THE0L0B1BRL SEMIj|f^>£ HAMMOND LIBRARY. Vn Shelf 3 A JL 4 ^ < 3 ^ THE UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS LIBRARY From the collection of Julius Doerner, Chicago Purchased, 1918. Z 81.1 C6 7ch THE APOSTOLICAL AND Primitive Church POPULAR IN ITS GOVERNMENT, INFORMAL IN ITS WORSHIP. A v MANUAL ON PRELACY AND RITUALISM CAREFULLY REVISED AND ADAPTED TO THESE DISCUSSIONS. BY LYMAN COLEMAN, D.D. Professor in Lafayette College, author of “ Ancient Christianity Exemplified,” “ Historical Text-Booa and Atlas of Biblical Geography,” &c. PHILADELPHIA: J. B. LIPPINCOTT & CO. 1878 . Entered according to Act of Congress, in the year 1869, by LYMAN COLEMAN, D.D., In the Clerk’s Office of the District Court of the United States for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. lippincott’s press, PHILADELPHIA T 7 ' A&l'l C(p7c#\ PREFACE-. The object of the author in the following work is to commend to the consideration of the reader the admirable simplicity of the government and worship of the primitive church, in opposition to the polity and ceremonials of prelacy. In the prosecution of this object he has sought, under the direction of the best guides, to go to the original sources, and first and chiefly to draw from them. On the constitution and govern- ment of the church none have written with greater ability, or with more extensive and searching erudition, than Mosheim, Planck, Neander and Bothe. These have been his principal reliance : and after these a great variety of authors. The work has been prepared with an anxious endeavor to sus- tain the positions advanced, by references sufficiently copious, pertinent and authoritative ; and yet to guard against an osten- tatious affectation in the accumulation of authorities. Several hundred have indeed been entered in these pages; but many more that have fallen under the eye of the writer have been rejected. Much labor, of which the reader probably will make small account, has been expended in an endeavor to authenticate those that are retained, and to give him an explicit direction to them. The whole has been written with studied brevity, and a uniform endeavor to make it at once concise, } T et complete and suggestive of principles. The translation of the Introduction was made in Beilin ; and after a careful comparison with the original by Dr. Neander, received his unqualified approbation. It is, therefore, to be 3 70(470 4 PREFACE. regarded as an authentic expression of his sentiments on the several topics to which it relates. In the preparation of this work the author has studiously sought to write neither as a Congregationalist nor as a Presby- terian exclusively ; but as the advocate of a free and popular government in the church ; and of simplicity in worship, in har- mony with the free spirit of the Christian religion. It is enough for the author, and, as he would hope, for both Congregational- ists and Presbyterians, if the church is set free from the bondage of a prelatical hierarchy, and trained, by simple and expressive rites, to worship God in spirit and in truth. In opposition to the assumptions of prelacy, there is common ground sufficient for all the friends of popular government in the church of Christ to occupy. In the topics discussed in the following pages they have equal interest, whether they would adopt a purely demo- cratical or a representative form of government as the best means of defending the popular rights of the church. We heartily wish indeed for all true churchmen a closer conformity to the primi- tive pattern in government and in worship ; but we have no con- troversy even with them on minor points, provided we may still be united with them in the higher principles of Christian fellow- ship and love. The writer has the happiness to number among the members of the Episcopal Church some of his most cherished friends, to whose sentiments he would be sorry to do violence by anything that may appear in these pages. The great controversy of the day is not with true Protestant Episcopacy, but with High Church Episcopacy, Popery, Ritual- ism, Formalism. Formalism, by whatever name it is known, is the great antagonist of spiritual Christianity. Here the church is brought to a crisis, great and fearful in prospect, and moment- ous, for good or for evil, in its final results. The struggle at issue is between a spiritual and a formal religion — against a religion which substitutes the outward form for the inward spirit ; which exalts sacraments, ordinances and rites into the place of Christ himself; and disguises, under the covering of imposing ceremo- nials, the great doctrines of the cross. Hr. Pusey himself de- PREFACE. 5 dares that on the issue of this controversy “hangs the destiny of the Church of England;” and the Tractarians again — “that two schemes of doctrine, the Genevan and the Catholic, are probably for the last time struggling within that church.” This “great Catholic movement,” this “Catholic revival” of the Ritualists, with its endless ceremonials, costumes and “ histrionic representations,” is the great religious controversy of the age. It has often engaged the notice of the highest primates of the church in England, and of the prime ministers in the British Parliament, as “a grave and serious evil,” requiring the atten- tion both of church and of state. The ritualistic party them- selves claim to be the predominant party and the only true repre- sentatives of the Church of England, which, dissevered by the Reformation, is soon to be “reingrafted into the true Catholic Church.” In this country the periodical literature and the voluminous productions of the press are charged with this ritualistic controversy. The last literary labor of the late Bishop of Ver- mont was an elaborate effort to establish “the Law of Ritual- ism” on the authority of the Scriptures, as the “glory and beauty of the church.” This law he gave at the request of a large committee of “ sons in the church,” who appear to follow, “with a glad mind and will, his godly admonitions, and submit themselves to his godly judgments.” The House of Bishops, in their late convention, gave to the high church party the sanction of their silent approval by refusing all official action in relation to it. This “ masterly inactivity” is highly commended as the surest means of establishing the law of ritualism in their churches. Ritualism is the aggressive heresy of our churches. The taint of this ritualistic movement has already infected even our Con- gregational and Presbyterian churches. An American bishop Several years since publicly stated that of ‘ ‘ two hundred and eighty persons ordained by him, two hundred and seven came from other denominations.” Another saj^s: “From the most accurate investigation that can be made, I am led to believe that about three hundred clergymen and licentiates of other denomina- 6 PREFACE. tions have, within the last thirty years , sought the ministerial commission from the hands of bishops of that church ; and that at least two-thirds were not originally, by education, Episcopa- lians, but have come from other folds.” Not a few in our churches, both of the clergy and the laity, openly advocate or silently approve a qualified or partial liturgy. The controversy is upon us, and the public, the ministry especially, and candi- dates for the ministry, are required to be prepared for the con- flict. Those two hundred who have gone from other folds into the Episcopal Church, “not originally by education Episco- palians,” were they, hy education , anything else? Had they been duly educated in the ecclesiastical polity of their Pilgrim forefathers? Are the principles of this polity duly inculcated either in our Congregational and Presbyterian churches, or in their theological seminaries? In this eventful crisis we are urgently pressed to a renewed examination of the apostolic and primitive polity of the church in government and in worship ; for under cover of these the warfare of ritualism is now waged. These are the prominent points, both of attack and of defence, to which the eye of the minister, the theological student, and the intelligent Christian of every name, should be turned. Let them fall back on that spiritual Christianity which Christ and his apostles taught. Let them, in doctrine, in discipline, and in worship, entrench themselves within the stronghold of this religion ; and here, in calm reliance upon the great Captain of our salvation, let them await the issue of the contest. In accordance with these views the following manual, studi- ously adapted to this conflict, is respectfully submitted to the consideration of the public. The former editions have been the subject of frequent and careful revisions. Much has been added, and more, by omissions and a severe condensation, has given place to these additions. The authorities, as far as practicable, have been revised and verified anew by the kind aid of gentlemen having access to the libraries of the Theo- logical Seminaries at Andover, at Princeton and in New York. Candidates for the ministry in our theological seminaries, may PREFACE. 7 find this a convenient manual for reference or for study, in con- nection with their recitations and the lectures delivered on kindred topics. And clergymen who have neither time nor opportunity for such investigations may find here authorities laboriously collected and collated for the defence of the several arguments by which we earnestly protest that Christ and his apostles established the primitive church without a bishop, and ordained its worship without a ritual. God is a Spirit ; and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth — in the inward spirit, not by an outward form ; least of all, by u the mysterious and symbolical pomp” of modern ritualism. Can these “carnal ordinances” ever make him that does “the service perfect as pertaining to the conscience?” Sons of the Pilgrims ! Ministers of grace to Puritan churches ! “ Are ye so foolish ? Having begun in the Spirit, are ye now made perfect by the flesh ?’ ’ Lafayette College, Easton , Penn., 1869. Digitized by the Internet Archive . in 2016 https://archive.org/details/apostolicalprimi00cole_0 CONTENTS. PAG IS Introduction to the First Edition, by Neander 16 PART FIRST. THE PRIMITIVE CHURCH — POPULAR IN ITS GOVERNMENT. CHAPTER I. Preliminary Remarks on the Government and Worship op the Church instituted by Christ and his Apostles 25 CHAPTER II. The Primitive Churches formed after the Model of the Jewish Synagogue 37 CHAPTER III. The Independence of the Primitive Churches 45 A* 9 10 CONTENTS. CHAPTER IV. PAGE Elections by the Churches 50 1. Scriptural Argument 51 2. Historical Argument 61 Loss of the Right of Suffrage 68 Remarks : Results upon the Church, the People and the Ministry 79 CHAPTER V. Discipline by the Churches 87 1. Argument from the Scriptures 88 2. Argument from the Ancient Fathers 95 3. Argument from Modern Ecclesiastical Writers 107 4. Argument from Analogy - 139 Mode of Admission 114 Usurpation by the Priesthood 115 Remarks: Results on the Purity and Efficiency of the Church 119 Objections to Episcopacy 121 CHAPTER VI. Equality and Identity of Bishops and Presbyters 126 Scriptural Argument . Identity of their Titles 128 Identity of their Qualifications 131 Identity of their Duties 133 Identity of their Clerical Order or Rank 137 CONTENTS. 11 PAGE James not Bishop of Jerusalem 139 Nor Timothy, of Ephesus . 142 Nor Titus, of Crete 145 The Angels of the Seven Churches not Bishops 146 Historical Argument. According to the Ancient Fathers, Bishops and Presbyters are — Identical in Names 151 Identical in Rank or*Office 153 Identical in Official Duties 162 Parochial Episcopacy 163 Divine Right of Episcopacy Disowned 171 Groundless Assumptions of Episcopacy 177 CHAPTER VII. Apostolical Succession 178 Apostolical Succession — Groundless, Impossible 181 CHAPTER VIII. Presbyterian Ordination ...... 185 Laying on of Hands 186 Historical Authorities 192 Episcopal Concessions 203 Divine Right first Asserted in the English Church 204 Remarks : Efficiency of Primitive Church Government 207 Encumbrances of the Episcopal Ritual . 212 The Puritans and their Principles 215 12 CONTENTS. CHAPTER IX. PAGE The Rise of Episcopacy... 219 Ascendency of Churches and Clergy in the Cities 221 Presiding Presbyter a Bishop 224 Jerome, Hilary and Stillingfleet on the Origin of Episcopacy. 228 American Episcopacy 232 CHAPTER X. The Progress of Episcopacy 235 Means of its Development : . 235 Results 239 Metropolitan Government 242 Means of its Establishment 243 Results in regard to the Laity 244 Results in regard to the Clergy 248 Degeneracy under the Hierarchy 259 The Patriarchal Government 264 The Papal Government 265 Remarks: Objections to Prelacy 268 A Corrupt Compromise with Paganism 272 PART SECOND. THE PRIMITIVE CHURCH— INFORMAL IN ITS WORSHIP. CHAPTER XI. Prayers of the Primitive Church 275 Forms of Prayer — Opposed to the Spirit of the Christian Dispensation 275 CONTENTS. 13 PAGE Opposed to the Example of Christ 277 Opposed to the Instructions of Christ and his Apostles 279 The Lord’s Prayer 283 The Freedom of Primitive Worship 285 Liturgical Forms unknown to the Primitive Church 288 Origin of Liturgies 304 Remarks: Objections to Liturgies 308 Popish Origin and Tendencies of the English Liturgy 314 Doctrinal Errors of the Prayer-Book 316 The Ritualists of England 319 CHAPTER XII. Psalmody of the Primitive Church 321 Argument from Reason 321 Argument from Analogy 322 Argument from Scripture 322 Argument from History 324 Mode of Singing 328 Changes in the Psalmody of the Church 333 Remarks on Congregational Singing 338 Power of Sacred Psalmody 341 CHAPTER XIII. Homilies in the Primitive Church 351 Discourses of Christ and the Apostles 351 Expository Preaching 357 Homilies in the Greek Church. 360 Homilies in the Latin Church 365 Episcopacy an Encumbrance to the Preacher 368 2 14 CONTENTS. CHAPTER XIV. PAGE The Benediction...... 373 Origin and Import of the Rite 374 Mode of Administering it 379 Superstitious Perversions of the Benediction 382 Episcopacy a Vicarious Religion 384 Appendix 389 INDEXES. Index of Texts 399 Index of Authorities > 401 Index of Subjects.... 406 INTRODUCTION, BY Dr. AUGUSTUS NEANDER, PROFESSOR OF THEOLOGY IN THE UNIVERSITY OF BERLIN, CONSISTORIAL COUNSELOR, ETC. In compliance with the request of my worthy friend, the Rev. Mr. Coleman, I am happy to accompany his proposed work, on the Constitution and Worship of the apostolical and primitive church, with some preliminary remarks. I regard it as one of the remarkable signs of the times, that Christians, separated from each other by land and by sea, by language and government, are becoming more closely united in the consciousness that they are only different members of one universal church, grounded and built on the rock Christ Jesus. And it is with the hope of promot- ing this catholic union that I gladly improve this opportu- nity to address my Christian brethren beyond the waters on some important subjects of common interest to the church of Christ. This is not the proper place to express in detail, and to defend my own views upon the controverted topics which, as I have reason to expect from the respected author, will be the subject of an extended, thorough and impartial ex- amination in his proposed w T ork. My own sentiments have 15 16 INTRODUCTION. already been expressed, in a work which, I am happy to learn, is offered to the English reader in a translation by my friend, the Rev. Mr. Ryland, of Northampton, in Eng- land . 1 I have only time and space, in this place, briefly to express the results of former inquiries, which, with the rea- sons for them, have on other occasions already been given to the public. It is of the utmost importance to keep ever in view the difference between the economy of the Old Testament and that of the New. The neglect of this has given rise to the grossest errors, and to divisions, by which those who ought to be united together in the bonds of Christian love have been sundered from each other. In the Old Testament, everything relating to the kingdom of God was estimated by outward forms , and promoted by specific external rites . In the New, everything is made to depend upon what is internal and spiritual . Other foundation, as the apostle Paul has said, can no man lay than that is laid. Upon this the Christian church at first was grounded, and upon this alone, in all time to come, must it be reared anew and compacted together. Faith in Jesus of Nazareth, the Sa- viour of the world, and union with him, a participation in that salvation which cometh through him, — this is that in- ward principle, that unchangeable foundation, on which the Christian church essentially rests. But whenever, instead of making the existence of the church to depend on this inward principle alone, the necessity of some outward form is asserted as an indispensable means of grace, we readily 1 History of the Planting and Training of the Christian Church, by the Apostles, by Dr. A. Neander, Ordinary Professor of Theology in the University of Berlin, Consistorial Counselor ; translated from the third edition, by J. E. Ryland. INTRODUCTION. 17 perceive that the purity of its character is impaired. The spirit of the Old Testament is commingled with that of the New. Neither Christ nor the apostles have given any un- changeable law on the subject. Where two or three are gathered together in my name, says Christ, there am I in the midst of them. This coming together in his name, he assures us, alone renders the assembly well pleasing in his sight, whatever be the different forms of government under which his people meet. The apostle Paul says indeed, Eph. iv. 11, that Christ gave to the church certain offices, through which he ope- rated with his Spirit and its attendant gifts. But assuredly Paul did not mean to say that Christ, during his abode on earth, appointed these offices in the church, or authorized the form of government that was necessarily connected with them. All the offices here mentioned, with the single ex- ception of that of the apostles, were instituted by the apos- tles themselves, after our Lord’s ascension. In making these appointments, they acted, as they did in everything else, only as the organs of Christ. Paul, therefore, very justly ascribes to Christ himself what was done by the apostles in this instance as his agents. But the apostles themselves have given no law requiring that any such form of government as is indicated in this passage should be per- petual. Under the guidance of the Spirit of God, they gave the church this particular organization, which, while it was best adapted to the circumstances and relations of the church at that time, was also best suited to the extension of the churches in their peculiar condition, and for the develop- ment of the inward principles of their communion. But forms may change with every change of circumstances. Many of the offices mentioned in that passage either were 2 * 18 INTRODUCTION. entirely unknown at a later period, or existed in relations one to another entirely new . 2 Whenever at a later period, also, any form of church government has arisen out of a series of events according to the direction of divine providence, and is organized and governed with regard to the Lord’s will, he may be said, himself, to have established it, and to operate through it, by his Spirit ; without which nothing pertaining to the church can prosper. The great principles which are given by the apostle, in the passage before us, for the guidance of the church, — these, and these only, remain unchangeably the same; because they are immediately connected with the 2 One peculiar office, that of the prophets, in process of time ceased in the church, while something analogous to the gift of prophecy still remained ; indeed it might be easily shown that the prophetic office continued at that early period so long as it was necessary for the es- tablishment of the Christian church, under its peculiar exigencies and relations. Pastors and teachers are mentioned in this passage, in the same connection. Their office, which related to the government of particular churches, is distinguished from that of those who had been mentioned before, and whose immediate object was the extension of the Christian church in general. And yet a distinction is also made between these pastors and teachers, inasmuch as the qualifications for the outward government of the church, KvpepvTjGic, were different from those which were requisite for the guidance of the church by the preaching of the word, didacruaXa. The first belonged especially to the presbyters or bishops who stood at the head of the organization for the outward government of the church. Certain it is, at least, that they did not all possess the gift of teaching as didaaKCtloi, teachers . On the other hand, there may have been persons endowed with the gift of teaching, and qualified thus to be teachers, who still belonged not to the class of presbyters. The relations of these offices to one another seem not to have been the same in all stages of the development of the apostolical churches. INTRODUCTION. 19 nature of the Christian church, as a spiritual community. All else is mutable. The form of the church remained not the same, even through the whole course of the apostolic age, from the first descent of the Spirit, on the day of Pen- tecost, to the death of John the apostle. Particular forms of church government may be more or less suited to the nature of the Christian church ; and we may add, no one is absolutely perfect, neither are all alike good under all circumstances. Would then that all, in their strivings after forms of church government, would abide fast by those which they believe to be best adapted to promote their own spiritual edification, and which they may have found, by experience, to be best suited to the wants of their own Christian community. Only let them not seek to im- pose upon all Christians any one form as indispensably necessary. Only let them remember, that the upbuilding of the church of Christ may be carried on under other forms also ; and that the same Spirit, on which the exist- ence of the church depends, can as truly operate in other churches as in their own. AVould that Congregationalists, Presbyterians and Episcopalians, Calvinists and Lutherans, would abide by that only unchangeable foundation which Christ has laid. Would that on such a foundation, which no man can lay, they would meet as brethren in Christ, acknowledging each other as members of one catholic church, and organs of the same Spirit, co-operating together for the promotion of the great ends indicated by the apos- tle Paul in Eph. iv. 13-16. It must indeed be of great importance to examine impar- tially the relations of the apostolical church ; for, at this time, the Spirit of Christ, through the apostles, wrought in its purest influence ; by which means the mingling of foreign 20 INTRODUCTION. elements was prevented in the development of this system of ecclesiastical polity. In this respect we must all admit that the apostolical church commends itself to us as a model of church government. But, in the first place, let us re- member, agreeably to what has already been said, that not all the forms of church government which were adapted to the exigencies of the church at this early period can be received as patterns for the church at other times ; neither can the imitation be pressed too far. Let us remember that it is only that same Spirit which is imparted to us through the intervention of the apostles, which, at all times, and under all possible relations, will direct to the most appro- priate and most efficient form of government, if, in humility and sincerity, we surrender ourselves up to its teaching and guidance. And secondly, let us remember that, after true and faithful inquiry on these subjects, men may honestly differ in their views on those minor points, without inter- rupting the higher communion of faith and love. In the apostolical church there was one office which bears no resemblance to any other, and to which none can be made to conform. This is the office of the apostles. They stand as the medium of communication between Christ and the whole Christian church, to transmit his word and his Spirit through all ages. In this respect the church must ever continue to acknowledge her dependence upon them, and to own their rightful authority. Their authority and power can be delegated to none other. But the service which the apostles themselves sought to confer, was to transmit to men the word and the Spirit of the Lord, and, by this means, to establish independent Christian commu- nities. These communities, when once established, they refused to hold in a state of slavish dependence upon them- INTRODUCTION. 21 selves. Their object was, in the Spirit of the Lord, to make the churches free and independent of their guidance. To the churches their language was, “ Ye beloved, ye are made free ; be ye the servants of no man.” The churches were taught to govern themselves. All the members were made to co-operate together as organs of one Spirit, in connection with which spiritual gifts were imparted to each as he might need. Thus they whose prerogative it was to rule among the brethren demeaned themselves as the servants of Christ and his church. They acted in the name of Christ and his church, as the organs of that Spirit with which all were inspired, and from which they derived the consciousness of their mutual Christian fellowship. The brethren chose their own officers from among them- selves. Or if, in the first organization of the churches, their officers were appointed by the apostles, it was with the ap- probation of the members of the same. The general con- cerns of the church were managed by the apostles in con- nection with their brethren in the church, to whom they also addressed their epistles. The earliest constitution of the church was modeled, for the most part, after that religious community with which it stood in closest connection, and to which it was most assimilated — the Jewish synagogue. This, however, was so modified as to conform to the nature of the Christian community, and to the new and peculiar spirit with which it was animated. Like the synagogue, the church was governed by an associated body of men appointed for this purpose. The name of presbyters , which was appropriated to this body, was derived from the Jewish synagogue. But in the Gentile churches, formed by the apostle Paul, they took 22 INTRODUCTION. the name of in t&xonoi, bishops, a term more significant of their office in the language generally spoken by the mem- bers of these churches. The name of presbyters denoted the dignity of their office. That of bishops, on the other hand, was expressive rather of the nature of their office, Ima/Mizer; T7jv kxxhjfftav, to take the oversight of the church . Most certainly no other distinction originally existed between them. But, in process of time, some one, in the ordinary course of events, would gradually obtain the pre-eminence over his colleagues, and by reason of that peculiar oversight which he exercised over the whole community, might come to be designated by the name Imaxoizoq, bishop, which was originally applied to them all indiscriminately. The con- stant tumults, from within and from without, which agitated the church in the times of the apostles, may have given to such a one opportunity to exercise his influence the more efficiently ; so that, at such a time, the controlling influence of one in this capacity may have been very salutary to the church. This change in the relation of the presbyters to each other was not the same in all the churches, but varied according to their different circumstances. It may have been as early as the latter part of the life of John, when he was sole survivor of the other apostles, that one, as pres- „ ident of this body of presbyters, was distinguished by the name of Ink txokoc , bishop. There is, however, no evidence that the apostle himself introduced this change ; much less that he authorized it as a perpetual ordinance for the future. Such an ordinance is in direct opposition to the spirit 6f that apostle. 3 3 In the angels of the churches in the seven epistles of the Apoca- lypse, I cannot recognize the ^23^ j-pStP of the Jewish synagogue transferred to the Christian church. The application appears to me INTRODUCTION. 23 This change in the mode of administering the government of the church, resulting from peculiar circumstances, may have been introduced as a salutary expedient, without im- plying any departure from the purity of the Christian spirit. When, however, the doctrine is — as it gradually gained currency in the third century — that the bishops are, by divine right, the head of the church, and invested with the government of the same ; that they are the successors of the apostles, and by this succession inherit apostolical au- thority ; that they are the medium through which, in con- sequence of that ordination which they have received, merely in an outward manner, the Holy Ghost, in all time to come, must be transmitted to the church — when this be- comes the doctrine of the church, we certainly must per- ceive, in these assumptions, a strong corruption of the purity of the Christian system. It is a carnal perversion of the true idea of the Christian church. It is falling back into the spirit of the Jewish religion. Instead of the Christian idea of a church, based on inward principles of communion, and extending itself by means of these, it presents us with the image of one, like that under the Old Testament, rest- to be altogether arbitrary. Nor again can I discover in the angel of the church, the bishop, addressed as the representative of this body of believers. How much must we assume as already proved, which yet is entirely without evidence, in assigning to this early period the rise of such a monarchical system of government, that the bishop alone can be put in the place of the whole church? In this phraseology I recognize rather a symbolical application of the idea of guardian an- gels, similar to that of the Ferver of the Parsees, as a symbolical rep- resentation and image of the whole church. Such a figurative repre- sentation corresponds well with the poetical and symbolical character of the book throughout. It is also expressly said that the address is to the whole body of the churches. 24 INTRODUCTION. in g in outward ordinances, and, by external rites, seeking to promote the propagation of the kingdom of God. This entire perversion of the original view of the Christian church was itself the origin of the whole system of the Ro- man Catholic religion, — the germ from which sprung the popery of the dark ages. We hold, indeed, no controversy with that class of Epis- copalians who adhere to the episcopal system above men- tioned as well adapted, in their opinion, to the exigencies of their church. We would live in harmony with them, notwithstanding their mistaken views of the true form of the church, provided they denounce not other systems of church government. But the doctrine of the absolute ne- cessity of the episcopal as the only valid form of govern- ment, and of the episcopal succession of bishops above mentioned, in order to a participation in the gifts of the Spirit, all this we must regard as something foreign to the true idea of the Christian church. It is in direct conflict with the spirit of protestantism ; and is the origin, not of the true Catholicism of the apostle, but of that of the Rom- ish church. When, therefore, Episcopalians disown, as essentially deficient in their ecclesiastical organization, other protestant churches which evidently have the Spirit of Christ, it only remains for us to protest, in the strongest terms, against their setting up such a standard of perfection for the Christian church. Far be it from us, who began with Luther in the spirit, that we should now desire to be made perfect by the flesh,- Gal. iii. 3. Dr. A. Neander. Berlin, April 28, 1843. The Primitive Church. PAET FIRST. POPULAR IN ITS GOVERNMENT. CHAPTER I. PRELIMINARY REMARKS. The Christian church derived its earliest form from a small society of believers, who were united together by no law but that of the love which they felt to one another and to their common Lord . 1 After his ascension they continued to meet, in singleness of heart, for the mutual interchange of sympathy and love, and for the worship of their Lord and Master. The government which, in process of time, the fraternity adopted for themselves, was free and volun- tary. Each individual church possessed the rights and powers inherent in an independent popular assembly ; or, to adopt the language of another, “The right to enact their laws, and the entire government of the church, was vested in each individual association of which the church was com- posed, and was exercised by the members of the same, in 1 Neander s Apost. Kirch. Vol. I. c. 1. Rotlie, Anfiinge der Christ. Kirch. I. S. 141-2. 3 B 25 28 THE PRIMITIVE CHTJllCH. connection with their overseers and teachers, and, when the apostles were present, in common also with them.” 2 This general exposition of the government of the primitive church, it will be our business to illustrate and defend in the following pages. The course of our inquiries will lead us to examine the popular government of the apostolical and primitive church, to trace the gradual extinction of this form of government, and the rise of the episcopal sys- tem ; and also to consider the simplicity of primitive wor- ship in its several parts. The arguments for the popular government of the apos- tolical and primitive church may be arranged under the following heads : 1. It harmonizes with the primitive simplicity of all forms of government. The multiplication of offices, the adjustment of the gra- dations of rank and power, and a complicated system of x rites and forms, are the work of time. At first, the rules of government, however administered, are few and simple. The early Christians, especially, associating together in the confidence of mutual love, and uniting in sincerity of heart for the worship of God, could have had only a few conven- tional rules for the regulation of their fraternity. 2. It is, perhaps, the only organization wdiich the church could safely have formed, at that time, under the Roman government. The Romans tolerated, indeed, different religious sects, and might have extended the same indulgence to the primi- tive Christians. But they looked with suspicion upon every organization of party or sect, and punished with cruel jeal- 2 Cited in Allgemeine Kirch. Zeitung, 1833. No. 103. PRELIMINARY REMARKS. 27 ousy every indication of a confederacy within the empire. The charge of treasonable intentions prevailed with the Roman governor against our Lord. And under Trajan, A. D. 103, a bloody persecution was commenced against the church, on the suspicion that it might be a secret so- ciety, formed for seditious purposes. Under these circum- stances, it is difficult to conceive how a diocesan consolida- tion of the churches could have been established by the apostles without bringing down upon them the vengeance of the Roman government. Their harmless and informal assemblies, and the total absence of all connection one with another, was, according to Planck, the means of saving the early churches so long and so extensively from the exter- minating sword of Roman jealousy. 3 Crevit occulto, v el ut arbor, aevo. 3. Such an organization must have been formed to unite the discordant parties in the primitive churches. Here was the Jew, the Greek, the Roman, and Barba- rians of every form of superstition ; converts, indeed, to faith in Christ, but with all their partialities and prejudices still. What but a voluntary principle, guaranteeing to all the freedom of a popular assembly, could unite these parties in one fraternity? Our Lord himself employed no artificial bands to bind his followers together into a permanent body ; and they were alienated from him upon the slightest offence. The apostles had still less to bind their adherents firmly to themselves. It required all their wisdom and address to reconcile the discordant prejudices of their converts and unite them in harmonious fellowship one with another. This difficulty met the apostles at the outset of their minis- try, in the murmuring of the Greeks against the Jews, that 3 Gesellschafts-Yerfass, I. S. 40-50. 28 THE PRIMITIVE CHURCH. their widows were neglected in the daily ministration. This mutual jealousy was a continual trial besetting them on every side. Under such circumstances, they assumed not the responsibility of settling these controversies by apostol- ical or episcopal authority. Everything relating to the interests of each church they left to be publicly discussed and decided by mutual consent. In this manner they quieted these complaints of the Greeks respecting the dis- tribution of alms, Acts vi. 1-8. And such, of necessity, became their settled policy in their care of the churches. Even the apostles w T ere not exempt from these infirmities and misunderstandings, and might have found no small difficulty in arranging among themselves a more artificial and complicated system of church government. 4 4. The same is inferred from the existence of popular rights and privileges in the early periods of the Christian church. Had the doctrine of the rights of the people been totally lost in the second and third centuries, this would by no means warrant the inference that such rights were unknown in the days of the apostles. They all might have been swept away by the irresistible tide of clerical influence and authority. But they were not lost. They were asserted even in the fourth and fifth centuries, and long after the hierarchy was established in connection with the state, and its authority enforced by imperial power. 5. A popular form of church government harmonizes with the spirit, the instructions and the example of Christ. 4 Schroeter unci Klein, Fur Christenthum Oppositionsschrift, I. S. 567. Siegel, Handbuch, II. 455-6. Arnold, Wahre-Abbildung der Ersten Christen, B. II. c. 5, seq. Schoene, Geschichtsforscliungen d. Kirch. Gebrauch, I. S. 234-5. PRELIMINARY REMARKS. 29 (а) With his spirit lie was of a meek and lowly spirit unostentatious and unassuming. He shrank from the de- monstrations of power, and refused the titles and honors that, at times, were pressed upon his acceptance. With such a spirit, that religious system must be congenial which, without any parade of titles and of rank, has few offices, and little to excite the pride or tempt the ambition of man. (б) With his instructions. Ye know that the princes of the Gentiles exercise dominion over them, and they that are great exercise authority upon them, but it shall not be so among you ; but whosoever will be great among you, let him be your minister; and whosoever will be chief among you, let him be your servant; even as the Son of man came, not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a ransom for many, Matt. xx. 25-28 ; Comp. Mark x. 42-45. (c) With his example. This was in perfect coincidence with his instructions, and a striking illustration of his spirit. His life was a pattern of humility, of untiring, unostenta- tious benevolence. He condescended to the condition of all ; and, as one of the latest and most expressive acts of his life, washed his disciples’ feet, giving them an example for their imitation, as the servants of all men. Has such a spirit its just expression in a hierarchy, which has often dis- honored the religion of Christ by the display of princely pomp and the assumption of regal and imperial power ? 5 6. It equally accords with the spirit, the instructions and the example of the apostles. (a) With their spirit. They had renounced their hopes of aggrandizement in the kingdom of Christ, and had im- 5 The French infidels have an expression relating to our Saviour, which, though impious and profane, clearly indicates the nature of his instructions and example: “Jesus Christ the great Democrat .” 3C r THE PRIMITIVE CHURCH. bibed much of his spirit. The world took knowledge of them that they had been with Jesus, and had learned of him, wiio was meek and lowly of heart. This spirit must be foreign from the distinctions of rank and of office, as well as from the authority and power which are inherent in every form of the episcopal system. (5) With their instructions. These were in coincidence with those of their Master. They disowned personal au- thority over the church ; and instructed the elders not to lord it over God’s heritage, bat to be examples to the flock, 1 Pet. v. 3. If, in the discharge of his ministry, one has occasion to reprove sin in an elder, this he is charged, be- fore God and the elect angels, to do with all circumspection, without prejudice or partiality, 1 Tim. v. 21. (c) With their example. This is the best comment upon their instructions, and the clearest indication of that organ- ization which the church received at their hands. They exercised, indeed, a controlling influence over the several churches which they established, as an American mission- ary does in organizing his Christian converts into a church, while he constitutes them a popular assembly under a Con- gregational or Presbyterian form. In like manner, it is observable that the apostles studiously declined the exercise of prelatical or episcopal authority. 6 The control which they at first exercised in the management of the affairs of the church was no part of their office. It was only a tem- porary expedient, resulting from the necessity of the case. In support of this position we offer the following con- siderations : 6 Planck, Gesellschafts-Verfass, 1. S. 39. Spittler, Can. Reclit, c. 1. § 3. Pertsch, Can. Reclit, c. 1. $ 5-8. Siegel, Kirchliche Verfas- sungsformen, in Handbuch, II. S. 455. Pertsch, Kirch. Hist. I. S. 156 -170, 362-370. PRELIMINARY REMARKS. 31 (r/) They addressed the members of the church as brethren and sisters and fellow-laborers. I would not have you igno- rant, brethren, that oftentimes I purposed to come unto you, Horn. i. 13; Comp. 1 Cor. ii. 1; Rom. xvi. 1. The same familiar, affectionate style of address runs through all the epistles, showing in what consideration the apostles held all the members of the church. “ The apostles severally were very far from placing themselves in a relation that bore any analogy to a mediating priesthood. In this respect they always placed themselves on a footing of equality. If Paul assured them of his intercessory prayers for them, he in return requested their prayers for himself.” 7 (/S') The apostles remonstrated with the members of the church as with brethren , instead of rebuking them authori- tatively. Now I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you, 1 Cor. i. 10; Comp. 1 Thess. iv. 1 ; James ii. 1. They spoke not by command- ment, but in the language of mutual counselors, 1 Cor. xi. % 13-16. 8 ( [y ) They treated with the church as an independent body, competent to judge and act for itself. They appealed to the judgment of their brethren personally, 1 Cor. xi. 13-16; 1 Thess. v. 21. They reported their own doings to the church, as if amenable to that body, Acts xi. 1-18 ; xiv. 26, 27. (<5) They exhorted the churches to deeds of charity and benevolence ; but submitted to each individual the disposal of his goods and his charities, Acts v. 4 ; xi. 29, 30, etc. ; 1 Cor. xvi. 1, seq. ; 2 Cor. ix. 1, seq. (e) They addressed their epistles not to the pastors of the 7 Neander, Apostol. Kirch., I. p. 161, 3d edit.; and in the sequel much more to the same effect. Trans. I. 150. 8 Comp. Socrates, Hist. Eccl. Lib. 5. c. 22. 32 THE PRIMITIVE CHURCH. churches, but to the churches, or to the churches and pas- tors, collectively, giving precedence, in some instances, to the church, Phil. i. 1. Even the epistles which treat of controverted ecclesiastical matters are addressed not to the bishops and presbyters, but to the whole body of believers , indicating that the decision belonged to them. (C) They recognized the right of the churches to send out their own religious teachers and messengers, as they might have occasion, Acts xi. 19-24 ; xv. 32, 33 ; 2 Cor. viii. 23 ; Phil. ii. 25 ; 1 Cor. xvi. 3, 4. These deputations, and the power of sending them, indicate the independent authority of the churches. ( 75 ) They united with the church in mutual consultation upon doubtful questions. The brethren took part in the dissension with Peter, for having preached unto the Gen- tiles, Acts xi. 1-18. The apostles united with them in the discussion of the question which was submitted to them by the delegation from Antioch, and the result was published in the name of the apostles and the brethren, jointly, Acts xv. 1 , seq. (#) They submitted to the church the settlement of their own difficulties. The appointment of the seven deacons, to obviate the murmurs of the Greeks, was made at the sug- gestion of the apostles, but the election was wholly the act of the church, Acts vi. 1-6. The apostles refused any authoritative arbitration in the case; and required the churches to choose arbitrators among themselves to settle their own litigations, 1 Cor. xi. 1, seq. (c) They entrusted the church with the important right of electing its own officers . 9 As in the case of the seven 9 Clement of Rome, Ep. ad Cor., A. D. 98, $ 44, states it as a rule received from the apostles, that the appointment of church officers should be with the consent of the whole church, GvvevdourjGaGrjg rfjg eKK^qaiag Tzacrjg, PRELIMINARY REMARKS. 33 deacons, which we have just stated, the apostles refused even the responsibility of supplying, in their own number, the place of the traitor Judas, but submitted the choice to the assembly of the disciples, Acts i. 15, seq. In this con- nection should the appointment of elders, Acts xiv. 23, also be mentioned, as may hereafter appear. (*) The apostles submitted to the church the discipline of its members; as in the case of the incestuous person, who was excommunicated and afterward restored to the church by that body. “ The relation of presbyters to the church was not that of rulers with monarchical powers, but of the officers of an ecclesiastical republic. In all things they were to act in connection with the church, and to perform their duties as the servants, and not the lords of the church. The apostles recognized the same relation. The apostle Paul, when speaking of the excommunication of the incest- uous person at Corinth, regards himself as united in spirit with the whole church, 1 Cor. v. 4, thus indicating the prin- ciple that their co-operation was required in all such cases of general interest.” 7 * * 10 The churches, therefore, which were planted by the apos- tles, were under their sanction organized as independent popular assemblies, with power to elect officers, adopt rules, administer discipline, and to do all those acts which belong to such deliberative bodies. 7. The popular government of the primitive church is apparent from its analogy to the Jewish synagogue. This and each of the following articles, under this head, will be the subjects of consideration in another place. They are assumed as so many separate heads of argumentation, so far as they may appear to be founded in truth. Comp, Chap. II. 10 Neander, Allgem. Gesch., I. S. 324, 2d ed. Tr. I. p. 190. 34 THE PRIMITIVE CHURCH. 8. The primitive churches were, severally, independent bodies, in Christian fellowship, but having no confederate relations one toward another. “ The power of enacting laws, of appointing teachers and ministers, and of determining controversies, was lodged in the people at large ; nor did the apostles, though invested with divine authority, either resolve or sanction anything whatever without the knowledge and concurrence of the general body of Christians of which the church was com- posed.” 11 Comp. Chap. III. 9. These churches severally enjoyed the inherent right of every independent body — that of choosing their own officers. Comp. Chap. IV. 10. In the apostolical and primitive churches the right of discipline was vested not in the clergy, but in each church collectively. 12 Even the officers of the church were subject to the au- thority of the same. Clement recognizes this authority in his epistles to the Corinthians. 13 Comp. Chap. Y. 11. The appropriate officers of the church were deacons 11 De Rebus Christ., etc., § 1, 37. To the same effect, also, is the authority of Neander, Apost. Kirch, pp. 1, 161, 201, 214, 3d ed. 12 Primo omnibus ecclesiae membris jus eligendi pastores et diaconos erat. Communicatio erat quaedam inter varios coetus christianos vel ecclesias; literae quas altera acceperat alteri legendae mittebantur. Pecunias ad pauperes sublevandos ecclesia ecclesiae donabat. De re- bus fidei et disciplinae jam apostoli deliberaverunt. Quaequae eccle- sia exercebat jus excommunicandi eos qui doctrinae et vitae christianae renunciaverant, eosque recipiendi quorum poenitentia et mentis muta- tio constabat. Sic prima christianorum ecclesia libertate, concordia, sanctitate floruit. Sack Comment, ad Theol. Inst., p. 141. 13 Epist. § 54, comp. 44. Also Pertsch, Kirch. Hist. I. 362. PRELIMINARY REMARKS. 35 and pastors. These pastors were denominated indiscrimi- nately bishops, overseers , and elders, presbyters , and were at first identical . 14 Comp. Chap. VI. Greiling, after going through with an examination of the government of the apostolical churches, gives the following summary : “ In the age of the apostles there was no primate of the churches, but the entire equality of brethren pre- vailed. The apostles themselves exercised no kind of au- thority or power over the churches, but styled themselves their helpers and servants. The settlement of controverted points, the adoption of new rites, the discipline of the church, the election of presbyters, and even the choice of an apostle, were submitted to the church. The principle on which the apostles proceeded was, that the church , that is, the elders and the members of the church unitedly, were the deposit- aries of all their social rights ; that no others could exercise this right but those to whom the church might entrust it, and who were accordingly amenable to the church. Even the apostles, though next to Christ himself, invested with the highest authority, assumed no superiority over the pres- byters, but treated them as brethren, and styled themselves fellow-presbyters, thus recognizing them as associates in office.” 15 Finally, the worship of the primitive churches was re- markable for its freedom and simplicity. Their religious rites were few and simple, and restrained by no complicated ritual or prescribed ceremonials. This point is considered at length in a subsequent part of the work. The government throughout was wholly popular. Every church adopted its own regulations and enacted its own laws. These laws were administered by officers elected by 14 Neander, Apost. Kirch. I. p. 1, 184. Tr. I. p. 168. 15 Apostol. Christengemeine. Halberstadt, 1819. 36 THE PRIMITIVE CHURCH. the church. No church was dependent upon another. They were represented in synod by their own delegates. Their discipline was administered not by the clergy, but by the people or the church collectively. And even after or- dination became the exclusive right of the bishop, no one was permitted to preach to any congregation who was not approved and duly accepted by the congregation. All their religious worship was conducted on the same princi- ples of freedom and equality. Such was the organization of the Christian church in its primitive simplicity and purity. The national peculiarities of the Jewish and Gentile converts in some degree modified individual churches, but the form of government was sub- stantially the same in all. We claim not for it authority absolutely imperative and divine, to the exclusion of every other system ; but it has, we must believe, enough of pre- cept, of precedent and of principle, to give it a sanction truly apostolic. Its advantages and practical results justly claim an attentive consideration. CHAPTER II. THE PRIMITIVE CHURCHES FORMED AFTER THE MODEL OF TPIE JEWISH SYNAGOGUE. The apostles and the first disciples were Jews, who, after their conversion, retained the prejudices and partialities of their nation. They observed still all the rites of their re- ligion ’ f and, firmly believing that salvation by Christ be- longed only to the circumcision, they refused the ministry of reconciliation to the Gentiles. All their national pecu- liarities led them to conform the Christian to the Jewish church. With the temple-service and the Mosaic ritual, however, Christianity had no affinity. The sacrificial offerings of the temple and the Levitical priesthood it abolished. But in the synagogue-worship the followers of Christ found a more congenial institution. It invited them to the reading of the Scriptures and to prayer. It gave them liberty of speech in exhortation and in worshiping and praising God. The rules and government of the synagogue, while they offered little, comparatively, to excite the pride of office and of power, commended themselves the more to the humble be- liever in Christ. The synagogue was endeared to the devout Jew by sacred associations and tender recollections. It was near at hand, and not, like the temple, afar off. He went but seldom up to Jerusalem, and only on great occasions joined in the rites of temple-service. But in the synagogue 4 37 38 THE PRIMITIVE CHURCH. lie paid his constant devotions to the God of his fathers. It met his eye in every place. It was constantly before him, and from infancy to hoary age he was accustomed to repair to that hallowed place of worship, to listen to the reading of his sacred books, to pray and sing praises unto the God of Israel. The reading of the Scriptures was fol- lowed w 7 ith familiar remarks, and exhortations upon the portion read, by priests, elders, scribes, and intelligent members of the assembly, or strangers in attendance. Thus our Lord habitually taught in the synagogues as he journeyed from place to place, Luke iv. 15, 44; Matt. iv. 28; ix. 35; John xviii. 20. 1 In accordance with this usage, the apostles also continued to frequent the synagogues of the Jews. Wherever they went they resorted to these places of worship, and sftove to convert their brethren to faith in Christ, not as a new re- ligion, but as a modification of their own. The freedom of synagogue-worship accorded to them everywhere a hearing. “ Men and brethren, if ye have any word of exhortation for the people, say on,” Acts xiii. 15. Thus, at Salamis, xiii. 5; at Iconium, xiv. 1 ; at Berea, xvii. 10; at Ephesus, xviii. 19, they reasoned in the synagogues with the Jews, preach- ing the gospel of Christ. In their own religious assemblies they also conformed, as far as was consistent with the spirit of the Christian religion, to the same rites, and gradually settled upon a church- organization which harmonized in a remarkable manner with that of the Jewish synagogue. They even retained the same name as the appellation of their Christian assem- blies. “ If there come into your assembly, ao'myajyr ^— if there come into your synagogue — a man with a gold ring,” etc, James ii. 2. Compare also ImaovayiDyryj, Heb. x. 25. 1 Comp., also Pliilo., II. 458, 630, cited in Hertzog’s Encyclop. 15, 311. MODEL OF THE PRIMITIVE CHURCHES. 39 Their modes of worship were substantially the same as those of the synagogue. The titles of their officers they also bor- rowed from the same source. The titles bishop, pastor, presbyter, etc., were familiar to them as synonymous terms denoting the same class of officers in the synagogue. Their duties and prerogatives remained in substance the same -in the Christian church as in that of the Jews. f"So great was this similarity between the primitive Chris- tian churches and the Jewish synagogues that by the Pa- gan nations they were mistaken for the same institutions. Pagan historians uniformly treated the primitive Christians as Jews . 2 As such they suffered under the persecutions of their idolatrous rulers. These, and many other particulars that might be mentioned, are sufficient to show that the ecclesiastical polity of the- Jewish synagogue was very closely copied by the apostles and primitive Christian! the organization of their assemblies. In support of the foregoing statements, authorities to any extent and of the highest character might easily be adduced. Let the following, however, suffice, from Neander: “The disciples had not yet attained a clear understanding ‘of that call, which Christ had already given them by so many in- timations, to form a church entirely separated from the ex- isting Jewish economy ; to that economy they adhered as much as possible ; all the forms of the national theocracy were sacred in their esteem ; it seemed the natural element of their religious consciousness, though a higher principle of life had been imparted, by which that consciousness was to be progressively inspired and transformed. As the be- lievers, in opposition to the mass of the Jewish nation who remained hardened in their unbelief, now formed a com- munity internally bound together by the one faith in Jesus 2 Vitringa, De Synagog. Yet., Prolegom. pp. 3, 4. 40 THE PRIMITIVE CHURCH. as the Messiah, and by the consciousness of the higher life received from him, it was necessary that this internal union should assume a certain external form. And a model for such a smaller community within the great national theoc- racy already existed among the Jews, along with the temple worship, namely, the synagogues . The means of religious edification which they supplied took account of the religious welfare of all, and consisted of united prayers and the ad- dresses of individuals who applied themselves to the study of the Old Testament. These means of edification closely corresponded to the nature of the new Christian worship. This form of social worship, as it was copied in all the re- ligious communities founded on Judaism (such as the Es- senes), was also adopted, to a certain extent, at the first formation of the Christian church. But it may be disputed whether the apostles, to whom Christ committed the chief direction of affairs, designed from the first that believers should form a society exactly on the model of the syna- gogue, and, in pursuance of this plan, instituted particular offices for the government of the church corresponding to that model ; or whether, without such a preconceived plan, distinct offices were appointed, as circumstances required, in doing which they would avail themselves of the model of the synagogue with which they were familiar .” 3 “ We are disposed to believe that the church was at first composed entirely of members standing on an equality with one another, and that the apostles alone held a higher rank, and exer- cised a directing influence over the whole, which arose from the original position in which Christ had placed them in relation to other believers ; so that the whole arrangement and administration of the affairs of the church proceeded from them, and they were first induced by particular cir- 3 Apost. Kirch. 3d edit. p. 31. Trans. I. 33. Comp. 179, 198. MODEL OF THE PRIMITIVE CHURCHES. 41 cumstances to appoint other church officers, as in the in- stance of deacons.” 4 To the same effect is also Neander’s account of this subject in his Church History, where he shows that this organization of Christian churches was the most natural under existing circumstances, and the most acceptable not only to Jewish converts, but to those who were gathered from the subjects of the Homan government . 5 If the reader require other authority on this subject, he has only to examine Yitringa, De Synagoga Vetere, especially his third book, to say nothing of Selden, Lightfoot and many others. Yitringa himself has fully sustained the bold title which he gives to his immortal work : “ Three books on the ancient Synagogue; in which it is demon- strated that the form of government and of the ministry in the synagogue was transferred to the Christian church.” These views are fully avowed by Archbishop Whately with his usual independence and candor. “ It is probable that one cause, humanly speaking, why we find in the Sa- cred Books less information concerning the Christian min- istry and the constitution of church-governments than we otherwise might have found, is that these institutions had less of novelty than some would at first sight suppose, and that many portions of them did not wholly originate with the apostles. It appears highly probable — I might say, morally certain — that, wherever a Jewish synagogue ex- isted, that was brought — the whole, or the chief part of it — to embrace the gospel, the apostles did not, there, so much form a Christian church (or congregation,* ecclesia ), as 4 P. 33. Comp. 195, seq. So, also, Rothe, Anfange, S. 146-148. 5 Kirchen. Gesch. I. S. 183-185. Trans. 184. * The word “ congregation ” as it stands in our version of the Old Testament (and it is one of very frequent occurrence in the Books of Moses), is found to correspond, in the Septuagint, which was familiar to the New Testament writers, to ecclesia; the word which, in our ver- 4 * 42 THE PRIMITIVE CHURCH. make an existing congregation Christian; by introducing the* Christian sacraments and worship, arid establishing whatever regulations were requisite for the newly-adopted faith ; leaving the machinery (if I may so speak) of gov- ernment unchanged; the “rulers of synagogues, elders and other officers (whether spiritual or ecclesiastical, or both) being already provided in the existing institutions. And it is likely that several of the earliest Christian churches did originate in this way ; that is, that they were converted synagogues ; which became Christian churches as soon as the members, or the main part of the members, acknowledged Jesus as the Messiah. “ The attempt to effect this con version of a Jewish syna- gogue into a Christian church seems always to have been made, in the first instance, in every place where there was an opening for it. Even after the call of the idolatrous Gentiles, it appears plainly to have been the practice of the apostles Paul and Barnabas, when they came to any city in which there was a synagogue, to go thither first and de- liver their sacred message to the Jews and ‘devout (or pros- elyte) Gentiles according to their own expression (Acts xiii. 17), to the ‘men of Israel and those that feared God adding, that ‘ it was necessary that the word of God should first be preached to them.’ And when they founded a church in any of those cities in which (and such were, probably, a very large majority) there was no Jewish syna- gogue that received the gospel, it is likely they would still conform, in a great measure, to the same 'model.” 6 “A Jewish synagogue or a collection of synagogues in the same neighborhood became at once a Christian church sion of these last, is always rendered not “congregation,” but “church” This, or its equivalent, “kirk,” is probably no other than “circle;’' i. e., assembly, ecclesia. 6 Kingdom of Christ, pp. 83-85. MODEL OF THE PRIMITIVE CHURCHES. 43 as soon as the worshipers or a considerable portion of them had embraced the gospel and had separated themselves from unbelievers.” 7 It is an admitted fact, as clearly settled as anything can be by human authority, that the primitive Christians, in the organization of their assemblies, formed them after the model of the Jewish synagogue. They discarded the splen- did ceremonials of the temple-service, and retained the sim- ple rites of the synagogue-worship. They disowned the hereditary aristocracy of the Levitical priesthood , 8 and adopted the popular government of the synagogue . 9 We are here presented with an important fact in the or- ganization of the primitive churches strongly illustrative of the popular character of their constitution and government. The synagogue was essentially a popular assembly, invested with the rights and possessing the powers which are essen- tial to the enjoyment of religious liberty. Their govern- ment was voluntary, elective, free, and administered by rulers or elders elected by the people. The ruler of the synagogue was the moderator of the college of elders, but only primus inter pares , holding no official rank above them . 10 The people, as Vitringa has shown , 11 appointed 7 Whately’s Hist, of Relig. Worship, p. 114. 8 The prelatical reference of the Christian ministry to the Levitical priesthood is a device of a later age, though it has been common from the time of Cyprian down to the present time. 9 Totum regimen ecclesiasticum conformatum fuit ad synagogarum exemplar. Hugo Grotius, Comment, ad Act. xi. 30. 10 Vitringa, De Vet. Syn. L. 3. c. 16. 11 Comp. Vitringa, De Synagoga, Lib. 3. P. 1. c. 15, pp. 828-863. hiihil actum absque ecclesia, [?. e., the synagogue] quae in publico consulta est, et quidem hac ipsa formula: pjro sive atjiog quam in vertere ecclesia in eligendis episcopis adhibitam meminimus, p. 829. In vita Josephi, . . . publica omnia ibi tractari videmua in syna- gogis, consulto populo, p. 832. 44 THE PRIMITIVE CHURCH. their own officers to rule over them. They exercised the natural right of freemen to enact and execute their. own laws, to admit proselytes, and to exclude, at pleasure, un- worthy members from their communion. Theirs was “a democratical form of government ,” and is so described by one of the most able expounders of the constitution of the primi- tive churches . 12 Like their prototype, therefore, the primi- tive churches also embodied the principle of a jpopular gov- ernment and of enlightened religious liberty. Before the Babylonish captivity, the Jews were perpetu- ally falling away into the prevailing idolatries of the age. The imposing ritual of the temple service failed to hold them fast in their allegiance to God. After their return from this captivity, synagogue worship was introduced, and, in time, became universal. In the age of Christ there were four hundred and sixty or four hundred and eighty synagogues in Jerusalem, and in like proportion in other cities. Here the Scriptures, divided into fifty-two lessons, were read every Sabbath day, so that the reading of the entire roll was completed every year. And by this reading of God’s Word the Jews have held fast, with remarkable tenacity, the faith of their fathers ; so that only by a mira- cle of sovereign grace is one of them converted to faith in Christ. Such is the power of divine truth to maintain the doctrines of our religion. The power of this truth, as pre- sented in the synagogues of the Jews above the ceremonials of the Mosaic ritual, in maintaining the steadfastness of their faith, is worthy of profound consideration. It illus- trates the inefficacy of ritualistic forms to defend the faith once delivered to the saints. 12 Rothe, Anfiinge cler Christ. Kirch. S. 14. CHAPTER III. INDEPENDENCE OF THE PRIMITIVE CHURCHES. The churches which were established by the apostles and their disciples exhibit a remarkable example of unanimity. One in faith and the fellowship of love, they were united in spirit as different members of one body, or as brethren of the same family . 1 This union and fellowship of spirit the apostles carefully promoted among all the churches. But they instituted no external form of union or confedera- tion between those of different towns or provinces; nor, within the first century of the Christian era, can any trace of such a confederacy, whether diocesan or conventional, be detected on the page of history. Wherever converts to Christianity were multiplied they formed themselves into a church, under the guidance of their religious teachers, for the enjoyment of Christian ordinances. But each individual church constituted an independent and separate community. The society was purely voluntary, and every church so con- stituted was strictly independent of all others in the conduct of its worship, the admission of its members, the exercise of its discipline, the choice of its officers and the entire man- agement of its affairs. They were independent republics. “ Each individual church which had a bishop or presbyter of its own assumed to itself the form and rights of a little distinct republic or commonwealth ; and with regard to its internal concerns was wholly regulated by a code of laws 1 1 Cor. xii. 12, 13; Eph. ii. 20; iv. 3. 45 46 THE PRIMITIVE CHURCH. that, if they did not originate with, had at least received the sanction of the people constituting such church. ” 2 Particular neighboring churches may for various reasons have sustained peculiar fraternal relations to each other. Local and other circumstances may, in time, have given rise to correspondence between churches more remote, or to mutual consultations by letter and by delegates, as in the instance of the churches at Antioch and Jerusalem, Acts xv., and of Corinth and Pome ; 3 but no established jurisdiction was exercised by one over the other. The church at Jerusalem, with the apostles and elders, addressed the church at Antioch, not in the language of authority, but of advice . Nor does ancient history, sacred or profane, relating to this early period, record an instance in which one church presumed to impose laws of its own upon another. “ On the contrary, several things occur therein which put it out of all doubt that every one of them enjoyed the same rights, and was considered as being on a footing of the most perfect equality with the rest. Indeed it cannot, I will not say be proved, but even be made to appear probable, from testimony human or divine, that in this age it was the prac- tice for several churches to enter into and maintain among themselves that sort of association which afterward came to subsist among the churches of almost every province. I allude to their assembling by their bishops, at stated peri- ods, for the purpose of enacting general laws and determin- ing any questions or controversies that might arise respect- ing divine matters. It is not until the second century that any traces of that sort of association from whence councils took their origin are to be perceived.” 4 2 Mosheim, De Rebus Christ., Saec. 11. § 22. Comp. Peander, All- gemein. Gesch., I. 291, 2. Trans, p. 184. 3 See Epistle of Clement of Rome to the Corinthians. 4 De Rebus Christ., Saec. I. $ 48. INDEPENDENCE OF THE CHURCHES. 47 Indications of this original independence are distinctly manifest even after the rise of episcopacy. Every bishop had the right to form his own liturgy and creed, and to set- tle at pleasure his own time and mode of celebrating the religious festivals . 5 Cyprian strongly asserts the right of every bishop to make laws for his own church. Socrates assigns this original independence of the bishops as the prin- cipal cause of the endless controversies in the church re- specting the observance of Easter and other festivals . 6 But we need not enlarge. Nothing in the history of the primitive churches is more incontrovertible than the fact of their absolute independence one of another. It is attested by the highest historical authorities, and appears to be gen- erally conceded by episcopal authors themselves. “ At first,” says the learned Dr. Barrow, “ every church was settled apart under its own bishop and presbyters, so as independently and separately to manage its own concerns. Each was governed by its own head and had its own laws.” 7 “ The apostles or their representatives exercised a general superintendence over the churches by divine authority, at- tested by miraculous gifts. The subordinate government of each particular church was vested in itself; that is to say, the whole body elected its ministers and officers, and was consulted concerning all matters of importance. All churches were independent of each other, but were united by the bonds of holy charity, sympathy and friendship.” 8 Similar views are also expressed by Archbishop Whately : “ Though there was one Lord, one faith, one baptism, for all of these, yet they were each a distinct, independent com- 5 Greiling, Apostol. Christengemeine, S. 16. 6 Eccles. Hist. Lib. 5, c. 22. 7 Treatise on Pope’s Supremacy, Works, Vol. I. p. 662. Comp. King’s Prim. Christ, c. 12, p. 14, also 136. 8 Riddle’s Chronology, Beginning of Second Century. 48 THE PRIMITIVE CHURCH. munity on earth, united by the common principles on which they were founded by their mutual agreement, affection and respect ; but not having any one recognized head on earth, or acknowledging any sovereignty of one of those societies over others .” 9 “ The apostles founded Christian communities, churches, all based on the same principles and having the same object in view, but quite independent of each other, and having no common head on earth. “ Besides the several churches in Judea, in Galilee, in Samaria and elsewhere, we find the apostle Paul himself founding many distinct churches, both in Asia and in Eu- rope. And it does not appear that these have any com- mon head on earth except himself ; nor that he appointed any one to succeed him in having the care of all the churches.” 10 Now what, according to these episcopal con- cessions, was the bishop at first, but the pastor of a single church, a parochial bishop , exercising only the jurisdiction and enjoying the rights of an independent pastor of a church ? But more of this hereafter. Several of the ancient churches firmly asserted and main- tained their original religious liberty by refusing to acknow- ledge the authority of the ancient councils for a long time after the greater part of the churches had subjected them- selves to the authority of these confederacies. The church in Africa, for example, and some of the Eastern churches, although they adopted the custom of holding councils, and were in correspondence with these churches, declined enter- ing into any grand Christian confederation with them ; and continued for some time inflexibly tenacious of their own just liberty and independence. This their example is an effectual refutation of those who pretend that these councils were divinely appointed and had 9 jure divino , authority over 9 Kingdom of Christ. N. Y. 1842 ; p. 110, 136. 10 Wiiately’s Hist, of Relig. Worship, pp. 101-2. INDEPENDENCE OF THE CHURCHES. 49 the churches. Who can suppose that these churches would have asserted their independence so sternly against an in- stitution appointed by our Lord or his apostles ? 11 The early independence of the churches, then, is conceded even by Episcopalians themselves. It has both the sanction of apostolic precedent and the concurring authority of ec- clesiastical writers, ancient and modern. This is a point strongly illustrative of the religious freedom which was the basis of their original polity. This independence of par- ticular churches is the great central principle, the original element, of their popular constitution and government. It vests the authority and power of each church in its own members collectively. It guards their rights. It guaran- tees to them the elective franchise, and ensures to them the enjoyment of religious liberty under a government admin- istered by the voice of the majority or delegated at pleasure to their representatives. The constitution of the churches and their mutual relations may not have been precisely Congregational or Presbyterian, but they involved the principles of the religious freedom and the popular rights which both are designed to protect. 11 Even the council of Nice, in treating of the authority of the me- tropolitan bishops of Rome, Antioch and Alexandria, rests the dignity and authority of these prelates not on any divine right , but solely on ancient usage. T a apxaia edy KpaTeiro , etc., kir eidy nal tc 5 kv ry 'Vupy kmanSTTG) ovvydkg kanv, Can. 6. Comp. Du Pin, Antiq. Eccl. Disci- pline Diss. 1. \ 7. Mosheim, De Rebus Christ., Saec. II. \ 23, Note. b C CHAPTER IV. ELECTIONS BY THE CHUKCH. The right of suffrage is the first requsite of civil and re- ligious liberty. Without it, in church 01 state, man is a serf, a vassal, a slave, restrained in the enjoyment of his inalienable rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happi- ness. This right, early abridged and finally usurped and destroyed by the hierarchy, was from the beginning en- joyed in the Christian church. The first public act of this body was a formal recognition and a legitimate exercise of this right. First in importance among their popular rights, they maintained it with greater constancy than any other against the usurpations of prelatical power, and resigned it last of all into the hands of their spiritual oppressors. The subject of the following chapter leads us to consider, I. The evidence that the right of suffrage was enjoyed by the primitive church. II. The time and means of the extinction of this right. I. The members of the primitive church enjoyed the right of electing, by a popular vote, their own officers and teach- ers. The evidence in support of this position is derived from the writings of the apostles and of the early fathers. In the former we have on record instances of the election of an apostle, and of deacons, delegates and presbyters of 50 EJECTIONS by the church. 51 the church, each by a popular vote of that body. From the latter we learn that the church continued for several centuries subsequent to the age of the apostles in the enjoy- ment of the elective franchise. 1. The scriptural argument, from the writings of the apostles. (a) The election of an apostle. The first public act of the church after our Lord’s ascen- sion was the choice of a substitute, in the place of the apostate apostle, Judas. This election was made, not by the apostles themselves, but by the joint action of the whole body of believers. If, in any instance, the apostles had the right, by their own independent authority, to invest another with the ministerial office, we might expect them to exercise that prerogative in supplying this vacancy in their own body. That right, however, they virtually disclaimed, by submitting the election to the arbitration of the assembled body of believers. The election was the act of the assem- bly, and was made either by casting lots or by an elective vote. Mosheim understands the phrase, edwxav xX-rjpouq aurajv, to express the casting of a popular vote by the Chris- tians. To express the casting of lots, according to this author, the verb should have been eftaXov, as in Matt, xxvii. 35; Luke xxiii. 34; John xix. 24; Mark xv. 24. Comp. Septuagint, Ps. xxii. 19; Joel iii. 3; Nah. iii. 10, which also accords with the usage of Homer in similar cases. 1 But the phrase, sdtoxav xXyjpoc, according to this author, expresses the casting of a popular vote ; the term, xX^poq, being used in the sense of (py] 9 solved by the senate and people of Athens to choose, £Xi\r&cu, five of the people to go on an embassy, which embassadors, thus chosen, yeipordvrpHvTec;, shall depart, etc. The people, 6 dijiioq choosing atpoupevoq, a commissary, elected me, ipk izeipozbvyjffav, § 249. Again, § 285, the people, 6 dijioq, choosing, yetpozov&v, an orator, to pronounce a funeral oration over the dead bodies of those who fell at Chaeronaea, elected, — not you, ou ixeipozoviqffe ; but chose me, £xeipoz6\rr) ipi. In the same sense the term is frequently used by other Greek authors. Robinson translates it, to choose by vote , to appoint . Sui- das also renders it by ixXegdpevm, having chosen. Such is the concurring authority of lexicographers. (/3) This rendering is sustained by the common use of the term by early Christian writers. The brother who accom- panied Paul in his agency to make charitable collections for the suffering Jews in Judea, was chosen of the churches for this service, where the same word is used, yetpozoyrp%iq m ind tojv sxxXr) proved commentators, is the full meaning of the phrase, 7 zapadouvat no Zarava. The wofld, in the angelology of the Jews, and agreeably to the Scriptures, comprises two great divisions: the kingdom of Christ and the kingdom of Satan. By this sentence of excommunication, the incestuous per- son is transferred from the visible kingdom of our Lord to the dominion of Satan, and in this sense delivered unto him. (c) The ultimate object of this discipline ivas the reformation of the offender ; the destruction of the flesh, that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus. It was not a penance , an arbitrary, prelatical infliction of pains and pen- alties, but a disciplinary process for the spiritual benefit of the individual. (d) It is questionable , perhaps , whether the sentence was accompanied with the judicial infliction of any disease what- ever. Many of the most respectable commentators under- stand by the delivering “ to Satan for the destruction of the 5 Bilrotli, Comment, ad locum. 92 THE PRIMITIVE CHURCH. flesh” the visitation of some wasting malady. The phrase- ology doubtless admits of such a construction, and the lan- guage of the apostle on other occasions seems to favor it. Comp. 1 Cor. xi. 30 ; 1 Tim. i. 20. But the consequences of this excommunication were of themselves sufficient, it may be, to justify this strong expression, the destruction of the flesh. To the Jews, under the old dispensation, and to primitive Christians under the new, the sentence of excom- munication was no light matter. It was a withering curse, a civil death. It involved a total exclusion from kindred, from society, from all those charities of life which Chris- tians were wont to reciprocate even with the heathen. 6 This construction, again, is given to the passage by com- mentators of high authority. But is any bodily disease intended? Flesh, sed, touched with a sense of their guilt, pleaded for an abate- ment of the rigor of these austerities, and an earlier and easier return to the communion of the church. To this course a party in the church were, for various reasons, strongly inclined ; and some were actually restored in the absence of the bishop. This irregularity was severely cen- sured by Cyprian, who often recognizes the right of the people to be a party in the deliberations and decisions re- specting them. The clergy who had favored this abuse, he says, “ shall give an account of what they have done, to me, to the confessors , 27 and to the whole church.” 29. In a letter, addressed to the church, he says, “ When the Lord shall have restored peace unto us all, and we shall all have returned to the church again, we shall then examine all these things, you also being present and judging of them.” In the conclusion of the same epistle he adds, “ I desire then that they would patiently hear our counsel and wait for our return, that then, when many of us bishops shall have met together, we may examine the certificates and desires of the blessed martyrs, according to the discipline of the Lord, in the presence of the confessors, and according to your will .” 29 27 u It was the privilege of the confessors, that is, of persons who had suffered torture, or received sentence of death, to give to any of the lapsed a written paper, termed a letter of peace ; and the bearer was entitled to a remission of some part of the ecclesiastical discipline.” — Burton’s History of the Church , chap. 15. 28 Acturi et apud nos et apud confessores ipsos et apicd plebem uni - versam causam suam, cum, Domino permittente, in sinum matris eccle- siae recolligi coeperimus. — Ep. 10, al. 9. 29 Cum, pace nobis omnibus a Domino prius data, ad ecclesiam re- gredi coeperimus, tunc examinabuntur singula, praesentibus et judican- tibusvobis. — Audiant quaeso, patientur consilium nostrum, expectent regressionem nostram ; ut cum ad vos, per Dei misericordiam, veneri- 102 THE PRIMITIVE CHURCH. In his epistle to his people at Carthage, in which he la- ments the schism of Felicissimus, he assures them that on his return, he with his colleagues will dispose of the case agreeably to the will of his people, and the mutual council of both clergy and people . 30 The two offending sub-deacons and acolytes, he declares, shall be tried, not only in the presence of his colleagues, but before the whole people . 31 The above and other similar passages are often cited in evidence of the agency which the people still continued, in the mid- dle of the third century, to exert in the administration of ecclesiastical censure . 32 Will any one presume to say, that in refusing to decide upon any case, or to exercise any au- thority, Cyprian only condescends kindly to regard the will of the people, without acknowledging their right to be con- sulted? We ask in reply, Is this the language and spirit of prelacy ? Under such instructions as those of Cyprian, the church would learn but slowly the doctrine of passive obedience. Enough has been said to illustrate the usage of the church at Carthage. Between this church and that at Rome, under Cornelius, there was, at this time, the greatest harmony of sentiment in relation to the discipline of the church. And, from the correspondence between the churches, which is recorded in the works of Cyprian, there is conclu- mus, convocati episcopi plures secundum Domini disciplinam, et con- fessorum, praesentiam et vestram quoque sententiam martyrum litteras et desideria examinare possimus. — Ep. 12, al. 11. 30 Cum collegis meis, quibus praesentibus, secundum arbitrium quoque vestrum et omnium nostrum commune consilium, sicut semel placuit ea quae agenda sunt disponere pariter et limare poterimus. — Ep. 40. 31 Non tan turn cum collegis meis, sed cum plebe ipsa universa. — Ep. 34, al. 28. Crimina — publice a nobis et plebe cognoscerentur. — - Ep. 44, al. 41. 32 Comp. Daille, Right Use of the Fathers, B. 2, c. 6, pp. 328-330. DISCIPLINE BY THE CHUECHES. 103 sive evidence that their polity was the same. This is so clearly asserted by Du Pin, that I shall dismiss this point by citing his authority. After making the extract, from Tertullian, which has been given above, and others from Cyprian, similar to those which have already been cited, he adds, “ From whence it is plain, that both in Rome and at Carthage, no one could be expelled from the church, or restored again, except with the consent of the people.” This, according to the same author, was in conformity with apostolical precedent in the case of the incestuous person at Corinth. 33 Origen, again, of Caesarea in Palestine, speaks of the conviction of an offender before the whole church, c7rl n ao?^ ryjq kxxAvjotas, as the customary mode of trial. 34 With the authority of Origen we may join that of Chrysostom at Constantinople. In commenting upon 1 Cor. v. 3-5, he represents the complaint of the apostle to be that the Corin- thians had not put away that wicked person from among them ; “ showing that this ought to be done without their teacher ” 35 and that the apostle associates them with him- self, “ that his own authority might not seem to be too great ” in the transaction. Theodoret also expresses much the same sentiments upon the passage under consideration. 36 These authorities are derived both from the Eastern and 33 He Anti qua Diseiplina, Diss. 3, pp. 248, 249. 34 II pog de to doKovv on?iypbv n pog rovg tol eXarrova r/pap-rjKOTag, elrroc Tig av otl ovk eg eon dig e^rjg prj anovoavra , to rplrov anovccu d>g did tovto prjKETi elvai 6 tg e'&vlkov Kal Tekdivrjv, rj prjKETL derj'&fjvaL tov ettl izdorjg rfjg kKKlrjolag. — Comment , in Matt., Tom. 13, p. 612. Comp. 613. 35 A eutvvg otl de x^P^ T °v didaonaXov to yeveo&ai edei Iva fir] do^rj irolTiy elr rj av&evrla . — Horn. 15, ad 1 Cor., Tom. 10, p. 126. 36 Theodoret, Comment, ad locum, Opera, Tom. 10, p. 141. Comp. Blondell, De jure plebis in regimine ecclesiastico, where many other authorities are given. Comp, especially the masterly discussions of J. II. Bohmer, XII. Dissertationies Juris Ecclesiastici Antiqui. 104 THE PRIMITIVE CHURCH. the Western churches. As ancient expositions of the apos- tolical rule, and as examples of the usage of the churches in the ages immediately succeeding that of the apostles, they indicate that throughout this period ecclesiastical discipline was administered in accordance with the will of the people, and by their decision. The bishop and clergy, instead of holding in their own grasp the keys of the kingdom of heaven, co-operated with the church in its deliberations; and acted as the official organ of the assembly in executing its decisions. Neither was the ban of the church wielded in terror, as it has often been by an arbitrary priesthood to accomplish their own sinister ends. The penitent was restored, also, in the spirit of kindness and Christian forgiveness, by the j oint consent of the same body which had originally excluded him from its com- munion. This point deserves distinct consideration, as another in- dication of the religious liberty enjoyed by the church. Paul submitted to the church at Corinth the restoration of the offender whom they had excluded from their com- munion. Tertullian makes it the duty of the penitent to cast himself at the feet of the clergy, and kneeling .at the altar of God, to seek the pardon and intercessions of alt the brethren , 37 Cyprian, in the passage cited above, declares, that the lapsed, who had been excluded from the church, must make their defence before all the people, apud plebem universam . “ It was ordained by an African synod, in the third century, that, except in danger of death, or of a sud- den persecution, none should be received unto the peace of the church, without the knowledge and consent of the people .” 38 37 Presbyteris advolvi, et caris [aris] Dei adgeniculari omnibus fratribus legationes deprecationis suae injungere . — De Poenitentia , c. 9. 38 Cyprian, Epist. 59. The same fact is also asserted by Du Pin, in die passage quoted above. DISCIPLINE BY THE CHURCHES. 105 Natalius, at Rome, in the first part of the third century, threw himself at the feet of the clergy and laity , and so be- wailed his faults that the church was moved with comjjassion for him , and with much difficulty he was received into its communion. 39 The same is related of one of the bishops, who was restored to the church at Rome, under Cornelius, to lay communion, “ through the mediation of all the people then present ” 40 Serapion, at Antioch, was also refused ad- mission to that church, no one giving attention to him ” 41 At Rome, then, in Africa, in Asia, and universally, the penitent was restored to Christian communion by the authority of the church from which he had been expelled. If it were necessary to adduce further evidence in vindi- cation of the right of the people to administer the discipline of the church, it might be drawn from the acknowledged fact that the people, down to the third or fourth century, retained, and not unfrequently exercised, the right even of deposing from the ministry. The controversy of the people of Corinth with their pastors, as indicated in the epistle of Clement, has been already mentioned ; and the case of Va- lens deposed from the ministry by the church at Philippi. To these may be added the instances of Martialis and Basi- lides, bishops of Leon and Astorga in Spain, who were de- posed for idolatry. From this sentence they appealed to several bishops in Africa. These, after hearing the case in common council, A. D. 258, affirmed the act of the people. The result of their deliberations was communicated by Cyp- rian, from which decision the extract below is taken, in which he fully accords to the people the right both to choose the worthy and depose the unworthy: eligendi dig - 39 Euseb. Eccl. Hist. Lib. 5, c. 28. 40 Euseb. Eccl. Hist. Lib. 6, c. 43. 41 Euseb. Eccl. Hist. Lib. 6, c. 44. 106 THE PRIMITIVE CHURCH. nos sacerdotes et indignos recusandV 2 Cyprian, the father of old Catholic high-church episcopalianism, most explicitly declares that the church is superior to the bishops, super episeopos ; the supreme power is vested in them — in all that are in good and regular standing , omnibus stantibus , all who have not apostatized. The bishop only acts as the moderator of the church. “ Many other such like passages are found in that Synodical Epistle, which flatly asserts the people’s power to depose a wicked and scandalous bishop.” 43 And again, by Dr. Barrow, of the Episcopal Church : “No man can be bound to follow any one into the ditch, or to obey any one in prejudice to his own salvation. If any pastor should teach bad doctrine or prescribe bad practice, his people may reject and disobey him.” 44 From these censures of a popular assembly an appeal would be made, as in the case before us, to a synodical council or to the neighboring bishops. For this reason they are sometimes represented as the ecclesiastical court for the trial of the clergy. Such they were at a subsequent period ; but in the primitive church it was, as appears from the foregoing authorities, the right of the church to exercise her discipline over both laity and clergy. The greater in- cludes the less. The right to depose a scandalous bishop 42 See p. 64, note. Mosheim, De Rebus. Cent. III. $ 23. 43 King’s Prim. Chris. P. 1, c. 6. Inde per temporum et succession- um vices episcoporum ordinatio et ecclesiae ratio decurrit ut ecdesia super episeopos constituatur et omnis actus ecclesiae per eosdem prae- positos gubernetur. Cum hoc itaque lege divina fundatum sit, miror quosdam, audaci temeritate, sic mihi scribere voluisse ut ecclesiae nomine literas facerent, quando ecclesia in episcopo et clero et in om- nibus stantibus [/’. e., who had not apostatized] sit constituta. — Ep. 33, al. 27. Comp. Bingham, Book 16, c. 1 ; Neander, Allgem. Kirch. Gesch. 11, S. 341 ; Tr. I. p. 200. <4 Barrow’s Works, Vol. I. p. 744. Comp, also Pertsch, Kirch. Hist. I. S. 370. Mosheim, Can. Recht, p. 60. DISCIPLINE BY THE CHURCHES. 107 of necessity supposes the right to expel from their commu- nion an unworthy member of humbler rank. The conclu- sion is irresistible, that, as in the highest act of ecclesiastical censure, so in smaller offences, the -discipline of the church was conducted with the strictest regard to the rights and privileges of its members. 3. Argument from the authority of modern ecclesiastical writers. Authority is not argument, but to some minds it is more satisfactory than argument. The opinion of those who have made ecclesiastical history the study of their lives is worthy of our regard. The concurring opinion of many such be- comes a valid reason for our belief. What then is their authority ? Valesius, the learned commentator on Eusebius, says that “ the people’s suffrages were required when any one was to be received into the church who for any fault had been ex- communicated.” 45 This is said in relation to the usage of the church in the third century. The authority of Du Pin, the distinguished historian of the Roman Catholic communion, whose opinion upon this point is worthy of all confidence, is to the same effect : that the discipline of the church continued, in the third century , to be administered by the church as it had been from the beginning. 46 Simonis, profoundly learned on all points relating to ec- clesiastical usage, declares that “ this church discipline was so administered that not only the clergy, especially the bishops, and in important cases a council of them, but also the church , in every case , gave their decision and approba- tion, in order that nothing might be done through preju- 45 Eccl. Hist. Lib. 6, 44. Com. Lib. 5, 28. 46 Antiqua Disciplina, Diss. 3, c. 1. 108 THE PRIMITIVE CHURCH. dice and private interest by being submitted to the clergy and bishops alone.” 47 Baumgarten ascribes to the church alone the entire con- trol of ecclesiastical censures, from the earliest periods of its history down to the time of Cyprian, when he supposes each case to have been first adjudicated by the church, and afterward by the clergy and bishop . 48 Mosheim is full and explicit upon the same point. He not only ascribes to the church the power of enacting their own laws and choosing their own officers, but of excluding and receiving such as were the subjects of discipline, malos et degeneros et excludendi et recipiendi , 49 Planck asserts that., so late as the middle of the third century, the members of the church still exercised their original right of controlling the proceedings of the church, both in the exclusion of offenders and in the restitution of penitents . 50 Guerike also states that, in the third century, the duty of excluding from the church and of restoring to her com- munion still devolved upon the laity . 51 The views of Neander are sufficiently apparent from quo- tations which have already been made in the progress of this work. More thoroughly conversant with the writings of the fathers, and more profoundly skilled in the govern- ment and history of the church, than any in his age, he not only ascribes the discipline of offenders originally to the deliberate action of the church, but states, moreover, that 47 Vorlesungen liber Christ. Alterthum, S. 426. 48 Erlauterungen, Christ. Alterthum, \ 122. Comp, also g 36, and S. 85. 49 De Rebus Christ., Saec. Prim. § 45. 60 Gesell. Verfass. 1, S. 180, 508. Comp. S. 129-140, and Fuchs, Bibliothek, 1, S. 43, seq. 61 Kirch. Gesch. S. 94, 100, 101, 2d edit. DISCIPLINE BY THE CHURCHES. 109 the right of controlling this discipline was retained by the laity in the middle of the third century, after the rise of the episcopal power and the consequent change in the gov- ernment of the church. “ The participation of the laity in the concerns of the church was not yet altogether excluded. One of these concerns was the restoration of the lapsed to the communion of the church. The examination which was instituted in connection with this restoration was also held before the whole church.” 52 These authorities might be extended almost indefinitely ; but enough have been cited to show that, in the opinion of those who are most competent to decide, the sacred right of directing the discipline of the church was, from the begin- ning, exercised by the whole body of believers belonging to the community ; and that they continued, in the third cen- tury, to exercise the same prerogative. 4. Argument from the fact that the entire government of the church was under the control of its members. Government by the people characterized the whole eccle- siastical polity of the primitive church. The members of the church, unitedly, enacted their own laws, elected their own officers, established their own judicature, and managed all their affairs by their mutual suffrages. “ With them resided the power of enacting laws, as also of adopting or rejecting whatever might be proposed in the general assem- blies, and of expelling and again receiving into communion any depraved or unworthy members. In a word, nothing whatever of any moment could be determined on or carried into effect without their knowledge and concurrence.” 53 On this point, again, we must be permitted to adduce the authority of Neander. After showing at length that, agree- 52 Allgem. Kirch. Gesch. 1, S. 342, 2d edit. Tr. I. p. 200. 53 Mosheim, De Rebus Christ., Saec. 1, § 45. 10 110 THE PRIMITIVE CHURCH. ably to the spirit of the primitive church, all were regarded as different organs and members of one body, and actuated by one and the same spirit, he adds : “ But from the nature of the religious life and of the Christian fellowship, it was hardly possible that the controlling influence should natu- rally have been entrusted to the hands of a single individ- ual. The monarchical form of government was not at all con - sistent with the spirit of the Christian community ” 64 Riddle gives the following sketch of the constitution and government of the church as it existed at the close of the first and at the beginning of the second century. “ The subordinate government, etc., of each particular church was vested in itself ; that is to say, the whole body elected its minister and officers, and was consulted concerning all mat- ters of importance.” 55 Even the “ judicious” Hooker, the great expounder of the ecclesiastical polity of the Episcopal Church, distinctly declares that “ the general consent of all ” is requisite for the ratification of the laws of the church. “Laws could they never be without the consent of the whole church to be guided by them ; whereunto both nature and the prac- tice of the church of God set down in the Scripture is found so consonant that God himself would not impose his own laws upon his people by the hands of Moses without their free and open consent.” 56 From all these authorities, in connection with what has already been said in the former part of this work, the popu- lar administration of the government is an undeniable con- clusion. Even the minute concerns of the church were sub- mitted to the direction of the popular voice. Is a delegate to be sent out? He goes, not' as the servant of the bishop, 54 Allgem. Gesch. 1, S. 312, 2d edit. Tr. I. p. 183. 55 Chronology, p. 13. 56 Ecclesiastical Polity, B. VIII. DISCIPLINE BY THE CHUBCHES. Ill but as the representative of the church, chosen to this ser- vice by public vote . 57 Is a letter missive to be issued from one church to another? It is done in the name of the church ; and, when received, is publicly read . 58 In short, nothing is done without the consent of the church. Even Cyprian, the great advocate for episcopal authority in the middle of the third century, protests to his clergy that, “ from his first coming to his bishopric, he had ever resolved to do nothing according to his own private will without the advice of the clergy and the approbation of the people.” 59 The point now under consideration is very clearly pre- sented by an old English writer of Cambridge, in England, whose work on Primitive Episcopacy evinces such a familiar acquaintance with the early history of the church as entitles his conclusions to great respect. “ In the apostles’ times, and divers ages after, all the people, under the inspection of one bishop, were wont to meet together, not only for wor- ship, but for other administrations. All public acts passed at assemblies of the whole people. They were consulted with, their concurrence was thought necessary, and their presence required, that nothing might pass without their •cognizance, satisfaction and consent. This was observed 57 Ignatius, ad. Phil. c. 10. 58 The letters of Clement and Polycarp were written by the authority of the respective churches. Comp. Euseb. Eccl. Hist. 4, c. 15 ; 5, c. 1, and c. 24. With the epistle of Clement, five delegates were sent also from the church at Rome to that at Corinth, to attempt to recon- cile the dissensions in the latter church, \ 59. 69 Ad id vero quod scripserunt mihi compresbyteri nostri, Donatus et Fortunatus, Novatus et Gordius, solus rescribere nihil potui; quan- do a primordio episcopal us mei statuerim nihil sine consilio vestro, et sine consensu plebis meae privatim sententia gerere ; sed cum ad vos per Dei gratiam venero, tunc de eis quae vel gesta sunt, vel gerenda sicut honor mutuus poscit in commune tractabimus. — Cyprian , Ep. 5. Comp. Ep. 3, 55. Daille on the Fathers , p. 330. London. 112 THE PRIMITIVE CHURCH. not only in elections of officers, but in ordinations and cen- sures, in admission of members and reconciling penitents, and in debates and consultations about other emergencies. There is such evidence of this, particularly in Cyprian, almost in every one of his epistles, that it is acknowledged by modern writers of all sorts, such as are most learned and best acquainted with antiquity.” 60 If then the sanction of the church was sought in the mi- nutest matters, transactions of such solemnity as those of expelling the guilty and of restoring the penitent must have been submitted to their direction. Was a Christian saluta- tion to a sister church communicated by public authority, commending a faithful brother to communion and fellow- ship, and had they no voice in rejecting a fallen and repro- bate member from their own communion? Was the sanc- tion of the whole body requisite before one from another church could be received to their communion, and had they no voice in restoring the penitent who returned confessing his sins and entreating the enjoyment of the same privi- leges ? All this fully accords with the usage of the apostolical churches, and is a continuation of the same policy, Whether deacons are to be appointed, or an apostle or presbyters chosen, it is done by vote of the church. A case for discipline occurs ; it is submitted to the church. A dis- sension arises, Acts xv ; this also is referred to the church. The decision is made up as seemeth good to the whole church. The result is communicated by the apostles, the elders and the brethren jointly. The brethren of the church have a part in all ecclesiastical concerns; nothing is transacted without their approbation and consent. The sovereign 60 Clarkson’s Primitive Episcopacy, Works, p. 236. The authority of the Magdeburg Centuriators is also to the same effect. Comp. Chap. 7, Cent. II. and III. DISCIPLINE OF THE CHURCHES. 113 power is vested in the people. They are constituted by the apostles themselves the guardians of the church, hold- ing in their hands the keys of the kingdom, to open and to shut, to bind and to loose at their discretion. Neither Peter nor any apostle, nor bishop, nor presbyter, but each and every disciple of Christ, is the rock on which he would build his church. Such is Origen’s interpretation of the passage in Matt. xvi. 18 : “ Every disciple of Christ is that rock, and upon all such the whole doctrine of the church and of its corresponding polity is built. If you suppose it to be built upon Peter alone, what say you of John, that soi* of thunder? and of each of the apostles? Will you presume to say that the gates of hell will prevail against the other apostles and against all the saints, but not against Peter? Pather is not this and that other declaration, 4 On this rock I will build my church/ applicable to each and every one alike T 9 61 Such are the arguments which we offer in defence of the proposition, that any body of believers, associated together for the enjoyment of religious rights and privileges, was also originally an ecclesiastical court, for the trial of offences. 62 This is asserted by the great Du Pin, of the Poman Catho- lic Church. It is admitted by respectable authorities, King Cave, Piddle, etc., of the Episcopal Church. It is generally acknowledged by Protestants of other religious denomina- tions. It is implied or asserted in various passages from the early fathers. They speak of it, not as a controverted point, but as an admitted principle. The sanction of the 61 Comment, in Matt. Tom. 3, p. 524. 62 It was a doctrine of Tertullian, that where three are assembled together in the name of Christ, there they constitute a church, though only belonging to the laity. Three were sufficient for this purpose. Ubi tres, ecclesia est, licet laici. — Exhort, ad Castitat. c. 7, 522. De Fuga, c. 14. 114 THE PRIMITIVE CHURCH. members of the primitive church was sought in all the less important concerns of the church. They controlled, also, the highest acts of ecclesiastical censure, and frequently exercised their right of deposing those of their own pastors and bishops who proved themselves unworthy of the sacred office. And, finally, the church was from the beginning authorized and instructed by the apostle Paul to adminis- ter discipline to an offending member. With the approba- tion of the great apostle, they pronounced upon the trans- gressor the sentence of excommunication, and again, on receiving satisfactory evidence of penitence, restored him to their communion and fellowship. With the question of expediency, in all this, we have now no concern. If any prefer the episcopal system of church government to one more free and popular, we shall not here dispute their right to submit themselves to the control of the diocesan. But when they assert that the exercise of such authority belongs to him by the divine right of episcopacy, we rest assured that they have begun to teach for doctrine the commandments of men. From the beginning it was not so. “ Full well ye reject the com- mandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition.” MODE OF ADMISSION. This was at first extremely simple ; consisting only in the profession of faith in Christ, and baptism. The churches, however, at an early period, learned the necessity of exer- cising greater caution in receiving men into their com- munion. Taught by their own bitter experience, they be- gan to require, in the candidate for admission to their communion, a competent acquaintance with religious truth, and a trial of his character for a considerable space of time. From undue laxness they passed into the opposite extreme DISCIPLINE OF THE CHUPCIIES. 115 of excessive rigor, in prescribing rules and qualifiations for communion. These austerities gave rise to the order of catechumens toward the close of the second century, and to a long train of formalities preliminary to a union with the church. In immediate connection with these rites, and as a part of the same discipline, began the system of penance in the treatment of the lapsed — persons who had incurred the cen- sure of the church. By this their return to the church was rendered even more difficult than had been their original entrance. The system was rapidly developed. In the course of the third century it was brought into full opera- tion, while the people still retained much influence over the penal inflictions of the church upon^transgressors . 63 But it is not our purpose to treat upon this subject. The system is described at length in the author’s Ancient Christianity, chap, xxii., to which the reader is referred for information in relation to the offences which were the subject of disci- pline, the penalties inflicted and the manner of restoring penitents. The entire regimen, however, passed, in process of time, from the hands of the people into those of the clergy, espe- cially of the bishops. It was lost in the general extinction of the rights and privileges of the church, and the over- throw of its primitive apostolical constitution ; upon the ruins of which was reared the episcopal hierarchy, first in the form of an “ ambitious oligarchy,” and then, of a tyran- nical despotism. II. Usurpation of discipline by the priesthood. In the fourth century, the clergy, by a discipline peculiar to themselves, and applicable only to persons belonging to 63 Planck, Gesellschafts-Verfass. 1, S. 129-140. Fuchs, Bibliotliek, 1, S. 43, 44, 45-50, 403. 116 THE PRIMITIVE CHURCH. their order, found means of relieving themselves from the penalties of the protracted penance which was exacted of those who fell under the censure of the church. Suspension and the lesser excommunication or degradation, and the like, were substituted as the penalties of the clergy, instead of the rigorous penance of the laity. And though in some respects it was claimed that the discipline of the clergy was more severe than that of the laity, the practical effect of this discrimination was to separate the clergy from the laity, and to bring the latter more completely under the power of the priesthood . 64 It was at once the occasion of intolerance in the one, and of oppression to the other. The confederation of the churches in synods and councils had also much influencp in producing the same result. In these conventions, laws and regulations were enacted for the government and discipline of the churches of the pro- vince. And though the churches', severally, still retained the right of regulating their own polity as circumstances might require, they seldom claimed the exercise of their prerogative. The law-making power was transferred, in a great degree, from the people to the provincial synods, where again the authority of the people was lost in the overpowering influence of bishops and clergy. These claimed at first only to act as the representatives of their respective churches, by authority delegated to them by their constituents . 65 But they soon assumed a loftier tone. 64 Planck, Gesellschafts-Verfass. 1, S. 342-346. Comp. c. 8, S. 125-141. 65 Tertullian describes such assemblies as bodies representative of the whole Christian church. Ipsa repraesentatio totius nominis Chris- tian ! — De Jejun. c. 13, p. 552. In the infancy, indeed, of councils, the bishops acknowledged that they appeared there merely as the ministers or legates of their respec- tive churches, and were, in fact, nothing more than representatives acting under instructions ; but this humble language began, by little DISCIPLINE OF THE CHURCHES. 117 Claiming for themselves the guidance of the Spirit of God, they professed to speak and act according to the teachings of this divine agent. Their decisions, therefore, instead of being the judgment of ignorant and erring men, were the dictates of unerring wisdom. And the people, in exchange for the government which they had been accustomed to ex- ercise for themselves, were provided with an administration which claimed to be directed by wisdom from above . 06 Taught thus and disciplined in that great lesson of bigotry and spiritual despotism , — -passive submission to persons or- dained of God for the good of the church , — they were pre- pared to resign their original rights and privileges into the hands of the hierarchy. There is the fullest evidence that the action of the laity was requisite, as late as the middle of the third century, in all disciplinary proceedings of the church. By the begin- ning of the fourth, however, this cardinal right was greatly abridged ; and soon after, wholly lost. This fact strongly illustrates the progress of the episcopal hierarchy. While the right of the laity was yet undisputed, the power of the bishop began to be partially asserted, and occasionally ad- mitted ; the people occupying a neutral position between submission and open hostility. But, from disuse to denial, and from denial to the extinction of neglected privileges and powers, the descent is natural, short and rapid. From about the middle of the fourth century the bishops assumed the control of the whole penal jurisdiction of the laity, opening and shutting at pleasure the doors of the church, inflicting sentences of excommunication, and prescribing, at and little, to be exchanged for a loftier tone. They at length asserted that they were the legitimate successors of the apostles themselves, and might, consequently, of their own proper authority, dictate laws to the Christian llock. — Mosheim , De Rebus Christ., Saec. II., \ 23. 06 Planck, Gesellschafts-Verfass. 1, S. 448-452. 118 THE PRIMITIVE CHURCH. their discretion, the austerities of penance ; and again ab- solving the penitents, and restoring them to the church by their own arbitrary power . 67 The people, accordingly, no longer having any part in their trial of offences, ceased to watch for the purity of the church, connived at offences, and concealed the offenders ; not caring to interfere with the pre- rogatives of the bishop, in which they had no further inter- est. The speedy and sad corruption of the church was but the natural consequence of this loose and arbitrary dis- cipline. The ecclesiastical discipline, if such indeed it can be called, now appears in total contrast with that of the church under the apostles. Then, the supreme authority was vested in the people ; now, in the clergy. The church then en- acted her own laws, and administered her discipline ; the pastor, as_ the executive officer, acting in accordance with her will for the promotion of her purity and of her general prosperity. The clergy are now the supreme rulers of the church, from whom all laws emanate, and are also the exe- cutioners of their own arbitrary enactments. The church is no longer a free and independent republic, extending to its constituents the rights and privileges of religious liberty ; but a spiritual monarchy under the power of an ambitious hierarchy, whose will is law, and whose mandates the people are taught to receive, as meting out to them, with wisdom from on high, the mercy and the justice, the goodness and severity of their righteous Lawgiver and Judge. The peo- ple are wholly disfranchised by the priesthood, who have assumed the prerogatives of that prophetic Antichrist, who as God sitteth in the temple of God, showing himself that he is God.” 67 Planck, Gesellschafts-Verfass. 1, 509. DISCIPLINE OF THE CHUKCHES. 119 REMARKS. 1. It is the right and the duty of the members of every church themselves to administer the discipline of their own body. Each church is a voluntary association, formed for the mutual enjoyment of the privileges and ordinances of reli- gion. To its members belongs the right to prescribe the conditions of a connection with their communion, or of ex- clusion from it, as may seem good to them, in conformity with the principles of the gospel. The duty of carefully exercising a Christian watch and fellowship, one toward another, and of excluding those who walk unworthily, is most clearly enforced in the Scriptures. It is one important means of preserving the purity of the church and promoting the interests of religion. 2. Ecclesiastical censure is not a penal infliction, but a moral discipline for the reformation of the offender and the honor of religion. This thought has been already presented, but it should be borne distinctly in mind. Church discipline seeks, in the kindness of Christian love, to recover a fallen brother, to aid him in his spiritual conflicts, and to save him from hopeless ruin. In its simplicity and moral efficacy, if not in principle, the discipline of the apostolical and primitive churches differed totally from that complicated system of penance into which it degenerated under the hierarchy. The austerities of this system, with its pains and privations, have more the appearance of penal inflictions to deter others from sin, than of Christian efforts to reclaim the guilty. The system itself was often, in the hands of the priesthood, an engine of torture, with which to molest an adversary or to gratify private resentment. But the Christian love that administers ecclesiastical censure, in the spirit of the apos- 120 THE PRIMITIVE CHURCH. tolical rule seeks only the reformation of the offender, and the honor of that sacred cause upon which he has brought reproach. 68 3. This mode of discipline is the best safeguard against the introduction of bad men into the church. The members of the church who are associated with the candidate in the relations and pursuits of private life, best know his character. Commit, therefore, the high trust of receiving men into the sacred relations of the church of Christ, neither to bishop, nor presbyter, nor pastor, but to the united, unbiased decision of the members of that com- munion. 4. Discipline administered by the brethren of the church is the best means of securing the kind and candid trial of those who may be the subjects of ecclesiastical censure. Cases of this kind are often involved in great difficulty, and always require to be treated with peculiar delicacy and impartiality. These ends of impartial justice the wisdom of the world seeks to secure by the verdict of a jury. The brethren of the church, in like manner, are the safest tribu- nal for the impeachment of those who walk unworthily. 5. The mode of discipline now under consideration re- lieves the pastor from unwelcome responsibilities, both in the admission of members and in the treatment of offences. He has a delicate and responsible duty to perform toward those who present themselves for admission to the church. He is not satisfied, it may be, with regard to the qualifica- tions of the candidate, and yet this is only an impression received from a great variety of considerations which can- not well be expressed. But to refuse the applicant without assigning good and sufficient reasons may expose him to the charge of uncharitableness, and involve him in great difficulty. But no railing accusation, however, can be 68 Venema, Institutiones Hist. Eccles. III. § 188, p. 214, seq. DISCIPLINE BY THE CHUBCIIES. 121 brought against him, provided the case is submitted to the impartial decision of the church. And again, in the treatment of offences, the pastor should always be able to take shelter under the authority of the church Like Paul, in the case of the Corinthians, he may be oblige*! to rebuke them for their neglect, and to urge them to Jieir duty. But he should never appear as the accuser and prosecutor of his people. The trial should be- gin and end with the church, who ought always to be ready to relieve their pastor from duties so difficult and delicate, which belong not to his sacred office. 6. Discipline so administered serves to promote the peace of the church. In every communion may be found men of hasty, restless spirits, who are ever ready to rally at the cry of bigotry, intolerance, persecution, however unjustly raised. The con- tention may rise high and rend the whole church asunder if the minister alone becomes the object of attack. The only safe appeal is to the calm, deliberate decision of the whole body of the church. Here the case is open for a full discussion and a fair decision, which, more than anything •else, has power to silence the rage of faction and to calm the tumults of party. Thus a church may gather about their pastor for the defence of his character, for his encour- agement in the faithful discharge of his duty, and for the preservation of their own peace, by silencing the clamors of restless malcontents. 7. The only mode that has ever been devised for preserv- ing the discipline of the church is to submit it to the con- trol not of the clergy, but of the members themselves. In consequence of depriving the members of the church of a participation in its discipline soon after the rise of episcopacy, they became remiss in their attention to the scandals of their brethren, and withdrew their watch over n F 122 THE PRIMITIVE CHURCH. each other . 69 And since that day, when has any just dis- cipline been maintained in any church under a national establishment and an independent priesthood? What is the discipline of the Episcopal Church even in this country, where, without a state religion or an independent priesthood, the laity have little or no concern with the admission of members to their communion or the exclusion of them from it ? Let the reader weigh well this consideration. It sug- gests one of our strongest and most important objections to the ecclesiastical polity of the Episcopal Church . 70 According to one of the most able historians of the Epis- copal Church in this country, and one of its most eminent divines, there is no power of “ excommunication ” now re- siding in the church. I refer to the authority of the Rev. Dr. Hawks : “ Who ever heard of the excommunication of a layman by our branch of the apostolic church? Neither the Gen- eral Convention nor any State Convention have ever pro- vided any 4 rules or process ’ for excommunication. There is not a clergyman in the church, who, if he were desirous to excommunicate an offender, would know how to take the very first step in the process. It certainly is not to be done according to his mere whim ; and if it were so done, it is as 69 Planck, Gesell. Verfass. 1, S. 509, seq. 70 Some of the clergy of that communion, we understand, are accus- tomed to keep a private list of those who are wont to receive the sa- cred elements at their hands, and if any are found to walk unworthily, their names are silently stricken off from the roll, and their commu- nion with the church is dropped in this informal manner. Such pas- toral fidelity, duly exercised, is worthy of all consideration. But can it be expected, as a general rule, to accomplish the high ends of faith- ful Christian discipline? Is it the discipline of the New Testament? Or can it be expected of any class of men that they will have the in- dependence to be faithful here? A magnanimity how rare ! Comp Barnes’ Reply to Dr. Tyng. DISCIPLINE BY THE CHUECHES. 123 certainly invalid. Shall then the presbyter alone do it, or shall it be done by his bishop, or by a conclave of bishops, or of bishops and presbyters, or by a State Convention in- cluding the laity, or by the General Convention including the laity again? No man can answer it, for there is no rule on the subject.” “ There are very few of the dioceses in which any provision is made by canon for investigating or trying the case of a layman ” — Constitution and Canons of the Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States, pp. 359, 360, 362. “ Every churchwarden in every parish in England is called upon once a year to attend the visitation of his arch- deacon. At this time oaths are tendered to him respecting his different duties; and among other things he swears that he will present to the archdeacon the names of all such in- habitants of his parish as are leading notoriously immoral lives. This oath is regularly taken once a year by every churchwarden in every parish in England ; yet I believe that such a thing as any single presentation for notoriously im moral conduct has scarcely been heard of for a century.” 71 Another of the Tractarians complains in the following terms of this total neglect of discipline in the Episcopal Church : “ I think the church has in a measure forgotten its own principles, as declared in the sixteenth century; nay, under stranger circumstances, as far as I know, than have attended any of the errors and corruptions of the Papists, Grievous as are their declensions from primitive usage, I never heard, in any case, of their practice directly contradicting their services ; whereas we go on lamenting, once a year, the ab- sence of discipline in our church, yet do not even dream of taking any one step toward its restoration; ” 72 A clergyman of our own country, in assigning his “ Rea- sons for preferring Episcopacy,” admits that “in no Cliris- 71 Tracts for the Times, No. 59, p. 416. 72 Ibid. No. 41, p. 297. 124 THE PRIMITIVE CHURCH. tian denomination of the country is there so great a diver- sity of opinion [as in the Episcopal Church] about doc- trines, church polity, etc. But we hear,” he adds with great complacency, “ of no discipline on account of this diversity. The probability is, that discipline on these ac- counts would rend and break up the church.” . . . “ There is no church in the world that has in fact so great a diver- sity of opinion in her own bosom as the Church of England, and not a little of downright infidelity. And yet no one can reasonably doubt that, if she continue to let discipline for opinion alone, etc that most important branch • of Protestantism will ere long be redeemed from her past and present disadvantages, and recover the primitive vital- ity of Christianity, so as to have it pervading and animating her whole communion. Nor is it less certain, that by at- tempting discipline for opinion, she would for ever blight all these prospects.” 73 In the Lutheran Church in Germany, Christian disci- pline has fallen into equal neglect. So totally is it 'disre- garded that persons of abandoned character, known to be such, and the most notorious slaves of lust, are publicly and indiscriminately received to the sacrament of the Lord’s Supper. 74 What ecclesiastical hierarchy or national estab- lishment was ever known to maintain, for any long period, the purity of the church ? 8. This mode of discipline gives spiritual life and power to the church. 7? Thoughts on the Religious State of the Country ; with Reasons for preferring Episcopacy. By Rev. Calvin Colton, pp. 199, 200. u Liebetrut, Tag des Herrn, S. 331. One of the faithful pastors in Germany informed the writer that he refused to receive to the com- munion such as were known to be immoral. But the refusal was a civil offence, for which he had often been prosecuted, and suffered the penalties of the statute law ! DISCIPLINE BY THE CHUECHES. 125 The moral efficiency of any body of believers depends not upon their number, but upon the purity of their lives and their fidelity in duty. A church composed of men who are a living exemplification of the power of the Christian religion by their holy lives and by the faithful discharge of their duties, — such a church, and such only, is what the Lord Jesus designed his church should be — the pillar and ground of the truth, the most efficient means of defending the honor of the Christian name, and of promoting pure and undefiled religion. Without intending any invidious reflection, may we not request of the reader a careful con- sideration of this subject? Let him remember that a single case of discipline, rightly conducted, gives renewed energy to the whole body, quickening every member into newmess of life in the service of the Lord. Let him estimate the moral efficacy of a living church, quickened into healthful, holy action compared with one which has a name to live and is dead. Let him ponder well these considerations before he decides to go over to a communion that tolerates a general neglect of the Christian duty which we have been contemplating. CHAPTER VI. EQUALITY AND IDENTITY OF BISHOPS AND PRESBYTERS. Soon after the ascension of our Lord, it became expe- dient for the brethren to appoint a certain class of officers to superintend the secular concerns of their fraternity. These were denominated dtaxovoi, servants , ministers , deacons. In process of time, another order of men arose among them, whose duty was to superintend the religious interests of the church. These were denominated oi Tipouj-dpevoi, Rom. xii. 8 ; 1 Thess. v. 12 ; ol rjoep^voi, ITeb. xiii. 7, 17, 24 ; npecr- fivTspot, Acts xx. 17 ; iniaxoTzoi, Acts xx. 28, equivalent to the terms, presidents , leaders, elders, overseers . These terms all indicate one and the same office, that of a presiding officer, a ruler, in their religious assemblies. Officers of this class are usually designated, by the apostles and the earliest ecclesiastical writers, as presbyters and bishops, — names which are used interchangeably and indiscriminately to denote one and the same office. By the apostles and the apostolic fathers they are designated in the plural number. As in the synagogue there w T as a plurality of rulers, so in the churches there was a plurality of presbyters, or bishops, like the modern presbyterian session. The appropriate duty of the bishops or presbyters at first was, not to teach, or to preach, but to preside over the church, and to preserve order in their assemblies. “ They were originally chosen as in the synagogue, not so much 126 EQUALITY OF BISHOPS AND PRESBYTERS. 127 for the instruction and edification of the church, as for taking the lead in its general government.” 1 The neces- sity of such a presiding officer in the church at Corinth is sufficiently apparent from the apostle’s rebuke of their irregularities, 1 Cor. xiv. 26. The apostle, however, allows all to prophesy, to exercise their spiritual gifts ; and only requires them to speak “ one by one,” that all things may be done decently and in order. The ordinary officers of the apostolical church, then, comprised two distinct classes or orders. The one was known by the name of deacons ; the other, designated by various titles, of which presbyters and bishops were the most frequent. Bishops and presbyters, according to the usages of the apostles and of the earliest ecclesiastical writers, are identi- cal and convertible terms, denoting officers of one and the same class. In this proposition we join issue with the episcopalians, who assert that bishops were divinely ap- pointed as an order of men superior to presbyters. We, on the other hand, affirm that presbyters were the highest grade of permanent officers known in the apostolical and primitive churches ; and that the title of bishop was origin- ally only another name for precisely the same officer. Even after a distinction began to be made between pres- byters and bishops, the latter were not a peculiar order distinct from presbyters and superior to them. The bishop was merely one of the presbyters appointed to pre- side over the college of his fellow-presbyters. Like the moderator of a modern presbytery or association, he still retained a ministerial parity with his brethren, in the duties, rights and privileges of the sacred office. Our 1 Neander’s Apost. Kirch. I. p. 44, seq. Comp. Siegel, Handbuch, IV. S. 223. Ziegler, Versuch, der kirchlichen Verfassungsformen, S. 3-12. Rothe, Anfange, I. S. 153. So, also, Giesler, Rheinwald, Bolimer, Winer, etc. 128 THE PRIMITIVE CHURCH. sources of argument in defence of this general proposition are two-fold, — Scripture and history. I. The scriptural argument for the equality and identity of bishops and presbyters may be comprised under the fol- lowing heads : 1. The appellations and titles of a presbyter are used in- discriminately and interchangeably with those of a bishop. 2. A presbyter is required to possess the same qualifica- tions as a bishop. 3. The official duties of a presbyter are the same as those of a bishop. 4. There was, in the apostolical churches, no ordinary and permanent class of ministers superior to that of pres- byters. 1. The appellations and titles of a presbyter are used in- terchangeably with those of a bishop. One of the most unequivocal proof-texts in the Scriptures is found in Acts xx. 17, compared with verse 28. Paul, on his journey to Jerusalem, sent from Miletus and called the presbyters , Tipscpuripouq, elders , of Ephesus, to meet him there. And to these presbyters, when they had come, he says, in his affectionate counsel to them, “ Take heed to yourselves, and to all the flock over which the Holy Ghost hath made you bishops , to feed the church of God which he hath purchased with his own blood.” Both terms are here used in the same sentence with reference to the same men. It is remarkable that bishops and presby- ters are never mentioned together by the apostles as two orders of the ministry. We have another instance, equally clear, of the indis- criminate use of the terms, in the first chapter of Paul’s epistle to Titus : “ For this cause I left thee in Crete, that EQUALITY OF BISHOPS AND PRESBYTERS. 129 thou shouldst set in order the things that are wanting, and ordain presbyters , npzcrfiuTlpouq, in every city, as I had ap- pointed thee.’’ Then follows an enumeration of the quali- fications which are requisite in these presbyters, one of which is given in these words : “A bishop must be blame- less, as the steward of God.” Again, it is worthy of particular attention that the apos- tle, in his instructions to Timothy, 1 Tim. iii. 1-7, after specifying the qualifications of a bishop , proceeds immedi- ately to those of deacons, the second class of officers in the church, without making the least allusion to presbyters, though giving instructions for the appointment of the ap- propriate officers of the church. This omission was not a mere oversight in the writer ; for he subsequently alludes to the presbytery, iv. 14, and commends those that rule well, v. 17. In these passages the apostle has in mind the same offices, and uses the terms bishop and presbyter, as identical in meaning. To all the saints in Christ Jesus which are at Philippi, the apostle addresses his salutation, — to the saints, with the bishops and deacons, that is, to the church and the officers of the church. Here, again, as in all his epistles, these officers are divided into two classes. The supposition that these were bishops of the episcopal order involves The absurdity of a plurality of bishops over the same church; a supposition at variance with the first principles of diocesan episcopacy, which admits of but one in a city. 2 This difficulty appears to have forcibly im- 2 “Epiphanius tells us that Peter and Paul were both bishops of Rome at once : by which it is plain he took the title of bishop in an- other sense than now it is used ; for now, and so for a long time up- ward, two bishops can no more possess one see, than two hedge-spar- rows dwell in one bush. St. Peter’s time was a little too early for bishops to rise.” — Hales' Works, Yol. I. p. 110. B * 130 THE PRIMITIVE CHTJRCH. pressed the mind of Chrysostom. “ How is this ?”^exclaims the eloquent patriarch. “ Were there many bishops in the same city? By no means; but he calls the presbyters by this name [bishops] ; for at that time this was the common appellation of both.” 3 Finally, we appeal to 1 Pet. v. 2, 3, where the apostle, as being also an elder, exhorts the elders to feed the flock of God, taking the oversight of them , bzKr/.onobvreq^ acting the bishop , performing the duties of a bishop over them , requiring of them the same duties which the apostle Paul enjoins upon the presbyter-bishops of Ephesus. As at Ephesus, where Paul gave his charge to those presbyters, so here there could have been no bishop over those whom Peter commits to the oversight of these presbyters . “That the terms bishop and presbyter , in their application to the first class of officers, are perfectly convertible, the one pointing out the very same class of rulers with the other, is as evi- dent as the sun ‘ shining in his strength.’ To a man who has no turn to serve, no interest in perverting the obvious meaning of words, one would think that a mathematical demonstration could not carry more satisfactory evidence.” 4 These terms are also precise and definite, descriptive of a peculiar office, which cannot be mistaken for any other in the apostolic church. The original identity of bishops and presbyters is now conceded by many episcopalians them- selves. “That presbyters were called bishops I readily grant ; that this proves that the officer who was then called a bishop, and consequently the office, was the same.” 5 3 ETTLCKOTTOLQ K.CU chcLKOVOCQ. T2 TOVTO • fJUOQ TToTlEMg KciXkol E7TLGKO- ttoi rjoav ; OvdajLiGyg, aXka rovg TrpEGftvTEpovQ ovrug ek&Xege' tote yap teoq ekoivcovovv Tolg bvdyaot . — In Phil. 1, 1, p. 18S, seq. Tom. 11. 4 Mason’s Works, Vol. III. pp. 41-43. Comp. King, Prim. Christ, pp. 67, 68. 5 Bowden, Works on Episcop. Vol. 1. p. 161. EQUALITY OF BISHOPS AND PRESBYTERS. 131 “ The episcopalian cannot be found who denies the inter- changeable employment of the terms bishop and presbyter in the New Testament.” 6 Bishop Burnet admits that they “ are used promiscuously by the writers of the first two cen- turies to which might be added authorities without limit. The scriptural title of the office under consideration is usually that of presbyter or elder. It had long been in use in the synagogue. It denoted an office familiar to every Jew. It conveyed a precise idea of a ruler whose powers were well defined and perfectly understood. When adopted into the Christian church, its meaning must have been easily settled ; for the office was essentially the same in the church as previously in the synagogue. Accordingly, it constantly occurs in the writings of the apostle, to denote an officer familiarly known, but having no resemblance to a modern diocesan bishop. The term, bishop, occurs but five times in the New Testament ; and, in each instance, in such a connection as to be easily identified with that of presbyter. The former is derived from the Greek language, the latter has a Jewish origin. Accordingly, it is worthy of notice, that the apostles, when addressing Jewish Chris- tians, use the term presbyter; but in their addresses to Gentile converts, they adopt the term bishop, as less ob- noxious to those who spoke the Greek language. 7 2. A presbyter is required to possess the same qualifica- tions as a bishop. The apostle has specified at length the qualifications both for a bishop and a presbyter, which, for the sake of com- parison, are here set in opposite columns : 6 Chapman, cited in Smvth’s Pres, and Prelacy, p. 111. 7 Rothe, Anfiinge, I. 218, 219. Neander, Apost. Kirch. I. 178, 179. Schoene, Geschichtsforschungen, I. 247-249. Comp. Bishop Croft, in Smyth’s Apost. Succ. p. 159. 132 THE PRIMITIVE CHURCH. QUALIFICATIONS. For a bishop, 1 Tim. iii. 2-7 : A bishop must be blameless, the husband of one wife, 8 one that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity. For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God ? vs. 2, 4, 5. Vigilant, vytyaXeov, circumspect , sober, of good behavior, given to hospitality, apt to teach, v. 2. Not given to wine, no striker, not greedy of filthy lucre, but pa- tient, ETTieLKT ] , gentle , not soon an- gry , not a brawler, not covetous, not a novice, lest, being lifted up with pride, he fall into the con- demnation of the devil. More- over, he must have a good report of them which are without, lest he fall into reproach and the snare of the devil, vs. 3, 6, 7. For a presbyter, Tit. i. 6-10 : If any be blameless, the hus- band of one wife, having faithful children, (who are) not accused of riot, or unruly, v. 6. A lover of hospitality, a lover of good men, sober, just, holy, temperate, holding fast the faith- ful word as he hath been taught, that he may be able by sound doc- trine both to exhort, and to con- vince the gainsayers. vs. 8, 9. A bishop must be blameless, as the steward of God, not self-will- ed, not soon angry, not given to wine, no striker, not given to filthy lucre, v. 7. The qualifications are identical throughout. Is a blame- less, sober and virtuous life, a meek and quiet spirit, re- quired of a bishop ? So are they of a presbyter. What- ever is needful for the one is equally essential for the other. 8 In utraque epistola sive episcopi sive presbyteri (quanquam apud veteres iidem episcopi et presbyteri fuerint quia illud nomen dignita- tis est, hoc aetatis) jubentur monogami in clerum eligi. — Jerome, Ep . 83, ad Oceanum , Tom. 4, p. 648. EQUALITY OF BISHOPS AND PRESBYTERS. 133 If, then, there be this wide and perpetual distinction be- tween the two which episcopacy claims, how extraordinary that the apostle, when stating the qualifications of a hum- ble presbyter, should not abate an iota from those which are requisite for the high office of a bishop ? 3. The duties of a presbyter are the same as those of a bishop. Their duties, severally and equally, are to rule, to coun- sel and instruct, to administer the ordinances, and to ordain. (a) Both exercised the same authority over the church. If bishops were known in the apostolical churches as a distinct order, the right of government confessedly belonged to them. We have, therefore, only to show that presbyters exercised the same right. This exercise of authority is denoted in the New Testament by several terms, each of which is distinctly applied to presbyters. («) Such is yyiopat, to lead, to guide, etc. In Heb. xiii. 7 and 17 this term occurs. Remember them that have the rule over you, rajv yyoufiivujv updjv. Obey them that have rule over you, roiq yyou/iivocq d/idiu. (/?) Another term expressive of authority over the church is TzpoiGTrgu, to preside, to ride . Xenophon uses this verb to express the act of leading or ruling an ancient chorus and an army. 9 The apostle Paul uses the same to express the authority which the presbyters exercised as rulers of the church. “We beseech you, brethren, to know them which labor among you and are over you, -poiGrariivouq, in the Lord,” 1 Thess. v. 12. Prelates of the church these presbyters can- not have been ; for there were several, it appears, in this single city, a circumstance totally incompatible with the 9 0l>Jf V OjLLOLOV EGTL X°P°V T€ KCLl OTp(LT£V[l(LTOQ 7T pOEGT CIVCLL. “ Between the taking the lead of a chorus and the command of an army,’’ both ex- pressed by 7T poEGrdvai, “ there is no analogy.”— Mem. 3, 4, 3. 12 134 THE PRIMITIVE CHURCH. organization of diocesan episcopacy. The whole,' taken to- gether, is descriptive not of a bishop in his see, but of a presbyter, a pastor, in the discharge of his parochial duties. Again, “ Let the elders, presbyters, that rule well be ac- counted worthy of double honor, ” ol xaXcbq TzpotaTwreq n pea fibre pot, 1 Tim. v. 17. Here are presbyters ruling over the church of Ephesus, where, according to the episcopal theory, Timothy, as bishop, had established the seat of his apostolical see. (y) Another term of frequent occurrence, in writers both sacred and profane of approved authority, is notgabcu, to feed; metaphorically, to cherish , to provide for, to rule, to govern . It expresses the office, and comprehends all the duties of a shepherd. This term the apostle uses in his exhortation to the presbyters of Ephesus at Miletus : “ Take heed to yourselves, and to all the flock over which the Holy Ghost hath made you bishops, to feed, 7toigahktv, the church of God.” Beyond all question, this term, both in classic and hellenistic Greek, expresses the power of government. Both this and rjobpevoc;, above mentioned, are used in the same passage to express the government of Christ, the chief Shepherd, over his people Israel : “ Thou, Bethlehem, in the land of Juda, art not the least among the princes of Juda, for out of thee shall come a governor, rjoupe^oq, who shall rule, 7r oipavel, my people Israel,” Matt. ii. 6. Without further illustration, we have sufficient evidence that the presbyters were invested with all the authority to guide, govern and provide for the church which the bishop him- self could exercise. The very same terms which express the highest power of government and which are applied to the office even of the great Head of the church, are used to express the authority of presbyters, and to set forth the power with which they are invested to rule and feed the church. EQUALITY OF BISHOPS AND PRESBYTERS. 135 (6) Presbyters were the authorized counselors of llie church; and, in connection with the apostles, constituted the highest court of appeal for the settlement of controver- sies in the church. About the year 50, a spirited controversy arose at An- tioch, which threatened to rend the church, and to hinder the progress of that gospel which Paul and Barnabas had begun successfully to preach to the Gentiles. It was of the utmost importance that this dispute should be immediately and finally settled. For this p'tirpose, a delegation, consist- ing of Paul, and Barnabas, and others, was sent from the church at Antioch on an embassy to Jerusalem, to submit the subject under discussion to the examination and decision of the church, with the apostles and presbyters. This dele- gation was kindly received by the members of the church at Jerusalem, with their officers, the apostles, npeafiuTepm, and elders , and to them the whole subject of the dissension at Antioch was submitted. Peter and James were, at this time, at Jerusalem, and members of this council. The sub- ject was discussed at length on both sides, but the con- curring opinions of Peter and James finally prevailed, and the council united harmoniously in the sentiments expressed by these apostles. It is observable, however, that the result of the council was given, not in the name of James 10 or any 10 That James did not draw up this decree as “ the head of the church at Jerusalem,” and as his “authoritative sentence.” is unan- swerably shown by Rev. Dr. Mason, in his Review of Essays on Epis- copacy. The amount of the argument is, that James* simply expresses his opinion , verse 19 ; just as Peter had done before. So the word, Kpivo, in the connection in which it is used , implies, and so it was under- stood by the sacred historian, who, in Acts xvi. 4, declares, that the “ authoritative sentence,” the decrees, were ordained by the apostles and presbyters. Comp, also Acts xxi. 25. The case was not referred to James, neither could it be submitted to him as bishop of Jerusalem, Antioch lying entirely without his diocese, even on the supposition 136 THE PRIMITIVE CHURCH. one of the apostles, but conjointly, by the apostles, and presbyters, and brethren, Acts xv. 23. Throughout the whole narrative the presbyters appear as the authorized counselors of the church, and the only ordinary officers of the church, whose opinion is sought in connection with that of the apostles, without any intimation of an intermediate grade of bishops. 11 (c) To administer the ordinances of the church was the appropriate office of the presbyters. The performance of these duties could not have been re- stricted to the apostles. The sacrament was at first admin- istered daily; 12 and afterward, on each Lord’s day as a part of public worship. The frequency and universality of the ordinance of necessity required that it should be administered by the ordinary ministers of the church. Baptism, by a like necessity, devolved upon them. The numerous and far-spreading triumphs of the gospel utterly forbid the idea that the apostles, few in number, and charged with the high commission of preaching the gospel, and giving themselves wholly to this as their appropriate work, could have found time and means for going every- where, and baptizing with their own hands all that believed on the Lord Jesus Christ. Besides, they appear expressly to have disclaimed this work, and to have entrusted the service chiefly to other hands. “ I thank God that I bap- tized none of you but Crispus and Gaius. And I baptized that Jerusalem was the seat of his episcopal see. The authority of this decree was^lso acknowledged in all the churches of Asia. The supposition that it was the official and authoritative sentence**)! James as bishop, exalts him above all the other apostles who were members of the council, and gives him a power far-reaching and authoritative beyond that which belonged to St. Peter himself, the prelatical head of the church. 11 Comp. Rothe, Anfange, Vol. I. S. 181, 182. 12 Neander, A post. Kirch. 1, p. 30. EQUALITY OF BISHOPS AND PRESBYTERS. 137 also the household of Stephanas ; besides, I know not whether I baptized any other. For Christ sent me, not to baptize, but to preach,” 1 Cor. i. 14-17. Cornelius, again, was baptized, not by Peter, but by some Christian disciple, agreeably to his command. The apostles seldom baptized. The inference therefore is, that this service was by them committed to the presbyters, the ordinary officers of the church. “ In the earliest times, when no formal distinction between bziaxoizm, bishops , and Tzpeff^brepoc, presbyters , had taken place, the presbyters, especially the Tzpoeartireq, pre- siding presbyters , 1 Tim. v. 17, discharged those episcopal functions, which, afterward, when a careful, distinction of ecclesiastical officers had been made, they were not per- mitted to discharge, otherwise than as substitutes or vicars of a bishop. Instances, however, do sometimes occur, in later times, of presbyters having officiated in matters which, according to the canon-law, belonged only to the episcopal office.” 13 ( d ) To ordain is the right and prerogative of pres- byters. Episcopacy claims this as the exclusive prerogative of bishops. We, on the contrary, claim for presbyters pre- cisely the same duty, right and prerogative, and offer it as evidence of the ministerial parity of bishops and presbyters. The argument for the validity of presbyterian ordination is reserved for consideration under a separate head. 4. There was in the apostolical churches no ordinary class of ministers superior to that of presbyters or bishops. We deny that Timothy or Titus, or any other person or class of persons named in Scripture, represents an order of ministers in the churches planted by the apostles who were invested with prerogatives superior to those of presbyters, and whose office was to be perpetuated in the church of 13 Riddle, Chr. Antiquities, p. 233. 12 * 138 THE PRIMITIVE CHURCH. Christ. In opposition to these episcopal pretensions, we remark : (a) That no distinct appellation is given to the supposed order, and no class of religious teachers represents them in the Scriptures. If there were such an order, how extraordinary that it should have been left without a name or a distinctive ap- pellation of any kind! Here is the highest grade of officers possessed exclusively of certain ministerial rights and pow- ers, from whom all clerical grace has been transmitted by episcopal succession, age after age, down to the present time ; and yet this grade is distinguished by no peculiar appellation, and represented by no single class or order of men. The inferior orders, presbyters and deacons, are spe- cified with great distinctness, but the highest and most im- portant has no definite name, no distinct and single repre- sentative. Yet the modern bishop, with astonishing credu- lity, traces back his spiritual lineage almost through a thousand generations, in strange uncertainty all the while to whom he shall at last attach himself or with whom claim kindred. If Peter fails him, he flies to Paul, to James, to Timothy, to Titus, to the angel of the church, to — he knows not whom. He is, however, a legitimate descendant and successor of some apostolical bishop, but that bishop — no- body knows who he was, or what, precisely, his office may have been ! ( b ) The Scriptures give no authority for ascribing either to the apostles or to their assistants and fellow-laborers the exercise of episcopal authority. The fathers do indeed assign episcopal sees to several of the apostles and to their helpers. And modern episcopa- lians refer us with great confidence to James, to Timothy, to Titus, and to the angels of the churches in the epistles of the Apocalypse, as instances of primitive bishops. Now we EQUALITY OF BISHOPS AND PRESBYTERS. 139 deny that either of these exercised the rights and preroga- tives of an episcopal bishop. («) James was not bishop of Jerusalem. We have already seen 14 with what care the apostles guarded against any assumption of authority over the churches. They taught, they counseled, they admonished, they reproved, indeed, with the authority belonging to am- bassadors of God and ministers of Christ. But they assumed not to rule and to govern with the official power of a dio- cesan. The evidence of this position is already before the reader, and to his consideration we submit it without further remark. But James, it is said, resided at Jerusalem, as bishop of that church and diocese, and in this capacity offers us a scriptural example of an apostolical bishop. The episco- pal functions of this bishop, therefore, require a particular consideration. In the days of Claudius Caesar arose a dearth throughout Judea so distressing that a charitable contribution was made, and relief sent by the hands of Barnabas and Saul to the brethren in Judea residing in the supposed diocese of this bishop of Jerusalem. To whom was this charity sent? Not to the bishop, but to the presbyters , the appropriate officers of that church, Acts xi. 30. The delegation sent from Antioch to Jerusalem for coun- sel were received, not by the bishop, but by the church, the apostles and the presbyters, Acts xv. 4. They compose this council and make up the result. It seemed good to the apos- tles and presbyters , with all the church . \\ r here is our dio- cesan all this time? Plainly he has no official character; no existence in this church. The idea of a diocesan bishop over this community, just now living together in the sim- u Chapter 1. 140 THE PRIMITIVE CHURCH. plicity of their mutual love, is an idle fancy, devoid of all reality . 15 James appears to have chiefly resided at Jerusalem for good and sufficient reasons, but not as the prelatical head of that church or diocese. As a Jew, as the brother of our Lord, as well as by his personal characteristics, he was emi- nently qualified to serve as mediator between the opposite parties of Jewish and Gentile converts, and to counsel and to act for the peace of the church. But in all this he acted not as a bishop, but as an apostle, in that divine character and by that authority which he possessed as an apostle of the Lord Jesus Christ, and which, as Xeander has well observed, could be delegated to none other . 16 But do not Clement of Alexandria , 17 Hegesippus , 18 the Apostolical Constitutions , 19 Eusebius , 20 Cyril of Jerusalem , 21 Epiphanius , 22 Chrysostom , 23 J erome , 24 Augustine , 25 and many others of later date, all agree that James was bishop of Je- rusalem ? Grant it all. But their declaration only relates to a disputed point in the history of the Acts of the Apos- tles, upon which we, perhaps, are as competent to decide as 15 Rothe, Anfiinge, I. S. 267, seq. 16 Introduction, p. 20. Also, A post. Kirch. 2, c. 1, p. 14, seq. Comp. Euseb. Eccl. Hist. Lib. 2, c. 23. 17 Euseb. Eccl. Hist. 2, c. 1. 18 Euseb. Eccl. Hist. 2, c. 23. 19 Lib. 6, Ep. 14, p. 346. 20 Lib. 2, c. 1 ; 2, c. 23 ; 3, c. 5 ; 7, c. 19. Comment, in Hesai. xvii. 5, Vol. II. p. 422. Montfaueon, Collec. Nov. Pat. et Scrip. Graec. ed. Paris, 1706. 21 Catech. 4, Ep. 28, p. 65, ed. Touttee. 22 Haer. 78. Antidicomarianitar. \ 5, p. 1039. 23 Horn. 38, in Ep. ad Corinth, Vol. X. p. 355. 24 Catal. Script. Eccl. s. v. Jacob, frater Domini, Vol. I. p. 170. Comment, in Ep. ad Gal. i. 19; Vol. IV. p. 236. Ed. Paris. 25 Contra literas Petiliani, L. 2, c. 51, § 118, Vol. IX. p. 172. EQUALITY OF BISHOPS AND PRESBYTERS. 141 they. With the same historical data in view, why cannot a judgment be made upon them as safely in the nineteenth century as in the third or the fifth? With what propriety these ancient fathers denominate James bishop of Jerusalem let the reader himself judge in view of the foregoing con- siderations. But Hegesippus lived in the second century, within one hundred years of the apostolic age, and must be an unex- ceptionable witness. What then is his testimony ? Simply that James took charge of the church in connection with the apostles , for such must the term i^erd imply. This prepo- sition not unfrequently expresses the relation of co-operation or concomitancy, fier a potwrwv e/jAyovro, II. 13, 700. They engaged in this contest (j^O b/iaiv, with you , says Demosthenes, rather than against you. This personal association is im- plied in John iii. 22 ; Matt. xii. 42 ; Acts ix. 39, as in the text dtadiysrac de — rrjv kzzXrjfriav / ierd tu)v d-offtoXwv. He remained chiefly at Jerusalem, the centre of operations for all of the apostles, and had, if you please, the immediate supervision of this church in connection with the other apostles. After the rise of the hierarchy, the episcopal fathers that have been mentioned may have interpreted the testimony of this author into a declaration of the epis- copal office of James. If so, we are at liberty to challenge the authority of these fathers on the point under considera- tion. Like them, we have the historical record before us, and the means of forming an independent opinion. 26 Indeed, antiquity itself, in the language of Milton, “hath turned over the controversy to that sovereign Book which we had fondly straggled from.” After refuting other tra- ditions, he adds : “ As little can your advantage be from Hegesippus, an historian of the same time, not extant, but 26 Rothe, A nf tinge der Christ. Kirch. I. 263-272. 142 THE PRIMITIVE CHURCH. cited by Eusebius. His words are, ‘that in every city all things so stood in his time as the law and the prophets, and our Lord did preach/ If they stood so, then stood not bishops above presbyters. For what our Lord and his dis- ciples taught, God be thanked, we have no need to go learn of him.” 27 The churches, besides their union of faith and fellow- ship of spirit, had one bond of union in the instruction, care and oversight which the apostles exercised in com- mon over all the churches. What care the apostle Paul took to encourage this fellowship of the churches is mani- fested in the salutations which he sends in their behalf: All the churches in Christ salute you , Rom. xvi. 16 ; The churches of Asia salute you . All the brethren greet you , 1 Cor. xvi. 19, 20. This oversight the apostles constantly exercised ; caring for all and watching for all as they had opportunity, that thus they might, as far as possible, supply the place of their Lord and fulfill the ministry which they had received from him. In the distribution of their labors, by mutual consent, they occupied, to a great extent, separate fields. Some went to the heathen, and others to the circumcision, Gal. ii. 7-9. But none had any prescribed field of labor bearing the remotest analogy to a modern diocese. “The apostles were constituted of God rulers not over a sepa- rate nation or city, but all were entrusted with the world.” 28 (/?) Timothy at Ephesus was not a bishop. Timothy was one of a class of religious teachers who 27 Prose Works, Vol. I. p. 86. 28 J^iolv VTCO &EOV X EL P 0T0V7 r&£VTEQ CLTZOGTokoi apXOVTEQ , OVK E’dv'T] KCU 7 tSXeic 6iat2,r/parL aona^opE'&a n&voapEvoi rov evx^v. Instra npoG(j)£psrai r o n p o e gt or l rov a d s \ (p o v aprog Kal norrjpiov v6arog Kal Kpaparog^ Kal ovrog 7ia/3ov, alvov Kal 66%av ro n arpl rov o?iov 1 6ia rov ovoparog rov vlov Kal rov nvEvparog rov ayiov , av an e pn e i Kal vnsp rov Karq^iOG^ai rov - rov rrap avrov tnl noTiv n o leIt a l, ov Gvvrslsoavrog rag Evxag Kal rijv eiixapioriav, nag 6 napov Tiaog hnEvtyrjpEl Myov, ’Apr/p. — evxapLGrrjGavrog 6s rov npoEororog , Kal knEv^r/pr/Gavrog navrog rov ?^aov y ol KE’kovpEvoi nap r/plv 6 i a kov o i , 6i6oaGtv EKaaro rov napdvrov pera?,a[3£iv. — Apol. 1, c. 65, p. 82. Comp. Semisch’s Justin Martyr. Trans. Edinburgh, 1843. Vol. I. pp. 28, 29. 53 Apol. 1, c. 67, p. 83. EQUALITY OF BISHOPS AND PRESBYTERS. 157 higher order or office than that of the officiating presbyter who conducted their worship and administered the sacra- ment ; or if you call him bishop, he is still of the same or- der, distinguished clearly from the deacons, but differing in no wise from the order of presbyters. 54 The authority of Irenaeus is claimed on both sides. He lived in the transition period, toward the close of the second century, and represents the office in a confused, transition state. He speaks of Hyginus, the eighth in the episcopal succession in Rome, and of bishops appointed by the apostles. But he makes only a relative distinction be- tween bishops and presbyters ; recognizes the succession of presbyters in the same sense as of bishops, and calls the bishops of Rome presbyters, implying no clear distinction between bishops and presbyters as separate officers. The passages are given in the margin. 55 Irenaeus, a Greek of Asia Minor, was in his youth a hearer of the venerable Polycarp, the disciple of John. He spent his advanced life in Gaul, at Lyons, and died about the commencement of the third century, probably A. D. 202. Speaking of Marcion, Valentinus, Cerinthus, and other heretics, he says : “ When we refer them to that apostolic tradition, which is preserved in the churches, through the succession of their presbyters , these men oppose 54 Respecting this office of the npoearcjc rtiv adefytiv, compare Mil- ton’s Prelatical Episcopacy, Prose Works, Vol. I. p. 76. 55 Cum autem ad earn iterum traditionem, quae est ab Apostolis, quae per successiones Presbyterorum in ecclesiis custoditur, provoca- mus eos: adversantur traditioni, dicentes, se non solum Presbyteris , sed etiam Apostolis existentes sapientiores, sinceram invenisse veri- tatem. — Irenaeus , A dv. Ilaer. L. 3, c. 2, \ 2,. p. 175. Traditionem itaque Apostolorum in toto mundo manifestatam in omni ecclesia adest respicere omnibus, qui vera velint videre; et ha- bemus annumerare eos, qui ab Apostolis instituti sunt Episcopi in ec- clesiis. — Irenaeus , c. 3, § 1, p. 175, et \ 2, ibid. 14 158 THE PRIMITIVE CHURCH. the tradition.” The author, in the next section, again styles these same presbyters, bishops. “ We can enumerate those who were constituted by the apostles, bishops in the churches ; their successors, also, even down to our time.” But the very same traditions and successions, which are here ascribed to the bishops, are just above assigned also to the presbyters . Again, he speaks in a similar connection, of Polycarp, as a bishop ; but, in another jilace, he styles him that blessed and apostolic presbyter , ixeiuog 6 pazapioq zai anoGTofoxos Tzp^G^brepoq. 56 Again, “We ought to obey those presbyters in the church, who have succession, as we have shown, from the apostles ; who, with the succession of the episcopate, received the certain gift of truth, according to the good pleasure of the Father .” 57 We cannot fail to observe that the terms bishop and pres- byter are used by this ancient father as perfectly convertible 56 Euseb. Eccl. Hist. Lib. 5, c. 20. 57 Quapropter eis, qui in ecclesiis sunt, Presbyteris obaudire oportet, his, qui successionem habent ab Apostolis, sicut ostendimus; qui cum Episcopatus successione charisma veritatis certum secundum placitum Patris acceperunt, etc. After this: Qui vero crediti quidem sunt a multis esse Presbyteri , serviunt autem suis voluptatibus, et non prae- ponunt timorem Dei in cordibus suis, sed contumeliis agunt reliquos, et principalis consessionis tumore elati sunt et in absconsis agunt mala, et dicunt, nemo nos videt, redarguentur a verbo, etc. — Ab omnibus igitur talibus absistere oportet, adhaerere vero his, qui et Apostolorum, sicut praediximus, doctrinam custodiunt, et cum Presbyterii ordine ser- monem sanum et conversationem sine offensa praestant, ad confirma- tionem et correptionem ceterornm. Finally, Toiovrovg Tlpeapyre- p ov g avarpetyet y evudkycia. n epl cjv Kal 6 7r l potyyryg (pyocv Scjgg) rovg apxovrag gov kv elpyvy Kal rovg eir ig Konovg kv SiKaioGvvri. — Irenaeus , L. 4, c. 26, g 2, 3, 4, p. 262; g 5, 263. Qui ergo relinquunt praeconium ecclesiae imperitiam sanctorum presbytcrorum arguunt, non contemplantes quanto pluris sit idiota re- EQUALITY OF BISHOPS AND PEESBYTEES. 159 terms. Bishops he denominates presbyters; and presby- ters, bishops, and ascribes the episcopate to presbyters. We are not ignorant of the gloss that is given to these passages from Irenaeus, in the endeavor to defend the theory of an original distinction between bishops and pres- byters. But the consideration of the episcopal argument is foreign to our purpose. The authorities are before the reader ; and of their obvious meaning, any one is competent to form an independent, unaided judgment. Titus Flavius Clemens, commonly known as Clement of Alexandria, lived at the close of the second and the begin- ning of the third century. He was at the head of the cele- * brated school at Alexandria, the preceptor of Origen, and the most learned man of his age. He speaks indeed of presbyters, bishops and deacons. After citing from the epistles various practical precepts, he proceeds to say that “ numerous other precepts also, directed to select characters, have been written in the sacred books, some to presbyters , some to bishops , some to deacons, and others to widows.” 58 In this enumeration he appears to have followed the order of the apostle in Tit. i. 5-7, mentioning presbyters first. He repeatedly shows, however, that there were at that time but two orders — deacons and presbyters . 59 In his treatise, “What rich man can be saved?” Clem- ent relates that John the apostle observing a young man of singular beauty, turning to the bishop who presided over all , commended him to his care in the presence of the church, and “ this presbyter” taking home the young man ligiosus a blasphemo et impudente sophista, L. 5, c. 20, $ 2. In the preceding section, he says, Omnes enim valde posteriores sunt quam episcopi quibus apostoli tradiderunt ecclesias. \ 1. Paedag. Lib. 3, p. 264. Comp, also Strom. Lib. 6, p. 667. 59 f O jLLoiog de kcu Kara ryv ekhTitjolclv , ryv yev PeTitlotlk^v ol rr peer j3vre pot og)^o g ’E (j)£Gtov psTEnkp'ipaTo npeGpvTEpovg 6 fteiog anoGTokog y kkyet nal Ta npog avTovg Etpypkva * npoGEX £ re yap (pyGtv kavvolg nal navTl notpvio y kv o vpag E&ETO to nvsvpa to aytov kntGKonovg y n otpatvEtv Tyv EKKkyGtav tov XptG- tov‘ nal Tovg avTovg nal npEG^VTEpovg nal kntGKonovg ovopaGEV. 0 vto ml ep ttj npog tov pamptov T ltov kntGToky * 6ta tovto mTEAtnov ge kv KpyTy y tva mraoTyoyg Kara noXtv np£G/3vT£povg y og kyo Got StETa^apyv. Kat elnov onolovg elvat xpV T °vg x £L P 0T0V0V P £V0V Q knyyaye % 6 el yap tov kn'tGKo- nov avkyKkyTov slvat y og Osov otmvdpov. K al kvTavkka 6k 6ykov tovto KEKO tyKE • Tolg yap kntGKonotg rovg 6tamvovg Gvvk^EV^e y tov n p£G/3vT£pov ov notycapEVog pvypyv akkog te ovdk olov te yv nokkovg kntGKonovg ptav noktv notpaivELV og Etvat Sykov oti tov g pkv n p£G (5 vt e povg kn lg ko- novg ovdpaGE. — Theodor et , Ep. ad Phil. p. 445, seq. Vol. III. ed. Halens. 87 ILokka ml tovtov (Epaphroditus) mTop&opaTa dtE^yWev (Paul- EQUALITY OF BISHOPS AND PRESBYTERS. 175 shows that these views were still retained in the Eastern church. 88 This scholiast has but hinted at the argument from these passages, to which he refers, but he has said enough to show that the doctrine of the ministerial parity of bishops and presbyters was still maintained during the middle ages, in the Eastern church, and justly defended on the authori- ty of the Scriptures. Elias, archbishop, of Crete, A .D. 787, asserts the identity of bishops and presbyters ; and, in commenting upon Gre- gory Nazianzen, remarks that this bishop, in the fifth cen- tury, was accustomed to denominate presbyters, bishops , making no distinction between them — a circumstance which this scholiast has noticed in many passages from Gregory. 89 us), ovk clSeX ov povov , aTfka Kal Gvvspyov real ovGTpaTLcjTijv anoKaTiEGag. ’AttSctoTiov 6e avrov kekTijjkev avrcov ojg rr/v knipEXeiav avrcov spnEniGTEv- pLEVOV hg Eivai dffkov OTL VITO TOVTOV ETEAOW OL EV TGJ npOOip'up K^T/div- TEC kn'lG KOnOl, TOV 7T p £ G /3vT £ p L OV (5 IjTlOV 6 T L TTjV TCL^LV 7T/1 lj~ povvTEQ . — Ibid. Ep. ad Tim., p. 459, Vol. III. LG K.OTT OV 6 £ EVTavda TOV 7T p £ G /3 V T £ p OV TliySl, C)g TTjV npbt, fylXl'K'KTjCLOVQ ETUGToXrjV EppTjVEVOVTEg CLTCEdEL^apiEV. 1 bid. p. 652. 88 ’E 7 TEidfj Aav&avEt Tovg noXXovg rj Gwfj&Eia, paXiGTa Tfjg Kaivfjg 6ia» &rjK7]Q, Tovg kniOKdnovg npeofivTEpovg ovopatjovoa Kal rovg npEGpvTEpovg E1ZIG k6tC OV g, GTjpLEHOTEOV TOVTOV EVTEV&EV KOI EK Tfjg npbg T LTOV EniGToTifjg • ETC 6e Kal npog av. Blondelli apologia pro sententia Hieronymi de episcopis et presbyteris. Amstelod. 1616, 4to. Against these, Henr. Hammondus dissertatt. IV. quibus episcopatus jura ex sacra scriptura et prima antiquitate adstruuntur. Lond. 1651. The controversy was long continued. On the side of the Episcopalians, Jo. Pearson , Guil. Beveridge^ Henr . Dodwell , Jos. Bingham , Jac. Usserius. On that of EQUALITY OF BISHOPS A ND PRESBYTERS. 177 In view of the whole coarse of the argument, it appears that the episcopal claim of an original distinction between bishops and presbyters is a groundless assumption. The existence of such a distinction has been denied by prelates, bishops and learned controvertists and commentators, both in the Eastern and Western churches, of every age down to the sixteenth century. It was unknown to those early fathers who lived nearest to the apostolical age, and some of whom were the immediate successors of the apostles. It was wholly unauthorized by the apostles themselves. Must we believe that the presbyter is a mere subaltern of the bishop, to perform the humbler offices of the ministry and to supply the bishop’s lack of service ? Must we believe, moreover, that the bishop, this honored and most important dignitary of the church, is a nameless nondescript, known by no title, represented by no person or class of persons in the apostolic churches, and having no distinct, specific duties prescribed in the New Testament? All this may be asserted and reaffirmed, as a thousand times it has been, but it can never be proved. Verily this vaunting of high church episcopacy is an insult to reason, a complacent as- sumption, which makes “ implicit faith the highest demon- stration.” If any asserter of these absurd pretensions finds himself disquieted at any time by the renewed remonstrances of Scripture, truth and reason, to repel such impertinent intruders and restore the equilibrium of his mind, he has only to “ shake his head and tell them how superior, after all, is faith to logic !” The foregoing chapters exhibit an outline of that eccle- the Presbyterians, Jo. Dallaeus , Camp. Vitringa; also the Lutherans, Joach. Hildebrand , Just. Henn. Boehrner , Jo. Franc. Buddeus , Christ . Math. Pfaff, etc. Comp. Jo. Phil. Gabler de episcopis primae eccle- siae Christ, eorumque origine diss. Jenae, 1805, 4to. 178 THE PRIMITIVE CHURCH. siastical organization which the churches received from the hands of the apostles, and which was continued in the prim- itive church for some time after the apostolic age. The government may not be strictly either congregational or presbyterian, but it involves the principles of both ; it is altogether popular. The sovereign authority is vested in the people. From them all the laws originate ; by them they are administered. Each community is an independent sovereignty, whose members are subject to no foreign eccle- siastical jurisdiction. Their confessions, formularies and terms of communion are formed according to their own interpretation of the laws of God ; and if the deportment of any one is subject to impeachment, the case is decided by the impartial verdict of his brethren. Their officers are few ; and their ministers, equal in rank and power, are the servants, not the lords of the people. The entire polity of the apostolic and primitive churches was framed on the principles, not of a monarchical hierarchy, but of a popular and elective government. It was a republican government administered with republican simplicity. CHAPTER VII. APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. The ministerial parity arid identity of bishops and pres- byters, so far as indicated by their names in the New Testa- ment, are generally admitted, we believe, by Episcopalians themselves. “The name [bishop] is there given to the middle order, or presbyters ; and all that we read in the New Tes- tament concerning ‘bishops 9 (including, of course, the words ‘ overseers 9 and ‘ oversight/ which have the same deriva- tion) is to be regarded as pertaining to that middle grade. It was after the apostolic age that the name ‘ bishop ’ was taken from the second order and appropriated to the first.” This admission of Bishop Onderdonk may be received as a fair expression of the views of the denomination. The office of bishop, then, either is not a divine, but a human institu- tion, established after the apostolic age, or it is an office, an institution, without a name in the Scriptures. It is an or- der, an office, on which not only the validity of all the ordi- nances of the church, but the very existence of the church, depends. Without a bishop there neither is nor can be any church, according to the episcopal theory. And yet this order, indispensable to the existence of the church, is never once named by the Great Head of this church nor by his apostles while going through the earth ordaining and setting in order the churches of every land! Nay, more; this confusion is worse confounded by applying to this high 179 180 THE PRIMITIVE CHURCH. and sacred order all the names, offices and attributes of an inferior grade. Believe it who can, we cannot; we will not cast upon Holy Writ such an imputation as this con- fusion of words and orders involves. But with those whose faith staggers not under such de- mands upon its credulity, the controversy turns, not upon the equality, the identity of bishops and presbyters, but upon the question whether the apostles themselves had a perma- nent or a temporary office and character — whether they had or could have successors to perpetuate their own peculiar, specific office in the church. Their office is as definite and distinct as that of bishop, by the episcopal theory, is indefi- nite and indistinct. They were to be witnesses for Christ — witnesses of his ministry, his life, his death and his resur- rection. Peter declares this to have been the specific object of choosing Matthias — to be a witness with us of his resurrec- tion , Acts i. 21, 22 ; comp. ii. 32 ; v. 32 ; x. 39-42. This was to be the test of Paul’s apostleship. Christ revealed himself to him “ to be his witness unto all men ,” Acts xxii. 14, 15; xxiii. 11; xxvi. 16. “Am I not an apostle? Have I not seen Jesus Christ our Lord?” 1 Cor. ix. 1. The office of the apostles, by these limitations, ends with themselves. They can have no successors. See Neander, p. 20. As the first ministers of the church of Christ, the first to ordain ministers in all the churches, they have their suc- cessors in the Episcopal and in every duly-organized church of whatever denomination. There is an apostolical succes- sion in the Presbyterian as truly as in the Episcopal Church. But when they of this church claim that through their apos- tolical succession there is a mysterious “ sacramental grace,” an invisible, imperceptible tertium quid , which alone gives validity to ordination and to every ordinance of the church, we may call for the proof thereof. The burden of proof lies upon them. What is this grace transmitted through APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 181 your apostolical succession ? Who has seen or handled it or felt its presence? What are the evidences of its presence or tokens of its departure ? It is a latent principle, for ever latent, inoperative, unknown. All else is known by its effects, the only means by which everything material or immaterial can be made known. Verily, to set up such claims for such grace, so mysterious, so incomprehensible, cognizable neither by sense, consciousness nor experience, is to put an end to all argument, to set at defiance all rea- son. We have no common ground, no first principles, nei- ther definition, axiom nor postulate, left for logical discus- sion . 1 In the dark ages of disorder, degeneracy and corruption, has.no graceless hypocrite crept in unawares, and, stealing the livery of succession from sinister motives, laid unholy hands upon the bishops whom' he received to holy orders ? If so, then this “ golden chain of the succession/’ of which we hear so much as connected with the personal ministry of Christ and fastened to the throne of God, becomes a rope of sand given to the winds. A slight error or informality vitiates the whole ; but the chances are infinite that some fatal flaw or breach in the long chain of the succession may interrupt the line of this electrical grace ; and the misfor- tune is, that it can never be known by any palpable signs whether or not the line has been broken ; neither, if once broken, can it ever be repaired. But the historical fact is, that this chain has many a broken link, in bishops irregu- larly introduced into office, without consecration, by some caprice of the populace or the supremacy of inspired power. Ambrose, Martin of Tours, Chrysostom, Eraclius, are exam- ples to this effect, broken links in this golden chain, any one of which sunders for ever this connection with the 1 Comp. Edinburgh Rev., April, 1843, pp. 269, 270. 16 182 THE PRIMITIVE CHURCH. throne of God. Comp. pp. 65, 71. The irony of the British reviewer is but a fit expression of the absurdity of this delusion : “ What bishop can be sure that he and his predecessors in the same line have always been duly consecrated ? or what presbyter, that he was ordained by a bishop who had a right to ordain him ? Who will undertake to trace up his spiritual pedigree unbroken to the very age of the apos- tles, or give us a complete catalogue of his spiritual an- cestry ?” 2 How marvelous that men of acuteness and culture, eru- 2 “ We can imagine the perplexity of a presbyter thus cast in doubt as to whether or not he has ever had the invaluable ‘ gift ’ of apostoli- cal succession conferred upon him. As that ‘gift’ is neither tangible nor visible, the subject neither of experience nor consciousness ; — as it cannot be known by any ‘ effects’ -produced by it (for that mysterious efficacy which attends the administration of rites at its possessor’s hands, is, like the gift which qualifies him to administer them, also invisible and intangible), he may imagine, unhappy man ! that he has been ‘ regenerating ’ infants by baptism, when he has been simply sprinkling them with water. ‘What is the matter?’ the spectator of his distractions might ask. ‘What have you lost?’ ‘Lost!’ would be the reply ; ‘ I fear I have lost my apostolical succession ; or rather my misery is, that I do not know and cannot tell whether I ever had it to lose !’ It is of no use here to suggest the usual questions, ‘When did you see it last? When were you last conscious of possessing it?’ What a peculiar property is that, of which, though so invaluable — nay, on which the whole efficacy of the Christian ministry depends— a man has no positive evidence to show whether he ever had it or not ! which, if ever conferred, was conferred without his knowledge • and which, if it could be taken away, would still leave him ignorant, not only when, where and how the theft was committed, but whether it had ever been committed or not! The sympathizing friend might probably remind him that, as he was not sure he had ever had it, so? perhaps he still had it without knowing it. 1 Perhaps!' he would re- ply ; ‘ but it is certainty I want.’ ‘Well,’ it might be said, ‘ Mr. Glad- stone assures you that, on the most moderate computation, your APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 183 dition, integrity and piety, can deceive themselves with such a figment of fanaticism and prelatical pride which so out- rages all common sense and Christian charity ! But there are men in that communion who, like Archbishop Whately, contemptuously discard this incomprehensible dogma. With his deliverances relating to it we dismiss the subject : “ Now what is the degree of satisfactory assurance that is thus afforded to the scrupulous consciences of any mem- bers of an episcopal church? If a man consider it as highly probable that the particular minister at whose hands he re- ceives the sacred ordinances is really thus apostolically de- scended, this is the very utmost point to which he can, with any semblance of reason, attain ; and the more he reflects and inquires, the more cause for hesitation he will find. There is not a minister in all Christendom who is able to trace up, with any approach to certainty, his own spiritual pedigree. The sacramental virtue — for such it is that is im- plied, whether the term be used or not — in the principle I have been speaking of, dependent on the imposition of hands, with a due observance of apostolical usages by a bishop, himself duly consecrated, . . . this sacramental vir- tue, if a single link of the chain be faulty, must, on the above principles, be utterly nullified ever after in respect of all the links that hang on that one ; the poisonous taint of informality, if it once creep in undetected, will spread the infection of necessity to an indefinite and irremediable extent. “ And who can undertake to pronounce that, during that long period usually designated the Dark Ages, no such taint ever was introduced? Irregularities could not have chances are as eight thousand to one that you have it V 1 Pish !’ the distracted man would exclaim ; Svhat does Mr. Gladstone know about the matter?’ And, truly, to that query we know not well what answer the friend could make .” — Edinburgh Rev., p. 271. 184 THE PRIMITIVE CHURCH. been wholly excluded without a perpetual miracle; and that no such miraculous interference existed, we have even historical proof. . . . We read of bishops consecrated when mere children ; of men officiating who barely knew their letters; of illiterate and profligate laymen and habitual drunkards admitted to holy orders ; and, in short, of the prevalence of every kind of disorder and reckless disregard of the decency which the apostle enjoins. “ It is no wonder, therefore, that the advocates of this theory studiously disparage reasoning, deprecate all exer- cises of the mind in reflection, deny appeals to evidence, and lament that even the power of reading should be im- parted to the people. It is not without cause that they dread and lament 4 an age of too much light/ and wish to ‘ involve religion in a solemn and awful gloom.’ It is not without cause that, having removed the Christian’s confi- dence from a rock to base it on sand, they forbid all prying curiosity to examine their foundation .” 3 “ Successors in the apostolic office the apostles had none. As witnesses of the resurrection , as dispensers of miraculous gifts , as inspired oracles of divine revelation , they have no suc- cessors. But as members , as ministers, as governors of Christian communities, their successors are the regularly ad- mitted members, the lawfully ordained ministers, the regular and recognized governors of a regularly subsisting Christian church 4 3 Kingdom of Christ Delineated, Essay II. \ 29. 4 Essay II. § 40. CHAPTER VIII. PRESBYTERIAN ORDINATION. Presbyterians, in common with Episcopalians and other denominations, have adopted from the Scriptures, and retained substantially, one form of ordination, by the laying on of hands. We are accordingly as truly in the line of ecclesiastical descent and apostolical succession as Episcopalians. The succession began undeniably with pres- byterian elders ordained in every church , and, as has been shown above, continued in this line a hundred years through the age of the apostles and the apostolic fathers, Clement, Polycarp and Irenaeus. “When we appeal to that tradi- tion from the apostles, which is preserved in the church by the succession of the presbyters , they oppose this tradition.” We ought to obey the presbyters in the churches, those who have, as we have shown, their succession from the apostles, who, with the succession of the episcopate, have received, ac- cording to the good pleasure of the Father, the gift of truth. The passages from Irenaeus are given above. In other passages he speaks in similar terms of the succession of the episcopate, the presbyteriate and the episcopate being with him the same order. Let it be particularly noted, also, that the succession is only in persons, incumbents in office merely, without the least reference to any consecrating gift or grace transmitted through this apostolical succession. That the elders, ordained in the churches by Paul and the other apostles, did ordain others to assist and to suc- 16 * 185 186 THE PRIMITIVE CHURCH. ceed them, and these again, in like manner, there can be no doubt ; but the right and the authority to ordain over any particular church they derived from that body itself ‘ not from the apostles . The clergy are the authorized agents of the church, and act as such in ordaining the pastors whom such church or society may have chosen. Their authority, therefore, is derived from the church. Their ministerial office depends on their having been duly ordained accord- ing to the rules and usages of the church as by them au- thorized, not upon any mysterious sacramental virtue, transmitted in succession from the apostles. This apos- tolical succession is of no account whatever in establishing the validity of any ordination. The assertion has a thousand times been made and a thousand times repeated that Timothy was bishop of the church at Ephesus, but the assertion has never been proved, neither can be. Neither is the nature of the particular office which he sustained at Ephesus the material point in the argument. But it is of the utmost importance in this connection to note that Timothy — if you please, Bishop Timothy — was inducted into the ministry by presbyterian ordination — “by the laying on of the hands of the presbytery ” This was the ordaining act. This is the only clear case of ordination recorded in the New Testament. And this was not episcopal, but presbyterian ordination . It establishes, therefore, beyond contradiction the validity of presbyterian ordination. Both for the apostolical succession of the presbyteriate and the validity of ordination by presbyterian ministers, we have clearer, higher, fuller authority than prelacy with all her proud pretensions can adduce for epis- copal ordination. We are not ignorant of the embarrassment which this presbyterian ordination of Timothy, their bishop, occasioned to episcopalians, nor of their efforts to evade the force of PRESBYTERIAN ORDINATION. 187 this example, but we care not to renew the discussion in this place. They deny but can never disprove the fact that there stands recorded by the apostle one instance “ of presbyterian ordination, in the case of Timothy, and this should be allowed to settle the question. As there is no other undisputed case of ordination referred to in the New Testament, and as we may presume that on an occasion of the kind here referred to, everything essential to a valid ordination would be observed, it demonstrates that presby- ters had and have the right to ordain” 1 In ministerial parity presbyters and bishops are converti- ble terms. Grant the equality and identity of the two, and you concede to presbyters the right to ordain. Allow them to ordain, and you admit their equality with bish- ops. This equality, established in the foregoing chapter, is acknowledged by episcopalians as undeniable in the apos- tolical churches. The apostles teach the validity of pres- byterian ordination. Their authority and usage establish no uniform mode of ordination ; they concede indirectly to presbyters this right, while not the least authority is given by them for exclusive ordination by bishops . 2 The seven deacons were inducted into their office by prayer and the laying on of hands . This may have been, and perhaps was, the usual mode of setting apart any one to a religious service. But was the imposition of hands exclusively ordination? It was a right familiar to the Jews ; and denoted either a benediction, or the communication of miraculous gifts. Jacob, in blessing the sons of Joseph, laid his hands upon their heads. So Jesus took young children in his arms and blessed them, laying his hands upon them . So Paul and Barnabas were dismissed, to go on their missionary tour, with the blessing of the brethren at 1 Barnes’ Apostolic Church, p. 223. 2 Comp. Gerhardi, Loci Theolog. Vol. XII. p. 159. 188 THE PRIMITIVE CHURCH- Antioch, by the laying on of hands, Acts xiii. 3. What- ever may have been the specific office of the prophets and teachers at Antioch, they were not apostles. On the sup- position, therefore, that the laying on of hands was per- formed by them, no reason appears why the same might not be done with equal propriety by presbyters. But this was not an ordination of Paul and Barnabas ; for they had long been engaged in ministerial duties ; neither does it appear that Paul was ever formally ordained. The imposition of hands appears also in some instances to have occurred more than once, as is the case of Timothy, upon whom this rite was performed by the presbytery, 1 Tim. iv. 14 ; and again, by the apostle Paul, 2 Tim. i. 6. 3 This fact forbids the supposition that the laying on of hands was the solemnizing act in the rite of ordination, which, according to all ecclesiastical usage, cannot be repeated. In the passage, Acts xiv. 23, the phrase /eipoTovrjfTavreq, etc., has been already shown to relate, with great probability, not to the consecration, but to the appointment of the elders in every church. 4 Comp. pp. 58-60. 3 Rothe, Anfange der Christ. Kirch. S. 161. 4 “ Where, it may be asked, resides the right, or power, and in what consists the importance, of ordination ? It is not the source of minis- terial authority ; for that, as it has been endeavored to show, does not, and cannot, rest on human foundation. It does not admit to the pas- toral office ; for even in the Episcopal Church, the title to office, which is an indispensable prerequisite, is derived from the nomination of the person who has the disposal of the case. It is not office, but official character, which episcopal ordination is supposed to convey, together with whatsoever the advocates of episcopacy may chose to understand by those solemn words used by the ordaining bishop (an application of them which nonconformists deem awfully inappropriate), ‘ Receive the Holy Ghost.’ The Jewish ordination, on the contrary, although sometimes accompanied, when administered by the apostles, by the communication of miraculous gifts, was in itself no more than PRESBYTERIAN ORDINATION. 189 The rite of the imposition of hands was used by Christ, and with great propriety has been retained in the Christian church. But with the apostles it was the customary mode of imparting the ya.piop.ar a, the miraculous gifts of that age # So the converts at Samaria received the Holy Ghost, Acts viii. 17, and in like manner, when Paul had laid his hands upon the Ephesian converts, the Holy Ghost came upon them, and they spake with tongues and prophesied, Acts xix. 6. In the same sense is to be understood the gift, yap to pa, which was bestowed on Timothy by prophecy, with the lay- ing on of the hands of the presbytery, 1 Tim. iv. 14. The meaning simply is, that by the imposition of hands that peculiar spiritual gift denominated prophecy was imparted a significant form of benediction on admission to a specific appoint- ment. Of this nature were the offices connected with the synagogue, in contradistinction from those of the priesthood. When Paul and Barnabas were sent out from the church at Antioch, they submitted to the same impressive ceremony: not surely that either authority, or power of any kind, or miraculous qualifications, devolved upon the apostle and his illustrious companion by virtue of the imposition of presbyterian hands ! What then is ordination ? The answer is, a decent and becoming solemnity , adopted from the Jewish customs by the primitive church , significant of the separation of an individual to some specific appointment in the Christian ministry , and constituting both a recognition on the part of the officiating presbyters of the ministerial character of the person appointed , and a desirable sanction of the pro- ceedings of the church. It is, however, something more than a mere circumstance, the imposition of hands being designed to express that fervent benediction which accompanied the ceremony, and which con- stitutes the true spirit of the rite. To an occasion which, when the awful responsibility of the pastoral charge is adequately felt, imparts to the prayers and the affectionate aid of those who are fathers and brethren in the ministry a more especial value, the sign and solemn act of benediction must appear peculiarly appropriate. This venera- ble ceremony may also be regarded as a sort of bond of fellowship among the churches of Christ, a sign of unity, and an act of brother- hood/’ — Condor's Protestant Nonconformity , Yol. I. p. 242. 190 THE PRIMITIVE CHURCH. to Timothy. 5 Of the same import are 2 Tim. i. 6, and 1 Tim. v. 22. Both relate to the communication of spirit- ual gifts. If the rite of ordination was implied and in- cluded in it, then the same act must be expressive both of this induction into office, and of the communication of spiritual gifts. This is Neander’s explanation of the trans- action. “ The consecration to offices in the church was con- ducted in the following manner : After those persons to whom its performance belonged, had laid their hands on the head of the candidate — a symbolic action borrowed from the Jewish np'DD — they besought the Lord that he would grant what this symbol denoted, the impartation of the gifts of his Spirit for carrying on the office thus under- taken in his name. If, as was presumed, the whole cere- mony corresponded to its intent, and the requisite disposition existed in those for whom it was performed, there was reason for considering the communication of the spiritual gifts necessary for the office, as connected with the conse- cration performed in the name of Christ. And since Paul from this point of view designated the whole of the solemn proceeding (without separating it into its various elements), by that which was its external symbol (as, in scriptural phraseology, a single act of a transaction consisting of several parts, and sometimes that which was most striking to the senses, is often mentioned for the whole), he required of Timothy that he should seek to revive afresh the spirit- ual gifts that he had received by the laying on of hands.” 6 The question has been asked, but never yet answered, who ordained Apollos ? See Acts xviii. 24-26 ; 1 Cor. iii. 5-7. It remains to consider the case of Paul the Apostle. Of whom did he receive ordination ? One Ananias, a disciple 5 Rotlie Anfiinge, I. S. 161. 6 Neander, Apost. Kirch. 1, 213. Trans. I. 180. Comp. pp. 88, 300. PRESBYTERIAN ORDINATION. 191 and a devout man according to the law, having a good re- port of all the Jews that dwelt at Damascus — this man prayed and laid his hands upon Paul, and straightway he preached Christ in the synagogue. Scon after this he spent three years in Arabia ; then, for a whole year he and Barnabas assembled themselves with the church and taught much people at Antioch, Acts xi. 26. After all this, he was sent forth by the Holy Ghost on his mission to the Gentiles. Preparatory to this mission he was recommended to the grace of God by fasting, prayer and the imposition of hands. Even this was not done by any of the apostles, but by cer- tain prophets and teachers, such as Simeon, Lucius and Manaen. Even on the supposition, therefore, that these were the solemnities of Paul’s ordination, he was not epis- copally ordained. But, in truth, they had no reference whatever to his ordination. On the authority of his divine commission he had already been a preacher for several years. It was not a new appointment, but an appointment to a new work, which in no degree helps forward the cause of prelatical ordination. 7 We have adopted from apostolic usage a significant, im- pressive and becoming rite, by which to induct one into the sacred office of the ministry. The rite ought always to be observed. But no direct precept, no uniform usage, gives to this rite the sanction of divine authority ; above all, there is not in all the Scriptures the least authority for confining the administration of it exclusively to the bishop. The idea of a bishop’s receiving the Holy Ghost in regular succession from the holy apostles, and transmitting the heavenly grace to others by the laying on of his hands, is a figment of pre- latical pride and superstition unauthorized in Scripture and unknown in the earliest ages of the church. In the apos- 7 Bowdler’s Letters on Apostolical Succession, p. 22. 192 THE PRIMITIVE CHURCH. tolic age, ordination was performed by the laying on of the hands of the presbytery, not of the bishops. In the age immediately subsequent to that of the apos- tles, episcopal ordination was equally unknown, both bish- ops and presbyters being still the same. Clement knows no distinction between bishops and presbyters. Polycarp knows nothing of bishops. Each specifies but two orders or grades of officers in the church, of which the deacons are one. Presbyters or bishops of necessity form the other order, and are one and the same. Justin Martyr, again, speaks of only two grades, of which deacons form one. Ire- naeus, still later, accords the apostolic succession to presby- ters, who, with the succession of the episcopate, have received the certain gift of truth according to the good pleasure of the Father. 8 9 Clement of Alexandria and Tertullian recog- nize no clear distinction between bishops and presbyters as different orders. We have, however, direct proof that presbyters, in the primitive church did themselves ordain. This is found in the epistle of Firmilian from Asia Minor to Cyprian in Carthage, A. D. 256. In explanation of the ecclesiastical polity of these churches, he says : “ All power and grace is vested in the church, where the presbyters, majores natu, pre- side, who have authority to baptize, to impose hands [in the reconciling of penitents], and to ordain." 9 Firmilian wrote in the Greek language from Asia ; but we have a Latin translation of his epistle in the writings of Cyprian. No one who has any acquaintance with these languages can 8 Qui successionem habent ab apostolis . . . qui cum episcopatus successione, charisma veritatis certum placitum Patris acceperunt. — Cent. Haer. IV. c. 26, \ ii. 4. 9 Omnis potestas et gratia in ecclesia constituta sit; ubi praesident majores natu, qui et baptizandi, et manum imponendi, et ordinandi, possident, potestatem. — Cyprian, Epist. 75, § 7, p. 145. PRESBYTERIAN ORDINATION. 193 doubt that the majores natu of the Latin is a translation of izpza pi)Tz.poi in the original. Both the terms n pea (lore pot and majores natu mean the same thing; and each may, with equal propriety, be rendered aged men , elders , presbyters . 10 The episcopal hierarchy was not fully established in these Eastern churches so early as in the Western. Accordingly, we find the presbyters here in the full enjoyment still of their original right to ordain. No restrictions have yet been laid upon the presbyters in the administration of the ordinances. Whatever clerical grace is essential for the right administration of baptism, of consecration and of or- dination is still retained by the presbyters. This authority is in perfect harmony with that of Irenaeus given above, that the succession and the episcopate had come down to his day, the latter part of the second century, through a series of presbyters, who, with the episcopate, enjoyed the rights and exercised the prerogatives of bish- ops, ordination being of course included. “ This passage,” says Goode, “ appears to me decisive as to Irenaeus’ view of the matter.” 11 To the foregoing testimonies succeeds that of the author of the Commentaries on St. Paul’s Epistles, attributed to Hilary the Deacon, A. D. 384. “ The apostle calls Tim- 10 Reeves, the translator of Justin, a churchman, who loses no op- portunity of opposing sectarians, allows, in liis notes on the passage TTpoeoTug, etc., that this 7r poeorcjQ of Justin, the probati seniores of Ter- tullian, the majores natu of Firmilian, and the 7r poeoTtireg tt pea (5vr spot. or presiding presbyters of St. Paul, 1 Tim. iv. 17, were all one and the same. Now Tertullian, Cyprian, or Firmilian, the celebrated bishop of Caesarea in Cappadocia, and St. Paul, all mean presbyters. Their language cannot be otherwise interpreted without violence. Presbyter, says Bishop Jewell, is expounded in Latin hy major natu. — Smyth's Presbyt. and Prelacy , p. 367. r Goode’s Divine Rule, Vol. II. p. 66. 17 I 194 THE PRIMITIVE CHURCH. othy, created by him a presbyter , 12 a bishop (for the first presbyters were called bishops), that when he departed, the one that came next might succeed him” A presbyter , it is to be observed, becomes the successor of the apostle ; and the apostolical succession comes down through him, as through a bishop, plainly establishing the validity of presbyterian ordination. “Every bishop is a presbyter, but not every presbyter a bishop. For he is bishop who is chief among the presbyters . Moreover, he no- tices that Timothy was ordained a presbyter, but inasmuch as he had no other above him , he was a bishop.” Hence he shows that Timothy, a presbyter, might ordain a bishop , be- cause of his equality with him. “ For it was neither lawful 12 “ Timothy is here said, we may observe, to have been ordained a presbyter. And I cannot but think that the passage, 1 Tim. iv. 14, is favorable to this view. For without adopting the translation which some have given of this passage, viz., ‘with the laying on of hands for the office of a presbyter/ if we retain our own version, which appears to me more natural, who or what is ‘ the presbytery f Certainly not consisting altogether of the apostles, though it appears, from 2 Tim. i. 6, that ordination was received by Timothy partly from St. Paul. But if presbyters joined in that ordination, it could not be to a higher sacerdotal grade or order than that of the presbyterhood. Nor is this inconsistent witli his being called elsewhere an apostle, which name might be given him as one appointed to be a superintendent of a church .” — Divine Rule , Vol. II. p. 64. Timotheum, presbyterum a se creatum, episcopum vocat, quia primi presbyteri episcopi appellabantur, ut recedente uno sequens ei succe- deret. Comment, in Eph. iv. 11, 12. Inter Op. Ambros., ed. Ben., Vol. II. app. col. 241, 242. The “ Council” may be what Tertullian calls “ consensus ordinis” The author of the “ Questiones in Vet. et Nov. Test.,” which have been ascribed to Augustine, but are probably not his, says: “In Alex- andria, and through the whole of Egypt, if there is no bishop, a pres- byter consecrates ” (In Alexandria et per totam JEgyptum si desit episcopus consecrat presbyter.) Where, however, one MS. reads, con- firms (consignat). See Aug. Op., Vol. III. app., col. 77. On this PRESBYTERIAN ORDINATION. 195 nor right for an inferior to ordain a superior, inasmuch as one cannot confer what he has not received.” 13 There is another passage in striking coincidence with the foregoing, probably from the same author, though found in an appendix to the works of Augustine “ That by presby- ter is meant a bishop the Apostle Paul proves when he in- structs Timothy, whom he had ordained a presbyter, respect- ing the character of one whom he would make a bishop. For what else is the bishop than the first presbyter , that is, the highest priest? For he [the bishop] calls them [the presbyters] by no other names than fellow-presbyters and fellow-priests . He therefore considers them of the same grade as himself.” But he is careful by no means to do the same with regard to clerical persons of inferior rank. Not even with the deacons, for to place himself in the same category with them would be degrading his own rank. subject, the 13th canon of the Council of Ancyra (in the code of the Universal Church) is also worth notice. — Divine Rule, ibid. There are also indirect confirmatory proofs. Such, I think, is afforded by the account we have in Eusebius (vi. 29) of the appoint- ment of Fabianus to the bishopric of Rome, for the assembly that met to elect a bishop having fixed upon him, placed him at once on the epis- copal throne (’ knl rov tipdvov Tfjg kTTLGKOTrfjq Tiapdvrag avrov b rtfieivat), which seems to me irreconcilable with the notion that epis- copal consecration was essential to entitle him to the episcopal seat ; for he was installed in it without any such consecration. 13 Post Episcopum tamen Diaconi ordinationem subjicit. Quare? nisi quia Episcopi et Presbvteri una ordinatio est? Uterque enim sacerdos est, sed Episcopus primus est; ut omnis Episcopus Presbyter sit, non omnis Presbyter Episcopus ; hie enim Episcopus est, qui inter Presbyteros primus est. Denique Timotheum Presbyteruin ordinatum significat ; sed quia ante se alterum non habebat, Episcopus erat. Unde et quemadmodum Episcopum ordinet ostendit. Neque enim fas erat aut licebat, ut inferior ordinaret majorem ; nemo enim tribuit quod non accepit. — Comment, in 1 Tim. iii. 8, inter Ambros. Op. Vol II. app. 295. 196 THE PRIMITIVE CHURCH. “Does the bishop call the deacons his fellow-deacon^ ? Cer- tainly not; because they are far inferior to him, and it were a disgrace to call the judge a mere manager of a clerk’s office.” If any are disposed to call in question this interpretation of the phrase judicem dicere primicerium , I will only say that it was given to me by Prof. Itothe of Heidelberg, with whose name the reader has become familiar by frequent references to his learned work on the Origin of the Christian Church. The following is also his exposition of the passage: “AVhere there is a real difference of office and rank, the higher officer cannot include himself in the official designation of the lower without degrading himself. It would be a downright insult to address the president of a court as the head of his clerks. Just so it does not enter the mind of the bishop to call his deacons fellow- deacons , making himself thereby a deacon. Between these two officers there exists an actual difference in rank. On the other hand, he calls the presbyters his fellow-presbyters, because he sees no real difference between his office and theirs, but only a difference in degree; that is, he considers himself, in relation to the presbyters, as only primus inter pares, chief among equals. The offices of bishop and presbyter, therefore, are essentially one and the same ; the very thing which Ambrosiaster wishes to prove. ‘For in Alexandria and throughout all Egypt, upon the decease of the bishop, the presbyter confirms ( consignat ).’ ” 14 Here the presbyter performs another of the episcopal 14 Presbyterum autem intelligi Episcopum probat Panlus Apostolus, quando Timotheum, quem ordinavit Presbyterum instruit, qualern debeat creare Episcopum. Quid est enim Episcopus nisi primus Pres- byter, hoc est summus sacerdos? Denique non aliter quam Compres- bvteros, Condiaconos suos dicit Episcopus? Non utique, quia multo inferiores sunt, et turpe est, judicem dicere primicerium. — Augustin. Op. V ol. III. app. p. 77. Quaestioves in Veteris et Nov. Test, ex utro - qua mixtim , ed. Bened. Antwerp, 1700-1703. PRESBYTERIAN ORDINATION. 197 functions, administering the rite, not only of ordination, but of confirmation . 15 The full sacerdotal power is possessed by every presbyter, according to the authority of the earliest fathers. They know no distinction between bishops and presbyters. The right to ordain still belongs to him ; and the bishop, when selected to preside over his fellow-presbyters, receives no new consecration or ordination, but continues himself to ordain as a presbyter. Within the first hundred and fifty years of the Christian era not an instance occurs of exclu- sive ordination by a bishop. We have next the authority of Jerome, who died A. D. 426. He was one of the most learned of the Latin fathers. Erasmus styles him “ by far the most learned and most elo- quent of all the Christians, and the prince of Christian divines.” Jerome received his education at Rome, and was familiar with the Roman, Greek and Hebrew languages. He visited Egypt, and traveled extensively in France and the adjacent countries. He resided, in the course of his life, at Constantinople, at Antioch, at Jerusalem, and at Bethlehem. By his great learning, and his extensive ac- quaintance with all that related to the doctrines and usages both of the Eastern and of the Western churches, he was eminently qualified to explain the rights and prerogatives of the priesthood. “ What does a bishop, ordination excepted, that a pres- 15 Whether the verb consignare expresses the confirmation of the baptized, or the imposition of hands upon those who were ordained, or on penitents, the work expressed by it was correctly accpmplished by presbyters, in the absence of the bishop, whose precedence was founded only on custom and the canons of the church. But these could not have legalized such acts of the presbyter had not his author- ity been apostolical. He was therefore duly authorized to perform the functions of the episcopal office. 198 THE PRIMITIVE CHURCH. byter may not do? 16 This, however, is said of the relations of bishop and presbyter as they then ivere. This restriction of the right of ordaining to the bishops alone was a recent innovation, which had begun to distinguish them from the presbyters, and to subvert the original organization of the church. But it was an acknowledged fact, in his day, that the bishops had no authority from Christ or his apostles for their unwarrantable assumptions. “As the presbyters know that it is by the custom of the church that they are subject to him who is placed over them, so let the bishops know that they are above presbyters rather by the custom of the church than by the fact of our Lord’s appointment, and that they (both bishops and presbyters) ought to rule the church in common, in imitation of the example of Moses.” 17 He reviews the same subject with great point in his famous epistle to Evagrius, or, more properly in modern editions, to Evangelus. He rebukes with great severity certain persons who had preferred deacons in honor “above presbyters , i. e., bishops .” Having thus asserted the identity of bishops and presbyters, he proves his position from Phil, i. 1; from Acts xx. 17, 28; from Titus i. 5; from 1 Tim. iv. 14; from 1 Pet. v. 1; from 2 John i. 1; and from 3 John i. 1. “As to the fact that afterward one was elected to preside over the rest, this was done as a remedy against schism ; lest every one drawing his proselytes to himself 16 Quid enim facit, excepta ordinatione, Episcopus, quod presbyter non faciat? — Ep. ad Evang. Ep. 101 alias 85. Op. Ed. Paris, 1693- 1706, p. 803. The same sentiment is expressed by Chrysostom : T?)v Xstporoviav. ydvrjv tz pea/3vTepovg avaj3aiveiv; only in ordaining do bishops excel presbyters. 17 Comment, in Epist. ad Titus, c. 1, v. 5. Op. Vol. IV. Paris, 1693 1706, p. 413. See Rhein wald, 25. PRESBYTERIAN ORDINATION. 199 should rend the church of Christ. It had been the custom in the church at Alexandria, from the evangelist Mark to the bishops Heraclas and Dionysius, for the presbyters to choose one of their own number, make him president and call him bishop ; in the same manner as if an army should make an emperor ; or the deacons should choose from among themselves one whom they knew to be particularly active, and should call him arch-deacon. For, excepting ordination, what is done by a bishop which may not be done by a presbyter ?” 18 Here the presbyters themselves elect one of their number and make him a bishop, so that even the bishop is ordained by the presbyters, if indeed it can be called an ordination; if not, then he is only a presbyter still, having no other right to ordain than they themselves have. Such, Jerome assures us, is the usage “ in every country” There was but one ordination for bishops and presbyters in his time, though bishops had now begun exclusively to administer it. But it had been the custom of the church, from the begin- ning, for bishops and presbyters to receive the same ordina- tion. This is another consideration of much importance, to 18 Sicat ergo Presbvteri sciunt, se ex Ecclesiae consuetudine ei, qui sibi praepositus fuerit, esse subjectos, ita Episcopi noverint, se magis consuetudine quam dispositionis Dominicae veritate Presbyteris esse majores, et in commune debere Ecclesiam regere Audio quen- dam in tantam erupisse vecordiam, ut Diaconos Presbyteris, id est Episcopis, anteferret. Quod autem postea unus electus est, qui ceteris praeponeretur, in schismatis remedium factum est, ne unusquisque ad se trabens Christi Ecclesiam rumperet. Nam Alexandriae a Marco Evangelista usque ad Heraclam et Dionysium Episcopos, Presbvteri semper unum ex se electum in excelsiori gradu collocatum Episcopum nominabant, quomodo si exercitus Imperatorem faciat, aut Diaconi eligant de se quem industrium noverint et Archidiaconum vocent. Quid enim facit excepta ordinatione Episcopus, quod Presbyter non faciat? Comment, in Epist. ad Tit. — Ep. ad Evang. 101, p. 803. 200 THE PRIMITIVE CHURCH. show that presbyters were entitled to ordain. Having themselves received episcopal ordination as truly as the bishops, they were equally qualified to administer the same. That the right of ordination belonged to presbyters is evident from the authority of Eutychius of Alexandria, the most distinguished writer among the Arabian Christians of the tenth century. “ I am quite aware that very considerable learning has been employed in the attempt to explain away this passage, and the reader who wishes to see how a plain statement may thus be darkened, may refer to the works mentioned below .” 19 Gieseler remarks that “ it is at least certain that the part which is contradictory to the usage of later times has not been interpolated ; and so far it has an historical value.” 20 19 The following is Selden’s translation of the passage from the Arabic: “Constituit item Marcus Evangelista duodecim Presbyteros cum Hanania, qui nempe manerent cum Patriarcha, adeo ut cum vacaret Patriarchates, eligerent unum e duodecim Presbyteris cujus capiti reliqui undecim manus imponerent eumque benedicerent et Patriarcham eum crearent, et dein virum aliquem insignem eligerent eumque Presbyterum secum constituerent loco ejus qui sic factus est. Patriarcha, ut ita semper extarent duodecim. Neque desiit Alexan- driae institutum hoc de Presbyteris, ut scilicet Patriarchas crearent ex Presbyteris duodecim, usque ad tempora Alexandri Patriarchae Alex- andrini qui fuit ex numero illo cccxviii. Is autem vetuit ne deinceps Patriarcham Presbyteri crearent. Et decrevit ut mortuo Patriarcha convenirent Episcopi qui Patriarcham ordinarent. Decrevit item ut, vacante Patriarchatu, eligerent sive ex quacunque regione, sive ex duodecim illis Presbyteris, sive aliis, ut res ferebat, virum aliquem exirnium, eumque Patriarcham crearent. Atque ita evanuit institu- tum illud antiquius, quo creari solitus a Presbyteris Patriarcha, et successit in locum ejus decretum de Patriarcha ab Episcopis creando.” — Eatch. Patr. Alex. Ecclesiae suae orig. Ed. J. Selden. London, 1642. 4to., pp. 29-31. Comp. Abr. Echell. Eutychius Yindicatus, Morinus De Ordinat Renaudot. Hist. Patriarch Alex. 20 Cited in the author’s Christian Antiquities, p. 103. In addition PRESBYTERIAN ORDINATION. 201 The right of presbyters to ordain, and the validity of presbyterian ordination, was never called in question, ac- cording to Planck, until the bishops began, about the mid- dle of the third century, to assert the doctrine of the apos- tolical succession. “ With the name it seemed desirable also to inherit the authority of the apostles. For this pur- pose they availed themselves of the right of ordination. The right of ordination of course devolved exclusively upon the bishops as alone competent rightly to administer it. As they had been duly constituted the successors of the apostles, so also had they alone the right to communicate the same in part or fully by the imposition of hands. From this time onward, to give the rite more effect, it was administered with more imposing solemnity. ,, And in all probability it became customary at this early period to utter, in the laying on of hands, those words of prelatical arrogance and shocking irreverence, “ Receive the Holy Ghost ” for the office and work of a bishop . 21 Dr. Neander has assured the writer, in conversation on this point, that beyond a doubt presbyters were accustomed to ordain in the ages immediately succeeding the apostles. The testimony of Firmilian, given above, is, according to Neander, explicit in confirmation of this fact, and the same sentiments are also expressed or implied in his works. If further evidence is needed on this point, it is given at length and with great ability by Blondell, who, after occupying one hundred quarto pages with the argument, sums up the result of the discussion in the following syllogism : “To whom the usage of the church has assigned in reality the same functions, to them it has also from the beginning to the authors mentioned above by Goode, are Le Quien and Petavius. Comp, also Neander, Allgem. Gesch. I. S. 325, 326, 2d edit., Note. J. F. Rehkopf, Vitae Patriarcharum Alexandr. fasc. I. and II. 21 Planck, Gesell. Verfass. I. S. 158-161. I * 202 THE PRIMITIVE CHURCH, ascribed the same ministerial parity, and, of course, the same dignity. ‘‘ But the usage of the church has assigned to bishops and presbyters, in reality, the same functions in the right of confirmation, of dedication of churches, of taking the veil, of the reconciling of penitents, and in the ordination of presbyters, deacons, etc. “ Therefore it has from the beginning declared that bish- ops and presbyters are in all respects equal, and, of neces- sity, that they are the same in dignity or rank.” 22 Even the decrees of ecclesiastical councils, which restrict the right of ordination to the bishops alone, distinctly imply that from the beginning it was not so limited. Why deny to presbyters the right to ordain, by a formal decree, if they had never enjoyed that right? The prohibition is an evi- dent restriction of their early prerogatives. But we forbear ; enough has been said to vindicate the right of presbyters to ordain and to perform all the func- tions of the ministerial office. How extraordinary the har- dihood with which, in the face of authorities a thousand times collated and repeated, we are still told that “ the idea of ordination by any but bishops was an unheard-of thing in the primitive church !” 23 “ Such is the result of the appeal to the early fathers. They are so far from giving even a semblance of support to the episcopal claim, that, like the Scriptures, they every- where speak a language wholly inconsistent with it, and favorable only to the doctrine of ministerial parity. What, 22 Apologia pro sententia Hieronomi de Episcopis et presbyteris. Amstelod. 1616, 4to. 23 “ So much for the idea of any but bishops ordaining in the prim- itive church. Never was this allowed before the Reformation, either in the church or by any sect, however wild !” — Review of Coleman's Christian Antiquities , by H. W. D., a presbyter in Philadelphia. PRESBYTERIAN ORDINATION. 203 then, shall we say of the assertions so often and so confi- dently made, that the doctrine of a superior order of bishops has been maintained in the church ‘ from the earliest ages/ in ‘ the ages immediately succeeding the apostles/ and ‘ by all the fathers from the beginning ?’ What shall we say of the assertion that the Scriptures, interpreted by the writ- ings of the early fathers , decidedly support the same doc- trine ?” 24 We have even high episcopal authority for presbyterian ordination. Repugnant as is this view of ordination to the modern advocates of episcopacy, it accords with the senti- ments of Archbishop Cranmer and the first Protestant bish- ops of the Church of England. 25 A volume might be filled with authorities from the Eng- lish church alone, in which both her most distinguished prelates and her most eminent scholars concede to presby- ters a virtual equality with bishops and the right to ordain. The Necessary Erudition of a Christian Man, drawn up with great care, approved by both houses of Parliament in 1543, and prefaced by an epistle from the king himself, de- clares that “ priests [ presbyters ] and bishops are, by God’s law, one and the same, and that the powers of ordination and excommunication belong equally to both/’ Under 24 Miller’s Letters, pp. 108, 109. 25 See transcript of the original, which was subscribed with Cran- mer’s own hand, in Bishop Stillingfleet’s Irenicum, Part II. c. 8, g 2. See also Burnet’s History of the Reformation , P. I. pp. 318, 321. Cited from Conder’s Nonconformity. Many other authorities from English writers are given in S. Mather’s Apology for the Liberty of the Churches, chap. 2, p. 51. They have also been collected and collated with great industry and research by Rev. Dr. Smyth, in his Apostoli- cal Succession and his Presbytery not Prelacy. So also in an article in the Christian Spectator, New Series, Vol. II. p. 720, from whence several of the authorities given below are taken. 204 THE PRIMITIVE CHURCH. Elizabeth it was enacted by Parliament “ that the ordina- tion of foreign churches should be held valid.” The learned Whittaker, of Cambridge, declares the doc- trine of the Reformers to be that “presbyters, being by di- vine right the same as bishops, they might warrantably set other presbyters over the churches” Archbishop Usher, one of the brightest ornaments of the Episcopal Church, on being asked by Charles I., in the Isle of Wight, whether he found in antiquity that “ presbyters alone did ordain f” answered, “ Yes” and that he would show his Majesty more — “even where presbyters alone suc- cessively ordained bishops;” and he brought as an instance of this, the presbyters of Alexandria choosing and making their own bishop from the days of Mark till Heraclas and Dionysius. Bishop Stillingfleet says : “ It is acknowledged by the stoutest champions of episcopacy, before these late unhappy divisions, that ordination performed by presbyters in case of necessity is valid.” Bishop Forbes: “Presbyters have by divine right the power of ordaining as well as of preaching and baptizing.” Sir Peter King, Lord Chancellor of England, after assert- ing the equality of bishops and presbyters, and showing at length that the latter had full authority to administer the ordinances, adds : “ As for ordination, I find clearer proofs of presbyters ordaining than of their administering the Lord’s Supper.” The doctrine of the divine right of bishops, from which that of the exclusive validity of their ordination proceeds, was promulgated in a sermon preached January 12, 1588, by Dr. Bancroft, at St. Paul’s Cross, in the presence of a vast assembly of members of Parliament, the nobility and the court. He maintained that bishops are a distinct order from priests or presbyters, and have authority over them PRESBYTERIAN ORDINATION. 205 jure divino , and directly from God. This bold and novel assertion created a great sensation throughout the kingdom. It was a vast extension of the prerogatives of the bishops, by which the oppression of the Puritans was increased to an incalculable degree. “The greater part even of the pre- latic party themselves were startled by the novelty of the doctrine ; for none of the English Reformers had ever re- garded the bishops as anything else but a human institu- tion, appointed for the more orderly government of the church, and they were not prepared at once to condemn as heretical all churches whei'e that institution did not exist. Whitgift himself, that furious, intolerant zealot, perceiving the use which might be made of such a tenet, said that the doctor’s sermon had done much good — though, for his own part, he rather wished than believed it to be true.” 26 The doctrine was reaffirmed half a century later by Laud and his party , 27 and from that time has been the favorite dogma of many in the Episcopal Church. Even at the present time the validity of Presbyterian or- dination is acknowledged by many in the Episcopal Church. Goode, who has written with great ability against the Tractarians, says: “I admit that for the latter point [or- dination by bishops alone, as successors of the apostles], there is not any Scripture proof ; but we shall find here, as in other cases, that as the proof is not to be found in Scrip- ture, so antiquity also is divided with respect to it; and moreover, that though it is the doctrine of our church, yet that it is held by her with an allowance for those who may differ from her on that point, and not as if the observance of it was requisite by divine command, and essential to the validity of all ordinations ; though for the preservation of the full ecclesiastical regularity of her own orders, she has 26 Hetheringtoifs History of Westminster Assembly, pp. 49, 50. 27 Hallam’s Constitutional History, Vol. II. pp. 440, 441. 18 206 THE PRIMITIVE CHURCH. made it essential to the ministers of her own communion .” 28 In support of this opinion he proceeds to enumerate many of the authorities of the fathers given above. Finally, we add the following extract, not again from an “ irreverent dissenter ” — to use the flippant cant of one of the Tractarians — but from a devoted son of their own church, a distinguished layman of England, who has writ- ten with great ability and good effect against the doctrines of Puseyism and the high-church party. “ It is no part of my plan to trace the origin or course of ' departure from the system of church government in the apostolical times, as it lies before us in all its simplicity. I admit — indeed, as the lawyers say, it is a part of my case— that some change was unavoidable ; and I see nothing in the present constitution of the church of England that is inconsistent with- the principles of the apostles. But to say that they are identical, is a mere abuse of words. Still less is it to be heard say without some impatience, that there is safety in her communion only, as she has descended from the apostles, through all the changes and abominations that have intervened.” If, then, all this be so, there seems to be an end to the question ; for, under whatever circumstances the privilege of ordaining was afterward committed to the bishop, he could of necessity receive no more than it was in their power to bestow from whom he received it, who were co- ordinate presbyters, not superiors. At whatever period, therefore, it was adopted, and with whatever uniformity it might be continued, and whatever of value or even au- thority it might hence acquire, still as an apostolical insti- tution it has none; there is a gap which never can be filled, or rather, the link by which the whole must be sus- 28 Divine Rule, Yol. II. pp. 57, 58. REMARKS. 207 pended is wanting and can never be supplied. There can be no apostolical succession of that which had no apostolical existence ; whereas, the averment, to be of any avail, must be, not only that it existed in the time of the apostles, but was so appointed by them as that there can be no true church without it.” “ I am aware that in St. Jerome’s time there existed generally, though by no means universally, this difference between the bishop and the presbyters, viz., that to the former was then confided the power of ordination. It may be difficult to fix the period exactly when the episcopate was first recognized as a distinct order in the church, and when the consecration of bishops, as such, came into general use. Clearly not, I think, when St. Jerome wrote. Thus much at least is certain, that the government of each church, including the ordination of the ministry, was at first in the hands of the presbytery.” 29 The change was gradual, paulatim . “ Power always passes slowly and silently, and without much notice, from the hands of the many to the few ; and all history shows that ecclesiastical domination grows up by little and little.” 30 Comp. p. 171, note. REMARKS. 1. The primitive church was organized as a purely reli- gious society. It had for its object the promotion of the great interests of morality and religion. It interfered not with the secular or private pursuits of its members, except so far as they re- lated to the great end for which the church was formed — the promotion of pure and undefiled religion. 29 Bowdler’s Letters, pp. 32, 33. 30 Dr. Hawks, in Smyth’s Eccl. Republicanism, p. 166. 208 THE PRIMITIVE CHURCH. 2. It employed only moral means for the accomplishment of religious ends. The apostles sought, by kind and tender entreaty, to re- claim the wandering. They taught the church to do the same, and to separate the unworthy from their communion. But they gave no countenance to the exercise of arbitrary authority. 3. The apostolical churches had no relations to any civil government. But the church soon began to be assimilated to the form of the existing civil governments, and in the end a “ hier- archy of bishops, metropolitans and patriarchs arose, cor- responding to the graduated rank of the civil administration. Ere long the Roman bishop assumed pre-eminence above all others.’’ 31 United with the civil authority in its ipter- ests, assimilated to that power in its form of government, and secularized in its spirit, the church, under Constantine and his successors, put off its high and sacred character, and became a part of the machinery of state government. It first truckled to the low arts of state policy, and after- ward, with insatiable ambition, assumed the supreme control of all power, human and divine. 4. The primitive church was fitted to any form of civil government, and to any state of society. Voluntary and simple in their organization, entirely re- moved from all connection with the civil government, with no confederate relations among themselves, and seeking only by the pure precepts of religion to persuade men in every condition to lead quiet and holy lives, these Christian socie- ties were adapted to any state of society and any form of government. They commended themselves with equal fa- cility to the rich and the poor, the learned and the un- 31 Ranke’s Hist, of the Popes, Eng. Trans., Vol. I. p. 29. REMARKS. 209 learned, the high and the low, to the soldier, the fisherman or the peasant. They gathered into their communion con- verts from every form of government, of every species of superstition, and of every condition in life, and by whole- some truths and simple rites trained them up for eternal life. 5. It subjected the clergy to salutary restraints by bring- ing them, in their official character, under the watch of the church. The consciousness that their whole life was open to the judicial inspection of those to whom they ministered, and by whom they were most intimately known, could not fail to create in the clergy a salutary circumspection, the re- straints of which an independent ministry under another system can never feel. 6. It served to guard them against the workings of an unholy ambition, a thirst for office and the love of power. This thought is necessarily implied in the preceding, but it is of such importance that it deserves a distinct consider- ation. Those disgraceful contests for preferment, the recital of which crowds the page of history, belong to a later age and a different ecclesiastical polity, a prelatical organization. 7. It tended to guard the clergy against a mercenary spirit. The vast wealth of a church establishment, and the princely revenues of its incumbents, offer an incentive to this sordid passion which Paul in his poverty could never have felt, and which none can ever feel, who are contented to receive only a humble competence, as a voluntary offer- ing at the hands of those for whom they labor. 8. The system was well suited to guard the church from the evils of a sectarian spirit. In the church of Christ were Jews, jealous for the law of their fathers. There were also Greeks, who, independent of the Mosaic economy, had received the gospel and be- 18 * 210 THE PEIMITIYE CHURCH. come Christians, without being Jews in spirit. Had now the church assumed the form of a national establishment, with its prescribed articles of faith, its ritual, etc., it is difficult to conceive how the opposing views of these differ- ent parties could have been harmonized. The disturbing influence of a sectarian spirit was strongly manifested in all the churches, so that it required all the wisdom and in- fluence of the apostles to unite their Christian converts in an organization so simple as that which they did establish. 9. It left the apostles and pastors free to pursue their great work without let or hindrance from ecclesiastical authority or partisan zeal. An explanation, given and received in the spirit of mu- tual confidence, reconciled the brethren whose prejudice was excited by the preaching of Peter to the Gentiles. The unhappy division between Paul and Barnabas ended in the furtherance of the gospel, both being at liberty, notwith- standing this sinful infirmity, to prosecute their labors for the salvation of men without being arrested by the ban of a hierarchy or trammeled by ecclesiastical jealousy. 10. The order of the primitive church was calculated to preserve peace and harmony among the clergy. One in rank and power, and holding the tenure of their office at the will of their people, they had few temptations, comparatively, to engage in strife one with another for pre- ferment. We know, indeed, that Jerome assigns the origin of epis- copacy to the ambitious contentions of the clergy in the primitive church ; as though this were an expedient to heal their divisions. If this be true, we have only to say that the remedy proved to be infinitely worse than the evil which it would cure. After the rise of diocesan episcopacy and the establishment of the various grades of the hierarchy, the spirit of faction rose high among the clergy. Insatiable REMARKS. 211 ambition possessed all orders among the priesthood, raging like a pestilence through their several ranks. The age of Constantine and his successors, within which the system of prelacy was matured, was pre-eminently the age of clerical ambition. “ In the age we speak of, which seems too justly styled ambitionis saeculum , the age of ambition, though those whose designs agree with the humor of it have esteemed it most inimitable, scarce any in the church could keep their own that had any there greater than themselves ; some bishops, and not only the presbyters, found it so, the great still en- croaching upon those whose lower condition made them ob- noxious to the ambition and usurpation of the more potent. “ In that unhappy time, what struggling was there in bishops of all sorts for more greatness and larger power ! AVhat tugging at councils and court for these purposes.’’ 32 Socrates, the ecclesiastical historian, A. D. 439, alleges that he has intermingled the history of the wars of those times as a relief to the reader, that he may not be continu- ally detained with the ambitious contentions,