove it. Presumption, in such a case, is not proof. When the fact affirmed relates to a doctrine of the Bible, it is not sufficient to say, tliat tliat fact occurred elsewhere, and thenfore it must occur in the Bible. It is still tlie business of the Episcopalian, to prove his affirmation from the New Testament itself, that bishops are superior to other ministers of the Gospel, in ministerial power and rights. Tiiis is Ids affirmation ; this is the point which he urges ; this is to be made out from the Bible only ; and assuredly the fact, that tiiere are dukes, and earls, and emperors, and admirals, and nabobs, forms, at best, avery slight presumption in favor of the affirmation, that the ministry of the Gospel consists of three 'orders.' But our objections may be further stated. So far as the 'presumption goes, it is not particularly in favor of Episcopacy, as consisting in THREE orders of the clergy. For, (1.) The fact is not, that there are three orders observable every where. It is, that there are many orders and ranks of civil officers and of men. (2.) The presumption drawn from what has taken place, would be rather in favor of despotism, and the papacy. (3.) The presumption is equally met by the doctrine of Presbyterianism as by prelacy. Presbyterians hold equally to a division of their communit}' in(o various ranks, — into bishops, and elders, and deacons, and peo- ple. The presumption, drawn from the fact that civil society is thus broken up, is as really in their favor, as in favor of Epis- copacy. (4.) The Congregationalist may urge it wilii tlie same propriety. His community registers the names of his minister, and deacons, and church, and congregation, each with distinct privileges and rights. If Dr. Onderdonk should reply to this, tiiat his remark referred only to the distinction of "■systems of office, both religious and civil," (p. 18,) and "that among cfficers, there is a difference of power and rights," (p. 19,) we reply, that the distinction of officers pertains to other churches, as well as the Episcopal. No Non-episcopalian, perhaps, can be found, who holds to a parity of office. He will refer, at once, to liis minister, to his elders, to his deacons, as evincing sufficient disparity, to meet the full force of the presumption alleged by Dr. Onderdonk. But our main objection here, as before, is to the principle of interpretation. We respectfully insist, that it should be laid aside, as an "extraneous consideration," in the inquiry, whether Episcopacy "has the authority of Scripture." In our review, we stated that the burden of proof, in this inquiry, was laid wholly on the friends of Episcopacy, (p. 7.) This point was so obvious, that we did not tiiink it necessary to illustrate it at length. Nor do we now intend to do more than merely, by adverting to it, to recall it to the attention of our readers. The EPISCOPACY TESTED BY SCRIPTURE. 139 enthor of the " Answer" has endeavored to remove tins burden from himself and his friends, (p. 4, and p. 18.) This lie has done, by attempting to show that tliere is a presumptive argu- ment in favor of Episcopacy; which presumption throws tiie task ()( proving the parity of tiie clergy on those who advocate it. Now we are not disposed to enter into a controversy on this point. To us it seemed, and siill seems, to be a plain case, that where it was aflirmed that the clergy of the Christian Church was separated, by Divine authority, into three grades, or orders, and that opj; of those orders had the e.rdusiiie riglit of ordina- tion, of discipline, and of general superintendence; it could not be a m.atter requiring mucli deliberation, to know where rested tlie burden of proof. If a man assumes authority over an army, demanding the subordination of all other officers to his will, ii is not a very unreasonable presmnption, that the burden of proof lies with him ; nor would it be the ubcious course, to expect the entire mass of officers to show, that he had not received such a commission. We shall, therefore, feel ourselves to be pursuing a very obvious course, if we do not recognise the authority of Episcopal bishops, unless there is proof positive of their commission. We may add furtiifr, that in the supposed ease of tlie commander of the army or the navy, we sliould not regard that as a very satisfactory proof, which was pursued with as little directness and explicitness as are evinced in the argu- ment to establish the original domination and perpetuity of the prelatical office. And in this connexion we may remark, that it is perfectly immaterial, as to the main point, what may be the of)inion of the man who calls the claim in question, or what may be the particular denomination to which he is attached. Whether he is an Independent, a Presbyterian, or a Congrega- tioimlist, it may be equally true, that the'bishop of the Episcopal Church is imahle to make out his claims from the New Testa- ment. The only material point, in which all other denomina- tions are agreed, is, that the ministers of the New Testament are on an equalily, in the respect under consideration ; that the power of ordaining, and admini-:lering discipline, and of super- intending the concerns of the Church, is intrusted to thcMu, as equals, in opposition to tlie exclusive and exalted assumptions ot a few, who claim the right to deprive them of these powers, and to make their ministrations null and void. And when claims oi this order are advanced, — claims designed to dispossess the great ma-st]es wer.e "distinguished from the elders, because tliey were superior to them in ministerial power and rights." (Tract, p. 13.) The second is, that this distinction " was so persevered in, as to indicate that it was a permanent arrangement." (Tract, p. 23.) These are independent propositions. One by no means follows from tlie other. Should tlie first be admitted, yet t!ie second is to be establislied by equally explicit and independent proof. Nay, the second is by far tlie most material point, and should, an we shall show, be fortified by the most irrefragable arguments. The third point, indispensable to the other two, is, that there is no evidence in the New Testament, that presbyters, or elders, discharged the functions which are now claimed for bisliops; that is, that they either (1.) ordained, or (2.) exercised discipline, or (3.) exerted a general supervision. (Tract, p. 11.) Unless then it is shown, that not one of tliese finirtions was ever performed by presbyters, the Episcopal claim fails of support, and must be abandoned. These are independent positions, and a failure in one, is a failure in the whole. To a cursory review of what can be said on these points, we now propose to call the attention of our readers. Tlie first claim asserted, is, that the apo^es were "distin- guished from the elders, because they were ^perror to them, in ministerial power and rights." (Tract, p. 15.) The points of tlieir alleged superiority, are, exclusive ordination, exclusive discipline, exclusive confirmation, and exclusive right of general superintendence. The question is, whether this is the nature of the superiority with wliich the apostles were intrusted ; or, which is tlie same thing, were these tlie purposes for which they were set apart to the apostolic office, and for \chich they were called apostles? Dr. Onderdonk affirms it ; we take the liberty, most respectfully, of calling for explicit proof of it, from the New Testament. His direct proof is contained in a nut-shell. It consists of one expression of Scriptm-e, (Actsxv. 2, 4, 6,22; xvi. 4,) — "Apostles and elders," "apostles, and. elders, and brethren;" and a note on p. 12, of the Tract, and in the reply expanded to more than two pages, showing that, in his apprehension, they administered discipline. As this is tlie basis on which the whole fabric is reared, and as it embraces tlie very gest of t!ie " Answer," we shall be pardoned for adverting to it with some particularity. We may then inquire, why the apostles were distinguished from the eiders, or presbyters? Dr. Onderdonk affirms, that it was because they were "superior in ministerial power and rights." The argument on this subject, from the New Testament, is, that EPISCOPACY TESTED BY SCRIPTURE. 141 til e two classes of men arcdi.'^tin^uislied from each other, (Acts XV. 2, 4, 0, 22; xvi. 4,) by the followins; expressions; "aposiles and elders,'' "apostles, and elders, and brethren." Now in re- gard to this proof, we beg leave to make the followijig remarks : — (1.) That ills the o»/!/ direct passage of Scriptnre, wliicti Dr. (). is able to adduce, on the snbjecl of the alleged siiperioriiy of the apostles. Its importance, in his view, may be seen from the fact, that it is not merely the only proof, but, that it is' repeated not less than five times, in tlie space of less than a single patre of the Tract, (pp. 14. 15,) and that it occupies a similar prominence ill the Answer. The Tract has been written four years. Dili- gent research during that time, it would be supposed, migliLliave led to tlie discovery of some ot/ier text, that had a bearing on the point. But the matter still rests here. There is no other text; and the fabric is to be sustained on the solitary expression, " apostles and elders," " apostles, and elders, and brethren." (2.) What does this passage prove? It proves this, and no more, that there was a distinction of some sort between the apostles a«f/ elders, which is a point of jnstas much importance, as when we atTirm that one class were called apostles and another called elder.s. BuJ^ it is difTicult for us to see how this determines any thing respecting tite reasons of the distinction. In Ephesians iv. 11, the Aposiie atlirms that God gave some, apostles; and some, propliets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers. Here a distinction is made out. But is the nature of the distinction thereby ascertained ? I speak of guineas, and doubloons, and guilders. I affirm a distinction, indeed; but is its nature ascertained ? Have I determined that the guinea is, therefore, superior in weight or value to the others 1 (3.) We have never denied that there was a distinction between the apostles, and elders, and. brethren. The very fact that they had the name apostles, shows that there must have been some distinction, or some reason why they were so called. Unusual discernment, or labored argument, surely, are not necessary to perceivd this. But the very point is, what is the nature of this distinction? And this is to be settled, not by the use of the word, but by the statement in the New Testament; and it is incumbent on the Episcopalian to show by proof-texts, tliat it was because the apostles were superior in the power of ordination, of confirmation, of discipline, and of general super- intendence of a diocese. Dr. Ouderdonk affirmed, that the name was not so given, because they were appointed by Christ personally; nor because they had seen the Lord after his resur- rection ; nor because they had the power of working miracles: and then observed, that " it followed, or would not be question- ed, that it was because they were superior in ministerial power and riglits." (Tract, p. 13.) It seems not to have occurred to him, that they could be appointed to be witnesses of his entire ministry, including the fact of his resurrection as a niain point. 142 REVIEW — ANSWER TO A REVIEW OP We took the liberty, therefore, of examining this matter, as very material to tiie argiimciit. We proved, (1.) Tliat in the original appointment of liie Apostles, ihere was no reference to their supe- riority in the powers of ordination, discipline, &c. (Review, p. 10.) 'J'liis [)osition we supported by the three separate acconnls of IVlattlievv, Mark and Luke. (2.) That no such thing occurred in the instructions of our Lord, after his resurrection from tlie dead. This also we conrirmers, he (the review- er,) had certainly made a showy argument." (Answer, p. 10.) Tiiat our argument was thus noticed, was, indeed, to us a mat- ter of • amazement.' It was, however, an indication, of which we were not slow to avail ourselves, and the hold upon which we shall not be swift to lose, that our proof-texts were ad rem., and that tliey settled the question. When all that the Assistant Bishop of Pennsylvania deems it proper to say of our array of more than twenty explicit declarations of the Word of (ion, is, that by the help of capitals and italics, they constitute a ".SHOWY" argument," '(we mean no disrespect, when we dis- play the word in a showy form,) we deem the conclusion to be inevitable, tliat our texts are just what we intended \\\v.y should 144 REVIEW — ANSWER TO A REVIEW OP lie,— that they settled the question, — and, to use an expression from the favorite chapter of liie Ads of the Apostle^^ we "rejoice for the consolation." Acts xv. 31. (3.) Though we were not met by any new proof-texts, or by nny answer to our own, we were referred to tiie sentiments of the following distingnished men, viz. the late Dr. Wilson, Dr. Miller, Dr. Campell, Mattliew Henry, '^•{he divines who argned with Charles I. in the isle of Wiglit," and Calvin, to prove, that the apostles were superior to tlie elders, and liie evangelists. (Answer, p. 10.) Respecting thiese anthorities, we may be per- mitted to remark, (1.) th;it we sliall probably not yield, out of regard to tiieir names, to any persons. With us, they have all the autliority which uninspired men can ever be allowed to have. The writer of the Review n»ay be- permitted to remark, perhaps, that he has occasion of peculiar respect for two of those venera- ble men. By one, — whose superior, in profound powers of reasoning, in varied and extensive learning, and in moral worth, he believes, is not now to be found ^among the living, in any American churcb,-^lie was preceded in the office which he now liolds. At the feet of the other, it has been his privilege to sit, for nearly four years, and to receive tbe instructions of wisdom from his lips ; and, whatever skill he may have in conducting I'lis argument on the government of tlie churches, he owes to the "basis" which was laid by tliose instructions. Whatevei may be said, therefore, of these authorities adduced in the " Answer," will not be traced to want of respect for these vene- ral)le names. But, (2.) we may remark, that in this argument, the authorities of uninspired men are to be laid out of the ac- count. With all due deference to them, and to Dr. O., we must be permitted to believe, that tlieir autliority belongs to the "ex- traneous considerations," as well as that of the opinion of Cran- mer, (Answer, p. 5,) which, by common consent, it had been agreed to lay outof the controversy. (SeeTract.pp. 3-10 ; Review, p. 5.) Our' wonder is, that after the disclaimer of relying on these extraneous considerations, in the Trad, the author of the Answer should have occupied nearly two pages, with the state- ments of these distinguished men. (3.) Their authority, even wlien adduced, does not bear on the point before us. The ques- tion is, whether the apostles were superior to other ministers of liie Gospel, in ministerial power and rights? that is, in the power of ordination, confirmation, discipline, and general super intendence. Their autiiorities adduced, prove only, that in the judgment of these venerable men, they were superior in some respects, to evangelists and teachers ; or, that there was a dis- tinction between them, — a point on which we make no denial. On the only question in debate, they make no affirmation. On tlie claims set up by Episcopalians, that the apostles were supe- rior in ordination, &c., they concede nothing, nor did they believe a word of it. Having thus noticed the " Answer" on this part of our argu KPISCOPACY TESTED BY SCRIPTURE. 145 ment, we shall dismiss it. We do it by simply remiiu]i!i>r imt reailers, tliut tlie solitary toxt whicii uiidispulcd leanimg, i.ilcnis, and zeal have discovered, during a period of more than four years, since tlie discussion first commenced, — llie lonely Scri|) ure proof of the sweeping claims, that tlie apostles o«/// had ihe ])o\ver of ordination, and that this was the peculiarity of the office, — stands forth in the Tract, and in the Answer: - the apostles and elders," "apostles, and elders, and brethren !"' Out the author of the "Answer" complains, (p. 11,) that we did not give the ' whole' of his argument on the subji^ct; and he refers to a note on p. 12 of the Tract, designed to show that the apostles had the power of administering discipline, and that therefore they were superior to the presbyters, or held a more elevated grade of office. Tlie note is this : — "That the apostles alone ordained, will be proved. In 1 Cor. iv. 19-21; V. 3-5; 2 Cor. ii. 6; vii. 12; x. 8; xiii. 2, 10; and 1 Tim. i. 20; are recorded inflictions and remissions of disci- pline performed by an apostle, or threatenings on his part, although tiiere must have been elders in Corinth, and certainly were in Ephesus." This note he expands into an argument, which constitutes the most material part of the "Answer." It is incumbent upon us to examine it, and to ascertain how far it goes to settle the point under discussion. Before examining the particular cases re- ferred to, we would remind our readers that the purpose for which they are adduced, is to show that the apostles were superior to presbyters in pov)er and riffhts ; and the alleged proof is, that theij administered discipline. To bear on the case, therefore, the passages must prove not only that they exercised discipline, but, (1.) That they did it as apostles, or in virtue of the apostolic office; (2.) Tliat tliey did it in ciiurches where there were presbyters ; and, (3.) That presbyters never administered discipline 'themselves. The second .point here adverted to, is all that the author of the "Answer" feels himself called upon to make out. (Answer, pp. 11-13.) Now in regard to this point of the proof, we make the following general remarks: (1.) There were certainly, in all, fourteen apostles; and if we may credit the writer of liiese pamphlets, and reckon Timothy, and Ijarnabas, and Sylvanus, and Apollos, and Andronicus, and .Tunia, and Titus, and perhaps half a dozen others, there were somewhat more than a score invested with this office ; yet it is remarkable, that the only cases of discipline referred to, as going lo prove the superiority of the whole college of apostles, are cases in which the Apostle Paul only was concerned. (2.) There are accounts in the New Testament of perhaps some hundreds of churches ; and yet, we meet with no instance of the kind of discipline relied on, except in the single churches of Corinlli and Ephesus. It is incredible, that there should have been no other cases of discipline in these clmrclies. Hut if there were, the presumption is, that they were settled without the interven- 13 146 BEVIEW — ANSWER TO A REVIEW OP tion of an apostle. (3.) Tl)ese very cases, as we shall presently show, were cases in whicli Paul adiiiiiiistered the rod of disci|)line in the churches where Titus and Timothy, — apostles also and bisiiops, — were present, by tiie showing of the author of the "Answer," and thus were acls of manifest disrespect for liie autliorily of those prelates. And if the fact, that the discipline was adniinisiered where there were presbyters, (Answer, |)p. 11, I'i.) proves that tiie A|)ostle \\*is superior to them, the same fact proves tiiat he was superior to Timniliy and Titus. 'I he course of the argument urged by the auiiior of the "Answer," would be, that Paul was disposed to assume the whole power into his own liands, and to set aside the claims alike of bishops and presbyters. It has a very undesirable looking toward the authority claimed by the Papacj'. Tiie two cases alleged as proof that the apostles o)tlt/hiid tlie power of administering discipline, are those at Corinih and at Ephesus. Paul wrote fourteen epistles, and wrote them to eight chuHches. In all these epistles, and in all tiie numerous churches of wliich he had the charge, (2 Cor. xi. 28, " the care of all the churches,") these are the only instances in which he was called, so far as appears, to exercise discipline. We now inquire, whetlter he did it for the purpose of showing that the apostles oiili/ had this power ? The first case alleged, is that at Corinth. "In 1 Cor. iv. 19-21, &c., are recorded inflictions and remissions of discipline performed by an apostle, or thrcrvtenings on iiis part; although there must have been elders at Corinth." (Note z. Tract, p. 12.) The argument here is, that there must have been elders at Corinth, and yet that Paul interposed over their heads to inflict discipline. This is the whole of the argument. (See Answer, p. 11.) In reply to llrese, we observe: That there were elders, teach- ers, ministers, inslructers in Corinih, we think is placed beyond a question, by the argument of the "Answer," and by the nature of the case. This f^act we do not intend to call in question. The argument of the "Answer" from lliis fact, we state in the author's own words: — " Yet, without noticing these elders in the matter, so far as the epistles show — though ttiey doubtless were noticed and consulted, as much as courtesy and their pastoral standing made proper — without putting the matter into their hands, or even passing it through their hands, Paul threatens, inflicts,and- remits discipline among the people of their charge. This is a ' ministerial' act. And Paul's doing it hims(4f, instead of committing it to tlie elders, shows that he, an apostle, was ' superior to them in ministerial power and right.s.' " . p. 11. Further, if there were elders there, there whs an " apostle," a prelatical bishop, according to the Tract, there also. This is shown by a quotation from the epistle itself, relating to this very time, and in immediate connexion with the case of discipline. (1 Cor. iv. 17.) " For this cause, [that is, on account of your EPISCOPACY TESTED BY SCKIPTURE. 147 divided and contending state,] have I sent unto yon Timolhens, who is my beloved son, and faithful in tlie Lord, wlio siiall bring you into remembrance of my ways which be in Christ, as I teach every wliere in every chiircli." Now, as it will not be pretended by Episcopalians that Timothy was not an "apos- tle," and as it is undeniable tliat he was at that time at Corinth, the argument will as well apply to set aside his right to admin- ister discipline in the case, as that of tlie elders. Borrowing, then, the words of the Answer, we would say : " Yet without noticing" this apostle " in the matter, so far as the epistles show, — though" he was "doubtless noticed and consulted, as muf'h as courtesy and his" apostolical "standing made proper; without pulling the matter into" his " hands, or even passing it through" his "hands, Paul threatens, inflicts, and remits disci- pline. This is a ' ministerial' act. And Paul's doing it himself, instead of committing it to" Timothy, "shows, that he, an apos- tle, was ftii.pen'or to" him " in ministerial power and rights." Now no Episcopalian will fail to be at once deeply impressed with the fallacy of this reasoning, in regard to the "apostle" and " bishop" Timothv. And yet, it is manifestly just as perti- nent and forcible in his case, as it is for the purpose of the An- swer in regard to the elders of Corinth. It cannot be pretended that a difference existed, because the "elders" were permanently located there, and Timothy not ; for the argument of the " Tract" and the " Answer"" is, that the apostles were superior as apnsfles, and therefore it made no difference on this point, whether thev were at" Corinth, or at Crete, or at Antioch ; they were invested with the apostolic office every where. Onr con- clusion from this instance, and from the fact which we have now stated, is, that there was some peculiarity in the case at Corinth, whicii rendered the ordinary exercise of discipline by presbyters difficult ; which o[)erated equally against any interfer- ence by Timothv ; and which called peculiarly for the inter position of the founder of the church, and of an inspired apostle, —for one clothed with authority to inflict a heavy judgment, here denominated "delivering unto Satan for the destruction of the flesh," (1 Cor. v. 5,)— a power which could be exercised by none then in Corinth. Our next inquiry is, whether there are any reasons for this opinion ? The following we believe satis- factory: — (l.)'Paul had -founded that church, (Acts xviii. 1-11,) and his interference in cases of discipline would be regarded as pecu- liarly proper. There would be a natural and obvif)US deftTence to tlie founder of the church, which would render such an inter- position in tl'.e highest decree appropriate. We are confiruKid in this view, because he puts his authority in this- very cane on such a fact, and on the deference which was due to iiim as their spiritual father. 1 Cor. iv. 15 — " For thouch ye have ten thftusaiid iuslructers in CiiHis'r. yet have ye imt many KAriii;ns; for in CiiKisr .Iksms /have begotten you ihni\igh the Gospel." 148 REVIEW — ANSWER TO A REVIEW OP (2.) The circumstances of the cliurch at Corinth were such, evidently, as to render tlie ordinary exercise of discipline by their own elders impossible. 'J'hey were distracted ; were rent into parties ; were engaged in violent contention ; and tiie authority, therefore, of one portion of tlie "teachers," and " iiistrncters," wonld be disregarded by the other. Thns no united sentence could be agreed upon ; and no judgment of a party could restore peace. An attempt to exercise discipline would only enkindle parly animosity, and produce strife. (See chap. i. 11-17.) So great, evidently, was the contention, and .so liopcless the task of allaying it by any ordinarj' means, that even T'iniotfn/, whom Paul had sent for the express purpose of brinojiig ihem into remembrance of his ways, (1 Cor. iv. 17,) could liave no hope, by his own interference, of allaying it. It was natural that it should be referred to the founder of the church, and to one who had the power of punishing the offender. (3.) It is material to remark, that this was not an ordinary case of discipline. It was one that required the severest exer- cise of ainhority, and in a form which was lodged only with tliose intrusted witli the power of inflicting disease, or, as it is termed, " of delivering to Satan for the destruction of the flesh." (1 Cor. v. 5.) Such cases would inevitably devolve upon the Apostles, as clothed with miraculous power; and such, beyond all controversy, was this case. It therefore proves nothing about the ordinary mode of administering discipline. This case had reached to such a degree of enormity; it had been suffered to remain so long; it had become so aggravated, that it was necessary to interpose in this awful manner, and to decide it. Yet, (4.) The Apostle supposes that ihey ought to liave exercised the usual discipline themselves. Tliis is evident, we think, from a comparison of the following passages : 1 Cor. v. 9, 10, 11, 12, with V. 2. In these verses it is supposed, that they did them- stdves icsjially exercise disciplme. Paul (verse 9) gave them tlie general direction, not to keep company with fornicators; that is, to exercise discipline on those wlio did. In verse 11, he asks ihem. in a maimer showing that the affirmative answer to the question expressed their usual practice, whether they did not "judge those that were within?'" that is, whether they did nf)t ordi- narily exercise discipline in the church ? And in verse 2, he sup- poses that it ought to have been done in this c}ot intrust- ed by tiie canons of the Episcopal Ciiurch. We respectfully ask, Wliether the bishop of Pennsylvania, or New- Jersey, would now take 1 Pet. v. 2. 3, for a text, and address the " priests," or " second order of clergy," in these words, without considerable qualification — " The presbyters who are among you I exhort, who am also a presbyter. Peed (roif/aiort) tiie flock of God, tirio-KOTTouiTt? dischariiiug the dut\' of bishops (tver it, not by con- straint, neither as being lords oix^r God's herittrge. Heb. xiii.7 — '•Remember lliem which have the rule over you: tZv nyoviiivoiv hiiSiv, YOUR Riu.ERs." Verse 17 — " Obey tliem that have the rule over you." (Tid0ca6cTo7it',yovijivotivvS>v.) That bish- ops are here referred to, no one will pretend. Yet the ofiice of ruling certainly implies that kind of government which is con- cerned in the administration of discipline. 1 Thess. V. 12 — "We beseech you, brethren, to know them which labor among you, and are over you in the Lord." {koI Trpotaraftiiov; hfidv iv Kvptw. ) 1 Tim. V. 17 — " Let the PRESBYTERS that rule well (rrpotarwrtf) be cotmted worthy of dtnible honor." There can be no question that these passages are applied to presbyters. We come, then, to the conclusion, that the terms which properly denoto government and discipline, and on wliich alone any claim for the exercise of aiuhority can be founded, — the terms expressive of governing, of feeding, of ruling, of taking the oversight, are all applied to presbyters; that the churches are required to submit to them in the exercise of tliat ofTice ; and that the very term Ai'wonua Episcopal juris- diction, is applied to them also. We ask for a solitary passage which directs apostles, or prelates, to administer discipline ; and we leave the case of discipline, therefore, to the common sense of those who read ttie New Testament, and who believe that presbyters had any duties to perform. We have now examined the essential point in Episcopacy; for, if the claims which are arrogated for bishops are imfoimded, the system, as a system, is destroyed. We have examined the solitary passage urged directly in its favor, " ttie apostles and elders," "the apostles, aj(f/ elders, «7?c/ brethren ;" and the claims set up in favor of their exclusive right to administer discipline; and. if we mistake not, we have shown, ttiat hitherto so stupend- ous claims have never bt^en reared on so narrow a basis. The ii(!Xt point which it is indispens;ible for Episco[)alians to make out from the Bible, is, that it was intended, that the supc- 154 REVIEW — ANSWER TO A REVIEW OF riority in ministerial rank and poicer, should be a permanent arrans'cmeni. This, it will be perceived, is a distinct and inde- pendent inquirj'. It by no means follows of necessity, even if all that the Episcopalians claim for the apostles were conceded; for it miglit be true that the apostles had this superiority, and yet that it was designed merely as a temporary arrangement. As tlie "Answer" has added nothing material to the argument of the Tract, on this subject, we shall not long be detained on this point. The sols argument in the " Tract" is drawn from the claim that Timothy was bishop of Ephesus, and Titus of Crete; and that the " angels" of the seven churches were prelatical bishops, (pp. 23-29.) In our review, we examined these seve- ral claims at length. (Review, pp. 17-31.) As the writer of the Answer has not thought proper to notice our argument here, we are left to the presumption, that an obvious or satisfac- tory reply was not at hand. The train of our reasoning, then, we shall take the liberty of regarding as unbroken and untouch- ed. The only appearance of argument on this subject, in the Answer, is found on p. 14, and it is this: that its author sup- poses our argument to have been, that Timothy and Titus had a temporary and extraordinary office, because they were "mi- gratory ;" and, as many of the presbyters, — Apollos, for exam- ple, — were migratory, hence it would follow, that the office of presbyter, also, was temporary. Now, in reply to this, we observe, that although we did affirm the appointment of Timo- thy and Titus to have been "temporary," yet we were not so weak as to suppose that it was because they were migratory. Til at this fact indicated that they had not a permanent pre- latical office, we assuredly did, and still do, believe. But we showed, — in a manner which we marvel the author of the An- swer did not notice,— nhat Timothy was sent to Ephesus for a special purpose, and that he was to execute that office onhjunul Paul returned. (Review, pp. 22, 24. 1 Tim. i. 3; iv. 13; 1 Tim. iii. 14, 15.) The sanie thing we showed, from the New Testa- ment, to be tiie case with regard to Titus. (Review, p. 26. See Titus, i. 0-9 ; iii. 10, 12.) We never so far forgot ourselves, as to suppose that because Timotliy and Tiius were " migratory," that, tiierefore, they were not bishops. We put the matter on wholly different ground ; and in tiie course of our argument, we quoted no less Va^n forty-six passages of the New Testament, containing, we believe, all that can be supposed to bear on the point. We cannot wilhliold the expressions of our "amaze- ment," that an author, whose express object was to " test Epis- copucy by Scripture," should have left unnoticed tiiis argument. Never was there invented a shorter and more convenient mode of avoiding sucli an argument, than bysaying of something which we never intended to urge, that the whole of it was founded on the fact of their being " migratory." We would now remind the author that our argument was not of such a character; but it was, (1.) That Timothy is not even called an apostle ; (2.) That EPISCOPACY TESTED BY SCRIPTURE. 155 lie IS expressly distinguished from the apostles ; (3.) Tiiat Ihcre is no evidence lluit lie was bisliop of Epliestis; (4.) That the Scripuire affirms lie was sent to Ephesiis for a special and lemporari/'^\)\v:\wse; (Review, p. 22;) and, (5.) 'J'hat the epistles to Tiiiiolhy contain full proof of llie falsehood of any such supposition as that he was a preiatical bishop; because (a) there are but two orders of officers in the church, spoken of in those epistles; {h) they contain no descri|)tion of his own office as a prelate; (c) they contain full and explicit directions on a great variety of other topics, of far less importance than the ofiice which, accordintr to Episcopacy, was to constitute the very peculiarity of the cliurch ; and not a word respectiiis his brother bishops, then existing, or any inlinuUion that such an order of men ever icould exist. In regard to Titus, we proved, (1.) That he was left in Crete, for iUe^pecial purpose of comideting a work which Paul had besun ; (2.) That Paul gave him express directions, when he had done that, to come to him ; and, (3.) That he obeyed the command, left Crete, and became the travelling companion of Paul ; and that liiere is not the slightest reason to suppose, that he ever returned to Crete. In regard to tiie " angels"' of the seven churches, we showed, that the whole ,of Dr. Onderdonk's argument was a mere assWhiption, that there was an inferior body of the " clergy at large ;" lliat there were in each of those cities more churches than one. — a fact which should be proved, not assumed,— also, that the style of the address to the '• angel," was that of the " angel of the church,''^ evidently referring to an individual congrega- tion, and not to such a group of ciun-ches as constitute a modern diocese; and that tlie application of the term "angel," to the pastor of a single church, was much more obvious, and much the more probable supposition, than to "tlie formal, iin frequent, and in many instances, stately and pompous visitations of a diocesan bishop." (Review, pp. 27-30.) To this argument there is no reply, except by an assumption that Tiinotiiy was" bishop of Epliesus; that the same thing must be presumed" to exist in the year 96 ; and that the " elders" at E()iiesus being there also, and being minister.s, any direction to the "angel," must suppose that he was superior to the presby- ters. (Answer, p. 17.) Now the whole of this argument pro- ceeds on the supposition that the elders at Ephesus were ordained ministers of the Gospel, a distinct rank of the clergy, and sustaining the same office as the "second order" in the Episcopal Church. But this is assuming tiie very point ni debate. In our review, we showed, (p. 23,) tliat all the facts in the case of the elders at Ephesus, (Acts xx. 17, &c.,) are met by the supposition that they were ruling elders, or persons appointed to govern, guide, and secure, trie spiritual welfare of the church. Oiir argument is, (1.) That Dr. (). admits, that the word rendered "feed," {Troq-ahctv) may mean to rule: ('J'ract, 156 REVIEW — ANSWER TO A REVIEW OF pp. 24, 37.) (2.) That the idea of ruling^ is the one which ig there specijicalli/ dwelt on. Tiiat he directs them to " feed," or exercise the office of a shepherd over them, that is, to giiard, defend, provide for them, as a shepherd does, in the care of liis flock. He directs tlieni to watch against the grievous wolves which sliould come in, and against those who should rise up from among tliemselves, to secure parties, &c. (3.) There is no connsel given them about the proper mode of administering the sacraments, tlie peculiar duty of the "second order" of clergy. (4.) There is no expression of lamentation, that they had not a prelatical bishop; or any intimation that they would soon be furnished with one. (5.) It is evidently implied, that liie number of these elders was considerable. They are address- ed as sucii ; and yet they are addressed as in charge of one '• flock," over which they had been placed. Now it is incredi- ble, that any considerable body of the "second order of clergy" should have been ordained in an infant church like Ephesus. And it is equally incredible, that //"Paul had so ordained them, he should have set them over one Hock, in a single city, — colle- giate " rectors" in a single church in Ephesus, — under a " dio- cesan" also, of the single "flock," or church ; a diocesan not then present, and concerning whom not the slightest hint was dropped by Paul, either of lamentation or promise. So that, on the whole, one knows not at which to be most surprised, -"the number of assumptions indiept nsable to the purpose of '•en- throning" the bishop Tinmt'.iy at Ephesus, or the singular coolness witli wiiicli Episcopalians urge all these assumptions, as if they were grave matters of bislorical record. In reference to the term "angel," as used in the Apocalypse, we have only to remark further, that the interpretation which makes it refer to a prelatical bishop, is so unnatural and ff)rced, tliat Episcopalians are, many of them, themselves compelled to aban:lon it. Thus Sliliingfleet, than whom an abler man, and one whose firaise is higher in Episcopal churches, is not to he found among the advocates of prelacy, says of these angels — "If many things in the epistles be denoted to the angels, but yet so as to concern the whole body, then, of necessity, the angel nnist be taken as a representative of the whole body ; and then, why may not the word angel be taken by way of representa- tion of the body itself, either of the whole church, or, which is far more probable, of the cons-'ssors, or order of presbyters in that church ? We see what miserable, unaccountable arguments those are, which are brought for any kind of government, from metaphorical or ambiguous expressions, or names promiscuously used." Ircnicum. In regard to this second point, which it is incumbent on Epis- copalians to make out, we are now prepared to estimate the force of these arguments. The case stands thus. (I.) There is no command in the New Testament, to the Apostles, to transmit the peculiarity of the apostolic office. If there had been, the EPISCOPACY TESTED BY SCRIPTURE. 157 industry of Dr. Onderdonk would have called it to our attention. If the peculiarity of the office was to be transmitted, it was required that such a command, should be given. (2.) There is no affirmation Ih.at it would be thus transmitted. Jf there had been, Dr. O.'s tract would not have been so barren on this point. And we ask him. wliether it is credible, that the Apostles were bislinps of a superior order, and that it was designed, tiiat all the Church should be subject to an order of men, "superior in ministerial rank and power." deriving their authority from the Apostles; and yet, not the slightest command thus to trans- mit it, and not the slightest hint tliat it would be done? We Siiy again, Credat Judceus Apella ! (3.) It was ????pos5/We that the peculiarity of the apostolic office shoidd be transmitted. We have shown, not by assumptions, but by a large array of pa.ssages of Scripture, what that peculiarity was, — to bear wit- ness to the great events which went to prove that Je.sus was the ^Messiah : we have been met in this proof, by the calm and dignified observation, that this was a " showy" argument ; and we iu)\v affirm, that the peculiarity of that office, as specified by Je.sus Christ, by the chosen Apostles, by Paul, and by the whole college, could not be transmitted ; that no bisimp is, or can be, a witness, in the sense and for the purpose for which they were originally designated. (4.) We have examined the case of Timothy, of 'I'itus, and of the angels of the churches, — the slender basis on which the fabric of Episcopal pretension has been reared. We now affirm, (5.) That, should we admit all that Episcopalians claim on each of these points, there is n(tt the sligiitest proof, as a matter of historical record, that the Episcopal office has been transmitted from prelate to prelate ; but that the pretended line has been often broken, and that no jury would give a verdict to the amount of five dollars, on proof so slender as can be adduced for the uninterrupied succession of prelates. As satisfactory evidence on this point, we repeat the follouing passage, contained in the September number of this journal: " We are informed by many ancient historians, and very expressly by Bede, in his famous Ecclesiastical History, 'That . at the request of Oswald, King of Northumberland, certain pres- hijtrrs came (in the seventh century) from Scotland into Eng- land, and ordained bishops; that the abbot, and other presbyters of ttie island of Hy, sent Aydan for this express purpose, dechiring him to be worthy of the office of bishop, and that he ought to be sent to instruct the unbelieving and the unlearned.' lie informs us, that 'those presbyters ordained him and sent him to England on this errand ; and that Fman, sent from the same monastery in the same island, succeeded him in the E()iscopal office, after having been ordained by the Scottish presbyters.' "Upon tliis testimony of Bede, Baxter remarks, 'You will find that the English liad a succession of bishops by the»S\'o///A7t 14 158 REVIEW — ANSWER TO A REVIEW OP presb7/ter\'} ordination; and tliere is no mention in Bede of any dislike or scruple of tlie lawfulness of this course.' The learned Dr. Doddridge refers us to Bede and Jones to siibslr.nliale the fact that, 'tlie ordination of English bishops cannot be traced up to the Chnrch of Rome as its original ; that in tiie year 608, tlie successors of Austin, the n;onk, (who came over A. D. 596,) being almost extinct, by far the greater part of the bishops were of Scottish ordination, by Aydan and Finan, wlio came out of the Culdee monastery of Columbanus, and were no more than presbytefs.^ " And is it verily so, that the Episcopal blood was thus early and extensively contaminated in England ? Is it verily so, that when the effects of pious Austin's labors had become almost imperceptible, the sinking Church was revived again by sending to Scolland for presbyters to come and ordain a vuillitude of bishops? Thenjt is verily a fact, that Presbyterian ordinaiion is one of the sturdiest pillars tiiat support the vast fabric of the Church of England. No matter if only ten bishops were thus ordained, the contamination (if it be one) having been imparted more than eleven hundred ijears ago, has had a long time to diffuse itself, and doubtless has diffused itself so extensively from bisliop to bishop, that not a single prelate in Great Britain can prove that he has escaped the infection. For what one of them can tell if he was not consecrated by bishops who were themselves consecrated by bishops, and they by other bishops, to whom all the ordaining power they ever had was transmitted from the presbyters of Scotland ? But this is not the whole of the evil. As no one bishop can trace his Episcopal pedigree farther back perhaps than two or three centuries, so he cannot certainly know that any presbyter on whose hesd he has imposed hands, has received from him any thing more than Presbyterian ordination. Nor is this all the evil. The Pro- testant Episcopal bishops and presbyters in America are in the same plight ; for I am told that all their authority came from England. But as the English bishops who gave it to them could not then, and cannot now, certainly tell wlience it came, so who knows but all the Episcopal clergy in the United Slates of America are originally indebted to the hands of Elder Aydan and Elder Finan for all their ministerial powers? I tremble for all Protestant Episcopal churches on both conti- nents, if Presbyterian ordination be not valid and scraPTURAL." (pp. 486, 487.) One point more in the argument for Episcopacy remains. It is, tliat none but prelates ordained. It is incumbent on Episco- palians to prove this, as essential to their argument. For if presbyters or elders exercised the office of ordaining, then the main point claimed for the superiority of bishops is unfounded. We aim, therefore, to show that there is positive pro*)f that, presbyters did ordain. We have shown, in the course of cvir ttigumenl, that they exercised the office of discipline, one c^ thp EPISCOPACY TESTED BY SCRIPTURE. 159 things claimed peculiarly for bishops ; we now proceed to show that the office of onlaiiting' was one wliich was {'^trusted to them, and whieii the\' exercised. If tliis point be made oui, it follows still fiirllier that the peculiarity of the office of the apos- tles was not tliat tiiey ordained, and that the clergy of the New Testament are not divided into " three orders," bnt are equal in ministerial rank and power. The argument is indeed complete witiunil tills ; for, unless Episcopalians can show, by posiiive proof, the superiority of their bishops to the right of ordination and discipline, tlie parity of the clergy follows as a matter of course. The writer of these articles is a Presbyterian. But the argu- ment does not require that he siiould go largely into tlie proof of his own views on church polity. The object is to disprove Episcopacy. If this is disproved, it follows that the clergy are on an equality. If it is shown that the doctrine of the New Testament is, that presbyters were to orduin, it is a sufficient disposal of the " feeble claims of lay-ordination," and of all other claims. It will follow, that a valid ordination is tiiat which is performed in accordance with the direction tiiat pres- byters should ordain. What particular churches besides the Presbyterian, accord in their practice with the direction, it is not our business to inquire. It is sufficient for our purpose that tiie Pn<»ebylerian and Congregational churches accord with that requirement, and follow the direction of the New Testament in tlie ordination of their ministry by presbyters, and in their min- isterial equality. This is all the reply that is necessary to the train of reflections in the "Answer." (pp. 5, 6.) We liave seen, also, that Episcopal ordination is valid, not because it is performed by a prelate, but because it is, as we remarked, (lieview, pp. 32, 33,) in fact a mere Presbyterian performance. In proof of the point now before us, therefore, we adduce 1 Tim. iv. li — "Neglect not the gift that is in thee, which was given thee by prophecy, with the layiuij on of the hands ol the presi)ytery." Of this passage, which, to the common sense of mankind, affirms the very thing under discussion, it is evi- dently material for Episcoi)aiians to dispose; or their claims to exclusive rights and privileges are for ever destroyed. We shall, therefore, examine the passage, and then notice the objec- tions to its obvious ande common sense interpretation allegeil by Dr. Ondeidonk. We observe then, (1.) That. the translation of the passage is fairly made. Much h arned criticism has been exhausted, to very little purpose, by Episcopalians, to show, that a dillerence existed between "with," (/ifu) in this place, and "by," (<5ia) in 2 Tim. i. 0. It has been said, "that such a distinction may justly be regarded as intimating that the virtue of the onlaiiiiiig act flowed from Paul, while the presbytery, or the rest of that body if he were included in it, expressed only coj/.vfj//." (Tract, p 22.) But it has never been shown, nor can it be, that the 160 REVIEW — ANSWER TO A REVIEW OP preposition " with" does not fairly express the force of the ori- ginal. The same observation may be applied to the word, " pres- bytery," (irptalivrcpwv.) It denotes properly a body, or assembly of elders, or presbyters. In Lnl following— Estius, (Po. Syn.) Wliilby, J. Brown, of llad- (lington, and A. Clarice. 188 REMARKS ON A SECOND REVIEW OF answered in the Protestant Episcopalian for IMarch and Novem- ber, 1S31. On llie objection that Paul, in some places, calls Timothy only bis " brollier," we may add. tiiat Peter calls Paul "our beloved brother -j^^ James says to Paul, " Tbou seest, brother f Paul says, '• 1 fuuud not Titus, my brother;" Ana- nias says to Paul, already an apostle, '••Brother Saul, receive thy sight:" Ibis is evidence enough that the appellation does not imply, as given to Timothy, that be was not au apostle. The cliief value of this fact — that 'J'imothy is called an " apos- tle" in Scripture — is, its routing finally the Non-episcopal plea, that Timothy bad superior power at Ephesus merely as an "evangelist." An apostle bad full power, as such, and could have nothing added to it from having also tiie latter designa- tion. Piiilip and Timothy are the only individuals to whom that designation is applied ; and there is no evidence that Philip had any special power as an evangelist; neither can there be evidence to that effect in the case of Timothy, since bis apostlesbip gave him all the power a minister can have. Fare- well, then, to this puny argument! Our Rev. opponent had too tnucb penetration and accuracy of judgment to make any use of it in either of bis reviews. We may here add, in passing, that the fact of Timothy'? being an "apostle," shows that be could not have been ordained as such "with the laying on of the bands" of a Presbyteriar " presbytery." So again : Timothy being an "aposlle," the direction of Paul to him — "The things which thou hast heard of me among many witnesses, the same commit thou to faithful men, who shall be able to teach others also," is a "command" to transmit the apostolic office. That passage is understood by all the commentators now within our reach, of the perpetuation of the ministerial office — see M. Henry, Doddridge, .Macknight, Poole's Annotations, Hammond — and as the ;;;rade of that (jtfice held by Timothy from Paul w'as the apostolic, that, " the same" must have been the grade he was to " commit," to transmit for the purpose of succession. Yet, further: Timothy being an "apostle," and being "com- manded " to transmit the apostlesbip to successors, we have clear enough evidence of the ministerial grade of the " angel of the Church of Ephesus" some thirty years afterward. If he was not Timothy the "apostle" himself, he was one of his apostolic successors. Such, likewise, of course, were the other six " angels." These are unavoidable results from the fact that Timothy is denominated an "aposlle" by St. Paul. Some of them are indeed sufficiently established by the general argument, that 'i'imothy indicidiiaU y held a station in the Church superior to that of the presbyter-bishops, and that Paul gives directions what such ministers as Timothy are to do " till the appearing of Jesus Christ," i. e. till the consummation of things. Add, how- EPISCOPACY TESTED BY SCRIPTURE. 189 ever, to the general arorument this specific one, and the evidence for Episcopacy, and llie permanence of Episcopacy, is such as no laiiMit or zeal can overtliiow. Our Rev. oppont-nl refers, for tlie support of part of his argnnient, to Bisiiop SLiiliuglieet — I'orgetlul of the rule, that writers wlio have contradicted tiiemselves are not lo be appealed to, on eillier side. IJi^hop Sullingfleet inif-aid, in lalt-r life, wjiat he had said against Episcopacy in iiis earlier career. As to the supposed l)reak in tiie chain of tlie English Episco- pal succession, in the cases of Aydan and Finan, we reler the Rev. reviewer to a full reply in the Churchman, transferred to the Protestant E[)iscopalian for December, 1834. This objection ni;iy do for those who are objeciion-hunlers — it is not worthy of the notice of our able and candid opponent. He cannot suppose that it has any bearing on the questions — Is Episcopacy set forth in Scripture ? Is it there set lorth as a permanent institution ? If these questions be answered in the negative, there is no need of seeking a break in the Episcopal succession. If in the alhrmative, then, indubitably, we must presume the succession good, except where clear evidence exists to the contrary, or at least a doubt of overwhelming magnitude, 'i'iiere is, however, no suflicient reason to think that the Episcopal succession failed in the case of tlie.se two persons, and the presumptive arginnent is so entirely aganist it, that the objection is unworthy of notice. Successive ordinations must, from the natiu-e of the case, depend mainly for their evidence on notoriety — for manuscript lecoids of such things are liable to mistakeo and perversions, and also to extinction — " there are slight nii.-.iakes in the genealogy of our Lord, and that of the Jewish priesthood was not uniformly perfect" — and in the records of the ordinations of tiie multitudes of bishops that have existed, were they all preserved by suc- cessive copies, there would unquestionably be errors innume- rable, and now beyond correction. Noloiiety, however, is an all-sufUcient authentication of a matter of fact. And on the claims of notoriety, we may safely rest all Episcopal consecra- tions in the seventh century. Bede, the historian referred to in raising the objection before us, has obviously been mis- understood. 'I'he final topic, in. the way of argument, of the reviewer, is this — one scriptural example of a I'resbyterian ordination is enough to disprove tlie claim, " that none but prelates (H'dained" — and such an exain[)le is given in the text, "Neglect not the gift that is in thee, which was given thee by prophecy, with the laying Oil of the hands of the presbytery." \Ne join issue with him on tilts text, and will go again, and somewhat more largely, into the argument concerning it. \Ve staled in the Tract, that it was allowed on all hands that the Aposlh'S ordained. We showed also, thai Timothy and Titus had the ordaining power. So far, we beli(;ve, there is no question: Ihis point is dear. We argued likewise, that it is 190 REMARKS ON A SECOND REVIEW OP not dear tliat presbyters ordained ; on the contrary, they were omitted in tiie direcliDiis for perfurnung that duty ; and liierefore tlie Apostles and Tiniotiiy and Titns ordained in vlrtne of a righ.t which it couhi not be proved that presbyters possessed — in other words, tliey ordained in virlne of their being a grade of ministers superior to presbyters, or different from them, if the word 'snperior' be dislii^ed. How did we sliow tiiat tlie text quoted Is not a clear record of a Presbyterian ordination? We did it by presenting several considerations, which, at the hiwest estimate, nial given by prophecy, may justly be regarded as some extraordinary spiritual endowment; and it is so regarded by various commentators. Or, the " prophecy" liere mentioned, and tlie laying on of hands, may be held analogous to the inspired separation of Barnabas and Paul, who were apostles already, to a particular sphere of apostolic duty, wliich was done by " prophets;" (Acts xiii ;) and thus Timothy had his "charge" at Ephesns "committed unto him acccn-ding to the prophecies which went before on him." Neitiier of these expo- sitions is strained; tiiey both, are natural. The latter of tiiem, we fully l)eiieve, would be assigned by a commentator whose mind was not pie-occupied with questions concerning ordination, and who would make the Side rule of his interpretation the "comparing Scripture with Scripture." It is doithljnl then, reasonably doubtful, v/hel!ier tlie text refers to ordination at all. And here we make our stand — though we carry onward the argiuTient, for the sake of those who do not agree with us. 2. Conceding, for the purpose of further investigation, that Timothy's ordination is here referred to, it is not clear that the Word translated " ()resbytery " means a body of ordainers — it may mean ' presbytership,' the ministerial njjjce — with the laying on of hands for conferring the presbyterslii[) — and, under that construction, the passage does not say whose hands were laid on 'J'imothy for this purpose. For this meaniiig of the word wp. adduced the authority of Jerome. Ambrose, Calvin, and Grntius.* Are not such authorities sulFicient to render doubtfid\he allusion of the passage to ordination by presbyters? And what dfies Mr. Barnes oppose to this argument and its authority? — 1. That it makes Timothy an elder, and so not an apostle; which is just as conclusive as to say that Peter and .John, being called "elders," could not have been apostles 2. That the word in question means a body of elders in two other places; so it does, and yet may * Pijote says, in liis Synnpsis — " Ita vocnui Iianc accipiunt Hieron. Amli. Graeci in Cone. Nicen. can. 2. Anevr. can. 18. Euseb. et Soc." Surely tlie word is not, as Mr B. alleges, "fixed in ils meaning, in tlie usage of the Church:" even if it were, does church usage control the interpretation of Scripture? EPISCOPACY TESTED BY SCBIPTURE, 191 Tiiean only the clerical office here. 3. That Siiicer, quoting from Tlic'odoret, Clirysostom, Tiieophylact, and Ignatius, gives the word llie sense of a "college of presbyters:" we have no\ Siiicer at iiand, but are very sure that not one of his quotations can refer to ordinations by mere presbyters; we are sure also, that if he quotes Jerome and Ambrose fully, he must give the sense of " presbytersiiip" to the Greek word. 4. That Grotins, in recog- nising this latter sense of the word, speaks of the presbyters laying on hands with tiie princeps of then- body ; and that Calvin, in his commentary, interprets tlie word of " the college of pres- byters:" hut surely these replies leave tl)e whole matter in even greater doubt: Grotius, thougii he mentions tlie presbyters' laying on hands, declines adducing the text before us as a proof of their right to do so, because its meaning is uncertain ; and Calvin gives one meaning to npeafivrtptov in his Institutes, (for which, says Dr. Miller, he deserves nothing but ridicule !) and in his Commentary, a later production, he prefers the other meaning — only prefers it — for he adds, "Although, all things considered, I confess a different sense answers not badly, that it should be the name of office'''' — now, what but doubt, increased [may we not saj*, irremediable] doubt, can result from the hesita- tion of these learned men concerning the meaning of the word ! Such is the predicament in which the highest Presbyterian authority, to say nothing of the other authorities mentioned, leaves the only text which !\Ir. Barnes adduces for his cause, the "solitary text," the " lonely Scripture proof !" 3. Granting, yet further, that the word should be "presbytery," and that it means a body of "elders," it still is not clear tiiat presbyter-bishops, or they only, were meant. Two of the Apostles call themselves elders — and thus the "presbytery" may have consisted of apostles only : and Paul and Silas, both apostles, were ai Lystra, when Paul took Timothy " with bin)."' Again: Paul speaks of the gift which was in 'i'imolhy by the laying on. of his hands ; and the same areuments which make the other passage apply to ordination, will unavoidably make this als.i: hence, if an ordination was meant, Paul 7)msi have officiat- ed at it, v.'hoever else did; and thus the act was an cposlolicnl one, and the transaction affords no proof that presbyters alone can crdain. More doubt then, as we proceed, is gathered round the Presbyterian exposition of this passage — and this doubt is fairly and iionostly adduced; it arises, not by conjuration, but nalurallv and inevitably. 4. If it be said that the "elders" in this supposed ordaining " presbytery" are to be regarded as of the specific kind, presby- ter-bishops or pastors — tiiat this meaning of the word has the preference by tlie laws of lansua"» commonly denotes the spiritual gifts conferred on believers m the first age, whellier by an immediate illapse of the Holy (^host, or by the imposition of the Apostles'' hands :" by "spiritual gifts" he means miraculous powers; and he ascribes the endowment to the hands of "apostles." He adds, "Since it appears from 2 Tim. i. 6, that the Apostle by the imposition of his own hands conferred on Timothy the spiritual gift here mentioned, we must suppose that the eldership at Lystra laid ttieir hands on him onhj to show their concurrence with the Apostle in setting Timothy apart to the ministry by prayer; in the same manner as the prophets at Antioch, by the command of the Holy Ghost, separated Paul and Barnabas by prayer to the work to which they were appointed." Dr. Macknight, it seems, does not speak so slightingly of "concurrence" as the reviewer does— " for con- currence, for form, for nothing !" A very short argument — but a very brittle one ! Adam Clarke, who thinks that both gifts and office are referred to in the passage before us, says there were two impositions of hands on Timothy, though on the same occasion ; that by Paul, and that by the "presbytery." On tliis construction, a presby- tery ought not to lay on hands, unless there be an apostle present to do the same act, either before or after theirs is performed. EPISCOPACY TESTED BY SCKIPTURE. 195 Some Presbyterians, as Dr. Campbell and Dr. AVilson, reject the class of rulinsi-elJers, and deem a "presbytery" to be formed wilhont ihein. Others, as Calvin and Dr. Miller, are strenuous advocates for that office, and make them an integral part of the " presbvlery ;" as does also the Presbyterian Church in liiis coinitry. Now, who can say, in sucii a disagreement of great divmns — who can say, with reasonable certainty, or with sufficient probability, how, on Non-episcopal principles, the " j)resbytery " of the text before us must have been constituted ? Again : Some writers, our Rev. opponent for exam|)le, say that Paul belonged to this " presbytery," or took part willi them in the ordination. Otiiers, as Matthew Henry, say that the " presbyterj'^" alone ordained, and that Paul did not belong to it, but gave only an extraordinary spiritual gift by the imposition of his liands. What are we to make of a " presl^ytery" of which such contradictory notions are entertained ? Other Presbyterian writers, as the late Dr. "Wilson, are of opinion that in the very outset of the Church, there were no ordained ministers, but only apostles, evangelists, prophets, &c., endowed with extraordinary gifts. In conformity with this theory, Dr. Wilson doubts whetiier the verse before us alludes to ordination, (p. 273.) Add to these Presbyterian or Non-episcopal sources of doubt concerning the meaning of this word and the passage containing it — all our modern quotations but one are from that side of tiie question — add to them the many Episcopal writers who regard the "presbytery" as having consisted of apostles, of bisliopg proper, or of elders with one or more apostles — or, wno hold that Paul alone ordained, while the elders merely gave consent — or, who do not allow that this laying on of hands was for ordination — add Ignatius, who says, (Phil. 5,) "fleeing to the Apostles as to the presbytery of the Clim-ch," showing that the word in dispute may be applied to a body of apostles only — add Chrysostom, who says, on the passage, " by eldership (pres- bytery) he means not presbyters, but bishops, for presbyters did not ordain bishops" — add Tlieodoret, who says that the minis- ters who with Paul consecrated Timothy were " those who were vouchsafed the favor to be apostles," or the gift of the apostleship — add, if we may go to later fathers, (Ecumenius and Theopliy- jact, who say, "presbytery, that is bishops"* — add all these further sources of d(jubt, and wJuit but doubt can be made of the "solitary text !" (See further the note below.f) ♦ The three last quotations are t.-Jcen from Hammond on Acts xi. 30. t We add, in full, tlie remarks on YlptafiuTtoiov from the Crilica Sacni of Sir EVlward l^eigh : He was, says Ijompriirc, a nirnilier of llie Long Parliainpnt and of llie Assembly of Divines, and also a parliajnent.iry gpneral :" lie didic^iti^s liis work to ihe Wcsluiinstcr Asseml)ly of l">i\-ini'.s. Hi^ tlms wrilrs on the word, — " rioco'/iuTcpiov, Sriiiioruin oitlii, Pienliylnriuin. It s-iLfiiillclh a company "f ilders. Pie.ihi/I'riiiin in Latin is ut^i'd bv CypriiUi, U'l 3. ejii.it 1 1. and /. 2. epinl. S and 10, for a consi.-ir)i y of .idiMs. ITim.'iv. It. (Viilo Hi'/.a.) Il dolli signify (saitli one) not only a company of presbyters, bill als.ttbi' officn m>i\ fidution of u presbyter. 196 REMARKS ON A SECOND REVIEW OF 7. Let the only scriptural illustrations of the word " presby- tery'' be taken into consideration. It occurs three times in the New Testament ; and in both tiie cases besides tlie one before us, it is applied to ihe Jewish elders or rulers — " The presbytery of the people, and the chief priests, and the scribes came together," (Luke xxii. 66;) " Tiie high priest doth bear me witness, and all the presbytery." (Acts xxii. 5.) The Jewish presbytery was "a body distinguished from the priests," says Dr. Miller : laymen belonged to it — perliaps it was made up of laymen. What then was the Christian presbytery menlioned by Paul '? was it clerical, or lay, or a mixture? Scripture decides not. If the Jewish presbytery was "distinguished from the priesthood," is it not a fair inference, that the Ciiristian presbytery was 'distinguished from the ministry?' and then, if the passage be relied on for the authority to ordain, the Independents triimiph over the Presby- terians. If the word "presbyter," as occurring in Scripture, be brought to the aid of ilie word " presbytery." then a seat in tliat body is given to apostles, to presbyter-bishops, to deacons probably, and some say to ruling elders; while yet Scripture does not declare whether only one or more, or all these kinds of presbyters, were necessary to constitute the body — it leaves the Hieronymiis, Ambrosias, Primasius, Haimo, Lyranus dicunt, Presbyteriiim liic est dig nitas ve\ officium Vre^hyleiu: quibus et Calvinus adslipulatur. Chrysostonms, ct Tiieodoretus, et qui lioium vestigiis instileruiit, Q3ciimeiiius ac Tlieophylaclus, per Presbyteriiim non tiisi episcnpox [none but bishops] intelligunt. Itaquo si deiniis (inquit Scultetus in locum) npcaliuripiov hie coetuui seniorum sif^niKcare, erunt seiiiores ilh, ApostoH, EvangclistcB, ProplietcB, et Ixxii. discipuli, quos ScripturEe doceut de Presbyteriis fuissein prima ecclesia ; nonlnici seniores, quorum scriptura nusquam meminit, et qui hoc ipso loco a presbyterio, vehit ex professo, exchiduntiir. Presbvteriuin enim hoc muiuis ministris ordiuandis imposuit. Nuih autem laicorum seniorum manus ministris impn, we cannot sanction tlie word "revivals." We are sure our Rev. friend v\ ill see tliat he has obliged us to make a gra- tuitous explanation. But we consign ttiis mistake to oblivion, and assure him of our high estimate of his piety, talents, and honorable principles. That his reviews have not been more successful, is owing to the infelicity of the cause they would support — infelicity, we say, for we believe that in the controversies on the constitu- tion of the ministry, Episcopalians have invariably been the gainers. H. U. O. P. S. — We find that the Biblical Repertory joins Mr. Barnes in the opinion that Timothy was not at Philippi at tlie lime of the persecution. Beyond these two writers, we know of none who even iiitimale such a view of the case. II. U. O. From the Biblical Repertoiy. REVIEW. Episcopacy Testkd by Scripture. By the Right Rev. Henri/ U.Onder- donk, D. D., Assistant Bishop of the Protestant Kpi.-copal Church in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. 12mo. pj). 40. ly31. We think some apology to our readers will be considered as proper, not for being so tardy in our notice of tliis pamplilet, but for noticing it at all. It is not customary, we suppose, to review "Tracts;" not merely because of tlieir number, and their diminutive and fugitive character; but also because, when they are decisively sectarian in their nature, they are regarded as meant for circulation only among the members of the particular sect for whose benefit they are intended. The history of this Tract, however, is somewhat peculiar. It was first published as an article in a periodical entitled, tiie " Protestant Episcopalian," without a name. Soon afterward a large number of extra copies were stricken off from the press of that work, and exten- sively circulated ; but still without a name. In this form, copy after copy was sent to us by mail, wliicli convinced us that something more was intended than to inform and satisfy Epis- copalians. In a short time it came forth from the Protestant Episcopal Press in New-York, as a formal tract, with the name of the writer; and was soon followed by intimations from various quarters, that it was deemed conclusively to establish the divine right of Episcopacy; nay, that it was unanswerable. The whole Presbyterian Church, in no very indirect form, was challenged to reply. At length something like a tone of exult- ing sarcasm was publicly indulged. An answer was again and again called for, accompanied with more than insinuations that the silence of Presbyterians in regard to this Tract, must be interpreted as a virtual acknowledgment that they felt them- selves refuted and overcome. On the undignified and offensive aspect of this conduct, we do not think proper to multiply remarks. Such puerile exulta- tion is the language of weakness, not of strength. It is very evident tliat those who indulged it were acquainted with only one side of the controversy. We are far, however, from ascrib- ing this conduct to Bishop Onderdonk himself. We have no doubt he would disdain it. The simple truth is, that we never gave this Tract even a cursory perusal, until within tiie last twenty-four hours. Al- though copy after copy was poured upon us by the mail, in all the stages of its publication ; yet, after glancing at a page here { 200 ) REVIEW — EPISCOPACY TESTED BY SCRIPTURE. 201 and there, to the amount of a fourth, or, at most, a third part of its contents, and finding not a ihoujjht or an ilhislralion witli which we had not been made familiar liy otlier writers, we closed the pamphlet under the deliberate impression that it did not call for any public notice. It never occurred to us as possible that any iceU-informed Presbyterian or Epfscopaliaii could con- sider this manual as placin? the claims of prelacy on any other or firmer ground than that on which it was regarded as resting before. And, as we had repeatedly said in preceding nund)ers of our work, what we thought sufficient to discredit these claims, with all impartial readers, we felt no disposition to renew a controversy on which we thought enough had been written ; especially when so many other subjects more nearly connected with the best interests of society, and the salvation of the soul, were nrjentlj' pressed upon our attention, and more than suffi- cient to fill our pages. These, most candidly, are our reasons for not having before taken any public notice of this manual. And our general esti- mate of its character would dispose us still to be silent. But as the voice of exultation over its supposed unanswerable charac- ter seems to be, in the Episcopal camp, waxing louder and louder; and as it is po.'isible that some of our less-informed friends may misapprehend the reason of 'our silence, we have resolved to offer a few cursory remarks on the boasted produc- tion before us. And in the outset, we think proper to say, that, although the style of this Tract is, in general, circuitous, heavy and feeble ; — and although a single thought is not recognised in the Whole, which has not been, to say ttie least, quite as clearly and forci- bly presented by preceding writers; yet it possesses so ne characteristics which are worthy of high commendation, Tiie author has avoided all indecorum and severity of remark. He writes like a scholar and a gentleman. He has resorted to no imbecoming languacre, or disingenuous arts. Every thing be- speaks a writer at home in his subject; qualified to arrange with some degree of skill the old and common-place matter wliich he presents; and disposed to maintain his cause by fair reasoniu;;, as he understands it, rather than by denunciation or acrimony. In these respects the manual before us is worthy of much praise. If all writers in favor of prelacy had maintained an equally inoffensive and respectful manner, it would have formed a much less revolting page than it does, in the history of eccle- siastical polemics. If there be a feature in this Tract which partakes in any measure of novelty, it is that the author should lie willing to bring E[)isc(ipacy to the " Ti:sr of Scriptimji:.-' His predeces- sors have seldom ventured to risk this. It has generally been their policy trt pass in a very cursory manner over the testimony drawn from the inspired writings, and to place their chief reli- ance on that of the " fathers." And even when the question 202 REVIEW — EPISCOPACY was asked, "What saith the Scripture?" it was seldom the inspired oracle olone that was consulted; bnt Scripture inter- ])reled, commented upon, and modified by human authority. We are glad to see the appeal made, and for once, professedly confined to the Word of God. When fairly brought to this test, we cannot doubt tiie issue among all impartial judges. We are not merely willing, then, but insjst that the whole subject sliall be brought and decided before this tribunal. The Bible con- tains the religion^of Protestants. It is the only infallible rule of faith and practice. By tliis great rule we must try the fathers themselves. And wliatever, in their writings, is not supported by tlie Bible, we are bound to reject without hesitation. Before Bishop Onderdonk proceeds to array in form the testimony of Scripture in favor of Episcopacy, he attempts to dispose of what he calls certain ^'■extraneous questions and difficulties, and to show eitlier their fallacy or irrelevancy." We are quite willing that these "questions and difficulties" shoidd be, for the present, put out of view. Not because we think, them really either irrelevant or unimportant; but because we do not think them essential; and because we are disposed to disembarrass the main question as mucli as possible, and to keep the mind of every reader firmly fixed on the position of the writer before us, Viat Episcopacy is taught in the Bible. To this position, therefore, let us address ourselves with all candor and impartiality. Bishop Onderdonk, then, maintains, that the Gospel ministry was, by Divine authority, "established in three orders, called, ever since the apostolic age, bishops, presbyters or elders, and deacons J of which the highest only — that is, bishops — has a right to ordain and confirm," &c. In opposition to this claim, Presbyterians maintain, that, by Divine authority, the Gospel ministry was established in a single order ; that all ministers in the apostolic Chiu'ch, who were authorized to preach the Gos- pel, and administer the Christian sacraments, were empowered to perform the highest functions of the sacred office. We differ, then, in regard to the Christian ministry, in two respects, from our Episcopal brethren. In {he first place, we confidently deny that tliere is the least foundation in Scripture for considering deuco)is as an order of Gospel ministers at all. And, in the second place, we as confidently assert that there is no authority whatever in the Word of God for any "order" of ministers above that of ordinary pastors. I. On the first of these points it is not our intention to dwell long. Not merely because Bishop Onderdonk says little about it; but also because if the second point, viz. that which relates to tiie claim of the bishop, or alleged highest order, cannot be sustained — as we arc very sure it cannot — the claim of the dea- con to a share in the evangelical ministry, as one of " three orders," will fall of course. We say, then, that the alleged claim of the deacon, in the Episcopal Church, to a place as one of the TESTED BY SCRIPTURE. 203 "orders of clerjfv" — lias no foundation whatever in tlieWord of God. To esiablish this, iioiliiiig more is necessary than to glance at tlie inspired record, in Acts vi. 1-7, where the original appointment, and tlie duties of deacons, are explicitly and plainly staled. "In those days, when the nnmlier of the disciples was mnlt.-plied, there arose a mnrmnring of the Grecians against the Hehrews, becanse their widows were neglected in the daily ministrations. Then the twelve called tlie miillimde of the dis- ciples nnio ilieni, and said, 'It is not meet that we should leave the M'ord rf Gou, and serve tables. AVherefore, brethren, look ye out seven men of honest report, full of the Holy Ghost and wisdom, whom we may appoint over this business. Bnt we WII.l. GIVE OrRSELVES CONTINUALLY TO PRAYER. AND TO THE .MINIS- TRY OF THE WORD.' And the saying pleased the whole nuiiti- lude; and they chose Stephen, a man full of faith and of the Holy Ghost, and Philip, and Prochorus, and Nicanor, and Thnon, and Parmenas, and Nicolas, a proselyte of Aiitinch; wliDui ttu'V set before the Apostles; and when they had prayed, they laid their hands on them." 'J'his is [Udfirsl and the ovl;/ account in the wliole New Tes- tament of the original appointment of deacons, and the only statement which wc find of their appropriate duties. And we appeal to every candid reader whether it affords the least coun- tenance to the idea that the deaconship was then an office Avhieh had any thing to do with preachins: and haptizing ; in other words, whetlier it was an office at all devoted to the spi- ritual duties of the sanctuary? Really, if such an idea had not been actually advanced, it would never have occurred to us as possible that it should enter the mind of any thinking man. Indeed, if the whole passage had been constructed upon the distinct plan of precluding the possibility of such an interpreta- tion, it is difficult to conceive how such a design could have been more clearly manifest. The Apostles say, " It is not meet that wc Should leave the word of God — (liiat is, evidently, — LEAVE preaching) — aiid SERVE TABLES; wliereforc, look ye out seven men, &c., whom we may appoint over this business; (that is, this business of serving tables,) and we will give our- selves to prayer, and to the ministry of the tvord." Can any man who is not blindly wedded to a system, consider this pas- sage as importing that deacons were appointed to be preachers <)i the word ? Nay, is it not expressly staled that the Apostles considered the duties of this office as of such a nature, that their undertaking to fulfil them would compel iheni to leave preaching, and devote themselves to the care of money tables? It militates nothing against this plain statement of the inspired histr)rian, that he represents Stcplien, one of these deacons, as soon. after his appoinlmenl, defending liinisclf willi great power before the Jewish coimcil ; and Philip, another of them, em- ployed in a year or two after his ordination to the deaconshij), preaching and baptizing in Samaria. With respect to Slephen, 204 REVIEW — EriSCOPACY it is not said, that he either preached or baptized. He simply replied (o lliose who "disputed" with him, and defended him- self before the council by which he was arraigned. In all this, there was evidently nothing wliicii any man might not do, in any age of the Church, without infringing ecclesiastical order. And as to Philip, wlien we read a few chapters onwfird in the same boniv, (Acts xxi. 8,) we find him spoken of as '• Piiilip the evdiiirelist, who was one of tiie seven." Here, then, we find precisely the same title given to tliis man that was afterward given to Timoiliy. (2 Tim. iv. 6.) From wliich we may confi- dently infer, that, liaving " used the office of a deacon well," (1 Tim. iii. 13,) in the cliurch of Jerusalem, and being found a man " full of tlie Holy Ghost and of wisdom," when he and his brethren were driven from that city, and were all "scattered abroad in consequence of the persecution which arose about his colleague, Stephen," he was invested witli a new office, and sent forth to minister in various parts of the country as an "evange- list." At any rate, nothing is plainer than tliat the "ministry of the word "' made no part of the deacon's office, as laid down by the Apostles ; and as he is soon afterward introduced to us as bearing the office of an "evangelist," the appropriate function of whic'i we know was preaching the Gospel, we are warranted, in conciuding tluit he was set apart to the latter office before lie went forth to engage in public preaching. In short, until it can be proved that Philip preached and baptized as a deacon, and not as an evangelist, — which we are perfectly sure never can be proved — the allegation, that tlie apostolic deacons were preachers, is perfectly destilute of scriptural support; nay, directly opposed to the scriptural account of the institution of their office. Accordingly, when in the subsequent parts of the New Testa- ment there is a reference to the proper qualification.'} for the deacons' office, no intimation is given thai, in the candidates for that office, the gifts requisite for public instruction were re- ceived. We are told that it was necessary that those who bore this office should be sober, grave, faithful in all things, ruling their own houses well, sound in the faith, &c., but not a word of their being " apt to teach," as was expressly demanded of all who were candidates for " ministering in the word and doctrine." It is plain, then, that " the order of deacons," as one of the "three orders of clergy," for which our Episcopal brethren contend, cannot stand the test of Scripture. It must, undoubt ediy, be given up, if we would be governed by the word of God. Deacons there undoubtedly were in the apostolic Church ; but they were evidently curators of the poor, and attendants on the tables of the Church; precisely such as were found in. the Jewish synagogues, before the coming of Christ, and such as are found in all completely organized Presbyterian churches at the present day. And this continued to be the nature of the TESTED BY SCRIPTURE. 205 office for several hundred years after the apostolic age. But when a spirit of carnal aiubiiion began to reign in the Cluirch, and led ecclesia:>iical men to aspire and encroach, deucnis invaded the province of preachers, and coinniilted to " sm6- dcacous''^ tiie burden of their primitive duties.* Ilavinor iliiis being compelled to set aside one "order" of Episcopal clergymen, wlien " tested by Scripture," we now proceed. II. To the secovd point insisted on by the author of this Tract, and which, indeed, evidently forms iiis main object, viz. that we are tauyht in Scripture, that in the apostolic Church, there was a grade of ministers of the Gospel superior to the ordinary pastors; above common ministers of liie word and sacramenis; tliat ministers of this grade were alone empowered to unlain, to atvjirin, and to govern the Ciiurch ; — and that there is evidence in Scripture tliat this arrangement was in- tended to be permanent. Such is the confident allegation of Bishop Onderdonk; and he professes an entire willingness to rest this Episco[)al claim on scriptural testimony alone. It is hoped that our readers will bear this in mind, and not suffer * The following extracts from early writers plainly show, not only that the deacon's office was, originally, what we have above represented, but that this con- tinued to be the case for several centuries. Hi'rmas, one of the apostolical fathers, in his Similitude, 9, 27, tells us that '"of such as believed, some were set over inferior functions, or services, being intrusted vitli the care of the poor and tcidows." Origen, {'J'inct IG, in Matt.) says, "These deacons preside over the moiieytables of the Church." And again, "The deacons who do not manage well the money of tne Church (■ommitted to their care, but act a fVandulent part, and dispense it. not according to justice, but for the purpose of eiuiching themselves; — these acttlie part of money changers, and keepers of those tables which our Loid over- turned. I'"or the ileacons were appointed to preside over the tables of the Church, as we are taught in the Acts of the Apostles." Cyprian, (Epist. 52,) speaks of a certain deacon who had been deposed Irom his "sacred deacoiiship on accountof his fraudu- lent and sacrilegious niisnpplicntion of the Church's moyietj to his own private use; and for his denial of the widows' and orphans' pledges deposited with him." And. in another place, (Epist. 3, ad Rogatianum,) as a proof that his view of this ollice is not misapprehended, he refers the appointment of the _/t's' deacond to the choice and ordination at Jerusalem, as already recited. Ambrose, in speak- ing of the fourth century, the time in which he lived, (Comment, in Ephes. iv.) says, "The deacons do not publicly preach." Chrysostoui, who lived in the same century, in his commentary on Acts vi. remarks, that "the deacons had nf:ed of great wisdom, although the preaching of the Gospel was not committed to them;" and observes further, that it is absurd to su()pose that they shonlil have both tiie olTices of preacliing and taking care of the poor connnitted to them, seeing it is impos.«ible for them to di.srharge both functions adequately. Jerome, in his letter, to Evasrius, calls deacons "ministers of tables and widotcs." And in the Apostolical Constitutions, which, though undoubtedly spurious as an a])oslolicHl work, may [irobably be relc'rn'd to the fourth or fihh century, it is declared, (Lib. viii. cap. 28.) " It is not lawfid for the deacons to baptize or to admi- nister tiie euehati.st, or tB pionounce the greater or smaller beni'diction." Other citations, to the same anif«mt, might easily be produced. But it is unnecessary. The above furnish a clear indication of the nature of the deacon's ollice in the priiriitive Church. Yet as tiiis lesliuiouy is not that of Sciiil'TURE, it has not been thought pro(»er to embrace it in the body of oiu' review, but to |)rcseiit it in this form, that it may he estimated for what it is worth. And surely, on iho principled of our Episcopal brethren, it is worth much. IR 206 REVIEW — EPISCOPACY themselves for a moment to forget that onr appeal is to the Bible, and to the Bible only. Does the Bible, then, counte- nance the chtim tliat prehues, or an order of ministers superior to ordinary pastors, and having alone a right to or-dain, &c. were established by Divine appointment in the apostolic age, and intended to be a permanent order in the Christian Church? Tl\e author of the Tract before us maintains the affirmative. We are constrained with confidence to take the negative side, and to tiie Scriptures we make our appeal. Bishop Onderdonk sets out in his argument witli acknowledg- ing tliat "the name bishop, which now (among Episcopalians) designates the highest grade of the ministry, is not appropriated to that office in Scripture. That name, he confesses, is there alwdtjs given to the middle order of presbyters; and all liiat we read in the New Testament concerning ' bishops,' (including, of course, the words 'overseers' and ' oversiglil,' which have the same derivation) is to be regarded as pertaining to that middle grade. The highest grade is there found in those called 'apos- tles.' And it was after the apostolic age tluit the name 'bishop' was taken from the second order, and appropriated to the first. In short, the doctrine of this Tract is, that in the days of the Apostles, the title of bishop was applied to presby- ters, that is, to ordinary pastors, or parish ministers, and to them alone; that during this time the Apostles were the prelates of the Church ; that the A[>ostles alone, while they lived, were invested with the power of ordination ; that when tliey died, they were succeeded in their pre-eminent rank by ministers of a corresponding grade; that this superior class of ministers, who were the true and only successors of the Apostles, thought proper to drop the name of ''apostles," (whether through modesty or policy the author does not say,) and to assume that of "bishop," which had before belonged to common pastors. All tliis, we are given to understand, can be demonstrated from iScripture* In regard to the first step in tliis train of allegations — for we will not call it argument — we entirely agree with Dr. Onderdonk. * It is wortliy of notice tliat tlie author of this Tract differs widely in the ground wliicli he assumes from one of the most learnod and able advocates of Episcopacy that ever lived. We refer to the celebrated Dr. Henry Hammond, undoubtedly one of the most erudite and able divines of the Church of Enoland that lived in tlio seventeenth century, and at least equal in learning and talent to any bishop now on the stage. He maintained, in direct opposition to Bishop Onderdonk, that all the persons denominated liis/wps and presbyters in the New Testament, (the names being then common.) were jirelates or bishops, properly so called ; and that the second order, tliat of presbyters, was not instituted uiUil al'ter the apostolic ago. Dr. Hammond appears to have been just as confidfnt that his doctiine was taught in Scripture as our author can be that the opposite to it is there found. Which of these prelatical champions shall we believe? " Who siiull deciJe when doctors disagree'!" We are persuaded that the spirit of the New Testament frowns equally upon both. In the meanwhile, it appears that our Episi,opal friends are not agreed in the ground which they take for the support of their cause. TESTED BY SCRTPTDRE. 207 Nothin? can be plainer than tliat whenever the title of -bishop" is applied in the New Testament to Gospel mini>ters, ildesjonates ordinary pastors. A scriptural hisliop was tiie spiritual teacher and guide, or " overseer," of a particular flock ; and the same men were called "elders," or "presbyters," and "bishops" inter- changeably, the names being common. This Dr. Onderdonk. concedes, and we have no doubt with entire correctness, lint in all tlie succeeding steps of his course, we have quite as little doubt that he proceed.-? without the smallest support from Scrip- ture ; nav, in direct opposition to the whole spirit and scope of the New Testament. This writer contends — and it is essential to his cause that he be able to show — that while the Apostles lived they bore a supe- rior ecclesiastical rank, and woe endowed with ecclesiastical rights superior to other ministers; that, in particular, the riijht of ordaining- was confined totliem ; and that, when llieir mini.slry terminated, they left this pre-eminent rank, and these peculiar rights, to certain prelates, who were tiieir successors in power and pre-eminence. Now the fact is, that y;I these points, though brought forward with some show, and evt.i; parade of argument, are wiiolly without support from Scripture, and have not one of them been made out by our author. It is not denied, indeed, that the Apostles bore a peculiar character, and had extraordi- nary powers and prerogatives imparted to them, adapted to the peculiar circumstances in which they were placed. For, until the canon of the New Testament was completed, they might be said, to a certain extent, to supply its place, and by inspiration and the exercise of miraculous powers, to be, in a peculiar sense, the authorized leaders and guides of the primitive Cliurcli. "The apostolic office" — says Dr. Barrow, universally known to be an eniinent Episcopal divine — "r/.s such, was personal and tempo- rary; and, therefore, according to its nature and design, not successive, 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 p\ni*])Oses ; discliarged by special r/;V/.'?; 'endowed with special prir Urges, as was needful for the propagation of Christianity, and founding of churches. To that office it was requisite tliat the person should have an immediate designation and commission from God; that he should be endowed with miraculous siifls and graces; tlial he should be able, according to liis discretion, to impart spiritual gifts; and tliat he should govern in an ai)soliite manner, as being guided by infallible assistance, to which he might a[)peal. Now such an office, cousistins of so many extra- orilinary privileges, and miraculous powers, which were reijuisite for the foundation of the Church, was not designed to continue hj/ derivation ; for it contained in it divers things, which appa- rently were not communicated, and which no man witlxiut gros.s irupostur*; and hypocrisy, coidd challenge to himself" l*iipe\i Supremacy, pp. 122, 123, A'. Y. edition. Such was the judgment 208 REVIEW — EPISCOPACY of this eminently learned and able Episcopalian, concerning the foundation of tlie whole argument before us. There is not a shadow of support to be found in Scripture for the alleged transmission of the pre-eminent and peculiar powers of the Apostles to a set of ecclesiastical successors. As men endowed Aviih the gifts of inspiration and miracles, and constituted the infallible guides of the Church, until the New Testament canon should be completed ; their character and position were alto- gether extraordinary. They had no successors. Nor can the remotest hint be found in Scripture, that they had, or were ever intended to have, any such successors. But, considering the Apostles as ministers of Christ, empow- ered to preach tiie Gospel, to administer Clirislian sacraments, and to convert the world to Cukist, they had successors: and these successors were, manifestly, all those who were empowered to preach the Gospel, and to dispense the sacramental seals of discipleship; for in thefinal commission which the Saviour gave to the Apostles, and which must be considered as embracing tiieir final and highest functions, they are sent forth to disciple all nations, to baptize them in the name of the Father, and of tlie Son, and of the Holy Ghost : and it was in immediate connexion with the command to discharge these ordinary duties, that the promise which is considered as pointing to tiie ministerial succes- sion was given — " Lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world." If the friends of prelacy could produce even the semblance of testimony from Scripture, that the ordaining power is something more sacred and elevated than that of dispensing the Gospel, and its sealing ordinances; if they could produce the least hint from the New Testament that the powers possessed by the Apostles were, after their decease, divided ; and that while one class of ministers succeeded to their lower and more ordi- nary functions, another succeeded to certain pre-eminent rights and powers, not specified in their commission ; they would have some plausible ground on which to rest their cause. But every reader of the New Testament knows that there is not a syllable there which gives the most distant intimation of either of these alleged facts. On the contrary, the evidence against them is ample and decisive. Suppose, for argument's sake, that a pastor of the Presbyterian Church were sent to China or Japan to preach the Gospel, and, if successful, to organize churches, agreeably to his views of truth and order. Suppose it not possible to send more than one, and that he were invested with power by the proper authority, in this forming state of things, to ordain ministers, and perform every ecclesiastical act necessary to complete a Christian organization. \Nould this man be considered, by any rational inquirer, as clothed with a new ojice, or as elevated to a peculiar or separate " order of clergy 7" Surely not. He would be considered simply as an "evangelist," invested with special powers from the necessity of the case. And when the churches TESTED BY SCRIPTDRE. 209 organized by him were prepared for a regular and mature Prrs- byterian arrangement, would any be so absurd as to imaoinc tliat the ministers ordained by iiim were his "successors" in regard lo the special commission and powers under whicb 1 c had acted ? Sucii an idea would be loo preposterous to be enlei- taiiied by any one. They would be simply his successors in respect to his original and ordinary powers; and every thiri! connected with ills extraordinary delegation would terminaie Willi the extraordinary circumstances wiiich gave it birth. l!f would transmit, of course, to those ordained by liim, nothinii more than that simple office which he bore anterior to Ins peculiar mission. 'J'lius it was witli the Apostles. Their commission, as slalid with great particularity by the evaneelists, empowered them in preach, to baptize, to disciple all nations, and to teach them lo observe all things whatsoever Christ liad commanded. All otiier permanent powers were included in these; for there ar,' none others meniioned. AH ministers of the Gospel bear this commission. When the Apostles left the world, their inspii:<- tion, their miracles, their prerogative of guiding the churches by infallible leaching — in a word, the extraordinary characl. r with which they were invested, died with them, and all ihisl they tran>mitted was that which was embraced in their commis- sion. That they did not transmit a large and very promintnt part of their extraordinary powers. Episcopalians themselves acknowledge. ^Ve know not that any modern Protestant bish- ops claim to be inspired, lo have the power of working- miracles, or of authoritatively prescribing the will of Christ to the Church, in place of the New Testament.^ All these adjuncts or annexa- tions to ihe'w general office, conslittiling them apostles, in the strict sense of ihe word, our Episcopal brethren confess ceased when llie iast Apostle left the world. This was, no doubt, the case. ^Vilere, then, is the evidence of which these same bn - tliren talk so much, of their transmitting the pre-eminence and superiority of their character to a class of superior successors? IJishop Onderdonk, from the circumstance that he finds the " apostles avd elders" frequently distinguished from each otiu r in the New Testament history, takes for granted that they were thus distinguished, because tiie former were ministers of a supe- rior order or rank to the latter. He also supposes that he finds evidence in the New Testament, not only that the Apostles ordained, but that they alone had the power of ordination while they lived. Now, we will venture to say that there is not a sli;i- dow of evidence in favor of either of these allegations in the^^ nid of God. As to llie office of the apostles and elders or presbyti i'--, it was undoubtedly the same in all its essential characterisiK -. Let ai y unprejudiced reader examine the commission give n 1 v our Louo lo the twelve, anel afterward to the serenly, anel ih' ii say, whether grades of power, and diveTsilies e)f clerical rai.l:, are masked therein. Let him say whether it includes any thing 18* 210 REVIEW — EPISCOPACY (excepting the supernatural part of their powers) but what belongs to every niinister of the Gospel. Authority to preacli the Gospel, to administer sealing ordinances, and to make disci- ples of all to whom they are sent, formed the substance of the apostolical commission ; and the very same forms the essence of tlie commission of all regular ministers now. Our autiior, indeed, ventures to affirm, that the Apostles were not distin- guished from other ministers, while they lived — because they were appointed by Christ personally ; nor because they had " seen the Lord" after his resurrection ; nor because of tlieir iPiiracnious powers; but because they sustained a superior office. This, he says, " ir;"// not be questioned.'''' We ceriainly, how- ever, do question it ; and are quite sure that he has not proved it, and cannot prove it, from Scripture, or from any other credi- ble source of evidence. In fact, it may be said willi truth, that we have nothing in the pamphlet before us, adduced in favor of this position, worth mentioning, but the simple affirmation of the writer, which, on such a subject, we beg leave to decline accept- ing as conclusive. The simple and plain truth of the case is this. The Apostles were all presbyters or elders. This, and this only, was their proper ecclesiastical office. Accordingly, tiie Apostle Peter speaks thus — " The elders which are among you I exhort, wlio am also an elder, and a witness of the sufferings of Chkist, and also a partaker of the glory that shall be revealed." Such was Peter, if he himself understood his office ; — an elder. But he was an inspired elder; an elder endowed with miraculous GIFTS ; an elder who had " witnessed the sufferings " and resurrection of Christ ; an elder chosen to be one of the num ber who should preside over (lie forming and rising Church under its new economy, before its written body of instructions were prepared, and even to assist in preparing tliose instructions; and, for that purpose, inspired of God to counsel, guide, and instruct the churches for their permanent edification. Such were tlie Apostles generally. When tliey died, the inspiration, the miracles and the peculiar apostolical authority (lied with them, and they simply transmitted their office as elders ox pres- byters to theif successors. All this is plainly to be gatliered from the tenor of the New Testament; and ,vvhen Bishop Onderdonk undertakes to press the testimony of Scripture into the support of any other doctrine, he fails, in our opinion, most egregiously. Quite as little proof have we that the ordaining power was exercised by the Apostles alone, while they lived. Or rather, this position is still more directly opposed to abundant scriptural evidence. We know that it was not so. Timotliy, and Tilus, and Barnabas all ordained ; and yet tiiey were none of tiiem apostles, in the appropriate sense of that title. In order to sur- mount this difficulty, however, our author, with many otliers who have goije before him in this controversy, takes the liberty TESTED BY SCRIPTURE. 2l4 of supposing lliat Timothy, Titus, Barnabas, Silvanns, Andro- nic'us, Juiiia, Epaplirodims, and others were ail aposlit's, in the pre-eminent sens^e of llie word, thoiigli confessedly not of tlie number of the Iwelre ; and tiiat, therflure, wiien we n ad of any of these exercising liie ordaining power, we are to coiit^ider it as falling in with the Episcopal claim, and as confirming the doc- trine of tlie Tract before ns. We have always considered this plea as one of the forlorn hopes of onr Episcopal brethren, and as much more adapted to expose than to aid their cause. And as wielded by our auliior, it certainly does not appear to more advantage, than in tiie hands of those from whom he borrowed it. It is well known to learned men that the original Greek word which we translate apostle, signifies a messenger, or one who is sent on any errand, eitiier sacred or secular. It is well known, also, that it has, in the New Testament, a peculiar or appropriated, and a common signification ; and that its peculiar application is to tlial chosen band of men, who were endowed and sent in an extraordinary manner by Christ iiimself. Of the peculiar or restricted application of this title we need not. select specific examples. They are numerous and well known. In this high and exclusive sense, we are expressly told it was confined to those who had "seen tlie Lonn," and who were " witnesses of his sufferings and his resurrection." In this sense it was applied to the twelve, and afterward to Matthias, ■who was chosen to take the place of Judas, " who by transores- sion fell." And, in the same specific meaning of the tiile, Paul was an apostle, wlio was made to " see the Lofd," in a miracu- lous manner, and who was " chosen to be a uitniss unto all men of what he had seen and heard." Let any impartial man, who doubts whether this is the meaning of the title of apostle, in its primary and pre-eminent sense, as applied to those on whom onr Lord himself bestowed it; let him read the following scrip- tures, and he will no longer doubt. Matt. x. l-t>; Luke vi. 12-17; Acts i. 21, 22; Luke xxiv. 48 ; Acts xxii. 14, 15; Acts xxiii. 11 ; Acts xxvi. 16, tr)gether willi many other parallel pas sages, which will readily occur to ail w)io are familiar with the Bible. With this representation of the apostolic office, Dr. Barrow, the learned Episc(rpal divine before quoted, entirely agrees. "To the ofiice of an apostle," says lie, " it was requisite that the person should have an immediate designation and commission from God ; such as St. Paul so often doth insist upon for assert- ing his title to this ofiice — " Paul, an apostle, not from men or by man." '-Not by men," saith St. Chrysostom ; "this is the properly of the apostles." It was requisite that an apostle should he ahle to attest concerning our Lord's resurrection or ascension, either immediately, as the twelve, or by evident consetjiiences, as St. Paul; thus St. Peter iin|jlied, at tiie choice of Maitliias — "Where- fore ' In \>v'\( ;i| the orisjin-il williont percriving, in a iTiOiiient, llial il icr(;r.s t.> .'i boncli nr coIIil' ■ auic thing is equally evident. 216 REVIEW — EPISCOPACY • I lie hands of the presbytery' being laid on Timothy, refers to his ordination at all. It is, perhaps, more probable that it refer? l!) his being set apart to a special and temporary service: or it may he understood to mean, (if it does ref«r to liis ordination.) ilial lie was set apart, by the laying on of hands, to 'the pres- b>jterate^ that is to tiie office of prcsbijlcr. Yet, even if this be supposed, as the title of presbyier, as ii^ed in tlie New Testament, means any tiling and every tiling in ecclesiastical office, it may 1)0 here construed to mean something higher than a mere pres- byter, strictly speaking; therefore there is at least as much ividence that it means a prelate as a presbyter. Besides, for any 1 liing we know to the contrary, the ' presbytery ' which officiated on this occasion ^ma.y\vA\e consisted of apostles only, or of one or more apostles joined with others;' as the Apostle speaks, In another place, of having laid his own hands on Timothy. If this be so, it cannot, of course, be claimed as a Presbyterian, but was an apostolic ordination. We maybe considered, then, as having proved, that presbyters alone did not perform the ordina- tion, granting the transaction to have been one; but that an a|)ostle actually belonged, or else was added for this purpose, to the body called a ' presbytery.' It is also worthy of notice that Si. Paul makes the following distinction in regard to his own agency and that of others in this supposed ordination, '■by the putting on of my hands' — ^with the laying on of the hands of ilie presbytery.' Such a distinction ?;?//?/ justly be regarded as niiimating, that the virtue of the ordaining act flowed from Paul ; while the presbytery, or the rest of that body, if he were included in it, expressed only consent. On the whole, the language here used requires us to believe that a minister of higher rank than an ordinary presbyier was present and officiated ill this ordination — or what is said to be the ordination of Timothy. At any rate the Episcopal theory is at least as good a key as that of parity to the meaning of the word ' presbytery ; ' and considering the above distinction of ^ by'' and ^ ivith,'' oiir theory is obviously the belter of the two." See pages 18-23. In short this wonderful jingle of words, denominated argument, when brought into a narrower compass, is to the following effect — " It is doubtful whether either of these famous passages refers tt the ordination of Timothy or not. 7/" either or both have biich a reference, they admit of an interpretation quite as favorable to prelacy as to parity ; therefore, as some otiier passages of Scripture seen to wear an aspect more favorable to prelacy tlian parity, we are bound to interpret these, which are acknowledged to be slill more doubtful, in the same way?'' Though these are not the ipsissima verba of our author, they really present no caricature of his mode of reasoning. We verily think that inferences so perfectly inconsequential and unwarranted would be driven from any enlightened and impar- tial tribunal on earth, as unworthy of an answer. Our author next attempts to establisli, as a matter of fact^ TESTED BY SCRIPTURE. 217 that Timothy was an Episcopal bishop or prelate at Ephesvis. This he endeavors to make out in the following manner. lie first recites the charge wliiclx the Apostle Paul gives to tlie elders of Ephesus, with whom he had an interview at Milchis, (Acts XX.) He gathers from tliis charge the amount of cccle- siaslical power conunitted to these elders, and exercised hy (iitiii. He then goes over tlie epistles to Timothy ; and thinking ihat he perceives larger powers and a higher authority intrnsicd lo Tiinotliy tlian lo the elders, he confidently infers tiiat Tinniiliy was a minister of superior rank to the elders; in other words, a prelate. We consider all his reasoning on this subject as entirely without force, or even plausibility ; and we are per- suaded all impartial readers wFll make the same estimate, after attentively weighing the following considerations. 1. We miglit have expected great diversity in the mode of address in tliese two cases, because the circumstances of the persons addressed were essentially different. Tiie elders of Ephesus were the officers of an organized and regular church; and were charged simply with carrying forward the affairs of a collected and officered flock. Wliereas Timothy was obviously sent on a temporary mission to Ephesus, with a special charge to rectify disorders, to correct abuses, and to convey, imme- diately from the Apostles, a variety of special instructions, respecting the doctrine, tlie worship, and tlie officers of that church. Surely these circumstances will abundantly account for the peculiar manner in which Timothy is instructed and exhorted, and the special powers vested in him for discharg ing the duties of this arduous mission. Who wonld expect to find tlie officers of a regular church addressed in tlie same man- ner with an individual "evangelist" sent on a critical mission to the same church in a slate of agitation and disorder? 2. The address lo the elders of Ephesus, when the Apostle met them at Miletus, is sufficient, of itself, to destroy the Epis- copal claim. We will not stop to inquire whether this inter- view at Miletus took place before or after the date of tlie first epistle to Timothy. We care not which alternative is adopted, so far as oin* argument is concerned. The opinion of many learned men is, that tlie interview recorded in Acts xx. occurred six or seven years prior to the date of the epistle. This seems lo be Bishop Onderdonk's opinion, and we are content to assume it as correct. Now if it were so, we have the spectacle — strange and inexplicable on Episcopal grounds — the specta- cle of an inspired apostle solemnly addressing the elders of an important cliurcli, where the apostle himself had labored for three years; reminding them of their duties; exhorting them to fidelity; and formally committing lo them the rule and disci- pline, as well as the instruction of tlie flock ; and all thivS, without so much as alluding to an ecclesiastical superior. If we understand our autlior, he supposes that, at tiiis time, there was no prelate at Ephesus, Timothy not having been yet seat 19 218 REVIEW — EPISCOPACY thither. Be it so. Is it not passing strange, then, that the Apostle in addressing tlietn should not allude to this deficl in their ecclesiastical siuiation ; tiiat he should not sympathize ■with them in regard to it ; and promise, or at least, hint some- thing about the future supply of this defect — a defect, on Episcopal principles, so essenlial ? Not a word like this, liow- ever, is found. On the contrary, the Apostle solemnly commiis the whole inspection and rule of tlie church to these elders themselves, and distinctly calls them bishops. "Take heed," says he, "to yourselves, and to the flock over whicli the Holy Ghost has made you overseers, (in tlie original EjriaKoiruuj) bishups, to feed (the original here signifies to rule as well as to Jecd) ilie Church of God, which he hath [Purchased with his own bluoJ.' In short, he makes no allusion to any higher auiiiuriiy ihan that whicli he charges theni to exercise On this occisicm Timotliy himself seems to have been present. Acts xx. 4, 5. If, on the other hand, we suppose that the first epistle to Timothy was written before the interview at iMilftus, and tliat Timothy, or any oilier person, was then the prelaticul bishop of the church of Ephesus, the fair presumption against the E,,is- copal claim becomes still stronger. Can it be imagined, on E|)iscopal principles, that Paul would have addressed these elders, in the presence of their diocesan, or while he was living, if not present, and would have commilted the "oversigiit" of ilie flock entirely to them, without so much as hiiuing that they owed any subjection or reverence to him, or to any person of superior rank? It is impossible. This fact alone does not merely render the Episcopal claim improbable ; it destroys it 5 unless we suppose that tlve Apostle expressly intended to deceive the elders of Ephesus, or to insult their diocesan, or that he forgot — what no modern Episcopalian ever forgets — the dignity and prerogative of the prelate. 3. It is nowhere said, or hinted in Scripture, that Timothy ever was bishop. of Ephesus, or 'J'itus of Crete. That is, there is no evidence whatever in the inspired history, that these men, or either of them, ever had a fixed pastoral charge, of many months', much less years', continuance, in the places in which they are alleged to have been permanently located ; or that they ever sustained any title, or enjoyed any authority, which marked a prelatical character. We utterly deny that they ever did ; and we are perfectly sure that it never has been, or can be, proved from Scripture. That one of them was at Ephesus, and the other at Crete, on a special emergency, and for a short time, we are, indeed, distinctly informed. But this is all that appears. Timothy is represented as travelling from place to place continually ; and the same was probably the case with Tiius. The very epistles themselves which were directed to those missionaries contain evidence that, as they had been recently sent to Ephesus and Crete, so they were soon to depart and go elsewhere. The postscript to the second epistle to TESTED BY SCRIPTCRE. 219 Timothy, and llie episUe to Titus, wliich speak of their being " bisliops," are known to be spurious ; that is, it is certain tliat they make no part of the authorized text, and that they were inierpohited long after the apoetolic age. Of course, they have notiiing to do with this inquiry. But, though neiilier of these ministers is said in Scripture to have been a "bishop,"' in the Episcopal sense of that word, Timothy is expressly styled by the Apostle an e^^angelist, (2 Tim. iv. 5,) and the probability is that Titus bore the same character. If it be asked, What was tlie nature of the evangelisVs o^'ic&l We answer, in general, he was a preacher of (he Gospel; — a bearer of the Gospel to those who had it not. But if the inquiry be, Wliat was the nature of this office in the early Church ? let Eusebius answer. He says, "Very many of the disciples of that day travelled al)road, and performed the imi-k of evangelists, ardently ambi- tions of preaching Christ to those who were yet wiiolly unac- quainted witli the doctrine of faith, and to deliver to them the Scripture of the divine gospels. These having merely laid the foundations of the faith, and ordained other ]>astors, committed to them tiie cultivation of the churches newly planted; while they themselves, supported by the grace and co-operation of God, proceeded to other countries and nations." (lib. iii. cap. 37.) Bishop Onderdoiik, indeed, endeavors to obviate the inference drawn from the fact that Timothy is called an evangelist ; but witliont the smallest success. The considerations which he urges for refining it, are chiefly the following. [1.] " If Timothy is called an evangelist, he is also called an ajiostle." This, as we have seen, is a mistake; he is nowhere so called in Scripture. [2.] " It does not appear that evanselists, as such, had any particular rank in the ministry. Philip, the deacon, was an evangelist; and in Ephes. iv. II, evangelists are put after prophets." True, in tlie apostojie arre, they had belter uork to do, than to contend about the adjustment of titles, pre- cedence, and rank in tiie sacred office. But one tiling is certain, that "evangelists" are distinguished from "apostles" with a distinctness which precludes the possibility of our considering them as the same. [3.] " If Timothy were an evangelist, there is no proof that Titus, and the 'angels' of the seven churches were evangelists." This there is much reason to believe is a mistake. It is highly probable they were. At any rate, we are very sure it cannot be made to appear that they were iiot. [4.] "Eusebius probably refers to bishops, when he speaks of these evangelists ; and if so, then Episcopacy still prevails." This i.s, again, an entire mistake. Eusebius does, indeed, men- tion some as evangelists, by -name, who are said to have heen bisho[)s. Having done this, he goes on to speak of " many other discijiles" of thai day, " as going abroad, and performing the work of evangelists;" and to these, he explicitly informs us, was committed the nrdainimr jioirer. His mode of speak ing precludes the possiinlily of their being bishops, in the sense 220 REVIEW— EPISCOPACY which became current afterward in the Church. In short, the tilie "evangelist" is found but three limes in the New Testa- ment. Once it ii apphed to Tiniotiiy; once to Piuiip, who had been one of the seven deacons at Jerusalem; and once in Epiies. iv. 11, where we read of "apostles, prophets, evange- lists, pastors, and teachers." Tliis is conclusive proof, as far as scriptural authority goes, that the title has no reference to prelacy. 4. There is nothing represented in Scripture as enjoined upon Tiniolliy and Tiius, or as done by them, wiiicii is not perfectly consistent with Presbyterian principle and practice. Tinu)lliy was sent to Epiiesus, and Titus to Crete, to do what? — To cor- rect abuses as to doctrine, worsliip and order ; to see that suita- ble persons were selected and set apart to ecclesiastical offices ; and, in general, to " set in order the things that were wanting." It is well known that the Presbyterian Cliurch in this ct)untry has been in the constant practice, for more than half a century, of sending out evangelists — just such men as Eusebius describes — i ito destitute settlements to organize churches, ordain elders and deacons, correct irregularities, and "set in order," as far as possible, every thing that may be necessary for Christian edifi- cation. Now, we ask. Why may not Timothy and Titus have been just such Presbyterian evangelists? There is not a tittle, either of fact or expression, in tiie whole statement respecting them, which is inconsistent wiih the supposition ; nay, we have no doubt that this was the real fact. It will avail nothing with us to reply, as our author, like all his predecessors, doubtless will reply — that this cannot be, because none but prelates ever had the power of ordaining. Shall we never have done with this constant begguig of the whole question in dispute? We fe.irlessly assert tliat there is not a syllable in the New Testa- ment which even distantly intiniate-'i, that either Timothy or Titus performed the work enjoined upon them rather as prelates thiin as " evangelists;" and that there is just as much reason to assert that all the itinerant missionaries sent out annually by the Presbyterian Charch into frontier seitlements, are prelates, as from any thing that is said in the New Testament, to ascribe such a superior rank to Timothy and Titus. Perhaps it will be said, that, although Presbyterian missionaries are always em- powered to organize churches, and to ordain ruling elders and deacons, they are never authorized, singly, to ordain teaching elders, or ministers of the Gospel. This is, no doubt, true. Yet this is only an ecclesiastical regulation, not a necessary or essential law of Ckkist"s house. In our Church, according to her present constitution, three ordainers must always be present, an/ in the respective places to which they were sent to minister, for charges in relation to these points are given to llieni in the same personal style. 4. No evangelist is ever sent fortli hy our Cliurch for the purpose of organizing and ''setting in order" chniciies, witiiout bearing Willi liim a body of special instructions, always drawn up in the form of a letter, and, of course, addressed to him personally. Are all these proofs that our evangelists are prelates? In closing our remarks on the alleged prelatical cliaractcr of Timothy and Tilns, we have one circumstance to mention, wliicli we cannot help regarding as decisive. The circumstance is this. Bishop Onderdouk, as we have seen, explicitly acknow- ledges that — " all that we read in the New Testament concern- ing bishops is to be regarded as pertaining to the " middle grade," i. e. to " presbyters," and never to prelates. In other words, he acknowledges that the title of " bishop " is, in no case, in the New Testament, used to designate a minister of superior rank ; but always to designate ordinary pastors. Of course, tlie term bishop, as found in the enistles to Timothy and Titus, has no reference to prelates. Now, if this be so, then we have no allusion whatever, in these episiles, to any such superior officer. Among all the counsels and laws intended to be left on perma- nent record, for the guidance of Christians in all ages, there is not the remotest hint pointing to such an officer. Presbyters, or ordinary pastors, ruling elders and deacons, are all plainly pointed out, and the proper qualifications and duties of each carefully specified. But not a syllable is said to them about prelates, their rights, prerogatives, duties, or mode of investiture. They are never even once reminded that it is their duty to be docile and obedient to their proper diocesan. Assuming Presby- terian principles, this is perfectly natural — ^jiist what might have been expected. If no such officer existed, of course he could not be recognised or described. But, on Episcopal principles, it appears to us utterly unaccountable. Or rather, it affords, in our opinion, conclusive proof that no such officer of superior rank was then known in the Church, or intended to be eslablisiied as a permanent order. We have only to notice one leading arguinent more which Bishop Onderdonk employs to make out Episcopacy from Scripture; and that is the argument drawn from the "angels" of the seven Asiatic churches. In reference to these he reasons thus. " Each of these churches is addressed, not through its clergy at large, but through its 'angel,' or chief officer. This 'angel' is addressed personally, and in a manner which implies much power and responsibility in his pastoral charge: the sin- TESTED BY SCRIPTURE. 223 gill ar nil mber is used in spealiing to him. This individual is, in each ca*(>, identified with his chnrcii, and his churcli witii him. Erst> these 'angels' were prelates." Now, we ask, ^Yhat are all lliese facts to onr author's arcu- ments ? AVhat do they prove? Why may not tliese " anirids" have been Presbyterian pastors, jnst as well as Epi.>«copaI bishops.? Every word that is said of them applies quite ;i^3 appropriately and strictly lo the former as to tiie latter. The term '•angel," in itself, decides nothing. It simply signifies a " messenger." As far as we know iis origin, it was derived from the Jewish synagogue; every particular synagosne having been furnished with an officer bearing tliis title, and that oflicer, it is well known, was not a prelate. Some of the most learned Episcopal wtiters, however, have been of the o[)ini()n, tliat the term ••ansel" is a figurative expression, intended to point ont the collective mi)u'sli>/ in those churches resfiectively : and hence in addressing the angel of the church in Smyrna, it is said, " iSome of you I will cast into prison," &c. Nor can we infer any thing from the addresses made, or the powers assigned to these "angels." 'I'hey agree jnst as well with parociiial bishops, or pastors, as with prelates. And accordingh', it is notorions that some of the mfist learned and able writers on the Episcopal side in this controversy, have given np the argument drawn from the apocalyptic '-angels," as affording no real support to the claim of prelacy. Besides, there is another difficulty respecting these " angels" of the seven churches, when claimed hh prelates. Bishop Onder- dnnk's theory is, that the prelates of the Church in the apostolic age, were never called bisfwps, bnt apostles ; and that after the Apostles' days, tiiese successors to tlie pre-eminent afiostolical powers began to be styled bishops. Now, here, according to onr aiuhor, we have a title which is neither the one nor the other; and which appears, as a ministerial title, in no other part of Scripture. It will not do to reply, that as all the apostles except- ing John, who was made the mediimi of address on this occasion, had passed away, we may suppose that the appointment of their prelatical successors had nexrhj commenced, and that these "anpels" are a specimen. Why not, then, call them either apostles or bisliopsl Why give them a title intended to be applied, as it would seem, in but one case, and then for ever dropped ? We snrely might have expected some inlellioil'le intimation of what was intended cnncerwu^ so £frcat a subject as the names and "orders of clergy," before the sacred canon was finally closed ; especially as the transition period from the Apostles to their "successors" had now come. But no; not a word. All is still left in donht and ohsciirily. And the truth is, ihe aspect and character of these addresses thenisehes do not very well correspond with the case of recently appointed officers. In reference to at least tico of them, there are indica- tions of a long. preceding incumbency in office, and of sinking 224 REVIEW — EPISCOPACY down into lukewarmness and sloth. It is by no means likely tliat, under the eye of inspired apostles, men already in this slate of moral depression would have been selected to preside over churches, in short, the more carefully we examine the case of these " angels," tlie more all dreams of their affording support to prelacy are dissipated. •Such is a cursory view of the arguments produced from Scripture, by Bisliop Onderkonk, in support of the Episcopal claim. Our only wonder is, that he does not see them to be, boili in their individual import and in their combined charac- ter, destitute of even the semblance of force. At every step in his progress, unless we are deceived, he lias totally and mani- festly failed. His method of reasoning, from the beginning to tlie end of his pamphlet, is of tlie following sort-"— '' This fact admits of an Episcopal construction ; at any rate, it cannot be •proved that its import is in favor of parity. We may, therefore^ take for granted, or at least it will not be questioned^ that its meaning is more favorable to Episcopacy than to parity. We are warranted, then. In assuming this point as established. To us the proof appears absolute ; but it is enough for a rightly dis- posed mind that it only preponderate. For, let it not be forgot- ten, that as it cannot be proved, it ought not to be allowed, that any but those who held the ap(»stolical or Episcopal office, superior to that of mere presbyters, either performed the ordi- nations mentioned in Scripture, or are there said to have the right to perform such acts." In such misnamed reasoning as this our author abounds; and he so far deceives himself — (which we have no doubt he does sincerely) — as to call it DEMONSTRATION ! But has he really proved any one of those points which are not merely important, but even essential to the establishment of his claim I Let us, for a moment, look back and recapitulate. Has he proved tliat the ordaining power was confined to the Apostles while they lived ? He certainly has not. The con- trary most manifestly appears. In his efforts to establish this point, has he proved that Timothy, Barnabas and others were apostles in the official sense of that title, because they un- doubtedly ordained ? Not at all. But in attempting it, he has mangled and perverted Scripture, and entirely misapprehended the apostolic character. Has he been able to show from Scripture that the Apostles, in their peculiar and pre-eminent character, had successors; and that these successors were the bishops ? He has not even pretended, so far as we recollect, to produce a single scripture which gives the remotest counte- nance to either of these positions. Has he proved, or rendered even probable, that Timothy or Titus was sent to Ephesus or Crete, not on a temporary and extraordinary mission, but to occupy a fixed and permanent pastoral charge? He has not; nor can he do so. For, from the scriptural account of the ministry of those itinerants, it is by no means likely that they TE8TED BY SCEIPTURB. 226 Avere in either of those places more than a few months, or per- haps, weeks. Has he proved ll)al tiie second epistle to Timo- thy was addressed to him at Ephesics at all 7 He has not ; and some of the most learned coiiimtMitators have thought it alto- gether improbable. Has he given lis the hast proof that eitlier Timotiiy or Titus went to Epiiesiis or Crete in any higlier character than that of simple '■' cvang-eUsts,'" sent on a special mission, and charged for that purpose with special powers? By no means. The wliole statement concerning them agrees far belter with parity tlian with prelacy ; nor is there a single fact or hint in the history of eillier which necessarily, or even probably, implies the latter. Has he shown that before those missionaries went to Ephesus and Crete there were teaching presbyters or pastors residing in both those places, who might, on Presbyterian principles, have performed the work of ordina- tion ? Or has he proved that either 'I'imothy or 'I'itus ever performed a single ordination alone? He has not produced the least proof of eitlier, nor can he do it. Has he proved, or ap- proached to tlie proof, that tlie " angels" of the seven churches were prelates? Not at all. Neither tlieir name, nor any facts alluded to in their case, give the least intimation that they bore tills cliaracter. The same may be said of every fact and princi- ple peculiar to prelacy which he has attem[)ted to establish. Instead of prodncing direct and palpable scriptural testimony, lie lias been compelled to resort to doubtful conjecture, circuit- ous inference, and remote probability, or even possibility. No one position is firmly supported. Even if he had been able to establish every one of the points above referred to as facts, still his main object would have been far from being gained. He would still be obliged to sliow, from Scripture, tiiat all this was intended to be a permanent arrangement. This he has not done. This, we are very sure, he cannot do. His premises and liis conclusion are alike unsound. The last remark brings again to our view a most singular part of Uishop Onderdonk's argument, to which we before alluded, but which deservges a more pointed notice. He grants, (p. 12.) as Ave have seen, tlflPthe title of" l)isho|)," in the New 'J'estament, is every wliere applied to ordinari/ pas'tors ; and that it was after the apostolic age that the title of " bishop" was taken from the " second order of clergy, and approfiriated to the first." AVlien we came to tliis point in his argument, we felt curious to know what scripture he would prodnce to attest this lust point, viz. that " after the apostolic age, the title of ' bishop' was taken from tlie second order, and appropriated to the first." IJul, at this priiK-ii'ial link in his chain of proof, he abandons his pro- fessed ground. "As we learn," says he — from whom ? from any impired writer? — not at all — " aa.wv. learn from Theodoret, one of the fathers!" He does not pretend to find ilie slightest warrant in the Hible for this essential part of his argument. How are we to account for this? We thought we had been 226 REVIEW — EPISCOPACY called to investigate the claim of Episcopacy as "tested by SCRIPTURE : " and here, for an essential link in the chain of proof, we are referred to a writer in the fflJi century ! We reject tiiis proof for several reasons: 1. Becanse it is not Scripture, and Willi tliat alone we have to do at present. 2. Becanse if this change of title had the sanction of Divine appointment, and if tlie rank wiiich it represents liad been regarded as a matter of BO mnch importance as modern prelatisls annex to it, we might, surely, expect to find in the New Testament some intimation of what was to take place. 3. Because no one doubts that, in the fifth century, wiien Theodoret lived, prelacy had crept into the Church, and was firmly established ; and that the language wliicii he employs fell in with the current claims and practice of ills day. 4. Because, if the testimony of the fathers is to settle this point; (agamst wliich we enter our solemn protest; wliat cannot be found in the Bible is no law for Christians;) if an appeal must be made to tlie fathers at all ; pray let us go to tiioie who lived nearest to " the apostolic age," and who, of course, are tiie most competent witnesses of what took place immediately after that age, when this change of title is alleged by our author to have been brought in. Does Clemens Romanii-s, does Ignatius, does Polycarp, say any thing like what Theodoret is brought to testify? They lived ai the very time when this transfer of titles is alleged to have taken place. Does any one of them speak of it? Not a word. But they say very much of an opposite import. Ignatius says, again and again, that the PRESBYTERS SUCCEED IN THE PLACE OF THE APOSTLES. ClemeUS, who was contemporary with the Apostle John, speaks familiarly of the presbyters in his day, as the rulers of the Church, very much in the language of the New Testament ; and Irenaeus, who flourished toward the latter part of the second century, repeatedly speaks of presbyters as being successors of the Apostles. Surely the representations of these men, (hough not constituting our rule either of faith or practice, are much more worthy of con- fidence than the language of those who lived several centuries afterward, when it is known that great corruption, growing out of ambition and worldliness, had foinid its wa^nto the Church, and when an erroneous nomenclature, as well as practice, was notoriously prevalent. Such is the result of our author's appeal to the " test of Scrip- ture." If he has proved a single point peculiar to the Episcopal system, from the New Testament, then we know not what proof means. Surely if the inspired writers had been Episcopalians; and, especially, if they had been believers in its fundamental importance, as well as in its Divine appointment ; they could not have left the subject in their writings — writings, be it remem- bered, expressly intended to guide the Church to the end of time ; — they co'dd not, we repeat, have left the subject in so lean and doubtful a plight as it would appear from our author's state- ment. Bishop Onderdonk has evidently examined the Scriptures TESTED BY SCRIPTUKfi. 227 with the most anxioiis vigilance, and Avilli the aid of the best divines of liis Ciiurch \vi,o have hved for three centuries; and he li;is Hvideiiliy Cdlleci.'d every fact, liint and allusion that v/as capai)le of beip.g brou^iu to bear wiuiess, ever so ininuti-l}' or remotely, in favor of iiis cause. And yet liie tact is, that every impartial reader must see that lie has not been able, in rejiard to anyone ■point, to produce a single scripture, decided and "home to his purpose.-' Now, if Episcopacy bad been meant to be tauglit in Scripture, as the only authorized model of chiu-ch order; and if the New Testament had been intended to be a sure guide in lliis matter; can any reflecting man believe that the ins{)ired writers would liave written as they have done in relation to ecclesiastical order? We will venture to say, it is impossible! When they had occasion to speak so frequently concerningChristian character and hope; concerning the Church, i'«s nature, foundation, head, laws, ministers, and interests; it is triily marvellous, if they had tliought as the writer of this pamphlet does, that they shoiijd not have told us something more explicit respecting "orders of clergy;" the mischiefs of "parity;" thedanger of departure from the regidar "succession;" and tl;e fundamental importance of ccuitending for an "author- ized prie.'ilhood." Had their opinions been those of the author of this Tract, they could not have been silent, or have spoken doubtfully respecting these points. They woidd have dwelt upon them in every connexion ; have repeated them at every tin-n : and have made this subject clear, whatever else was left in the dark. Now, as it is granted, on all sides, that they have NOT DONE this; as Episcopalians themselves acknowledge that NO ONE of the inspired writers has done it, or is at all explicit on the subject ; it is as plain as any moral demonstration can be, that the principles and claims of this pamphlet were then tnknoKn, and, consequently, have no Divine warrant. ANSWER TO A REVIEW OP "EPISCOPACY TESTED BY SCRIPTURE," Jn Ike Biblical Repertory for April, 1635. Some people are prompt, and some tardy ; the same with periodicals ; and the Eibhcal Repertory is of the latter class — perhaps wiili good reason. By the Biolical Repertory we mean, of course, the author of the Review before us. lie informs us that "copy after copy" of '"Episcopacy Tested by Scripture" was sent iiim, from about the time of its earliest appearance, yet without walking the energies of his tardy pen ; nay witliout being honored with the perusal of more tiian "'a fourth, or a? most, a third part of its contents." The reason was, that it c_(Mitained notliing with which he was not "familiar." At length, liowever, in time for the April number of the Repertory, and " within twenty-four hours" of the moment of penning his third para- graph, he vouchsafes it " a cursory perusal." Wliy, after leaving it so long unnoticed and unread, say some four years, why did the reviewer at length examine its pages, and even bend his powers to the labor of a reply? He informs us that it was because " the voice of exultation over its supposed unanswerable character seems to be, in tlie Episcopal canifi, waxing louder and louder," and because "some of the less informed of [liis] friends may misapprehend tiie reason of [his] silence." Only the " less informed," he it noticed ; the Biblical Repertory, a thick and handsome Quarterly, is tlie vehicle of communication with the " l«ss informed" of the Presbyterians I One might have sup- posed that the columns of one of their religious newspapers would be th^ more appropriate channel. Mark also the wor.js, " misapprehend the reason of our silence;" the silence of this individual reviewer, for the Tract had been reviewed a year before, in tlie Christian Spectator. Such language, under such circumstances, indicates that this writer understood that himself was looked to, by more or fewer of the Christian public, whether "less" or better " informed," for a reply to this Episcopal essay. In other words, wliile the reviewer, for himself, deemed the Trad, for four years, unworthy of notice, there were those whose judgment, either made known to him or taken for granled, constrained him at length to give his well-trained faculties ("familiar" with the whole subject) to the task, and to issue his production in one of tlie clioicest Presbyterian periodicals. If the auilior of the Tract were vain of it, he would not covel a greater compliment. 20 ( 229 ) 230 ANSWER TO A THIRD REVIEW OF After extracting from tlie Review such a compliment, and with the more direct complimenls there given us, it may seem unkind to say that tiie lone of llie reviewer is lliat rather of a declaimer than of a reasoner. But as "less-informed" per- sons are often caught by positive language, and insinuations against the parties opposed, it is our duly to say, that tliis piisitiveness and these insinuations abound in tlie production before us. Let our timid readers then bear in mind, tiiat it is easy to say tliat no man of sense thinks as Episcopalians do, and tliat our oi)inions have no countenance wluitever in the holy- volume; let them be informed, that men wlio reason are apt to regard such sayings, except as they occasionally escape an ardent debater, as mere sound, a lordly kind of scolding, resorted to when arguments are scarce, or when liie current of argument- ation is becoming stagnant. The autlior of the Tract, says the reviewer, is under '• the wonderful sway of prejudice'''' — certain of his inferences " would be driven away from any enlightened and impartial tribunal on earth : " again, " we confidently assert that there is no authority whatever in the Word of God" for bishops proper; tiie claim of deacons to be clersrymen, "has no foundation whatever in the Word of God:" if this claim " had not been actually advanced, it would never have occurred to us as possible that it should enter the mind of any thinking- man : " again, "the claim advanced in behalf of Audronicus and Junia [or Junias] as apostles, is not only unfounded, but really border- ing on the ridicidous;^^ yes, "ridiculous," although that claim is allowed by Calvin, by Diodati, by Aretius, by others in Poole's Synopsis, and is regarded as of equal probability, or more than equal, with the other construction, by Hammond * and Macknight; yet adds the reviewer, tiie contrary "is the general interpretation of intelligent and impartial com nenlalors:" again, " the manner in which Bishop Onderdonk undertakes to dispofse of the plain record is one of the most singular examples of evasion and management that we remember efVer to have seen:" again, the opinion that irpeo^vrt^iov in 1 Timotliy, means office^ the presbyterate, is "fanciful and riditulous :'''' the word seems a favorite one, "ridiculous;" though the opinion has, in the Tract, the names of Jerome and Ambrose, of Calvin | and Grotius, and, in the Answer to Mr. Barnes' second Review, * Hammond allows this absolutely, on John xx. 21, note b. We here specify for this opinion, Menocliins, Tirinus, Estiiis, Vorstiiis, and Para;ns ; see Poole's Synopsis. Add also. Parkhnrst and Wolfuis, and Wliitby, as we understand him; who cites Clirysoslom and Theodoret. t Tlie objection is repeated by this revieweir, that Calvin held a different view afterward. Not exactly true ; but if it were, he still allowed this one to be reason- able. Dr. Bowden made this replv long ago, as the reviewer should have known. See also our second Answer to Mr. Barnes. Dr. Cooke, we now observe, has answerefl still more etTfCtually. (Essay, p. 175; Answer, p. 21.) The Institutes, in which Calvin made diis concession, were first published before his Comnieiit.ary, in wliich he partly revokoe it ; but successit^e editions of the former, still making the concession, were published till " fve years before he died." EPISCOPACY TESTED BY SCRIPTURE. 231 those of a host besides: yet again, speaking of Bishop Onder- donlv's arguments at large, "our only wonder is, thai he does not see iheni to be, both in their individual import, and in their comhincd character, de.slitute of even the sei'ibknicc of force ;" in plainer terms, tlie reviewer wonders that Bisliop Onderdonk " does not see " himself to be without " even the semblance " of common understanding. Such is the tone — we could make other extracts of the same kind — of this Review, in a periodical " conducted by an Associa- tion of Gentlemen in Princeton." Another feature of this Review is, that it creates men of straw, ficlitiuHS arguments, in tlie demoliiion of whicli the " less- informed " readers will be apt to tliink liiat the arguments of the Tract are demolished. 1. It is said, that the Tract professes to " demonstrate y>o/«. »S'c?-/p;«?-e," that tlie name bishop, given in Scripture to presbyters, was appropriated afterward to bishops proper: and in conformity with \\\\s fiction, the reviewer exults when he proclaims that tliis appropriation was proved, not from Scripture, but from "one of the fathers." Now, who ever ex- pected to prove from the New Testament, an occurrence whicli did not take place till after its books were written .^ Or, who, but the reviewer, deems this change of a name the "principal link in the chain of proofs," or even an integral part of the scriptural discussion of Episcoijacy? We proved the recognition of the first order in that volume, witliout reference to its designation : that is the scriptural proof of the only important point. How or wlien that order came by the name of bishop, is a mere affair of history : and as historical authority for the change, we adduced the declaration of Tlieodoret; and also the concession of Videlins, a learned Non-episcopalian, that it was as early as the time of Clement of Rome. Does the reviewer contradict this authority? by no means. He only contends that we ought to find Scripture — for what? for an event yet future when Scripture was written; in other words, n propliecy — a prophecy of what? of a mere change of name! A worthy subject of prophecy, indeed! He urges, however, that it related to "a matter of so much importance" — importance! we might as well ask the Romanists to give us a scriptural prophecy that the bishop of Rome would acquire the name of Pope. 2. It is alleged that the Trad maintains that "the apostles alone, while they lived, were invested with the power of ordi- nation," "and that when their min\s\ry terminated, they/<^i!" their rank and rights to "their successors:" to demolish itiis efligyof liis own creation, the reviewer refilies that " Timotiiy, and Titus, and Barnabas all ordained, and yet they were none of them apostles, in the appropriate sense of that title." Now, the Tract affirmed that these three ordained, or had the power to do so, while most of the apostles were living; as also tlie seven "angels," while St. John was living. Wiiile any of the tiiirteen original Apostles were on the earth, these and oihers were their 232 ANSWER TO A THIRD REVIEW OF official compeers; wlien they died, these and others were their successors, as coming after them — in tlie other sense, their succession in sacerdotal standing was from tiie time they were set apart respectively to their high office. The Tract did not confine ordaining to those called apostles in Scripture; for it ascribed that function to Titus and ttie seven "angels," wlio are not so designated : it ascribed it to the Apostles, and to certain other individuals, not mere eiders. May we^not asic the reviewer, " What does your [fictitious] arguing reprove?" 3. Some strength of the reviewer, witli the aid of the mighty name of Barrow, is expended on the proposition, tliat tiie extraordinary^ miraculous, and special powers and duties of the Apostles proper, were not committed to successors. Wiio said they were ? not the Tract certainly ; nor any Episcopa- lian we ever heard of. And what furtiier proposition does ilie reviewer superinduce upon this argument of straw 7 just ihis — "But" — O yes, the Presbyterian, as well as the Episcopalian, has something to save out of the smoke of tiiis blanic volley — " But, considering the Apostles as ministers of Chhist they had successors." What an example of much ado about nothing! — of making a speech, and ending at tiie point started from ! Neitlier party claims succession to the extraordinary functions of the thirteen ; but both claim succession to them as ministers of Christ." All this was iiuown before. Tlie true questions were, What sort or grade of " ministers" succeeded to the apostolic ministerial office ? and. Was the superiority of the Apostles to tlie eiders an extraordinary and transient arrange- ment, or a permanent one in the Cliurch ? To a solution of these questions, this part of the labor of the reviewer brings us no nearer. Tlie "less informed" may indeed be carried away with the torrent of his argument against a shadow, and may imagine tiiat because no extraordinary apostolical distinctions have descended, there is no basis for Episcopacy ; but this class of readers are beginning to be better "informed." 4. The reviewer, as also did Mr. Barnes, adverts to the "post- scripts " to the second epistle to Timothy, and to that to Titus, " wliich speak of their being bishops," and very gravely and learnedly declares them to be spurious: true — what then? did the Tract refer to them ? no: does any Episcopalian put them into the scriptural argument? no: does any Episcopalian mean to do so? no. For what purpose then are iliey even named in this controversy? for none, that we can perceive, except it be to make a display, by arguing down what nobody asserts. 5. On the word " evangelists," the reviewer offers what he deems "conclusive proof, as far as scriptural authority goes, that the title has no reference to prelacy." So exactly said the Tract; an evangelist might be either bishop, priest, or deacon; nay, even the laity "did the work of evangelizing;" the title did not imply either one of the sacred offices. Why " prove," then, that it " has no reference to prelacy ?" why, but to make EPISCOPACY TESTED BY SCRIPTURE. 2'.i3 a shoit of proving somelliing, in an argument against Epis- copacy I 6. On a question (;f his own raising — " Wliy may not Timo- thy and 'J'liiis iiave been Presbyterian evungelisls?" — il.i- reviewer says, that the author of tiie 'i'racl " duiiOiless uitl reply, that this cannot be, because none but prelates ever li:iU the power of ordaining." An easy way lo maive answers ! jjui wiial argument you please into tlie mouih of your opponeiii, and tlien, assummg it lo be his, exclaim, "Shall we never liavu done Willi liiis constant begging of tlie question in dispute / ' Let us turn about this weatlier-cock logic. VVliy may iiul Timothy and 'J'iius have been Episcojiul evangelists? the reviewer '' doubtless will reply," that there is no Episcopacy la Scripture; and then we, in turn, will " doubtless '^ eciio'lii:^ rejoinder, ''Shall we never have done with tliis constant bey- ging of the question ?" Such questions and answers might be stereotyped, with Wank spaces, and tilled up for any coiilr(.- versy on any subject. We say that Timothy and 'litus wtrc not Presbyterian evangelists, because tiiere is no scriptural v.m- dence, or no clear evidence, tiiat piesbyters ordained ; and ii.. scriptural evidence whatever, that presbylero governed pres!;\- ters. That is our "reply;" the reviewer has ascribed to ii.-. a fictitious one. And we see no rea-on for liis doing so, but to e.\hibil to his "less-informed friends" his prowess in knocking to pieces a puppet of his own fabrication. And now we submit to every one wiio has read impartially the Tract, and this Review of it, whether in our exposure of ilie lone of the latter, in regard to its mere bold assertions and detract- ing insinuations, and of its wasted valor upon arguments winch no one controverts, or which no one offers, we iiave not taken out the larger half of its pith and substance .' We might go further, and ask of such readers, whetiier tlie reviewer has weakened tlie Tract in any one point? But as this migiit be deemed an imita- tion of him in the error of po^itiveness, we must reply to Ins reasoning, such as it is. 'J his, fur substance, is an easy work ; but as brief objections often require long answers, we tear tliai we sentence ourselves to no small labor, and periiaps our readeis lo more fatigue than may be acceptable to them. It is a matter of duty, however, and we therefore do not shrink from the ta^k. In the tract, " Episcopacy 'I'ested by Scripture," we passed over the claims of our deacons, becau.se tile discussion w;.s unimportant, as compared with the grand one, that of Ih^ claiuis of our bishops. IJnt the revtewer brings them into li,-i de!)ate, and we are content to meet iiim. That llierefoie will, as with him, be our first topic; and then we shall take in ha.'fd his general argument against Episcopacy. I. The reviewer takes the usual ground, that deacons were ^/•s/ appoinied when "the seven" were ordained, in Acts si.; and that their [only] duties are there " explicitly and plaiuly stated." We join issue with liim on both points. 20* 234 ANSWER TO A THIRD REVIEW OF And here we begin with the remark, that "the seven" are nowliere in Scripture called deacons — not once. The purport of tliis remark is, that, as in all sound reasoning, we are not here to look to names, but to things or facts. That " the seven" were deacons, we neither question nor doubt; we judge they were such, not from the name, wliich tiiey have not in Scripture, but from their functions. If, liowever, we can find that their functions were exercised by others before thtm, then we say that such ministers as " tlie seven" existed previ(jusly to the appointment of these. If also we can show, that when the title ''deacons" does occur in Scripture, not a word is said of their " serving tables," we think we shall liave a strong argu- ment that that could not have been the onli/ function of the ministers who had this official designation. The passage now before us is this, from Acts vi. And in those days, when the number of the disciples was multiplied, there arose a murmuring of tlie Grecians against the Hebrcie^, because their widows were nesrlected in the daily ministration, iiaicuvtd. Then o 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 iinKovtiv tables. Wherefore, brethren, look ye out from among you seven men of honest report, full of the Holy Ghost and wisdom, whom we may appoint over this business. But we will give ourselves continually to prayer, and to the ministry iiaKovta of the word. ***** Whom they set before the Apostles : and when they had prayed, they laid their hands on them. We have inserted the Greek words, that it may be seen that they are not used in the appropriate sense. They are applied to the "daily ministration," which took place before "the seven" were appointed; to the "service" which the twelve must have done had they not been appointed ; and to the "ministry of the word :" in the two former clauses, the appro- priate sense might be claimed, were it not tliat the name " dea- con" does not yet appear to have been given, and were not the expression, at its third occurrence in the passage, clearly em- ployed in the more general signification. It is plain, therefore, that "the seven" are not called "deacons," even by impli- cation. It is commonly supposed, we believe, that before the appoint- ment of " the seven," the Apostles performed the office of "serving tables;" but this we deem a mistake. They agreed, that "it was not reasonable for them to leave the word, and serve tables." Surely it was just as unreasonable for them to do so previously as subsequently — and therefore we judge there were servants of tables (whether with higher functions or not) from the time the property of Christians was put into a com- mon fund, from which "distribution was made to every one, as he had need." So obvious is this consideration, that Matthew Henry, Doddridge, and T. Scott, allow that the Apostles had agents for this work before this period ; Bishop Slack thinks EPISCOPACY TESTED BY SCRIPTURE. 235 •*the ministration was left at large;" and Mosheim says, "The Church was undoubtedly provided from the beginning with inferior ministers, or deacons; no society can be witliont its servants, and slill less sucii societies as tliose of tiie first Cliris- tians were." Here, then, is our first reason for asserting that there were such functionaries before " tlie seven:" tiie work was extensive from the first, among the many thousands of converts, not a few of whom must iiave been supported from the general fund; and the Apostles would have iiad to "leave the word" altogetlier. had they discharged this lower office, which would "not" iiave been " reasonal)Ie." Our next argu- ment for this position is, that had the "twelve" given their spare time, if they at first had enough, to " this business," and yet afterward found it insufficient, because tiie number of dis- ciples was ''multiplied," and still multiplying, tliey would have scarcely appointed only " seue^i " persons to take tlieir place: we allow ihattlie contrary supposition is not iuipossihle, but we submit tiiat it is improbal)le ; if so, it is just as probable that there were previously those, not apostles, who performed " the daily ministration" of "serving tables." Our third argument for this opinion is, that it can hardly be supposed tliat the twelve inspired Apostles would " neglect" any of the poor, and particularly tliat tiiey would be guilty of "neglect" with a parti/ or partial aspect, favoring the " Hebrew " widows to the injury off tiie "Grecian" — the home-born Jewisli Christians^ rather than the foreign of Jewish descent. True, some com-- menlators allege tliat the "murmur" was unjust; but the holy record says no such thing; and the Apostles allow its justice; in providing a remedy for the "neglect." We repeat, then, that the previous "ministration," and tlie "negligent" manner of fulfilling it, are to be ascribed to other agents than the A[)()slles, 'I'he only seeming fihjection to this view of the case, is the expression "but we will give ourselves continunlhj io prayer, and the ministry of the word." Tliis, we say, is but an objec- tion in appearance, for it means no more than " we will per- severe in constant attention to these duties." It does not imply that the Apostles had previously given but a partial atteutioii lo them. We are not certain but we are honored with the concur- rence of the reviewer on tliis point — he argues "that the Apos- tles considered the duties of tills office as of such a nature, that tlieir unflertaking' to fulfil them, would compel tiieiii to leave preaching, and devote themselves to the care of money tables." We suppose he means tliat they had at no time ful- filled "this office;" his argument is decidedly to that effi^ct. It follows, we think, from this cour.se of reasmiiiig, tliat " the seven" were appointed to make up Ihc i/e/icienci/ \n the number of the functionaries who, till now, liad "served the tables" — and particularly to meet the claims of the "Grecian" poor. Accordingly Mosheim, after meiilioiiiiig the earlier " deacons," adds — " These first deacons of the Church, being cho.sen from 236 ANSWER TO A THIRD REVIEW OF amonof the Jews who were horn in Palestine, were suspected by the foreign Jews of partiality in distribnling the offerings, whicli were presented for the support of the poor. To remedy, therefore, this disorder, seven other deacons were cliosen by order of the Apostles, and employed in tlie service oi that part of tlie churcli at Jerusalem which was composed of the foreign Jews, converted to Christianity. Of these new ministers, six were foreigners, as appears by their names; the seventh was chosen out of the proselyte-;, of wh(»m there were a certain number among the first Christians at Jerusalem, and to wliom it was reasonable that some regard should be shown in tlie election of the deacons, as well as to the foreign Jews." This view of the affair of the deacons is just and probable every way. It was not a general " neglect" that was complained of, but a party one, or partiality ; of which the Apostles could not have been guilty, but only their agents ; and such other agents were appointed as would remedy this evil precisely. Among "the seven" there does not appear to have been one native " Hebrew," an omission which, without the construction before us, would have invited a " murmur" from the party before favored. The number of disciples v.^as great — three thousand on the day of Pentecost — five thousand soon afterward — tiieii " muhitudes of men and women" added — 'then the number "multiplied:" add to these f.icts, that large sum^ were contributed, and that the " ministration" of them was extensive, and it will scarcely be denied that "seven" men were not enough to superintend minutely their distribution. We again affirm, therefore, that otiiers besides " the seven " must have performed that function before them. One corollary to this conclusion is, that if "the seven" were deacons because they "served tables," these others were dea- cons for the same reason. And thus the first institution of this office is not found in the chapter beibre us. A furtlier corollary is, that as "the seven" were ordained^ those who were deacons before them must have had a similar or an equivalent setting apart. Strange would it have been, to have one portion of these officers solemnly dedicated to their work, when the otiier portion had been left without any such honor. Ill calculated would it have been to allay party " mur- muring," to have the deacons for the Grecians ordained, when those for the Hebrews had received no separation. The pre- sumption, then, the strong presumption, without a particle of evidence to the contrary, is, that the earlier deacons were solemnly commissioned to their station in the Church. If the Apostles did not conduct previously this " ministration," which it seems clear they did not — if others had acted, under their general superintendence, in discharging it — then, whatever rea- sons existed for setting apart " the seven " to discharge it, under their continued supervision, the same reasons must have required the former agents also to be men set apart to the office. EPISCOPACY TESTED BY SCRIPTDRE, 237 And now, this portion of our argument advances rapidl3^ There were already, before "the seveu " were ordained, men who had the same right lo be called deacons tliat lliey liad. Tiiese men were also ordained, or set apart, or Sdlemnly commissioned. Wiio were these men ? Nothing is intimated of such an ordination in tlie previous cliapters of ihe Acts. But there is a yet earlier record of a sacred commission given to others than the twelve Apostles: it is found in Luke x. ; where il is declared that "the seventy" were "appointed," and sent forth to proclaim the Gospel, and that they " returned " from their mission. What became of them after their return? Not a word more is explicitly recorded concerniiincerning its fullilnieat — and also to their endowment with miraculous jiowers. It is a recognition of the ministerial character t'ley already possessed. Tlie first call of several of the twMve is mentioned in John i. 35, &c. that in Matt. iv. 18, «ic., was a subsequent one. (See Macknight.) EPISCOPACY TESTED BY SCRIPTURE. 241 powers, so far as can be gathered from the Iiol}' record, wt-re. conlerred on "the seventy." But after tlie first coiiiiuission of " the twelve," and about tlie time, perhaps just before " ihe seventy" were sent forth, the former received, in addition to tiieir previous investiture, tlie power of the keys, (Matt, .win.) the right to admit to communion, or reject from it ; the right to declare absolution, or refuse to do so — which included, of course, the riglit to administer the eucharist, recognised as existing in "the twelve," at tlie first celebration of that sacra- mt-nt. These furllier powers '' the seventy " received not, us sucii ; they did not receive them from the Saviour, though tliey may liave been subsequently promoted to lliis " good degree '' by the Apostles. Here then we have a body of ministers, com- missioned to preach and baptize, but not to exercise tlie power of the keys — in other words, an inferior grade of minis- ters [proper] of the Gospel — ^jusl such as "the twelve" had lately been. Their functions correspond precisely with those we have detailed from St. Paul, in the epistle to Timotliy ; without the name, their office is that of the "deacons" there described. And thus vanishes the last objection to the earliest deacons at Jerusalem being some of "the seventy." Nay more : from this last exposition, we gather an increased probability that such was the fact. This body of ministers were "appointed" to the deaconship. Is it to be supposed, that they renounced their work when their special mission ceased ? Is it to be supposed that, when the Church began to be numerous, and to acquire consistence, and was in need of services in their par- ticular station, they had all deserted their Master and his apostolic representatives, their superiors ? We liiink not. Some of them may have been dispersed over Judea, as part of the "five hundred brethren" were, wiien only "a hinidred and twenty " were left in Jerusalem ; but a portion of them were doubtless in that city — on the spot — deacons, ready for their work; but of llie "Hebrew" class, which made it expedient to choose others, for the "Grecians" and the proselytes. In the fact that "the seventy" held the office of deacons, we have a full refutation of the plea that Philip, "one of the seven," must have reached a higher office before he evangelized and baptized. The " seventy " evangelized and baptized, with- out attaining a higher office. The whole evidence in regard to Philip is, that he was ordained a deacon, and that he preaciied, and administered baptism largely, about a year afterward, and that he is called an "evangelist" some twenty-six years after these occurrences. If any object, that by this time, he possibly had attained the "good degree" of a presbyter, we might let it pass, except tiiat it is not in tlie record, and he is even then called " one of the seven." * But- this mere possibility, if we • Dr. Canipljell regarded Uic office of evangelist as an exti-aoidinary one, and Buppoecd it tiiiglil be held by one whose ordinary office was that of a dfjicon. He 2\ 242 ANSWER TO A THinO REVIEW OP did let it pass, of his being a presbyter at the very late period mentioned, does not imply a probability of any ller, or deacon, engaging in war be deposed." Why might not a deacon, if but a lay one. such as those of parity, take a commission, and "engage in war ] " The ()rohibition siiovvs the full sacrcdness of the otiice and duties of the deacon mentioncil in these Canons. The Co'nncil of Eliberis, C 77, — "it is ordained that those who are baptized by a deacon, without the bishop or presbyter, shall afterward be confirmed by the bishop." Again : " Presbyters and deacons are forbid to give the communion to those who had grievously ofl'ended, without the command of the bishop." (Schol. Arm. i. I)!).) The Council or Synod of Ancyra allowed, tliat deacons who lapsed under persecution, and afterward repented, might be "received" — "but not again to administer the bread or the cup, or to preach Krjpvaaitv." (Ur Wilson, 10-2.) The sixth general Council, called Quinisextum, (Can. 16,) declared that the precedent of the seven deacons " (hd not affect the nuniber or the office of the deacons who ministered in the mysteries," or as Slater translates it, (204,) " at the altar of the Church." We have now adduced evidence enough of thi.= .sort, to overturn all that the reviewer has brought forward ; probably all that he ever can. We have shown that the whole voice of antiquity, witliout one clear exception, declares the deacons to be, not merely servants of tables, but inferior ministers of the word and ordinances. 11. We proceed to the general argument of the reviewer against tiie claims of Episcopacy, as l]iey are supported in the Tract. Here we first notice the remark, that, wliile ice affirm the word •'bishop," as found in Scripture, to refer to [)resbyters in all cases, Dr. Hammond makes both "bisliop" and "elder" refer to bishops proper ; and supposes the second order, presbyters, to have been instituted after the apostolic age. In this opinion, we know not that Dr. Hammond has been seconded by any one. Neither do we deem his arginnenl on the subject, as given in a Note to Acts xi., either conclusive or just. 1. A great portion of it, if not the greater portion, is built on the slippery croiind of mere names of office. Thus, bishop and eliler are idfutificd in 'I'itiis i. ; therefore the elders were bishops pro[)er ; whereas the inference is just as good, that the bishops were elders projier. 'i'hus again, Clement of Rome says liie Apostles orJained some of their first converts bishops and deacons ; erg'o, they ordained no presbyters ; but as Clement wrote in the first century, his use of the word bishop must be understood as in Scripture. 248 ANSWER TO A THIRD REVIEW OF 2. Because Paul and Barnabas brought the offerings of the Church to the "elders" in Judea, and tlie Apostolical Canons assign authority over the church property to bishops, Ham- mond argues that these elders were bisliops proper. But were this granted, it would not follow that there were no presbyters in Judea; the only result would be, that "elders" was a general designation for the clergy, including all the orders, as appears in otiier passages : the same remark applies to the extracts Wiiich de- clare the "presbytery" in 1 Timothy to have consisted of bishops. Besides ; if the apostolical canons are evidence that these elders must liave been bishops proper, to entitle them to receive the church property, they are equal evidence that the "presbyters" of whom they every where speak, were known to Scripture; for, deny tiiat presbyters, being found in these canons, must be found also in the New Testament, and it may equally be denied, that their setting forth Episcopal authority over the sacred treasury, is a proof tiiat the scriptural elders, having charge of it, held the Episcopal office : the reference, therefore, to these canons, either establishes the inspired institution of presbyters, or else renders nugatory the allegation that tlie elders in ques- tion were bishops proper; and whichever of these be the result, it is fatal to Dr. Hammond's argument. 3. The only explicit authorities he adduces, are Epiphanius, of the fifth century, and the Greek Scholiasts. The former says, that when the Apostles, 'at the beginning of their preacliing," found " those that were fit for it, bishops were constituted ; but while there was no mul- titude of Christians, there were found none among them to be constituted presbyters:" but these latter notions are fallacious; "multitudes" were usually converted in every place, and so there was a fair opportunity to select presbyters; and that per- sons fit to be bishops could be found, and none fit to be presby- ters, is incredible on its very face. In a subsequent part of the note, Epiphanius is quoted for "Timothy's power over the 'presbyters.'''' The other authority affirms, " The Apostle left Titus to constitute bishops, having first made him bishop ;" and tlierefore the elders mentioned in Titus were all bishops proper, none of them presbyters : but this conclusion does not follow ; it satisfies the language to say, that the Scholiasts included bolfi orders, as many do, under the appellation " bishops " or " elders." 4. The rest of Hammond's note is but coiistruing the sacred and other writers according to his theory. Against this theory we adduce several fatal objections. 1. We have shown it to be highly probable, far more probible than the theory before us, that "the twelve" were presbyters in fact, ihougti without the name, before our Lord's death. 2. It we adhere to the authorized translation, 'elders in every church," (Acts >'iv.,) there were several in each church, which is inconsistent with the idea that they were bishops. 3. The elders sent for from Ephesus are called " the elders of the church," (Acts xx.,) one church again, with many elders, a EPISCOPACY TESTED BY SCRIPTURE. 219 fact irreconcileable with tlie theory of their episcopal char- acter. 4. When Paul and lus coiniiaiiy were received by James at Jerusalem, the day fuUowiiig their arrival, " all the elders were present;" (Acls xxi. ; j all the bishops of Jiidea, James being their metropolitan, argnes Dr. Hammond: but is it credible, lliai all the bishops of all Judea cuuld have been summoned to meet Paul, and have reached Jerusalem •'the day following" his arrival in tliat city? no, they wtire elders mi the spot. presb3'lers under James. 5. Paul mentions to the Corinthians their " ten thousand iiistructers in Cukist," their" ministers of Christ," and desires these to " take heed how theybuilded" on his foundation: is such language consistent Willi the opinion that the Corinthian church had no presbyters? 6. To "the church of the Thessalonians," the o)ie church, Paul says, " Know them which labor among you, and are over you in the Lokd :" several ministers in one churcii — were they all bisliops ? the supposition is incongruous. 7. 'J'itns is charged to "ordain elders in every city," a plarolitij in each city, tlie authorized translation being the judge; were they ail bisliops proper ? no, for the same reason. 8. So of the church at Plulippi, it had its " bisliops and deacons," a plaraliii/ of the fcjriner as much as of llie latter; they surely were no more than presbyter-bishops ; though not called ' elders,' they must liave been of that grade. 9. James desires the sick to " send for the elders of the church, and let them pray over him," &c. ; if '■ the church" means the pacticular congregation to which the sick m m belonged, there were srceral called elders in that one congregation ; if it means the diocese, there were sccerat in one diocL'Se; and botii suppositions are fatal to the theory before us: if the bishops of several dioceses were meant, then they must assemble from various distances to pray over and "anoint" a sick person; which is a supposition wholly out of proporiion, and which, if miraculous cures were frequent, must liave withdrawn the bishops from their proper funciions, to be constanlly IravLdling about in company among the sick of the dioceses in tlieir respective neighborhoods. The only rational construction is, that these elders were presbyters, and also perhaps deacons. 10. The Saviour rebuked the " seven auj^els" of the Asiatic churches personally, not by St. John as if the metropolitan of those bisliops, but merely as Ilis secretary ; and this snows that he was not their metropolitan, as is by some imagined. It is also a strong argument against there having been any such functionaries so early as the scheme before ns re(iuires. And when to this is addel the fact, that each of these "angels" is sepiratcly addressed, not through him of Epliesiis, it is clear that the latter was not their meiropolilan, as is presumed by Hammond in regard to Timothy, and as is es-eiuial to make tlie " bisliops" spoken of in I 'I'iinotliy bishops proper, pi. iced under him as their archbishop; without tliTS further hyi)othesis his theory must fall, but it is plain, froir. 250 ANSWER TO A THIRD REVIEW OF what has been said, that there was no archbishop in Ephesus, even so late as the year 96; of course, none was tliere in 05; and thus the "bishops" nienlioned at this earlier date, as governed by Tnnolhy, yet willionl his having metropolitan or archiepiscopal rank, could have been only presbyters. We iiave sufficiently refuted, we trust, liiis opinion of Dr. Hammond, who, learned as he was, does, like Jupiter himself, occasionally " nod : " accordingly, he has not been followed in this matter by any writer known to us. We have shown also, we hope, that his theory is not so sustained as to present the least objection to the rule, that the "bisliops" so called in Scripture, are always to be accounted presbyters. Thai they had a superior over them, our Tract has shown. And we now proceed with the furllier remarks we have to make on tlie review of that production. These will be much abridged by our having already offered a sufficient exposure of this review, or sufficient replies to most of its arguments. 1. We have exposed its tone of positive assertion, of refuting propositions made by no one, and of derogation from the intelligence or the candor of Episcopalians. Take these away, and there will remain but little that has even tiie semblance of reasoning. 2. The apostleship of Timothy, which tills reviewer denies, has been sufficiently proved in our answers to the Rev. Mr. Barnes. Our readers, of course, do not wish to traverse tliat ground again. And if the reviewer still feels interest enougli in the subject, to honor with his perusal our piece in the last Prolestant'Episcopalian, he can judge for iiimstilf whether we are over sanguine in our estimate of it. One new remark, however, we perceive, and will answer it briefly — apostles are " distinguished " from evangelists ; Timothy is called an evantjelist; and this "precludes the possibility of our considering" him as an apostle. Now, tlie rule is, that the greater office includes the less, both being the same in kind ; if, therefore, the evangelists were officers, the apostles, being higher officers, were evangelists also, as they were elders like- wise, and deacons; while yet mere deacons, elders and evange- lists were not apostles — Timothy was both an apostle and an evauj^elist. If, however, evangelists were not officers, as such, the objection of the reviewer vanishes. Apostles are "distin- guished" from " prophets," and from " teachers ;" yet Paul the apostle is called both a prophet and a teacher in Acis xiii. So Uiuch for tlie reviewer's positiveness — " precludes the possi- bility!" 3. [lis earnest plea, that bishops do not succeed to the extraordinary powers or privileges of the Apostles, we have already shown to be a refutation of what nobody, no Protestant at least, affirms. And his repetition of the fancy, that none but the special witnesses of the-resurrection could be apostles, he will find disposed of in our answers to Mr. Barnes. To adduce Dr. Barrow for this notion, is to make him appear to maintain what in fact he does not: that divine argues EPISCOPACY TESTED BY SCRU'TL'RE. 251 against tlie Romanists, tliat the thirteen principal Apostles had certain privileges wiiicli did not and coiiid not descend by succession, and tiiat llius the pope, arrogating some oi' these privilt-ges, arrogites what does not belong to him ; lor in tliis sense. Si. Peter had no successors, lint that bishops inherit the orf/i/i. 102; and Coverdale who iranMlatrri, " which are awncient apuvUeii." 254 ANSWER TO A THmD REVIEW OF latter was. So with regard to the false apostles : these, after comparing himself with " the very cliiefest Apostles," Paul con- trasts with "the Apostles of Christ:" tiiey claimed this desig- nation in the same official sense that it belonged to Paul and all others who had the genuine apostolic character. Instead of meeting us on this view of the point, the reviewer argues against regarding as apostles those whom llie translators call " messen- gers" — a topic which our disquisition has not touched. On the apostleship of Barnabas, and the case of the false apostles, he does not argue at all. ' We drew a comparison, in our Tract, between the address of Paul to the elders of Ephesus, and his epistles to Timothy, showing that while the former were to " tend," i. e. feed and ride ihe Jlock, tiie latter was to rule thew, and ordain ctliers like tliem. What is the reply of the reviewer ? Hesajs, "We might have expected great diversity in the mode of address in these two cases, because tiie circumstances of llie persons addressed were essentially different.''^ Let this be noted — there is "great diversity" between the address and the epistles. What was the reason for it? because "circumstances" were "essentially different:" because Timothy was an apostie-bisliop say we; because he was an "evangelist," says tiie reviewer — tiie old plea revived whicii Mr. Barnes so honestly and judi- ciously avoided. Must vve open again, then, the argument on tills futile plea? We deem it unnecessary to do so, al'ler what \te have written in the postscript and notes to the Tract, and in our replies to Mr. Barnes.* We will only notice one point in which tlie reviewer has miserably exposed himself. He goes to Eusebius, and quotes what relates to the migratory part of the duties of evangelists, and tlieir ordaining; but he omits to quote — what? tlie very hinge of the appeal to this father's authority. These evangelists "obtained," says Eusebius, " the first step Ta^iv oi a^o?,U)\\cdi\ succession," according to tiie transla- tion used for our Tract, or according to Mr. Cruse, (p. 123,) they " held the first rank raiiv in the apostolic succession." Wiiat sliall we think of the boldness of a writer who makes sjicli an omission, with the Tract before him, and in the hands of thousands ! and with Eusebius before him, for he gives a yet different translation! it is enough to rouse the lionest indigna- tion of even tlie least "informed" of his readers. And what shall we think of a writer, who, with this sin of omission, a downright suppressio veri, fresh on his conscience, swallows it fearlessly, and then lifts loftily his head, and ascribes " evasion ♦ Scultetus, from Ziiinglius, regards an evanfrelist as a [presbyter] bis?iop or pastor. (Po. Syn. on 2 Tiin. iv. 5.) Piscator calls Piiilip llie Evangelist nnerely a preacher of tlie Gospel, " praco evangelii ;" and regards those in Epli. iv., and 2 Tim. iv. as the same. (Do. on Acts xxi.) Aretius on tliis passage says, "These appear to be ministers of particular churc/tss, and teachers nl" the schools : which Pantenus was, Basilius, and others." A. Clarke (on 2 Tim. iv.) allows e\angelist« to liave been onlj preachers. All these authorities are Non-episcopalian. EPISCOPACY TESTED BY SCRIPTURE. 255 and manasrement," and '' undertaking to dispose of the plain record," to liis opponent! Tliere are not nuuiy theologians who would do all this. The reviewer allows a " great diversity " between the address to tlie elders and the epistles to Timothy; lie allows tliai liie "circumstances" of the two parties were " essentially different.-' But he alleges that " Timothy was obviously sent on a tempo- rary mission," to '• rectify disorders," &c., in a " collecied and officered flock." Notice here — the churcli of Ephe.sus was " officered," had presbyters — it was fully constituted, on tlie Presbyterian theory. Farewell theu to llie old plea, tliat it had no clergy when Timothy was placed there, and that he was thus stationed to ordain clergy for the church, and tiien leave it to Presbyterial gt)vernment. Tiiey had Presbyteiial govern- ment already, says the reviewer, and Timothy was sent with evangelical government, so called, to "rectify disorders." — Now, if Presbyterial government is liable to fall into " disorder," and is without the intrinsic power to " rectify " it — so glarmgly deficient, as to require the superinduction on it of anotiier knid of government exercised by one individual put in authority over the presbyters — then there is a most weighty presumption against its being the one ciiosen by Christ or his Aj)ostles — and there is a presumption equally strong, that the so-called evan- gelical government, that of an officer superior to presbyters, must rather have been the one they instituted, seeing it was used by them, the reviewer being judge, as a remedy for the mischiefs arising under tiie otiier supposed form. 'J'iie lia- bility of churches to "disorder" is not "temporary," it is perpetual; and actual "disorder" frequently occurs: is it probable, then, that the remedy for it would be " temporary ?" No; what tlie reviewer calls government by "evangelists" is necessary in all ages, and was to endure tiirougii all ages. What else is meant by the injunction on Timottiy to '• keep his commandment," or fulfil his charge, " //// tlie apjjcar- ing of our Lord Jesi'.s Curist?" Have ihe Presbyterians any such officer as Timothy — an " evangelist" with power over the presbyters of an " organized church," of a " collected and officered flock," or over such a chnrch ilself ? no, uotliing like it. They send their "evangelists" into '• destitute setllenunts," and like places — not into the Synod of Philadelphia, or either of its presbyteries, be their "disorder" ever so great. The reviewer says tiiey have the "evangelists" of Eusebius — . we think otherwise — but at all events Ihey have nitt the " evan- g(dists" supposed to be found in IJoly ^'crij>liir-e — such officers as l-imothy was. Let them make the experiment — lt;t the General Assembly send an "evangelist" into tiie Synod of Philadelphia — lei the Synod of Piiiladelphia send an "evange- list " into cither of its presliyleries — to "chargi; some that they teach no other doctrine," to have supreme authority in ordain- ing presbyter-bishops and deacons, to " command and teach ''' 256 ANSWER TO A THIRD REVIEW OP concerning the doctrines to be inculcated, to " receive accusations against elders," to " rebul:. VVho can tell but that these ecclesiastical companions took part in every ordination ? " Without meaning to be over positive, w. "can tell" the reviewer about this mailer, provided he will he content with evidence only, without theory. Thus: when Paiil was in Rome the first time, he expected Mark to go from thence to Colosse ; after this, he placed Timothy at Ephesus ; and y*l later, he desired Timothy to " take Mark, and bring him " wiiii him to Rome, where Paul again was, (Col. iv. 10; 1 Tim. i. 3 ; 2 Tim. iv. 11) — "in thy icay call on Mark," says Macknight— "take the first opportunity of engaging the company of Mark," says Doddridge : the evidence is, that Mark was to go to Colosse, and that Timothy went to Ephesus — separate stations:— and that Timothy was to "take Mark," probably either on his way, or by sending for him, in again visiting Rome. Does this evidence justify the positive assertion, "we know that Mark was with Timolhv?" or the insinuation that the former "took part" with the latter "in ei"?ry ordination ?" Surely not. Thus again, concerning Titus: do we '• know" that Zenas and Apollos wrre with him ? The only evidence is this direction to Titus, (iii. 13.) " Uv'inrr Zenas the lawyer and Apollos on tlieir journey dili- gently ;" this "journey" or voyage, is interpreted of one which began before their reaching Crete, on their way to some further point; so say Doddridge and Macknight, and no commenlaior within our reach says otherwi.se; of course they were "wilh Titus " only while they halted on their journey, and could not 22* 258 ANSWER TO A THIRD REVIEW OP have " taken part " in his " every ordination," if they did in even one. Timothy and Titus had the power to ordain singly, with- out assistants : whether they allowed the otlier clergy to take pari with them "ever, in a single instance," or in many instances, or as a general rule, we know not; neither is it of any conse- quence. Perfect as was the ordaining power in them, and per- fect as it is in their successors " till the appearing of Jesus Christ," it is proper to regulate the exercise of it, lest it be abused; hence the regulation which requires a plurality to lay on hands, except in the case of deacons, who however are "presented" by a priest, and who preach only in virtue of a license given and revocable by the bishop.* But were we to take the reviewer at his word, in the case of Zenas and Apollos, he would find that he has weakened his cause in one part, while attempting to strengthen it in another. Presbyterians generally argue that there were no clergy in Crete Vv-hen Titus was left there, and that he was to ordain them as an " evangelist," for lack of a " presbytery " on the island. The reviewer, however, has found a Cretan " presbytery " — Zenas and Apollos — both of them, we doubt not, very capable men. Yet the superior officer, Titus, is placed there, to eclipse the "presbytery," and take the government and ordinations in his own hands ! Very strange, on "Presbyterian principles!" The epistles to Timothy and Titus " are addressed to them individually " — this the reviewer allows. But he does not tliink that this circumstance " affects his reasoning " in behalf of parity. Let us examine his argument on this point. — " These men went to Ephesus and Crete as a kind of special envoys.^'' and the epistles were " the system of instructions addressed to them 'personally : " this must be noted. Next, — " a Presbyterian ordi- nation never occurs without addressing to the newly-ordained minister language of precisely the same import:''^ then the minister, we must infer, is "a kind of special envoy" to some "officered" church, not a mere pastoral elder ! his office must correspond with his " instructions ! " and he is instructed per- sonally to "charge some" presbyters "that they teach no other doctrine;" persovia% he is instructed about ordaining, and receiving accusations against presbyters 1 if not, if he is told how to do these things in conjunction with others, not perso7ialii/, then it is deception to say, that "language" is addressed to him '^ o( precisely the same import" with that addressed lo Timothy and Titus. Further; our argument from this personal mode of address, says the reviewer, " will prove too much, for it will prove that these evangelists alone were empowered to preach * By t!ie wa}', what are the licentiates of Presbyterians, Isut a quasi sort of preach- ing deacons — cultivating, under a revocable licenge, the "great boldness" in declar. ing "the faith " — and "purchasing to themselves the good degree" of presbyters "? How expressive an acknowledgment, thougii a silent one, of the soundness of the Episcopal construction of 1 Tim. iii. 13 ! This is an after-thought, or it would havt been introduced in the proper place. EPISCOPACY TESTED BY SCRIPTURE. 259 and pray'''' in Ephesus and Crete: the remark is probably inad- vertent: for not once is eitlier Tiniolliy or 'i'itiis directed to "pray;" not once, though the former is desired to regulate the public prayers, and tlie charge to superintend the 'Meaciiing " ot oiiiers. shows that others besides Timothy and Titus were to '' preach ;" such, for example, as tiie -'elders who hibored in the word and doctrine:" the reviewer ought not to nod with his Bible before liim. His last reply to our argument from tiie per- sonal style of the epistles, is, that " no evangelist is ever sent forth by [his] church for the purpose of organizing and setting in order churches, witliout special instructions, in the form of a letter, and addressed to him personally:" the alleged evangelists of Eusebius again! not officers like Timothy, sent to churches "collected, organized, officered, regular!" To evangelists such as Eusebius is said to describe, any thing may be addressed, in any way, without affiicting the scriptural argument for Episcopacy. He adds, that nothing is said to tlie clergy of Ephesus and Crete "about prelates, their rights." &c., and "they are never even once reminded that it is their duty to be docile and obedient to their proper diocesan." Now, tliere is just as little said about the "special envoy," and of docility and obedience to /lim, as about the " prelate," and dutiful submission to his godly injunc- tions : so that if the objection of the reviewer is worth any thing, it demolishes the superior "rights" of 'I'imothy and •Titus in evert/ shape! he throws down his own theory to make a barricade for annoying ours ! But he is wholly in error. A " prelate " is largely and plainly described in these epistles — a church officer higher than all the other church officers about him. And the charge to him to govern is, con- versely, a charge to them to be governed, to be " docile and obedient" to him. In short, these epistles are the broad and clear credentials of Episcopacy — of tiie "rights" of apostle- bisiiops — and, by consequence, of the inferior privileges of presbyter-bishops and deacons. They show what these three orders were in apostolic days, and what they are to continue to be " till the appearing of our Lord." The reviewer says that we have not " proved that the second epistle to Timothy was addressed to him at Ephesus at all." No; we did not in tlie Tract: nor is it necessary to do so for tlie episcopal argument, thougli the point has a bearing on the diocesan argument; for there were, and may always be, apostle- bishops or prelates not diocesans; just as there are missionary presi)yters without parishes, or schoolmaster presbyters, or "amateur" presbyters, as they have lately been most happily dubbed. But to satisfy the reviewer, or at least our readers, that Timothy was in Ephesus, or had charge of it, when the second epistle was written to him, we offer the following rea- sons : — 1. He was in that city at the date of the first epistle, A. D. 65; and there is no intimation that he had left it at the 260 ANSWER TO A THIRD REVIEW OF date of the second, A. D. 66 ;* this throws the burden of proof on tliose wlio deny thai, he was tliere at tlie latter period. 2. Timothy being placed at Epliesus to remedy great "disor- ders," it is not probable he would leave it before tlie end of a year, when the second epistle was written: we here meet the reviewer on his own ground ; even if his mission were a " temporary " one, he could not have accomplished it so soon. 3. Paul, as was not unusual with him, names the messenger by whom lie transmits the second epistle to Timothy, and says that he had despatched him to Ephesus: " Tychicus have I sent to Ephesus : " this argument is indeed cavilled at by some, but tliose who will compare the passage with those referred to below, will, we think, deem it conclusive in our favor. (2 Tim. iv. 12. See also Rom. xvi. 1; 1 Cor. iv. 17; xvi. lU ; 2 Cor. viii. 16-18; Eph. vi. 21 ; Philip, ii. 25 ; Col. iv. 7-9; Philem. 12; also 1 Pet. V, 12.) 4. Paul, in the second epistle, desires Timo- thy to salute the family of Onesiphorus ; and the residence of tills excellent person was in Ephesus, tliough he himself ap- pears to have been absent from it at that lime. (2 Tim. iv. 19; comp. ch. i. 16-18.) In Acts xix. 33, we find a certain Alex- ander at Ephesus; and in the second epistle we find Timothy put on his guard against the same person: why? because Timothy's sphere of duty then included that city. 6. In the first epistle, when Timothy was confessedly at Ephesus, Paul mentions tliis Alexander, and also Hymeneus, as unfaithful ministers ; and in the second he again names those very per- sons to Timothy in the same character; which implies that Timothy was still in authority in that church. (1 Tim. i. 20; 2 Tim. ii. 17; iv. 14.) 7. Against this Alexander, a resident of Ephesus, though just then in Rome, opposing virulently the persecuted Paul, that apostle specially cautions Timothy in the second epistle; from which fact we gather — that Timothy was to return to Ephesus, after visiting Paul in Rome — and was to continue in Ephesus, when Alexander had come back, and had resumed his actual residence there. (2 Tim. iv. 14, 15, 9.) Such are our proofs that Timothy was in Ephesus, or had charge of its church at the date of the second epistle. And we think that the man who asks more, for a point of sacred his- tory not positively recorded, is unreasonable. Out of the sacred records, the whole current of antiquity is well known to be in our favor. Nor is there a particle of evidence against us. The New Testament leaves Timothy in charge of the Ephesian church ; no subsequent authority removes him thence ; and in this state of things we recognise plainly a diocese, and its diocesan head — not only Episcopacy, but diocesan Episco- pacy also. As to the "angels" of the seven Asiatic churches, the re- viewer is as unfortunate in discussing their case, as in the rest ♦ We take the common chronology. EPISCOPACY TESTED BY SCRIPTURE. 261 of his remarks. He mentions Ihe theory, that the term " angel '* means '' the collective ministry in those churches respt'Clivtiy " — a mere theory, and loo fanciful to be worth an argument; for it may as well beextendeJ toliie "collective" comniunicants, a theory too which decides nothing ; for the '' colleciivt; mniis- try " may as jusily be said t^" have included a bishop proper as to have been witnont one.* lint further, asks tlu; reviewer, why are not llie "angels" called apostles or bishops, if iliey were sucli ? For a very sufficient reason, we reply. These "angels" were addressed just at the time, when, as we learn from other sources, the name of apostle was about being relin- quished to those individuals so called in Scripture, and the name bishop was in transitu from the second order to the first; the former title was losing, or beginning to lose, its more general application ; and the latter had not yet acquired its final appropriation. Those who allow the due weiglit to the Non-episcopal authorities, Videlius for example, not to mention those in our own ranks, wiio regard it as an historical fact, tiiat the name bishop was taken from the second order and given to the first about this period, will see in these scriptures a beautiful adminiculalion of the leslimony of thai fact. 'Ihe * Polvcar-p was the bishop or "angel" of tlie church in Smyrna, a few j'eara after Uie date of llie Revelation, jieiliaps at tliul time; and he is idoiiliiied witli his cjiuicli by Ignatius, just as the "angel" is, by "the Spirit," in this part of Scripture. Ignatius says to the Sniyineans, (ii.) " It is littmg lliat lor tiie honor of God, your church sliouied to the ihen unsettled use of those words. And by calling the twelve "disciples" onlv, instead of apostles, he avoided giving them a dlsiinctivo title which he withheld from their official compeers, the "angels." We build nothing on these facts and e.tplanations ; but they certainly harmonize well with the historical declaration, that ministers of the episcopal grade were originally called apo.stles ; but as the first century was passing ictu the yxond, thai name was relinquished and tliat of bishops assumed. EPISCOPACY TESTED BY SCRIPTURE. 263 authority. As an Oriental, he uses strong figures; but his meaning cannot be mistaken by any candid reader; and for such we quote what he does say, the passages ot'wliich tlic reviewer gives this perverted represen- tation. We use Archbisho[) Wake's translation, revised by Mr. Chcvallicr. '• I exhort you that ye study to do all things in a divine concord : your bisiiop presiding in the place of God, and j'our presbyters in tiie place of the council of the Apostles, and your deacons, most dear to nie, being intrusted with the ministry of Jesus Christ." (Magnes. G.) " It is therefore necessary that yc do nothing without your bishop, even as ye are wont: and that ye be also subject to the ])rcsbytery as to the Apostles of Jescs Christ, our hope, in wlioni if we walk, we shall be found (in him.) The deacons also, as being the (ministers) of the mj'steries of Jescs Christ, must by all means please all." (Tral. 2.) " In like manner, let all reverence the deacons as Jesus Christ, and the bishop as the Father ; and the presbyters as the council of God, and the assembly of the Apostles. Without these there is no church." (Tral. 3.) " See that ye all follow your bishop, as Jesus Christ the Father ; and the presbyters as the A])ostles : and reverence the deacons as the command of Gon. Let no one do any thing which belongs to the Church separately from the bishop." (Smyrn. S.) " Fleeing to the Gospel, as to the flesh of Christ, and to the Apostles as unto the presbytery of the Church. Let us also love the prophets, forasmuch as they also proclaimed the coming of the GosfKil, and hoped in Christ, and waited for him." (Philad. 5.) Here are all the passages on w-hich the reviewer could possibly have based his assertion — all — and they neither say nor intimate any thing about '■ succession." That word is u.sed for either succession in doctrine, or succession by vicarious ordination, both of which, when absolute predi- cates, imply supreme authority in the successors. And Ignatius would have written like a simpleton, if he had ascribed apostolic succession to the presbyters, when he declared, as he did in these extracts, the bishop to be superior to them. But he says not a icord of the succession of ])rcsby- tcrs ; on the contrary, he invariably, not only in these, but in many other passages, places the bishoj) above that class of ministers, as well as above the deacons: and this [a J'atal to tlie notion of Presbyterial succession. The reviewer has staked his reputation, in more than one sense, in the bold assertion he has here made. Just as little to the purpose is his allusion to Clement of Rome. He speaks of presbyters, says the reviewer, as "the rulers of the Church." Not exactly — only as the rulers of "lhe^ot•^• of Christ;" he never iniimates that they ruled the clergy. On the contrary, he addresses a Christian church— that at Corinth — to this elfect, on the subject of their " holy offerings." And the address is a full recognition of Episcopacy. "God hath himself ordained Liy his supreme will both where and by vhat person.^ they are to he performed .....*... For to the c/iirf priest his peculiar offices are given, and to the jyrie.sts their own place is appointed, and to the Lcrites appertain their proper ministries. And the layman is confined within the bounds of what is conmianded to laymen. Let every one of you, brethren, bless God in his proper station, with a pood conscience, and with all gravity, not exceeding the rule of his service that is appointed unto him." (10, A\.) If Christiana had not their chief priest, their priests, and their Leviles, there would be no sense in this admonition of Clement's. The reviewer's appeal to Ircua;us is as unfortunate— he " rci^atediy 264 ANSWER TO A THIRD REVIEW OF speaks of presbyters as being successors of the Apostles." True; but vvliat sort of presbyters 1 for the word, as we have seen, has a general meaning, including ajx)stles and bishops proper, as well as those who are only presbyters proper. Irenreus calls the presbyters of whom he writes, "bishops," and allows only ojie of them at a time in a city or district, even in the large city of Rome ; which shows them lo have been apostle bishops, superior to the presbytcr-bisliops. Let him speak for himself " We can enumerate those who were appointed by the Apostles bishops in the churches, and their successors even to us whom they [the Apostles] left their successors, delivering to tliem their oicn place of government The blessed Apostles, therefore, founding and instructing the church [of Rome,] delivered to Linus [one man] the admi- nistration of its bishopric. Paul n)akes mention of this Linus in the epistles to Timothy. To him succeeded Anacletus, [one man,] alter him, in the third place from the Apostles, Clement [one man] obtained the bishopric To this Clement succeeded Evaristus [one man ;] and to Evaristus, Alexander [one man ;] and then Sixtus [one man] was appointed, the sixth [individual] from the Apostles; and after liim Teles- phorus [one man,] who likewise suffered martyrdom most gloriously ; and then Hyginus [one man,] then Pius [one man,] after whom Anicetus [one man.] And when Soter [one man] had succeeded Anicetus, now Eleutherus [one man] has the bishopric in the twelfth place from the Apostles. By this order [or series raUi] and instruction, that tradition in the Church which is from the Apostles, [meaning Scripture, see / 3, c. 1,] and the preaching of the truth hath come even unto us." (L. 3,c. 3.) "We ought to hear those presbyters in the Church who have the succes.sion, as we have shown, from the Apostles : who with the succession of the episcopate received the gift of truth, according to t lie good pleasure of the Father." {L. 4, c. 43.) If Irensus had meant presbyters proper, could lie have said, as he does, that he could " enumerate those who were appointed by the Apostles bishops in the churches, and their successors even to us" — "the succes- sions of all the churches 1"— each and every such presbyter, who had officiated in each and every supposed ordaining "presbytery" in all the world! say some twenty to fifty thousand of them! The idea is j.repos- tcrous. No: he intended one minister in each city or district— that one who was called bishop— that one to whom the " Apostles " and their successors " delivered their own place of government " And th^it this one man had presbyters under him is self evident in the case of Rome, which is denominated "by Irensus "the greatest church:" implying that it had many congregations and pastors. It is proved also, by testimony, in the case of Polycarp, who is dechired by this father to have been "appointed by the Apostles, bishop of the church of Smyrna," and who commences his epistle thus—" Polycarp and the presbyters that are vvitli him." Of this epistle Irenaeus speaks ; and we thus learn, as from liimself, what kind of ecclesiastical officers he referred to as " successors to the Apostles." They were Episcopal bishops. We go no further into the extra-scriptural argument, be it noticed, than we are led by the reviewer. 1 be reader who wishes to jirosecute this branch of the subject, will find it ably treated in Potter and Slater, whose works have been reprinted in tliis country, and in Bowden and Cooke, as re-published in the " Works on Episcopacy," by the New-York Protestant Episcopal Press The Answer of Dr. Cooke to a Review of his essay in the BibUcal Repertory, should also be consulted. EPISCOPACY TESTED BY SCRIPTURE. 265 Of the peroration of the reviewer, his last four paragrapiis, we need only say that it is a mere tissue ufposiliveness. \\ e have neither tlie taste nor the talent for this kind of effusion, or we ^ could take these paragrapiis, and send them back upon iiim, '' inulaCis mutandis — as indeed we could do witli no small jior- tion of his whole article. It is throughout so replete with mere assertions, pronounced in the most dogmatical tone, tliat one need only change the things asserted, and it would be quite as giiod for Episcopacy as it is against it — nay, for aught we can perceive, a little ingenuity in this way, would make it a tirade for or ag;iinst Popery, for or against Independency, for or against monarchy, for or against republicanism, for or against traiisub- slantiation, for or against the Hebrew points, for or against any tiling ever disputed among men. As to the small amount of argument it does contain, we trust we have sufficiently disposed of it. Tiiat sudi a review has done our Tract no injury, may, we liope, be affirmed by us, without incurring the cliarge of egotism. We even indulge ourselves in tlie belief, that that little production has come out of the ordeal prepared for it stronger than it was before — stronger we say, because the fact certainly adds to its strength, that the learned "Association of Gentlemen in Princeton," have found nothing belter against it than this very dictatorial but very harmless review. 2.3 H. U. O. DISSERTATION ON THE FALSE APOSTLES MENTIONED IN SCRIPTURE. The case of the " false apostles" lias an important bearing on tlie subject o[ Episcopacy. We ^rgiie cuiicliisively, Ironi tlieir case — that others besides the special witnesses of the resur- recliiin of Christ were apostles — that there were many apostles proper besides these, the thirteen — that inspiration was not an essential qualification for the aposllesliip — and tiiai the ordi- nary apjsio/jc uffiix was extensively recognised, both previously and so late as llie year 96, wiien of the thirteen none survived but St. John. These facts being eslablisiied, it will be suffi- citnily clear that tliat office pervaded the Church at large, and was to be pennanenl. Mention is made of these impostors in three passages of the New Testament. " For such arc false apostles i^tui^aTroaroXot, deceitful workers, irans- foriiiirig ihcinselves into the aposiles of Chkist. And :v> marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light. Therefore it is no <'reat thing if his ministers also he transformed as the ministers of right- eousness ;° whose end shall he according to their works." (2 Lor. xi. 13-15.) The word "ministers" is (Jin^oroi. " Jhou hast tried them which say they arc apostles ajroirroXouj, and are not, and hast found them liars, $ viro avouTuXov iitya>ov, and related prodigious narrations as showed him by angels." This being the only case given by Hammond, we presume no other was to be found.* And this, obviously, was not a case of arrogating apostolic inspiration, but only of passing a counterfeit revelation ascribed to some Other person as a "great apostle," probably one of the " prune" or primary ones, as Hammond argues. As to the alleged agency of "angels" in showing him "wonderful things," such a'pretension put Cerinthus below the false prophets, in the claim of inspiration, and of course far below the sort of false apostles here supposed; for the true Christian "prophets" held direct communication with God, though not of the plenary kind. (See Hammond on Rev. ii. 2, note a, and Cruse's Eusebius, p. 113.) Cerinthus was one of the chief pretenders who professed to keep within the Christian pale; and if he did not claim apostolic inspiration, it is highly proba- ble no other pretender did, and infinitely improbable that so many did as to justify, in that sense, the broad denunciation of " false apostles," and tlie broad allusion to " them which say they are apostles, and are not." P'urther: if apostolic plenary inspiration had been counter- feited in that age, we might expect tiie 'counterfeit to be in- cluded in the warning against the untrue "spirits;" but this is ♦Poole's Synopsis, on Rev. ii. 2, qnotes Paraus for Ebion's being a "false propliet:" wlicther " fiilsc apostle" is meant we do not lauiw. The existence of siicli a person is doubtful. Moslieini's remarks are to this effect. Ensebiu3 does not mention him, though Milner, we suppose inadvertently, says lie does If there weie ever such a person, it does not appear tliat he claimed plenary inspiration. MENTIONED IN SCRIPTURE. 271 DOt the case; on the contrary, tlie only warning is against "false prophets," or pretenders to the lower kinds of intipira- tion. St. John, thirty vears after St. Paul had denounced the "false aposiles," and ouly six years before doing so himself, makes no allusion whatever to them, in his caulicm cuiicerning llie "'spirits;" and the omission is unaccountable on the hypo- thesis that they claimed to be "spirits" of apostolic pre- eminence — -"Beloved, believe not every spirit, ' but try the spirits whetlier they are of God; because mawy false prophets are gone out into the world "—only "false prophets," not false apostles in the guise of "spirits." Surely the greater impos- ture, had it existed, would have been exposed with the less. The unavoidable inference is, therefore, that the greater exi.-ted not — in other words, there were none who claimed falsely apostolic plenary inspiration — the "false apostles" were iiut such in this sense. 4. We know of but one other sense in which the pretence to apostleship could have been raised — it must have been that of possessing the apostolic office — that of being apostles proper in the Christian ministry. For this view of the case there are several arguments. 1. It is, so far as we can perceive, the only explanation left us;* the other theories being untenable. 2. It agrees with the points established in the last paragraph of our second head, and in the first of our third head, that there were apostles proper who were not of the thirteen — many of them; and these as a general and permanent feature in the Cliurcii — apostles proper, who, being neither special witnesses, nor plena- nly inspired, nor inspired in any extraordinary manner, could only have been such in the ordinary official or ministerial char- acter. 3. It agrees with the scriptural fact, tliat there were apostles proper, not of the thirteen, not special witnesses, not having plenary inspiration, as Barnabas, Silvaiius and Timothy, Andronicus and Junia; and with the scriptural intimation that apostles proper were at least somewhat numerous, "are all apostles?" 4. Paul contrasts the "false aposiles'' with those who were apostles among the "ministers of righteousness." as will be seen on recurring to our first quotation, i. e. with tiiose who held apostolic rank in the Christian ministry : it was as "ministers" tliat they counterfeited the apostleship, not, so far as ap|)ears, as men extraordinarily endowed ; they may perhaps have claimed the lower inspiration, and so have been "false * We have not deemed worthy of notice the opinion that the false aposlleship Was c\a.\m>-A on llie pretence of beini^ sent by Christ peisonallv, wliellier IjcfDie «• after his asc<."nsion. it is a very weak notion. If it regiird a siiii|ile mission Jjy Christ, as the one ciitcrion of the apo>tleship, it is conirad cted by tlie case of tlie seventy, sent by him, yet not apostles; and by the ciiscs of Manillas, Biirnabas, Silvanus, Timothy, Andronicus, Junia, not sent by him, yet ajjosllfs. If it do not regaid this as the one criterion, it leaves the nature of the aposlleship undelined, and so settles nothing concerning the position assumed in the Ciiiuch by tlie " false apostles." 273 DISSERTATION ON THE FALSE APOSTLES prophets" likewise; more probably, they introduced false tra- ditions under the high autliority they assumed, or gave here- tical glosses and explanations of the true Gospel. 5. 'llie same quotation shows that they pretended to aposileship as •' work- ers " or workmen: they were 'deceitful workmen;" not like, "i'lmothy, " workmen that needed not to be ashamed, rightiy dividing the word of truth;" they pretended to be "spiritual workmen or laborers," (see Parkhurst,) in other words, muiis- ters of the Gospel ; not the passive channels of a new revelation, but laborers in the one already given ; and such in the apostolic character. 6. 'J'he declaration, in the same passage, " wiiose end shall be according to their works," is parallel with that of St. Jude, " and perished in the gainsaying of Core: " the sin of Korah was chiefly the assumption of the priesthood ; as occur- ring in the time of Jude, that kind of '• gainsaying" must have meant the assumction of the Christian ministry ; and the impos- tors before us assumed that ministry under the pretence of being " apostles:" but they were to " perish " for their impiety, their "end would be according to their works" — the parallel- ism seems complete — and it shows that the apostleship they counterfeited was ministerial, official — it was the aposileship proper, with its ordinary rights and functions. At this point of our argument, we bring into fuller notice the third passage relating to these impostors — "An apostle, uoi oj air,men, neither by man, but by Jesus Christ." An apostle "of men " was one who liad only human authority — an apostle "by man " was one set apart by human ordainers who had, and wiio conferred the divine commission, the ordainers being the autho- rized agents of our Lord — an apostle by "Jesus Christ" was one set apart by Christ himself. (See Aretius, Poole's Synop., and Annot.,* Doddridge, and Parkhurst on aizo.) There were three classes of men, therefore, who were called "apostles" — those without the divine commission, or "false apostles" — those commissioned by Christ indirectly, through the agency of his commissioned ministers — and those commissioned by Christ in person. And these three classes were equally designated "apostles;" the last two, justly; the first, without a right to the appellation. In other words, the apostles " of men " pre- tended to have the same office, and the apostles " by man " had the same office, with the apostles " by Jesus Christ." To be a special witness of the resurrection was not requisite, neither was inspiration requisite for this office; and the mere function of a " messenger " can as little be predicated of the two other classes, as of the principal class to which the eleven and Paul belonged. This text is a clear and final proof that the apostle- ship proper was to be transmitted by succession, and was so* * Aretius, on Gal. i. 1, allows Timothy and some others to liavo had tlic title "apostle;" and Ple's Synopsis and Annotations allow the same in the case of Silas : their authority can only be 1 Thess. ii. G. MENTIONED IN SCRIPTURE. 273 transmitted ; as is obvious in the phrase "an apostle by man :" auil tills was the sort of commission counterfeited by the impos- tors. The rule and fact of sucli a succession, and tiie false assumptions of it, sliow tliat tlie office was prevalent in tlie Church at large. And the piaclugof tills rule and fact of apos- tolic succession "by" human ordainers divinely commissioned, on perpetual record, is an intimation that the apostolic office was never to cease. We think we have now established, from the case and the passages before us, that the apostleshlp, as an ordinary minis- terial office, belonged to the Christian priesthood in the years 58 and 63, and remained in it till the year 96 ; and this is equi- valent to its being intended for permanence in the Church : its intended permanence is conclusively shown from its being transmitted by succession. Perhaps no further remarks are necessary, to evince the support given by this fact to Epis- copacy. Lest, however, the advocates of parity should say that our argument is incomplete — lest they should allege that the apostles proper, in their permanent character, were only such as their presbyters or presbyter-bishops — we shall endeavor to settle this point also. And here we first remark, that those only are entitled to enter on this particular portion of the discussion, who have aban- doned the opinions, if they have ever held them, ox who have never maintained — that the whole apostolic office proper was extraordinary and transient — that the being a special witness of the resurrection of Christ was an essential qualification for the apostleshlp proper — that Timothy must have governed theEphe- sian clergy as an " evangelist," because he could not have been an apostle proper — that the " prophets and teachers " in Acts xiii. 1, whether their joint work was an ordination, a mission, or a benediction, could not have been apostles proper — that the " presbytery " mentioned by Paul, supposing the word to mean a body of ministers, did not consist of apostles proper — that Titus and the seven "angels" were not apostles proper — uax', that the " messengers," besides being such, could not have been apostles proper. In other words, tiie very discussion of the point now b-;fore us implies, that nearly the whole slrucliire of the parity argument from Scripture must be changed; which means, that the old parity argument must, in the main, be aliaudoned. If so, what is left to Non-episcopalians on which to base the parity construction of the case of the " false apos- tles ? " not much, certainly; perhaps we may say nothing. Tliis is indeed a large result, but we are confident it is not over- estimated. That the apostleshlp claimed by these pretenders was the episcopate, and not mere presbytership, may be proved by the various scriptural arguments which show the distinction between the two offices, and the superiority of the former — by the very expression " apostles and elders " — by the fact that the 274 DISSERTATION ON THE FALSE APOSTLES apostles, including Timothy and Titus, who cannot here be denied to have been such, ordained and governed the clergy, while there is no evidence lliat mere presbyters did so, &c. We need not recapitulate these topics, or enlarge upon them ; they are suflicieiilly developed in our Tract on Episcopacy. Tiie impostors, assuming tlie supreme title, arrogated the supreme staiion. Anollier proof to the same effect is the declaration, " God hath set some in the Church, first, apostles.''^ We have just seen that the apostolic office was continued in the Church till the end of the first century, in its ordinary rights and functions. We here see that that office was made, by Gon himself, " first" in the Church.* Now, the elders or presbyter-bishops, being placed under other ministers, such as Timothy and Titus, were not " first " in rank, and of course were not apostles. Hence it follows inevitably that the " false apostles" did not claim to be mere presbyters, but arrogated a higher office, the highest, that of apostle-bishops. Again: when Paul exclaims, "Am I not an apostle?" he intimates that his apostlesliip had been questioned. But who would question his being a mere presbyter, had that been the only grade of the ministry ? it would have been gratuitous, to deny iiim a rank with the "ten thousand instructers" of the Corinthians. It follows, that his aposlleship had been ques- tioned as a function superior to that of ministers generally. And in asserting it, he includes in the superior function, as appropriate to it, some of the ordinary duties of the ministry; "Are ye not my work in tlie Lord?" "The seal of mine apos- tles/tip are ye in the Lord:" that is, the Corinthians had received spiritual blessings from him, ordinary in kind, yet distinctively such as an apostle could confer — blessings from "the S()irit of the living God, written in the fleshly tables of their heart." To his imparling such blessings lo them Paul appealed, as the proof — of what 7 not of ids being a mere miuis- ler, wliich nobody questioned — but of his being a minister of the apostolic grade. It is obvious, therefore, that there were ordinary ministers of that grade besides the inferior ones. And the title assumed by the " false apostles " shows that they counterfeited the superior office. They claimed the imparting of apostolic benefits, whether by means of preaching, of counsel, of benedictions, or of prayers, besides their pretending to ♦Apostles beins "first" in the Church, and bishops being their successors, the instiliuion of ai'chbishops, inetropobtans, patiiaixhs and popes has no scri|)l\iral aiitlioiity. As mere human regulations, sncli arran^renients may, perliajis. (the tliree former, the latter claims too intich for this salvo,) lie superinduced on the Episcopal system, on the same principle that bishops are subjected to the legislation and tlie discipline of (he Church. Yet even in this view, as legislation and discipline are positively necessary for all fallible men, wiiile the setting of one bishop over an- other is never more than constructively necessary, the propriety of the latter is not to be argued from that of the former. MENTIONED IN SCRIPTURE. 275 regulate the doctrines of the Church. They arrogated the Aillesl powers tliat have at any time been ascribed to bisliops. We conclude then, tliat tlie parity exposition of tiie case o( tile •' false apostles" is utterly untenable. Their case, as con- nected with the collateral iilHstratioiis, is, we think, fa/a/ to the whole cause of parity. None but the Episcopal key will fit these portions of Hie sacred vohnne — they all point to Episco- pacy as their unquestionable record. H. U. O. NOTE. That it was infinitely improbable that tlie "false apostles" pretended to be of tiie original twelve or thirteen, will appear from such considerations as these: — There are sixteen of our bishops in the United States: but never has it been attempted to counterfeit the person of any of Iheni, either at home or aln-oad. So, of the twenty-six bishops and arclibishops in England — of the nineteen bishops and archbishops in Ireland — and of the six bishops in Scotland. We may add the same remark, so far as we recollect, of all tlie bishops in the Chris- li;in world. Persons have feitined to be bisliops, as in the case of West, and perhaps the Greek mentioned in the accounts of Mr. Wesley ; but none have counterfeited the persons of other bishops — if otherwise, the cases are so rare ami so obscure as not to affect this illustration of our argument. What the impos- tors mentioned in Scripture claimed, was, to be apostles or bishops in iheir own persons, not in the persons of any of the thirteen. Of course the apostleship was not confined to these last. Our fellow-citizens generally will perhaps see more clearly the force of this analogy, in another case. There are twenty- four governors of Slates in our rnion. In no instance has it occurred, that any man has pret<'nded to be one of these. The same may probably be said of all our magistrates of the liiglier grades. So clear is it, that the "false apostles" would not have pretended to be of the original tliirteen who lield tliat oltice — and so clear, that others besides the thirteen were made apostles — inany others. TUB END. ADDENDUM. In A])ril last, the. Rev. Albert Barnes pnblislied " An Inquiry inio file Organization and Goverrmient of IJie Apostolic Cliurcli." As the principal matter ol" this little volume was contained in his two Reviews of " Episcopacy tested by Scripture," it did not seem to require particular notice. But the non-episcopal press misconstrued exullingiy this silence; and, in November, the fol- lowing article appeared in the Southern Churchman. It contains all that need be said concerning the publication mentioned. H. U. O. March 1844. l^For the Sovtheni Churchman.'] Mr. Editor : — An editorial article in your last number, notices a writer in the Philadelphia Christian Observer, who alleges that Mr. Barnes' late work against Episcopacy, has been "passed over in silence" by "Episcopal writers." In one sense, the assertion as far as I know is correct. In another sense, it is absolutely un- true. Mr. Barnes' late work is, in all its important parts, (except what relates to confirmation,) a mere reproduction ol' his former essays ; and these were answered in 1834 and 1835, by Bishop H. U. Onderdonk, and both sides of the controversy were imme- diately reprinted in " Episcopacy examined and Re-examined." The answer to Mr. B's recent production, was thus eight or nine years older than the production itself; it was in the hands of every one who had the volume containing the controversy ; and it is constantly reaching others, as that volume is sold or distrib- uted. Those who allege that a fresh supjdy shouKi be made to arguments already refuted, because they have been dressed out anew, should consider that this would be an endless affair ; for if this production were answered, Mr. Barnes has only to issue another production, and his friends demand another answer to that ; and so on, ad wjiidtum. Let it be understood then, that Mr. Barnes' two works are in substance one, and that both are answered. On some accounts it is fortunate that there has been no second reply. For though the aTguinent is but reiterated in the latter essay, there are other traits in ii which might have elicited se- verity of remark, and so defaced the calmness wiiich lias gene- rally been applauded in this controversy. — 1. Mr. Barnes dues not inform his readers that nearly tiie whole substance of the book, i. e. his entire former one, had been replied to, and so let them examine both siiies if they choose; a course very different from that ol us Episcopalians, who printed the uhole controversy in one volume : he merely gives the tide of the volume on p. 27, and that only to say that he uses that volume for the Tract "Epis- copacy tested by Scripture ;" and on p. 28 he refers, for but a sin- ADDENDrM. 2T7 g\e point, to Bishop Onderdonk's Answer to his first Review ; which may well leave his readers, ''especially the young." under the impression that tliis answer went no lartiier than the colunms ol'a religious magazine, fugitive and ephemeral, wliereas, it is part ol"a stereolyped volume, permanent and constantly accessible. A provoking silence, alter the open and manly impartiality adopted on the epi.