BV 664.5 .W37 1841 Watson, William. Who are Christ's ministers? WHO ARE CHRIST'S MINISTERS! WHO ARE CHRIST'S MINISTERS? AN INQUIRY SUGGESTED BY THE RE-PUBLICATION OF A TRACT, ENTITLED PLAIN REASONS FOR RELYING ON PRESBYTERIAN ORDINATION I IN A LETTER TO A FRIEND. BY LUTHER HART, LATE PASTOR OF THE CONGREGATIONAL CHURCH IN PLYMOUTH, CONNECTICUT." NEW HAVEN: PRINTED BY STANLEY 8t CHAPIN. 1841. kRY Of PRll ^cirl SEP 4 1992 " Almighty God, our Heavenly Father, who hast purchased to thyself an universal Church, by the precious blood of thy dear Son; merci- fully look upon the. same, and so guide and govern the minds of thy servants, the Bishops of thy flock, that they may lay hands suddenly on no man, but faithfully and wisely make choice of fit persons, to serve in the s/icrcd min- istry of thy Church. And, to those who shall be ordained thereto, give thy grace and heavenly benediction ; that both by their life and doctrine they may show forth thy glory, and set forward the salvation of all men, through Jesus Christ our Lord." Amen. INTRODUCTION. The object of the following pages is, to furnish common men with a correct answer to the question proposed in our title. So thoroughly has the subject of the Christian Min- istry been discussed within a few years past, that the pres- ent writer cannot hope to add to the light wliich has been thrown on it by previous investigation. And here he would say, by way of apology for presenting afresh to the public, views which others have maintained with more ability than he can expect to do, that these sentiments would have re- mained unpublished in this new form, had not a pamphlet recently appeared among us, bearing on its front the follow- ing title and description of its origin : ^' Plain Reasons for relying on Presbyterian Ordination, in a Letter to a Friend^ by Luther Hart, late Pastor of the Congregational Church in Plymouth, Connecticut. First published as a tract, by a Doc- trinal Tract Society, in the year 1818." The re-publication of this tract, induced the belief in many minds, that the in- terests of truth called for an examination of its sentiments. And if this was to be done, the duty of undertaking it plainly devolved on him who now appears as its Reviewer. To answer the question proposed in our title, it will be necessary to notice other theories than that of Mr. Hart ; but they will be summarily disposed of, in order that more space may be left for examining the views advanced by him. The task oi reviewing his " Letter to a Friend," is rendered somewhat unpleasant by the death of its author. Gladly would he who pens these lines have been excused from the duty of examining the work of one departed ; for it is difficult, I may say, impossible to do it, without saying things which, to the eye of friendship, will, at least, seem severe and cruel. Under these circumstances it is much to be regretted, that the re-pribUcation was not, like the original, anonymous. It is not here denied that the tract needed the weight of a name to make it bear with due force ; but it is questionable whether its publication was judicious, or even kind to the memory of the author. The Reviewer will endeavor to deal gently with the dead. So far as motive is concerned, that charity which " thinketh no evil" shall be exercised ; but his opin- ions will be handled with only so much ceremony as their worth may seem to demand — more cannot reasonably be expected. And, now, let me earnestly request the reader not to enter on the perusal of the following pages, until he has prayed for deliverance from prejudice. Ask God to give you can- dor, and inspire you with such a love of truth as shall con- strain you to follow wherever it may be seen to lead. If you be not sincerely determined, cost what it may, to cleave to that ministry which shall be shown to be the scriptural one, close your book, and go to your closet. First get from God the heart to embrace whatever truth you may find in it— - then^ and not till then, may you proceed, with profit, to an examination of its facts and arguments. Plymouth, March 3, 1841. WHO ARE CHRIST'S MINISTERS ? The question proposed in our title — " Who are Christ's Ministers" — is a question of practical religion. It is an in- quiry which can hardly fail to be made by a person who is meditating an entrance into Christian fellowship and com- munion ; and even he who has made a profession of his faith can seldom look around on the various teachers of religion, serving at opposing altars, without agitating the question in his own mind, — Are all these Christ's Ministers 1* The conclusion generally arrived at is, that, probably, all who act as the Saviour's agents, are rightly and truly his am- bassadors. But is this probable? Look at the Christian system, and when you see that its author is owe, his truth one, and his way of salvation one — through one Christ, and by one baptism into one Spirit — does it seem probable that so important a feature of this system as the ministry, is oi diverse forms 1 Fix your eye on St. Paul's description of the Church ; consider its unity ; its perfect compactness as one visible body ; and then say, whether a multiform ministry can consist with this per- fect joining together — whether it is at all probable that this one society has officers variously appointed '? Under this aspect of the subject, we see it is not probable, that all the diverse forms of ministry around us are of divine origin. On the other hand, the perfect oneness of every other part of the Christian system, joined to the fact, that we hear nothing in the Bible of different kinds of ministry in the Church, renders it highly improbable that Christ ever appointed or sanctioned more than one. And this improba- bility is increased by the circumstance, that we cannot admit the validity of various ministries, pretending to derive their authority from diverse sources, without the absurd supposi- tion, that Christ has entrusted the power of commissioning to office in his Church to different and promiscuous hands. " Let it here be distinctly noticed, that ail, except a few ultra Independants, agree, that no one can have authority to act in the name of Christ, as his Ambas- sador, unless he has received from the Saviour, mediately or immediately, an Official Commission : — Our question, therefore, is, not as to who bear the name of ministers of Christ, nor is it as to who preach his doctrines ; but it is as to who have really been commissioned to act officially in his name in spiritual trans- actions ? This is not credible. God is a lover of order. His other ar- rangements every where exhibit this characteristic. Anal- ogy, therefore, leads us to the belief, that the way devised by him, for investing with the sacred office, must be distin- guished by regularity and singleness. The probability, then, lies on the other hand. It is seen to be most likely that there has been but one kind of min- istry commissioned by the Saviour. And this probability is greatly strengthened — indeed it rises almost to certainty, in view of the well known fact, that under the former dispen- sation, the ministry of the Church, appointed by God, was one in kind, and no more. It may be denied that this course of reasoning demon- strates the iynpossihility of there being more than one kind of ministry in the Christian Church; but it must be admitted, that it does, at least, show it to be improbable — nay, it must be conceded that it reduces it almost to a certainty, that the Christian ministry is one and not multiform. Can we arrive at absolute certainty on this point — can we ascertain beyond doubt, whether Christ has appointed more than one kind of ministry in his Church ; and if but one, can we know which that is 1 We can. How 1 By taking the theory of each, and in turn, subjecting it to the test of Scrip- ture, and, if need be, to a comparison with the early Church. The schemes of ministry advocated among us are four in number : First, there is the no-ordination scheme, which holds that an internal call is all that is needed, and insists that any one has a right to preach and administer the sacra- ments who jfee/5 that he ought to do so. The second is the Congregational scheme, which, as originally set forth and practiced upon in New England, takes the ground that min- isterial ordination is not essential — the congregation of the Lord's people being supposed to be the fountain of ecclesi- astical authority — and that a person set apart by laymen, de- puted by their own body to act in their behalf, is rightly or- dained. The third is the Presbyterian, which rejects lay^ ordination, but assumes that presbyters have power to set apart to the sacred office. The jTowr^/i is the Episcopal, which asserts, that, by God's arrangement, there are three orders in the Christian Ministry, Bishop, Priest and Deacon — that the power of ordination has been placed by the Almighty, in the hands of the first of these alone — that this power is intrans- ferrible to either of the other two — and, therefore, that none can have authority to act as the Saviour's ambassadors but such as have been set apart thereto by the imposition of a Bishop's hands. Such are the opposing claims which are set up. Thus Va- rious are the sources from which authority to minister in sa-* cred things is asserted to be derived. That each should dif- fer so widely from the other, and yet all be right, is not cre- dible. We must, therefore, try these conflicting claims, one by one, by " the law and the testimony." In this way, alone, can we ascertain, to our satisfaction, " who are Christ's Ministers." THE NO-ORDINATION SCHEME. First we propose to test the claim of those who rely en- tirely, on an internal call, and who insist that they have a right, unordained, to act authoritatively in Christ's name. Ministers of this description are seldom seen among us, but advocates for the theory under consideration are nowhere wanting. It becomes us, therefore, to inquire whether the notion of self-appointme7it to the ministry is sanctioned by the Holy Scriptures. Can an internal suggestion, alone, make a man an accredited ambassador of God ? Is there any precedent for this in the Bible ? 1. In the history concerning Dathan and Abiram we find a case in point ; but, probably, the advocates of the no-ordi- nation scheme would not be forward to plead this as an ex- ample. The instance of king Uzziah, too, might be cited ; but, unfortunately for the friends of this theory, we find that his punishment for assuming the duties of the sacred office unordained, was scarcely less fearful than that of the two sons of Reuben. Is the case of St. Paul claimed as an in- stance of a ministry being acceptable to God without human ordination. It is allowed. But before the unordained min- ister can plead the example of the Apostle of the Gentiles, he must, like him, support his claim to a direct call from God by working miracles. Let the teachers who repudiate ordination, and who pretend to have an extraordinary call, exhibit such proof as Paul gave of a right to act authorita- tively in the Saviour's name, and they shall be acknowl- edged to be his ministers. This is not too much to demand. The Scriptures show it to be an invariable rule of the Divine economy to give to every ambassador, immediately appointed from on high, such credentials. Therefore, while we dare not deny, that God may still commission in this way, we see it to be our privilege to demand of every one, who claims to be thus sent, the evidence of miracles, and in case he fails to present this proof, it is clear that we ate bound to look upon him as abase impostor, or, at best, as a poor misguided enthusiast. It is notorious that pretenders to this sort of commission in our day, do not, and cannot, show the requisite creden- tials ; therefore we must conclude, that unordained or self- appointed teachers are not " Ministers of Christ." 2. Some such teachers may have great abilities ; but it should be remembered, that to possess human talents, or even to have an extensive acquaintance with biblical lore, is another and very different thing from being invested with a commission from Christ. Many a Sunday School teacher is "mighty in the Scriptures," but his knowledge does not make him a minister. A traveller in a foreign country may be entirely competent to act there as the ambassador of his own government ; but the possession of ability to discharge the duties of the station does not make him an ambassador. So be a man ever so well skilled in theology, and ever so competent to handle its truths ; such ability , though very ne- cessary to one holding the sacred office, is not, in itself, the least warrant for one unordained, taking upon himself the duties of that office. 3. Some of these self-appointed teachers may be very good men. But something more than goodness is necessary to make a man a minister of Christ. We must not confound the qualifications for an office with the office itself. Deep piety is a thing which goes far to fit a man to receive the commission of an ambassador of Christ ; but the possession of this qualification for the office gives no authority to ex- ercise, unordained, the powers of an appointed agent of the Saviour. 4. The labors of some of these self-appointed teachers may be successful. But this circumstance does not, as is so often supposed, prove such a teacher to be a scriptural minister. The blessed effects, which are sometimes seen to be produced by the efforts of such preachers, only show that there is a mighty efficacy in the word of God, let who will handle it. The success of one of these teachers proves this, but nothing more. Be it so, then, that some of these unordained preachers possess eminent ability and piety, and meet with great suc- cess in their labors ; all this is entirely insufficient to show, that they are acknowledged by Jesus Christ as his ambassa- dors. Before any one can be recognized as empowered to act in his name, he must be able to show, by miracles, that he has been set apart in an extraordinary manner, or pre- sent credentials from such human hands as the Saviour has authorized to commission to the sacred office. On this point the scriptures are plain. We read that the seven deacons Were set apart by those to whom authority to perform such acts had been entrusted ; also, it is recorded, that over the Churches which apostles planted "they ordained them el^ ders in every city ;" and the whole tenor of the epistles to Timothy and TituS goes to show that this was designed to be a permanent rule in God's house. The scriptures, then, lend no countenance to this '' no- ordination scheme.^' 'f bey teach us that even the Saviour " glorified not himself io be made an high priest," and that it is his will that all who wish to become his ministers should follow his ejiample. We are safe, therefore, in con^ eluding, that those who go forth to act authoritatively in the Saviour's name, without being able to show that they have been commissioned directly from God, or by such per- sons as he has empowered to ordain to office in his Church, run without being sent, and are not to be accounted or re- garded as " Christ's Ministers." THE CONGREGATIONAL SCHEMe. This scheme — as originally stated and acted on in New England — goes upon the ground, that ministerial ordination is not essential ', that the congregation of the Lord's people is the fountain of ecclesiastical authority, and that a person set apart by laymen, acting in behalf of their own body, is rightly ordained. Few words w^ill be necessary to show that this scheme re^ ceives no countenance from Scripture. We do, indeed, read of a man of Mount Ephraim (Judges xvii.) that consecrated one of his sons, who became his priest ; but the sacred histo- rian seems to have felt it to be an act which called for a spe- cial apology ; for he immediately adds, " In those days there was no king in Israel, but every man did that which was right in his own eyes." The Old Testament is searched in vain for any better precedent than this for the scheme under consideration ; and where, in the New, shall we look for any thing which will support /a^-ordination ? Even the seven Deacons, the people might but " look out,'^ none less than Apostles might set them apart to their sacred office. Not a case can be cited from the Scriptures, nor a single pas- sage pointed out in them, which furnishes the least warrant for laymen to ordain. Those, therefore, wdio have been set apart by them, cannot be regarded as Christ's Ministers. And yet it is notorious that such ordinations were originally recommended, defended, and received as valid by the New England Congregationalists. 2 10 In proof of this I first quote from one of their standards, "The Cambridge Platform," which contains a plan of Church discipline, agreed upon by the elders and messengers of Churches, — from Connecticut, as well as other parts, — assembled in Synod, at Cambridge in New England, in the year 1649, holds the following language : " In such Churches where there are no elders, imposition of hands (in ordina- tion) may be performed by some of the brethren, orderly chosen by the Church thereunto." And having made this declaration, the elders and messengers go on to argue in fa- vor of /ar/-ordination, in the following terms : " For if the people may elect officers, which is the greater, and wherein the substance of the office doth consist, they may much more, (occasion and need so requiring,) impose hands in ordina- tion."* Thus spake the pilgrim fathers. Such are the unscriptural views set forth by them in solemn council. Well might they call forth reproof, as they did, from the Puritans on the other side of the water. Says Cotton Mather — the Congre- gationalists' own historian — " It was objected unto our New England divines, by such writers as the sweet spirited Herle and warm spirited Rutherford, that the New Testament af- fords no example of the imposition of hands by the people." But, according to Mather, the pilgrims defended their course, retorting by way of reply, "that the New Testament instances not the imposition of hands on ordinary pastors, by any ordinary pastors at all." And what they had the courage so boldly to set forth, and so stoutly to maintain, they were not slow to practice. Hutchinson, in his history of Massachusetts, gives a full account of several of these ^ay-ordinations. According to him, there was one at Salem in 1628 ; another at Charles- town in 1630 ; another at Taunton in 1640 ; and a second at Salem in 1660.t Dr. Trumbull, in his history of Connecti- cut tells us that two such ordinations were held in succession at Saybrook, that of Mr. Fitch in 1646, and that of Mr. Buckingham in 1660. J So again, (says Mr. Bacon) "in the ordination of Mr. Prudden over the Milford Church" — in 1640 — " the imposition of hands was by the brethren, though it was done at New Haven, and therefore, doubtless, in the presence of Mr. Davenport" (the minister.) § So again in the case of Mr. Chauncey at Stratford (1665) the • Camb. Plat. c. ix, Uphara's Ratio Discp. § 71. t Hutchinson Vol. I. pp. 18—369—375. % Trumbull vol. i., p. 386, ed. 1818. ^ Bacon's Hist. Discourses, p. 294. 11 imposition of hands was by laymen.* Besides these there is the case of Mr. Allin at Dedham, Massachusetts, and that of Mr. Townsend at Gorham, Maine, with others which might be mentioned. But it is unnecessary to cite them. The in- stances of this sort of ordination among the early Congre- gationalists abound. And no wonder; when an ecclesiasti- cal council had authorized it, and argued in its favor, the people would be sure to improve the privilege, and, if need be, even to contend for it, as Trumbull says they did, on the occasion of Mr. Buckingham's ordination at Saybrook. The published cases are probably not a tithe of what actu- ally occurred. JLay-ordination is said to have been the or- dinary practice ;t and from what has come to light, there is reason to believe that, had we access to the records of the first Congregational societies in New England, it would be found that a large proportion of the ordinations, in this body, were, for more than half a century, by the hands of laymen. And now, what is the bearing of these facts upon the question of the validity of the present Congregational min- istry 1 Since most of the existing ministers of that body have descended in a direct line from the people-made- preachers of the seventeenth century, do we not see, in view of the prevalence of /ay-ordination in that age, that it makes it exceedingly doubtful whether, at the present day, there is one of the Congregational line, who is any thing more or better than a /ay-ordained minister. It will not help the matter to say, as Mr. Bacon has done, that " the ministers thus set apart by lay committees were men previously ordained by Bishops in England." This is denied, as regards the greater part of them, at least; and while we can find no proof that so much as one of the ten, whose cases we have cited, had ever received Episcopal or- dination, we cannot allow ourselves to be imposed on, by an assumption of this sort. As little will it blind us to the present lay character of the Congregational ministry to plead, that it is a long time since the people were allowed to set apart to the sacred office. The fact is so; but it does not aid the cause in behalf of which it is urged. For since the practice of lay ordination had prevailed in New England down to the year 1660-70; and since, in consequence, the ministry had become people-made, or rather not made at all, inasmuch as being set apart by laymen, the minister so call- ed, could be himself no more than a layman; when things * Rev. J. Beach, Address to the People of N. E., p. 19. 1749. t Bacon, p. 293, and Trumbull, i. 285. 12 come to this pass, how could it help the matter to decree, that the people should no longer impose hands in ordina- tion? A change under these circumstances could avail nothing. For illustration of this truth, and to show the pitiable predicament in which the Congregationalisls placed themselves by allowing the practice of /ay-ordination, take a case: If one of your neighbors, a layman, should, after the example of the man of Mount Ephraim, set apart one of his sons to be his priest; we can see that that son of his would still be a mere layman; consequently, should this pre- tended minister impose hands upon a third person, it would be only another Zai/-ordination; and so in the case of the fourth, the fifth, and the sixth; let the line continue for cen- turies, and it is obvious that it would then be nothing but a Zai/-ordained ministry. Now apply this to the case in hand: If — as Mr. Bacon says — laymen did, as a general thing, set apart to the sacred office, among the early Congregational- isls of New England; and if, in consequence of the total in- efficacy of such ordination, those appointed to be teachers, must themselves still have remained mere lay -meni must we not conclude, as in the case supposed, that when these lay- preachers proceeded to take this business, of separating to the ministry into their own hands, their act could have amounted to nothing more than lay-ordination. And, surely, those ordained by them cannot be supposed to have given any thing better to their successors. Thus, this ^ay-ordination of the Congregationalisls has been handed down, through successive generations of preachers to their present minis- ters. Lapse of time has not affected the character of their or- dination in the least; what it was, it has of course continued to bp. While it is possible that there may be here and there a preacher of this denomination who is connected, by a direct succession of ministerial ordinations, with the first elders of New England; it is perfectly certain, that the vast naajority of them are the successors of the people-made-ministers of the seventeei|th century; and, therefore, have nothing but /ay-ordination. Such being the case; it being so uncertain whether any particular Congregational minister of the New England line, can justly lay claim to any better commission to preach the Gospel than laymen can give; did it not become Mr. Hart to phow, that his own ordination had not come to him from this unscriptural source, before proceeding to argue upon such principles as he has assumed, in his "Letter to a friend?*' What right had he — what right has any Congregational min- ister to proceed to tpike his stand on the presbyterian 13 ground, without first proving that he has received Presbyte- rian ordination. In view of the doubtful character of their commission, this may fairly be demanded. And we may say that Mr. Hart was in duty bound to go to work, and, (to use an expression of his own) trace up his " ecclesiastical ped- igree," before taking a single step in his defence of the pres- hyterian scheme . Something more than bare assertion is necessary to con- vince us that all Congregational ministers may justly claim to have presbyterian ordination. While the recorded in- stances of /aj/-ordination which we have proved to have oc- curred among them, stand undisputable and incontrovertible, and while these are allowed, by their own writers to be only a sample of the general practice, we must believe that, at least a vast majority of the present preachers of the Con- gregationalists are nothing more than people-made-minis- ters. It is vain to plead that the cases cited are few. When it is remembered, that there was, at the time they occurred, at most but a small number of ministers in the land, it is readily seen that these instances are enough to make us doubt whether any particular preacher of this line, has any thing more than /cy-ordination. I need no other argument than that which Mr. Hart has employed in reference to this very subject of ministerial succession,* to show that these in- stances are sufficient to destroy all confidence in the presby- terial character of the ministry of the Congregationalists. ^' No matter if only ten (ministers) were thus ordained; the contamination * * * * having been imparted (two hundred) years ago, has had a long time to diffuse itself, and doubtless has diffused itself so extensively from (minister) to (minister) that not a single (pastor) in (New England) can prove that he has escaped the infection.'' On his own principle, therefore, Mr. Hart was, I repeat, bound to show that he himself had escaped the lay -ordina- tion-" infection," before taking a single step in the argu- ment contained in his " Letter to a friend." If ten in- stances of invalid ordination are enough to destroy all con- fidence in any ministerial succession, as Mr. H. alledges, then by his own decision, the claim of Congregational min- isters to a Presbyterian origin cannot be made good. And though every one may not feel this argument to be so con- clusive as the author of " the Letter" did; yet the ten cases of lay-imposition which I have cited, must at least unsettle, in every mind, all belief in the validity of the Congrega- tional ministry. * Page 48 of his Letter to a friend. 14 Under the circumstances, then; we see that consistency required Mr. H. either to defend Zay-ordination, or to prove that the present Congregational ministry may rightly claim a ministerial succession. The former he dared not attempt; the latter he chose to pass over. Without a word of explanation or apology, he takes the Presbyterian ground. Thither we must follow him, and, by trying that scheme of ordination by " the law and the testimony," see whether he has much bettered his cause by assuming this position. But before leaving the present scheme, let us recapit- ulate the several points which we have settled. It has been shown, (1) that lay-ordination receives no countenance from scripture; (2) that, still, the pilgrim fathers recom- mended such ordinations, and extensively practiced them; (3) that, as a consequence, no Congregational minister of the present day can be certain that he has any thing more or better than this same unscriptural ordination; and (4) that Mr. Hart was, on his own principle, bound to show that he and his brother ministers, had escaped this lay infection, be- fore he had a right to proceed to the defence of Presbyterian ordination. With these facts borne in mind, we pass to the next division of our subject. THE PRESBYTERIAN SCHEME. This scheme, as we have said, rejects ' /ay-ordination' as utterly unwarranted; but assumes, that Presbyters have the power, and that by divine right, to set apart to the sacred office; consequently, as we cannot fail to see, a regular, un- broken succession is all important, nay, absolutely indispen- sable, to the carrying out of this theory; Presbyters must be invariably ordained by Presbyters, else there is a total failure. On this ground stand those who properly bear the name of Presbyterians; Methodists, whose ministry being' derived from Wesley, himself a Presbyter, cannot be other than Presbyterian; and other bodies of Christians of various names. In proceeding to examine this scheme of Ministry, I shall take up 'Hhe Reasons" which have been urged in its favor by Mr. Hart in his "Letter to a Friend" on this subject; and as this " Letter" has been greatly relied on by those who count themselves Presbyterians, its reasons may be regarded as the best that can be offered in support of their theory. Still it contains nothing that is new, and on this account it is the better suited to our purpose; since a review 15 of it will, in effect, be an examination of the popular argu- ments of the day in favor of Presbyterian ordination. The course which Mr. Hart has taken to show that those ordained by Presbyters are ministers of Christ, is as follows: He starts with the assumption that " there are no officers in the Church superior to ordinary pastors." p. 3. This posi- tion he labors to establish by bringing forward twelve objec- tions against Episcopacy. Having devoted twenty pages to the consideration of these objections, and labored to make it appear that God has set no superior order of ministers in his Church; he next asserts that "in the days of the Apos- tles, Presbyters were expressly directed to ordain." p. 23. Next he takes the ground " that Presbyters or common pastors did ordain, in Apostolic times." p. 28. From this point in his argument he very awkwardly passes back to the giving of the Apostolic commission, (Matt, xxviii. 19,20.) and insists, not in the Avay of inference from the instances of Presbyterian ordination which he supposes himself to have shown, but for the most part in the way of mere asser-- tion, that that commission, in all its plenitude, was intended for every Gospel minister, p. 31. His next position is, that " all ministers of the Gospel are successors of the Apostles." p. 32. Had the preceding proposition been sustained this would have followed as a consequence; or, had it been made to appear, that "common pastors did ordain in Apos- tolic times," it might fairly have been urged, as an inference, that "all ministers of the Gospel are the Apostles' succes- sors," for if they may execute this highest function of the ministry, it must be admitted that they succeed to its highest rank. But Mr. H. carefully avoids the mention of any such consequences, as though he doubted whether he had made out either his cases of ordination, or the right of all ministers to the full Apostolic commission, strong enough to warrant an allusion to them; and endeavors to show that this full commission has been derived to every common pastor, by a mode of reasoning much more circuitous than it was necessary for him to take, supposing the previous steps of his argument to be warrantable and right. Such is the outline of his course of reasoning, so far as it has to do with Scripture. From it he passes to the Fathers; but in passing, he gives what he calls a reason for adhering to the Presbyterian scheme, which I am at a loss to know where to class, or how to characterize. It is set down in the following terms: "I rely on Presbyterian ordination to avoid the necessity of considering those ordinations invalid, which are performed by the Bishops of the Episcopal 16 Church." We are at a loss to see any argument in favor di* Presbyterian ordination in this "reason." Probably it was thrown in merely to save abruptness in transition from the ground of the Bible to that of History. Certainly there was something wanted to throw in at this point; for by Mr. H.'s own showing) there is a chasm here two centuries wide, in the evidence for Presbyterian ordination. '^ The Fathers," says he " of the first and second centuries say nothing on the subject." p. 35. From later writers he quotes detached sentences, which, unexamined, would seem to favor the Presbyterian scheme. Having done what he could in this way, he takes another step, and asserts, that " from the time of the earlier Fathers, down to the Reformation in the six- teenth century, ordinations were often performed by pres- byters." p. 38. The instances cited look very well, unexamined. He next attempts to show that " we are indebted for the Reformation and all its blessings, under God, to Presbyterian ordination." Will history and facts show this to be so. He next asserts that " the validity of Presbyterian ordination was not denied in England for more than half a century after the Protestant Episcopal Church was established." p. 42. " That such ordination is con- sidered valid by the Church of England, in the public acts of her king and Parliament." p. 45. That the Episcopal- ians of this country receive, as valid, the baptisms adminis- tered by Presbyterian ministers, p. 46. These asserted concessions are urged as so many " reasons for relying on Presbyterian ordination;" with how much justice or reason remains to be seen. Two additional reasons for adhering to his favorite scheme, clothed with more apparent charity than real force, are pressed by the author in conclusion: one asserting that "to abandon Presbyterian ordination, would be to unchurch nearly one half of Europe, and nineteen- twentieths of the United States of America;" p. 46: while the other affirms that "to deny Presbyterian ordination would be to shake the foundation of the whole Protestant Episcopal Church"! p. 47. Such is a full and fair statement of the course pursued, and of the arguments urged by Mr. H. in defense of the Presbyterian scheme. We will now give each of his " Reasons" a candid examination, so far at least, as they may deserve it. Our object is to get at the truth: if it lie here; if the Presbyterian form of Ministry be that which Christ hath appointed, may God help us, one and all, to see it to be so, and to embrace it — cost what it may. 17 In examining Mr. Hart's "reasons," we shall take the liberty to begin with the last, and so go back to the first: We propose to ascend the stream of Presbyterianism, and see whether it can be traced to an Apostolic source. I. The first " reason" for relying on Presbyterian ordi- nation which we are to examine, is the asserted fact, that " to deny its validity would be to shake the foundation of the whole Protestant Episcopal Church."* The proof that such must be the consequence of a denial of the validity of Presbyterian ordination lies, Mr. H. tells us, in the circum- stance that we are " very expressly informed by Bede, in his famous Ecclesiastical History," " That at the request of Os- wald, king of Northumberland, certain Presbyters came (in the seventh century) from Scotland into England and or- dained Bishops;" thus, it is said, the British Episcopal suc- cession became vitiated. From this conclusion it is argued, that the Church of England, and her daughter, the Episcopal Church of the United States, cannot be sure of having any thing better than Presbyterian Ordination — and hence, a regard for their safety furnishes a " reason" for relying on such ordination. But there are two objections to this " reason" being admitted as proof of the validity of Presbyterian ordination. Objection 1. In the first place, the " reason" here urged is groundless — the asserted facts on which it is pretended to be based have no existence. To show that this is so, we will particularize: A destitution of Bishops, which is alledged as the cause of ordainers being sent from Scotland into England, could not have existed; for by Bede's own showing,! there was an Archbishop of Canterbury at this very time, and also a Bishop of York; the See of the latter, be it observed, lying within Northumberland itself. Nor is it said by the venerable historian that Presbyters were sent. That two ordainers, Aidan and Finnan, were sent, the one the successor of the other, (not " in the year 668," but the latest as early as A. D. 652) is certain. But Bede, as Mr. H. might have known, had he gone to the work of this Father, does not say they w^ere Presbyters; he, himself calls them Bishops, in the distinctive Episcopal sense. This can be made to appear: in B. iii., c. 3, he says: Oswald sent to the Scottish rulers desiring them to ^en& Bishops ',% * Page 47. + B. TL, cc. 9, 15, 16, 18. X The true reason why Oswald sent for ordainers, while he had one if not more Bishops in his own kingdom, was because llie Scottish clergy held the same views in regard to the time of keeping Easter with him and his people : in this the Northumhrians had uol yet come to think with the Saxon clergy; hence their desire for others. 3 18 that they sent Aidan; and that the Bishop [Aidan] coming to the king, had his Episcopal seat in Lindis-farn. A. D. 635. Further: in B. iii., c. 6, 17, he says expressly, " Finnan succeeded him [Aidan] in the Episcopate.'" A. D. 652. Now, it can be proved Ihat the phrases Bishop, Episcopal, and Episcopate, are used by Bede in the sense attached to them by modern Episcopalians: thus, in his works, B. ii., c. 19, we find the following, which is the address of a letter written by John, Pope of Rome, A. D. 640; about the time, be it observed, of the sending of Aidan and Finnan: " Most dearly beloved and most holy Tomianus, Columbanus, Cro- manus, Dinnaus, and Baithanus, Bishops (Episcopis); Cromanus, Ernianochus, Laistranus, Scellamus and Sege- mus, Presbyters; Saranus and other Doctors or Abbotts of the Scotts," &c. This shows that in Scotland, at the time Aidan and Finnan were sent thence, a distinction was recog- nized betM^een Bishops and Presbyters ; and further, it is obvious that Bede was acquainted with this fact. Who then can doubt that, when this writer calls these two ordain- ers Bishops, and speaks of their Episcopacy^ he means to distinguish them from Presbyters ? But it will be asked, does not Bede, as cited by Mr. Hart's authorities, assert that both Aidan and Finnan were, them- selves, ordained by mere Presbyters'? Bede says no such thing: his testimony is, that they were chosen by members of the monastery of Columbanus. That there were Bishops distinctively so called, in the island, and even among the monks, we learn from Bede, B. iii., c 4, and the "Ulster Annals:" and as it is certain, that in this age it was the rule for Bishops to ordain: unless the case under consideration can be proved to be an exception, there is every reason to believe that Aidan and Finnan were consecrated to the Episcopate by Bishops proper. In this view of the case, how unmeaning appear-all Mr. H.'s inferences. This ground of his fears for the Episcopal Church, has, we see, vanished " like the baseless fabric of a vision, leaving not a wreck behind;" and the basis being gone, there must have vanished with it whatever of a " reason" for Presbyterian ordination could have been grounded on it. But — Objection 2. It may be denied that this reason for relying on Presbyterian ordination could be any evidence of its validity, even were it true that Aidan and Finnan were mere Presbyters. Suppose it proved, which it cannot be, that these ordainers were only common pastors, and that by their means " the Church of England, and her daughter, the Episr 19 copal Church of America have lost the succession of Bishops; will it follow that Presbyterian ordination is valid? As well might it be argued that the sickness of one man proves another to be in health. Could the Episcopal min- istry be shown to have become Presbyterian, this would not prove the latter to be that which God hath appointed. How- ever true it may be, never can it be made to appear, in this way, that those ordained by Presbyters are Christ's ministers. Having disposed of this " reason," I pass back to the next head, leaving to the autliorof " a Letter to a Friend," the credit of the discovery, that a schismatic Church, which Rome herself is in England, could, by her act of excomuni- cation, take from clergy, unconvicted of any crime against the laws of God's house, the sacred orders she might have given.* II. We are told by Mr. H., p. 46, that "not to rely on Presbyterian ordination would be to unchurch nearly one half of Europe, and nineteen-twentieths of the United States of America;" and thisis urged as a " reason" for adhering to this ordination, and as evidence of its validity. But what has all this to do with the matter in hand. How does it help to prove the validity of Presbyterian ordinationl Does it furnish so much as the least " rea^o?i" for relying on it? It might be urged against the argument under considera- tion, that it borrows half its seeming force from exaggerated mis-statement; it is not true, that any thing like such a pro- portion of the Christian world are disconnected from an Episcopal Ministry, as Mr. H.'s representation might lead us to suppose. On the contrary, it is demonstrable, that eighteen-twentieths of all Christendom are in communion with this ministry. But it is unnecessary to enter upon the proof of it; for even were it true that a denial of the validity of Presbyterian ordination must unchurch a yet larger pro- portion of the Christian world than that alledged, it would not follow that such ordination is that which Christ hath appointed: therefore, all that may be said on this head is nothing to the purpose. * But it is not here conceded that the English Church originally received its orders from Rome. The British Church, «5.ven from the Apostolic age, was in possession of the Episcopate, and retained it, down to the time of Rome's first in- terposition in her behalf. And even Augustiiie, who consecrated the Bishops of the Anglo-Saxon Sees, was himself not consecrated by Gregory the Great, who sent him, but by Virgilius, the twenty-fourth Bi-^hop of Aries, which received its Episcopate from the Asiatic source, which is traceable directly to Irensiis, the disciple of Polycarp, himself the disciple of St. John. 20 III. But, agairij we are told p. 45, that there is a " reason"' seen for relying on Presbyterian ordination in the fact, that persons baptized by Presbyterian ministers are not required to submit to re-baptism, in order to admission to fellowship and communion among the Episcopalians. By allowing such baptisms to pass as sufficient, it is argued that the vali- dity of the ordination of those who administer them, is, thereby, tacitly acknowledged. But were this all so, what would it amount to? Can a concession of this sort prove the validity of any kind of ordination? But what is more fatal to this argument, no such concession is made: the cases in question are received, not as ministerial, but as Zay-baptisms. The present argument calls for neither a defense nor explanation of this practice. It is enough simply to state the fact, that, in all such instances, the persons are allowed to participate in the Holy Communion on the ground of /a?/-baptism, to show, that by this practice no concession is made in favor of Presbyterian ordination; and, consequently, that no " reason" can here be found for " relying" on it. IV. Passing back to Mr. Hart's eleventh head we find another alledged concession urged in support of his favorite scheme. Presbyterian ordination should be relied on, it is said, because the Church of England has admitted its validity by the public acts of her king and parliament. In support of this position, Mr. Wells is cited to prove that soon after the Restoration, A. D. 1661, an act was passed, confirming the right of Presbyterian ministers to places in the English Church which they then held. I can find the record of no such law; and there is good reason to believe, Mr. Wells' statement incorrect; for, it is notorious that in A. D. 1662, the famous Uniformity Act was passed, which deprived all officiating ministers of their places, who had not received, and who refused to seek for, Episcopal ordi- nation.* If the alledged Act in favor of Presbyterian min- isters was ever passed, which is exceedingly questionable, it was too soon and decisively repealed, to be urged as a concession on the part of the king and parliament; for by the Act of 1662, the ordination of such ministers was most plainly condemned. But, again, it is said, that in the 55th Canon of the Eng- lish Church, the Presbyterian establishment of Scotland is acknowledged to be "a true sister Church." This is not so: to make this consistent with other enactments of the • Mosheim Vol. III., p. 485. Si same period, we must understand it to speak of none other than the Episcopal Churches of Scotland and Ireland. It is these and none other that the Canon declares to be true sister Churches. But even were it otherwise; could it be shown that "the public acts of the king and parliament" make the asserted concessions, it would furnish no proof of the validity of Presbyterian ordination, and but a very miserable reason for relying on it. This anxiety to show that somebody has said that it is valid, begets in the mind of an inquirer a suspicion that there must be alack of clear and positive testimony in its favor. V. At pp. 42, 43, 44, other alledged concessions are appealed to. A book entitled " A Necessary Erudition for a Christian Man," published A. D. 1543, is represented by Mr. H., as containing the views of the Church of England reformed, and is quoted from to show, that that Church in her purest days, after emerging from the darkness of Papal night, held that a Presbyter has an equal right with a Bishop to ordain. Had Mr. H. ever seen this book, or informed himself in regard to its contents, he could never have used it for the purpose he has: it is not a Protestant, but a Romish book. The men who made it finally became Reformers. But I need mention but one fact to make it appear that in 1543 they were essentially Romish in their views : in this very book, they maintain the doctrine of transubstantiation and every other of the errors of the then Papal Church, save, that of the Pope's supremacy. This, therefore, is not the book from which to show us what were the views of the Church of England reformed; and the advocate of Presby- terian ordination who quotes from it in support of his theory, should know, that in so doing, he calls in Rome to his aid. This will not do. 2. But again, we are told at p. 43, that the early practice of the English Church, was in perfect conformity with the opinion that Presbyterian ordination is valid. But the in- stances adduced in proof, do not sustain the position. The Archbishop of Canterbury, Grindal, who licensed a person that had received only Presbyterian ordination, was himself suspended for his irregular proceedings.* John Knox, who is represented by Mr. H. as a Presbyterian minister while acting as Chaplain to Edward VI., had Episcopal ordina- tion;! and it is equally untrue that Peter Martyr, Martin • Collier's Ecc. Hist. Vol. II , pp. 571, 579. + Rob. Scot, Vol. I., p. 238. Biog. Univers. Vol. XXII., p. 499. 22 Bucer, and P. Fagius, the foreigners, were allowed to enjoy preferments in the Church, while they had nothing more than Presbyterian ordination; the last two were never ad- mitted to any ecclesiastical benefice, but only to academical preferments, and the first might well be suffered to perform ministerial duties, since he had been Episcopally ordained before becoming a Reformer.* Thus, with perfect ease, we are able to vindicate the Church of England from the charge of admitting, in her practice, the validity of Presbyterian ordination; conse- quently, that scheme is shown to derive no support from this source. 3. At pp. 42, 43, assertions are made respecting the opinions of some of the Reformers, as to the right of Pres- byters to ordain, and as to a change of views in the English Church, on this subject, of which nothing less can be said than that they are utterly absurd and entirely false. Let any one read " The Preface" to the ordination services in the Book of Common Prayer, which declares that " from the Apostles' times there have been * * * i^ Christ's Church, Bishops, Priests, and Deacons, and * * that no man shall be suffered to execute any of the said functions except he * * * hath had Episcopal consecration or ordination;" and then say whether Cranmer and his asso- ciates, its composers, can, without absurdity, be claimed to have been Presbyterians in sentiment. And how dared Mr. H. to say, that it was " the united voice of Episcopalians in England, till the time of Bancroft, that the Scriptures make no distinction between Bishops and Presbyters, and that Diocesan Bishops are creatures of the crown," when nearly forty years previous to that time, the above language quoted from " The Preface" to the Ordinal, which declares the direct contrary,- had been set forth as the faith of the Church. Surely the cause must be a weak one which can need misrepresentations of this sort to sustain it: misrepre- sentation it is, though made, as we trust, in ignorance; for whatever may be true of the private opinion of individual members of the English Church upon this subject; never can it be shown that the views of that Church, as expressed in her standards, and as held by the great body of her divines and people, were ever in any way different, on this point, from those now held by Episcopalians. The latter have not departed from the opinion and practice of their fathers: * Enc Am. Vol. VIIL, p. 312. 23 what the one now hold, the other of yore maintained. Else- where, then, than to the opinions and practice of the early English Church the Presbyterian must look for countenance and support for his theory. VI. Under the ninth head of this "Letter to a Friend," we find another argument in favor of the scheme he advo- cates, quite as weak, and, if possible, more inapposite than the last. The author informs us that " we are indebted for the Reformation and all its blessings to Presbyterian ordi- nation"! But is this made to appear? Is it proved, or any thing like if? What did Mr. H. mean by saying "the blessed Reformation could not have taken place without Presbyterian ordination"? Would he have us understand that Martin Luther could not have " burst from his mo- nastic cell" without Presbyterian ordination? No. Mr. H. knew that this Reformer and all the others; who were ministers, were set apart to their sacred office by Episcopal hands. How, then, are we indebted to Presbyterian ordi- nation for the Reformation? Is it meant that the cause could not' have been carried forward without resort to this mode of ordination? That is what has never been proved. In England, we know the work was carried through with- out its help. And, though it was more difficult for the Protestants to procure the services of Bishops in the coun- tries on the continent; yet, it is perfectly certain, they might with sufficient pains have obtained them; and so have reformed the Church, in those parts, without the aid of Presbyterian ordination. It is not true, then, that there could have been no Refor- mation without having resort to this way of making min- isters; nor is it true, in fact, that we are indebted to Presbyterian ordination for all the blessings which that glorious era brought along with it; since a large part of the Church did reform without such ordination. Hence, small " reason" is here seen for relying on it. It is at this point — the period of the Reformation — that Episcopalians declare Presbyterian ordination to have had its beginning; they insist that the stream can be traced no higher; that not a single clear case of it can be shown to have occurred previous to those times. The contrary, how- ever, is asserted. Presbyterians contend that they can trace up their ordination to Apostolic times, and show it to be such as Christ has appointed. Our business at present is, to see whether this can be done. Let us then proceed to examine the pretended evidence of it, as presented by Mrl H. ; remembering, that if this kind of ordination cannot be traced 24 higher than the Reformation; nay, if it cannot be shown to be such as was directed by the Saviour, and practiced by his Apostles, we must conclude that those set apart in this manner ought not to be regarded as commissioned by Christ. VII. With a view to show that the theory under exami- nation is primi^tve, Mr. H. tells us, p. 38, that "from the time of the earlier Fathers, down to the Reformation in the sixteenth century, ordinations were often performed by Presbyters." But what are the cases alledged in its support. 1. His latest instances are the Hussites, the Wickliffites, and the Lollards. Among them, he says, Presbyters or com- mon pastors were accustomed to set apart to the sacred office. But no authorities are referred to in support of this assertion. And after looking in vain for any testimony to this point, I am satisfied that, though it may be said it cannot be proved that Presbyterian ordination was ever practiced among these sects. Fearlessly might an Episco- palian challenge his opponent to cite a single clear instance of it as occurring in their practice. And, even could it be shown that they did practice it, it would be producing a case occurring since the fourteenth century, and therefore too late to be of any force. 2. His next instance, and I may say his first which, even in appearance, has any thing of pertinency, is that of the Waldenses. Among this people, who dwelt in the vallies of Piedmont, Presbyterian ordination is said, by Mr. H. to have been practiced, previous to the Reformation. But he gives no proof of it; nor could he. The Waldensean Church was clearly Episcopal. To show it to have been so, it is only necessary to state, that it is the testimony of Commenius,* the only Bishop that survived the Bohemian persecution, that they, the Bohemian Brethren, sent three of their minw- ters to be consecrated Bishops by the Waldenses; being satisfied that they had the Episcopate. Crantz in his " Jin- dent History of the Brethren,^^^ says more to the same effect. So much for the Presbyterianism of the Waldenses. 3. The next instance cited is that of the Scots. But nothing can be made out of their case in favor of the scheme advocated by Mr. Hart. He asserts very confidently, it is true, that the Church of Scotland was originally Presby- terian;"! but he does not prove it. No writer is found who says that Presbyters ordained among the Scots. Still, an effort is made by Mr. H. to make it appear that Presbyters * Cited by Dr. Alix. t Page 28. t Page 39. 25 Vintst have ordained there. To make out his case, he first assumes that Christianity was introduced into Scotland a^^ early as the beginning ol' the third century; next he states^ on the authority of Prosper and others, that no Bishop, came to that country till the fifth century; having thus shown, as he supposed, that two centuries intervened between the in- troduction of Christianity and the arrival of the Bishop, Palladius; and finding that John de Fordus aild John Major, say that there were monks there before the Bishop came, he infers that these Presbyter-monks must, in the mean time, have done the ordaining. But observe, Mr. H. has not shown that "the Christian Religion was introduced into Scotland, about the beginning of the third century." This was essential to his argument, but receives no support from either Fordus or Major: they tell us, indeed, that" monks" preached there before Palla- dius came : but that the first of them could not long have preceded him, is evident from the fact, that the system of monkery did not have its rise till the fourth century; and even then it was for some time confined to the east^ so that it could not have reached Scotland much before the fifth centuryj at which time the Bishop came. According, then, to the showing of Mr. Hart's own authorities, no such time elapsed between the coming of the first preachers and that of the Bishop as would render a resort to Presbyterian ordination necessary. And having failed to show any recorded instance of such ordination in Scotland, the asser- tion that it was practiced there, is wholly gratuitous and unwarranted. Wherever Mr. H. finds a Church which has not a Bishop actually resident with it, he rushes at once to the conclusion, that there must be Presbyterianism. Thus he tells us that the Gothic Churches had been seventy years without a Bishop when Ulphilas came among them; and then asks^ " how could those Churches live so long if they had no oflficers qualified to ordain ministers for them?" Mr, H. would not have put this question triumphantly, as he sup- posed, had he remembered that the Episcopal Church lived in this country almost twice seventy years with no resident Bishop. 4. One more allegation remains under this head, to be examined. We are told, p. 38, that the Council of Nice sanctioned the practice of Presbyterian ordination in Egypt. In proof of this, a quotation is made from the Synodic Epis-" tie, which that venerable body addressed to the Egyptian Church, which, as it stands on the page of " A Letter to « 4 26 Friend," represents the Council as allowing that Presbyters may ordain. But the Epistle says no such thing. The phrase ^^ have authority to ordain ministers,^^ italicised by Mr. H., p. 39, is not to be found in the document. Dr. Murdock, the translator of Mosheim, himself a Congrega- tionalist, renders the passage quoted, as follows: ^^ shall have power to nominate and elect.^^* Though Mr. H. commences his quotation with the Latin " Hi autem qui," probably he never saw a Latin copy of the Epistle, nor one in its Greek Original in his life, but took the quotation at second or third hand, and was thus misled. The man who undertakes to instruct others on a subject of " vital importance," has no right to give authorities in this way. Misrepresentation of the truth, though given carelessly, must do harm. , I am led to make this remark in view of the fact, that in this instance the adoption of one error has led the author, himself, to make another misstatement, in immediate connection with it. For, 2. To support his incorrect representation of the decision of the Nicene Fathers, he makes Ambrose, a writer of the fourth century, say, that " in Egypt, Presbyters ordain, if a Bishop be not present."! This is not so. The Latin word *' con^ig'Tio," used by Ambrose, cannot be rendered "ordain." The passage quoted from him is, therefore, distorted. What are an author's conclusions worth, when his authorities are no better than these? We have now gone over with all the alledged instances of Presbyterian ordination, between " the sixteenth century and the earlier Fathers;" a period, be it observed, of more than a thousand years; and out of them all, it is found, there is not so much as one clear case. This does not look much as though we are to arrive at the conclusion, that Presbyte- rian ordination is traceable to Apostolic times. But let us pass back to the next point, under which head is comprised all that remains of Mr. Hart's proofs from the Fathers, and see whether it is there shown that Presbyterian ordination was practiced in the age which immediately succeeded the Apostolic. VIIL Under this, his seventh head, Mr. H. labors to show that Presbyterian ordination was practiced in the Church of Alexandria, from the days of St. Mark, its founder, for the space of two or three centuries. But by what testimony does he attempt to prove this? Jerome, a Father of the fourth, and Eutychius a writer, not of "the sixth" but of the tenth century, are cited. Such are his authorities: » Mosheim Vol. I., p. 351, Note. t Page 39. 27 rather wide apart, in respect to time, one would think, and the latter, as it appears to us, decidedly too far off to be a competent witness to a matter of fact. But to their testimony. What is it *? And, first, that of Jerome. In writing to Evagrius,* he takes occasion to animadvert on the practice of some who were disposed to elevate Deacons above Presbyters; and with a view to mag- nify the office of the latter, and thus to make it appear that no such precedence should be given; he states, not of his own knowledge, but that somebody says, that, " In the See of Alexandria, from St. Mark the Evangelist, to Herac- las and Dionysius, Bishops; the Presbyters always elected one from among themselves, and raising him to a higher rank, they called him Bishop; much as an army chooses an Emperor, or as Deacons elect one from among themselves, and call him Arch-Deacon: [this right of election being con- ceded to the Presbyters alone, proves their superiority to the Deacons, argues Jerome; and desiring to elevate the office of the former as much as possible, he immediately adds] for what can a Bishop do that a Presbyter may not do EXCEPT Ordination." Such is Jerome's testimony. And does it prove Presbyterian ordination? Is it not plainly opposed to if? Mr. Hart, availing himself of one of the arts of polemics, has left off the last sentence of the passage, beginning with the word ^' For," and by transferring it to another place, has made this Father bear a different testi- mony from that which he evidently does when the passage is presented entire, as above. Jerome does, indeed, bear witness to the fact, that a peculiar privilege, touching the election of their Patriarch was enjoyed by the Presbyters of Alexandria, but that they ordained, he as plainly denies. 2. As to Eutychius, it matters little what he says; for even did he sustain the character of a correct narrator of facts, the distance of time at which he lived from the transactions under consideration, w^ould make his testimony of small consequence. But he is notoriously incorrect, as any one may see, by looking into Pearson's Vindicia?,! where his blunders are collected. His statements in the very case under consideration are contradicted by two writers of his own age: while he represents things in such a way as to convey the idea that Presbyters alone consecrated the Patri- arch of Alexandria; both Severus and Metaphrastes expressly state, that Bishops proper, had a hand in his ele' vation. So, in substance, says Mr. H.'s earlier and better * Or Evangel urn. t Pages 32(), 327. 28 witness, Jerome: according to him, ordination is an act which Presbyters cannot perform; therefore his testimony is, virtually, that Bishops consecrated the Patriarch of Alexandria. The representation of Eutychius, then, must be put with his other errors, unless his language admits of such a construction,* as will allow us to take him as meaning that the Presbyters of Alexandria simply elected the person who was to be placed over them: this was a peculiar privilege of these Presbyters. And that this was all which they did is rendered quite certain, by the fact, that in a Council held at Alexandria, A. D. 339, it was decreed that all persons ordained by one Colluthus, who pretended to be a Bishop, but who had been ascertained to be only a Pres- byter, should be regarded as mere laymen. f For it is not to be believed that a Church, which thus denied the power of a Presbyter to ordain to his ow^n order, should, only fourteen years before, A. D. 325, the time stated, have been in the habit of allowing these very persons to consecrate its Patriarch. In this conclusion we are perfectly confirmed by the well authenticated additional fact, that in the Alex- andrian Church, the authority of the Apostolic Canons was acknowledged, which teach that a Bishop only may ordain. The early practice, then, of this Church does not furnish a primitive example of Presbyterian ordination, but the con- trary. And unless some other and clearer instances of it can be cited, it must be acknowledged that the testimony of antiquity is in no degree in favor of this scheme. Mr. H. had, it appears, no more instances to adduce; for we have seen the last of his proofs from the Fathers. And now after having followed him over all this ground, I put it to the reader — Have we found one clear case of Presbyterian ordination in passing upward from the sixteenth century? And it is w^orthy of observation, that the most Mr. H. has attempted to prove in favor of this scheme is, not the current of practice, which is all along tacitly acknowledged to be against it, but mere exceptions — a few isolated cases here and there: and even these he has failed to make out. Also, the fact should not pass unnoticed, that he has not ventured to go higher for an authority in favor of Presbyterian ordi- nation than Jerome, and that it is distinctly acknowledged, p. 37, that in the age of this very Father, Episcopacy universally prevailed. True, Mr. H. asserts it to have been usurped. But Jerome says no such thing: indeed he maintains the very opposite * [As it certainly does.] t Alhan. Vol. IJ., p. 732. 29 of this.* And Mr. H. himself confesses, p. 35, that nothing any way in favor of Presbyterian ordination, can be found in "the Fathers of the first and second centuries." Whether he is entirely correct in saying that these early writers bear witness to the existence of no other particular kind of ordi- nation, we shall see in the proper place. Let it suffice for the present, that by Mr. Hart's own acknowledgment, here are two centuries immediately succeeding the Apostolic age — a period the most important of all, that of inspiration alone excepted— in which he can find no instances of Presbyterian ordination, and no testimony of any kind in its favor. IX. We come next, passing back, to Mr. Hart's sixth head, under which nothing is found, which deserves the name of either proof or argument. He says: " I rely on Presbyterian ordination in order to avoid the necessity of considering those ordinations invalid, which are performed by the Bishops of the Episcopal Church. This sounds charitable: but it is, at best, kindness mis- applied; because uncalled for. Episcopalians are in no such predicament in regard to a title to a scriptural ministry, as makes them proper objects of solicitude. On the contrary, they are so circumstanced in this respect, that let what scheme will be true, they are certain of having a ministry. Upon the theory of " No-Ordination" or " Lay-Ordination," they are obviously as well off as their neighbors; and even were Presbyterian ordination proved to be divine, they would stand in need of no commisseration, since it is con- fessed by Mr. H. himself, p. 34, "it must be admitted that these Bishops [of the Episcopal Church] having been ordained themselves, have authority to ordain others." By his own showing, then. Episcopal ordinations are sure — if not on their own ground, yet on some other — to turn out to be valid. The above " reason," then, is no reason " for rely- ing on Presbyterian ordination." ' His words are as follows : '■ It was decreed throughout (he whole world, that one be elected, who should be put over the rest of the Presbyters." And accor- ding to his account, this was done in the very first age : for he expressly says it was, " after some began to consider those which he had baptized to be his'own, not Christ's ;" and when " by fhe instigation of the devil, parties were formed in religion and it was said by the people, I am of Paul, and I of Apollos, and 1 of Cephas." By Jerome's own showing, therefore. Episcopacy commenced — not by MSwrpatioM, but by appointment — in the Apostolic age itself ; for then it was, certainly, that this identical schism appeared which, he declares, demanded and caused its institution. As this cannot he denied, Mr. H. would make us believe that the ministers, thus set over Presbyters, still remained, in all essential respects, on a level with them. But this opinion will be found fully discussed and completely refuted in the following pages :— See the twelfth head and elsewhere. 30 The equality of all ministers is asserted with sufficient frequency under this head; and we are told, as much as once, at least, that the office of Diocesan Bishop " belongs to the same species of human manufacture as that of metropolitans and popes." It will be soon enough for us to believe this, when we shall have seen Presbyterianism proved to be divine; and this we are not likely to do, as we have discov- ered no instance of this sort of ordination in ascending from the sixteenth century. But let us see what can be further urged in its behalf: and for this purpose pass we now to the all edged SCRIPTURE PROOFS OF PRESBYTERIAN ORDINATION. X. Under his fourth and fifth heads — which we will con- sider in connection, and in the order in which they stand — Mr. H. gives us the Presbyterian hypothesis. No instances of Presbyterian ordination, nor any thing which will bear to be called proofs of it, are found under either of these heads; nothing is met with here but scheming. We do not complain of this. The author of " A Letter to a Friend" had an undoubted right to state his theory. But we must be al- lowed the liberty of examining it, and of seeing for our- selves how well it squares with the Scriptures. This we claim as our right. The Presbyterian hypothesis, as stated at large by Mr. Hart, assumes — (1) That all the powers with which the eleven were clothed by the commission, Matthew xxviii. 19, 20, were designed to be conveyed to every minister of the Gos- pel— that these powers " are not to be parcelled out some to one and some to another" — that the commission being *' one," no division of its duties could have been intended; and that, therefore, '•' every common pastor may produce it as his warrant, to invest others with the same office that he himself sustains." pp. 31, 32. (2) Another way in which Mr. H. arrives at this conclusion is as follows: Jirst it is as- sumed as proved, that the Apostles, aside from their inspir- ed character, " were nothing more than presbyters or eld- ers"; and that they ''had no authority to ordain, except as it was vested in them in the character of ordinary ministers, p. 33, then comes in the minor proposition; but they " certainly had authority to ordain," p. 32, and thus the way is prepared for the inference; therefore every minister is warranted and empowered to set apart to the sacred office. Such is the Presbyterian hypothesis. As an unexamined theory, it would appear passably v/ell, were it not for the fact — solemn as it is obvious — that it be- 31 gins with degrading the blessed Apostles: not a step can he taken, it seems, towards framing this scheme, till the chosen twelve are brought down, in point of ministerial standing, to the level of common pastors. This, as it appears to us, is a serious objection to this theory: for who can believe that St. Paul, for instance, was a mere Presbyterian minis- ter, simply equal to Mr. Hart; as aside from his uninspired character, this hypothesis asserts him to have been? I re- peat; this necessity of degrading the Apostles in order to make out that presbyters have a right to ordain, is an ob- jection which every Christian, it seems to us, must feel to lie heavily against this scheme. We shall not stop here to show, as we might, that the process is entirely unw^aranta- ble by which Mr. Hart attempts to effect this leveling; nor will we dwell on the unfairness and inconsistency which he has manifested, in first representing Episcopal Bishops as pretending to have succeeded to the inspired part of the Apostolic office; and, then, claiming for common pastors,- those very powers, and that precise kind of succession, which, and which alone, are challenged for those chief min^ isters who are ridiculed and censured by him with so unspar- ing a hand. Had we time and space, we might justly ani- madvert at length vipon the tone of several of Mr. Hart's remarks under his fifth head: but we forbear, through fear of diverting attention from the objectionable feature pointed out in the scheme which he defends. We could find fault with its advocate; but we see so much which looks suspi- cious in the theory itself, that aside from any considerations connected with the manner of its defense, we feel warranted in witholding from it our assent; at least, till we shall have had opportunity to give it further examination. There is, we know, another and very different hypothesis — the Episcopal: and it does not appear to us that there are any such marks of infallibility about the one now under consideration, as should lead us to conclude, that it must certainly be right; even did no such vital objection as the above weigh against it. Indeed it seems to us that there is too little explicitness in the commission in question, to enable us to determine, from itself alone, what scheme of ministry it contemplates and enjoins. Does it not appear to the read- er, that there is need of some inspired commentary on this passage, to showus just what, and just how much was intend- ed by it. But where shall we look for the desired explanation'? I answer, inthe practice of those to whom the commission was first given. It is a maxim with legislators, that the best comment on an ancient statute, is the proceedings under it 3^ in the times immediately succeeding the period of its enact- ment. On this principle we must go, in making up our minds on the case before us: in no way can we come to a safe conclusion as to the import of the law of Christ, laid down in the commission, Matthew xxviii. 19, 20; but by a reference to the practice of the eleven, acting under it. A record of their practice we find in the Acts of the Apostles and in their Epistles. If it shall appear, upon examination of these records, that the Apostles, acting under their com- mission, did in fact transfer to ordinary pastors, the power of ordination; then the Presbyterian hypothesis will be proved to be the true one. But if, on the contrary, it shall be shown that they did not confer this power on all whom they ordained, but reserved it to be entrusted to a few among many ministers, we shall be obliged to conclude that no man set apart by the hands of a mere Presbyter cart be an ambassador of Christ, Let us then bring to out test, the Presbyterian hypothe- sis, as stated by Mr. Hart. No good reason can be urged why it should be exempted from the ordeal. For any thing that appears to the contrary, it may be found erroneous: for all that is said about the commission being indivisible because " one" is of no force — -as well might it be assert- ed^ that the President of the United States cannot give any measure of authority to an officer under him without com- municating to him all the powers with which he, himself, is invested. His commission, we know, is " one," and, yet, others receive of his authority: consequently, a division of ministerial power is a thing in itself, neither impossible nor absurd; and hence it follows that the Presbyterian theory is hot, necessarily, the true one. The question, therefore, re- mains; was it, or was it not, the mind of Christ that a divis- ion of ministerial powers should be made? Again I say there is no way of settling this point but by a reference to the prac- tice of the Apostles under their commission. It is idle to plead that there could be no need of a distribution of the powers of that commission: the question is not what seems to us to have been best for Christ to do; but what did he do in fact? Did he give his Apostles to understand that all the imin- spired powers he conferred on them were to be transmitted to every minister of the Gospel; and have they shown that they so understood Him by an actual bestowment of the power of ordination on common pastors? Is there any evi- dence of it? Mr. H. says there is, and in support of this position he asserts — 33 Xi. Under his third head, that " common pastors did actually ordain in several recorded instances in apostolic times." p. 28. If this can be shown, it must be confessed to be a sufficiently clear intimation of the will of Christ, and a decisive proof of the validity of Presbyterian ordination — let us but see Scriptural practice in favor of this scheme; and it shall convince us that the construction which Mr. H. has put on the commission is the right one. This is the evi- dence we demand. Proceed we, then, to an examination of the alledged Scripture cases of Presbyterian ordination. 1. The first instance cited as an example of such ordina- tion, is that setting apart of Paul and Barnabas of which we have the following account in Acts xiii. 1, 2, 3. " Now there was in the Church that was at Antioch certain prophets and teachers; as Barnabas, and Simeon that was called Niger, and Lucius of Cyrene, and Manaen which had been brought up with Herod the tetrarch, and Saul. As they ministered to the Lord and fasted, the Holy Ghost said, separate me Barnabas and Saul for the w^ork where- unto I have called them. And when they had fasted and prayed, and laid their hands on them they sent them away.'^ Mr. Hart thinks that " this transaction, so plainly stated by St. Luke, in all its circumstances," must be " sufficient for ever to shut the mouth of clamor against the validity of Presbyterian ordination." p. 29. But we must say — Mr. H.'s confidence notwithstanding — that this case is not a clear instance of such ordination: on the contrary there are insuperable objections to his view of it. It plainly appears from the narrative of the transaction itself, that Paul and Barnabas were both ministers before receiving the laying on of hands of which it speaks: they are expressly numbered among " the prophets and teachers"* present; and, for aught that appears to the contrary, theyy as well as the others, had been there, at Antioch, " minis- tering to the Lord." How then could this laying on of hands be a Presbyterian ordination, when the subjects of it were already ministers: to insist, as Mr. H. does, that it was such an ordination, is to maintain, upon his theory, that we are here solemnly informed, that some Presbyterian minis- ters laid hands on other Presbyterian ministers for the pur- pose of setting them apart to the sacred oflfice. From his premises there is no avoiding this absurd conclusion while it is plain that Paul and Barnabas were ministers previous to the time of the setting apart in question: and it is abun- dantly evident that they were so — for, in addition to what is said in the narrative, we are elsewhere plainly told that Paul 34 had been a preacher of the Gospel long before this occur- rence;* and Barnabas also;t nay, we know that the former, at the time of the transaction in question, had been an Apostle many years. To what, we ask, would Presbyte- rian ministers ordain such persons'? Obviously, this transaction was not a Presbyterian ordina- tion. Nor is this enough to say: we must add, it was, clearly no ordmation at all; but merely the setting apart of persons already ordained or appointed of God, to a special mis- sionary work. Let any one read onward from the passage quoted above, to Acts xiv. 26, and he will be satisfied that this is so. It will be found from the last named verse, that, having returned from their journey, " the work" to which Paul and Barnabas were " separated," when set. apart at Antioch, was " fulfilled." This, aside from the fact that they were ministers before the transaction in question, makes it clear, that what is spoken of in the first three verses of the thirteenth of Acts, was not an ordination of any kind, but a special appointment of two ministers to par- ticular missionary duty, by designation of the Spirit. This Mr. H. might have learned from the Presbyterian Doddridge, had he consulted him; and, indeed, it is matter of wonder, how so gross a mistake should have been made by the author of " A Letter to a Friend." We are unwilling to believe it any thing more than an oversight; for had he remembered that Paul declares himself to have been "aft Apostle, not of men, neither by man, but by Jesus Christ and God the Father,"! we are sure he would never have dared to speak of his ordination at Antioch as he has. One case is disposed of: thus far we find no instance of ordination by " common pastors." 2. But we have not done, says the advocate of Presbyte- rian ordination; we have " another instance" to alledge; " Timothy was ordained by Presbyters." Well, we shall see. (1) As inquirers it becomes us to observe here, that unless this case is made out fairly, clearly, strongly, indubi- tably, we shall be obliged to conclude that the Apostles never gave the power of ordination to " common pastors:" for no instance besides this is so much as alledged from Scripture. (2) Also, before proceeding to the examination of this case — the only one in the whole Bible which has even the appearance of a Presbyterian ordination — it is our duty to stop a moment and take a brief survey of the ground we have been over, that we may get a just idea of the circum- » Acts ix. 20, 22, 27, 29. t Acts xi. 22, 26. \ Gal. i. 1. 35 stances under which we, as inquirers, come to this case of Timothy; so that we may carry to our investigation of it, a distinct recollection of the precise point to be settled, and a clear understanding as to how much must be proved from it, to make out the Presbyterian claim: We come to it without having found one instance of such ordination, since we began to ascend from the sixteenth century: we come to it with the confession of its advocate, that nothing is found in the Fathers of the first two centuries, which, with any directness, favors it: we come to it, after going over all the rest of the Scriptures, in a vain search for a single example of it in Apostolic times. Nay, more, we come to it with, at least, presumptive and negative evidence against it; for we cannot but remember, that Matthias, and the seven Deacons, and " the Elders" that were ordained " in every Church," were, one and all, set apart by Apostolic hands. True, it has been said by Mr. Hart, that the Apostles, apart from their inspired character, were, themselves, no more than common pastors: but it has only been said; it has not been proved. Therefore, we must not assume it to be true. To do so, is to beg the question: it is to take for grant- ed what is denied. Whether the Apostles transferred the whole of their uninspired powers to all whom they ordained, and thus elevated them to their own ministerial standing; or whether they retained the ordaining power in their own hands, according to their Master's will, and thus maintained a ministerial standing above the Elders whom they or- dained, is the very point in dispute. To settle this question, is the business which we have now in hand. Mr. Hart has alledged that "Presbyters" — mere common pastors — "did ordain in Apostolic times;" and we are following him to see if he proves it. This he has not yet done. But one case more remains to be considered: and, I repeat, under the cir- cumstances, it seems to me, that unless this ordination be shown to have been by Presbyters alone — by mere Elders, without Apostles; Presbyterian ordination must be given up as unscriptural. With these preliminaries borne in mind we are ready to proceed to the examination. The case stands thus: Paul says to Timothy — "Neglect not the gift that is in thee, which was given thee by prophecy, with the laying on of the hands of the Presbytery."* This, says Mr. H., is a clear instance oi Presbyterian ordination; and, at first hearing, the passage may strike the unpracticed * 1 Tim. iv. 14. 36 ear, as the record of such an instance. But this view will not bear examination. All that there is in it, in favor of this scheme, is the mere sotmd of the word " Presbytery,'^ For it is exceedingly doubtful what the phrase, " tou jyresbuterou,'' means here. Some have taken it to be the name of the office to which Timothy was ordained: so thought Jerome, Ambrose, and, at one time, Calvin. Others have admitted *' the presbytery" to be an assembly, but yet have contended that it was composed entirely of Apostles: this was the opinion of Chrysostom, Theodoret, and Theophylact: and no Greek scholar will deny, that an assembly of Apostles, regarded as superior, in every respect, to mere elders, might with as much propriety be called "a Presbytery," as though they formed but a body of common pastors. But, not to press these considerations farther, let me hasten to speak of one circumstance, attending this ordination of Timothy, which, upon the principles we have laid down as sound rules to govern us in our judgment in this case, is fatal to the Presbyterian scheme. I refer to what St. Paul says, in his second Epistle to Timothy i. 6: "Stir up the gift of God, which is in thee by the putting on of my hands." That the Apostle here refers to the same transaction which is alluded to in the passage under consideration, 1 Tim. iv. 14, and that this exhortation shows him to have acted at Timothy's ordination, is asserted or admitted by Scott, Dod- dridge, McKnight, and, so far as I know, all the other com- mentators, without an exception. To say that this laying on of the Apostle's hands was with the design of conferring miraculous powers, is to make a wholly gratuitous and un- warranted assertion: for there is no evidence that Timothy ever possessed such powers. The only fair supposition is, that this act was for the purpose of imparting the gift of the ministry; and this circumstance of Paul's presence and direct agency in this transaction is, I repeat, fatal to the -.Presby- terian scheme. Coming, as we do, to this alledged instance in favor of that theory, with nothing to support it; with no precept or command enjoining or permitting mere Presbyters to ordain; with no previous ascertained instance in which they had acted in that capacity; and with the notorious fact staring us in the face, that in all the previous recorded cases of ordination, Apostles, and Apostles alone, had acted; we needed — in order to our having any confidence in the validity of ordination by Presbyters — to find in this case of Timothy an instance in which common pastors, and they alone, took part. But, we are told that an Apostle was there, and laid on hands. Instead, therefore, of begetting in 37 us confidence in the validity of Presbyterian ordination, is not this case of Timothy directly calculated to confirm us in the belief, that no ordinations could take place without the presence of an Apostle; and as a consequence, that mere Presbyters had not then, and have not now, the power to set apart to the sacred office? If the other individuals composing "the presbytery," present with Paul on this occasion, were Elders, they united with him byway of concurrence. The distinction of phra- seology— " by my hands," and " with * * the hands of the Presbytery," harmonizes with this idea. We lay no great stress on the fact that these .different prepositions are used, though it might be asserted, that, as a general thing, the former is employed, in accordance with its primary meaning, to denote the efficient cause, while the latter is almost always used to si^miy mere concurrence : so that the Episcopalian may, at least, claim that the phraseology de- cidedly chimes in with, and favors his view of this ordina- tion. But " the whole struggle" is not, as Mr. Hart would have his readers believe, " between the two little words, by and wi7/i.;" "the struggle" is, between the claim that this ordination of Timothy was by mere Elders, and a contrary view, which maintains that there was one there, without whose presence that ordination could not have taken place; and who, as a consequence, must have been superior to the " common pastors" in ministerial rights and powers. And now, how stands the first of these claims? Has this case been made out to be a Presbyterian ordination? When we remember that an Apostle was there; one of that number who alone had done all the recorded ordaining up to this time; and when we hear him assert that the gift conferred in that par- ticular transaction was by the putting on of his hands; can we say, that there is, in this case, any thing like a war- rant for Presbyterian ordination? On the contrary, does it not appear evident, that up to the time which covers this instance, the Apostles had never conferred the ordaining power on any mere Elders, but reserved it to themselves; asserting thereby, as doubtless it was the will of Christ they should, their uninspired ministerial superiority? Obviously this is so. Thus far, therefore, there is nothing found in the Bible which, in the least, supports the Presbyterian theory. And, as there are no more instances of such ordi- nation so much as alledged to be recorded on the sacred page; must it not be given up, as unscriptural? Can any thing more be said in its favor? Mr. Hart says there can. 38 XII. "Presbyters," he says, "were, in the days of the Apostles, expressly directed to ordain." p. 23. But this claim strikes us feebly, after seeing, as we have, that the attempt to show any instances of Presbyterian ordination, from the Scriptures, has proved abortive. The failure to produce a single case of such ordination, makes us suspect that it cannot be made to appear that " common pastors" were ever directed to set apart to the ministry. If they were, indeed commanded, to discharge this duty, why can it not be shown to have been performed? But let us see what can be said in defence of this new posi- tion. Two instances of direction to Presbyters to ordain, are alledged: the first is the command to the " prophets and teachers" at Antioch, to set apart Paul and Barnabas; the second is to be found, it is said, in the instructions which were given to Timothy and Titus, in relation to the exercise of the ordaining power. 1. So far as the first of these alledged instances is con- cerned, it is only necessary to recur to our examination of the transaction at Antioch, to see that it has nothing to do with the matter in hand. As that ceremony has been proved to have been something other than a separation to the min-* istry, the plea that the command to the " prophets and teachers" was a direction to ordain is, of course, entirely inadmissible. Thus, one of Mr. H.'s two instances is sum- marily disposed of; as yet we see no warrant for Presbyters to ordain. 2. Let us now take up the case of Timothy and Titus, and see whether any such thing is to be found in the instructions given to them. As they "received similar instructions," what is true of one must be so of the other; and to institute an inquiry into the official powers of either, will be to inves- tigate the cases of both. We choose for this purpose that of Timothy, and for two reasons ;j^r5^, that we have rnore full information respecting him; and, second^ that Mr. H. has given most prominence to his case. To make it appear that " Presbyters were directed to or- dain," Mr. H. was obliged to assume that those instructions which Timothy received from St. Paul, in relation to the exercise of the ordaining power, were given to him as a common pastor, or presbyter-evangelist. Does this seem to us probable 1 After following this ad- vocate of the Presbyterian theory over every inch of his Scripture ground, to the very last point of his alledged posi- tive proofs, without finding one instance of ordination by mere Elders, or hearing a word of any permission being 39 granted them to perform such an act, is it probable that Timothy is addressed as a common pastor? Up to this time, we have seen that no case of setting apart to the ministry occurred, in which Apostles did not act as the ordainers; and as there is no evidence from previous fact or precept, that a common Elder had power to ordain, but proof to the con- trary, in the circumstance that Apostles^ exclusively, had all along exercised this right, the probability clearly is, that Timothy was not a common pastor. His having this power of ordination, which we must judge to have been unpossessed, because not exercised by mere elders, but which was pe- culiar to the Apostles, distinguishes him from the former, and ranks him, in ministerial powers, in the superior grade of the latter. Mr. H., then, in attempting to show that Timothy was no more than a Presbyter-evangelist, begins his argument with the probability against him. Having failed to adduce any instance of ordination by common pastors, or so much as a direction or permission for them to set apart to the sacred office, he needs strong proofs to enable him to make out his case. And now the question is, does he produce them; does he bring an array of evidence strong enough to overwhelm opposing probabilities ; does he make it appear, contrary to all previous recorded practice, that Timothy was directed to ordain as a common pastor? Far from it. His proofs are found, upon examination, to be unsatisfactory; and his argu- ments based on them inconclusive. Some of them are really too weak to call for any formal reply: for example — 1. Paul " besoughV^ Timothy '' to abide still at Ephesus," therefore he must have been a common pastor, p. 25. Who does not see, in view of the relation which the aged Apostle sustained to Timothy, that his " beseeching" him to remain, agrees as well with the idea of his being a Diocesan Bishop, as with the notion that he was a mere Presbyter? Such rea- soning amounts to nothing. 2. Again: " the Apostle directs them [Timothy and Titus] * * * to preach," therefore they must have been Pres- byterian ministers. This is all Mr. Hart's argument, at pp. 26, 27, amounts to, when stripped of its verbiage. His position is, that since the same letters of instruction, given to these two persons, directed them to preach as well as to ordain, " I have as good a right to affirm that the Elders in those places [Ephesus and Crete] had no authority io preach, as another man has to say that they had no authority to ordain.'^ The fallacy of this reasoning is too apparent io need exposure. Can there be no community of official 40 rights but an unrestricted one? Might not Timothy and Titus commission others, as Episcopal Bishops do now, to perform with them " ordinary ministerial duties," and yet retain the power of ordination in their own hands'? And is it not clear, from the Epistles addressed to them, that this was, in fact, the course pursued? While they were in- structed to demand aptness to communicate in such as aspired to the sacred office; and enjoined to commit those things which they had heard to faithful men, who should " be able to teach others also," not one word is said, nor a single intimation given, that they were to impart to these common pastors the power of o7-dination. This is decisive. They are commanded to commission some to teach; they are not instructed to commission those same persons to give the ministry to others: and as one of these functions has beien shown to be not necessarily included in the other, in the absence of all Scripture proof that a common pastor ever set apart to the ministry, or was even directed so to do, we see that Mr. H. had not " as good a right to affirm, that the Elders in * * [Ephesus and Crete] had no authority to preach, as another man has to say that they had no au- thority to ordain.^^ The mere Presbytership of the office which Timothy and Titus held is not to be proved, to the satisfaction of any one, by reasoning like this. Not till it can be shown from the Epistles to these persons, that they were to commission all, whom they set apart to the ministry, to ordain as well as to teach, can it avail any thing to tell us,- that a direction to discharge these t\vo functions is con- tained in the same set of instructions — for it does not follow that all who were commissioned to preach may ordain: and, therefore, it does not so much as begin to prove that Timothy and Titus were no more than common pastors. 3. But again — it is urged by Mr. H. — Timothy was too much of a traveler to have been any thing else than a Pres- byter-missionary or Evangelist; " His itinerary life is a proof that he was not the Bishop of Ephesus, nor of any other place.'^ p. 23. This is inconclusive; for even could it be shown that Timothy took most of his journeys after being placed at Ephesus, it would be far from proving him to have been a mere Presbyter. The Episcopalians in this country have Bishops, we know, who travel in the direct execution of their office, quite as widely as he ever did. And had Mr. H. quoted, as he ought, the whole of the section from Euse- bius, which treats of Evangelists, it would have appeared on the page of his own pamphlet, that persons who bore this 41 title were Bishops, distinctively so called; for Eusebius ex-» pressly says, they were such as had obtained "the first step* of Apostolic succession." So that could it be proved that Timothy was " an Evangelist" or Missionary, and that he traveled ever so extensively during his whole life time, it would not militate, in the least, against the idea of his being a Bishop in the appropriate sense. But — 4. It is not true that he took all, or any, excepting oncj of his recorded journeys, after being placed at Ephesus. An erroneous assumption in regard to the time of his being fixed there, conducts to a false conclusion in this particular — and is the source, too, of all the difficulty felt by Mr. H» in regard to the silence which is observed respecting " the Bishop," in the message St. Paul despatched to the Ephe-^ sian Elders to meet him at Miletus. f His remarks in the first, second, third and fifth sections of the head now under consideration, suppose the placing of Timothy at Ephesus to have been previous to the interview at Miletus. This is a mistake; for the time when he was located there, w^as on some occasion of Paul's going from that place into Macedonia,! and it is demonstrable that Timothy was not at Ephesus on any recorded occasion of the Apostle's going thence into that region, before the in- terview above named. The erroneousness of Mr. H.'s sup- position is provable in another way. At the time Timothy vi-'as placed at Ephesus heresy had sprung up: " I besought thee to abide," * * * says the Apostle, " that thou mightest charge some that they teach no other doctrine. "J But no error of this kind had appeared previous to the in- terview at Miletus, for we learn that these false teachers were then to arise ;§ therefore we must conclude, that the time of Timothy's being left at Ephesus could not have been be- fore that interview; and if it were after it, then it must have been subsequent to St. Paul's first imprisonment, as there was no time between the interview and the imprisonment at which he could have been " going into Macedonia. "|| * Ta^iv. t rage 24, 1, 2, and 3 Sections. tlTim.i. 3. § Acts xx. 29, 30. Ij IMie only reason for assigning an earlier jieriod for the leaving of Timothy at Ephesus, and the writing of the 1st I".])islle to him, than its author's first im- prisonment at Rome, is to save the infallibility of St. Paul's prediction to the Ephesian Elders, " that they should see his face no more.'' But that he intended nothing more than that the threatening aspects of things presaged this as their last interview, is in accordance witli the j)revions assertion of his " not knowing (certainly) the things which should hciall him ; and also with the perpetual oc- currence of such language ; wlicre oidy an opinion is expressed : as Phil. ii. 24, where the Apostle shows that his former a.«isertion, ch. i. 25, " I know," is to be qualified to an opinion. That St. Paul visited Ephesus aftef his first liberation, 6 42 In this view, how harmless appear such insinuations as Mr. H. has thrown out on his twenty-fourth page. With our eyes on the fact that Timothy was not placed at Ephesus till after Paul's meeting its Elders, we can be at no loss for a reason why "the Bishop" was not sent for; and when we consider that at the time of receiving his instructions, which, like his settlement, was subsequent to Paul's first imprisonment, and, therefore, when all, but one, of his re- corded journeys had been accomplished; how perfectly ob- vious it is that all that is said about his traveling so much, does nothing towards proving him to have been a common pastor or Presbyter-Evangelist. 5. But he could have been no more than this, says Mr. H., for Paul " committed the whole management of the Ephesian Church to its Elders," upon the occasion of his interview with them at Miletus, p. 24. Such is not the fact: the extent of their commission, as appears from the record of that interview, was " to feed" the flock, and to exercise such discipline among them as mod- ern Episcopal Presbyters administer. Here their authority ended; for it is not so much as intimated that they had the power to ordain. And though they are exhorted to watch against false teachers, yet, be it observed, not a word is said of their having authority to try and censure or degrade them. It is not true then, that "the whole management of the Ephe- sian Church was committed to these Elders;" and, therefore, it is not true that there was no need — as Mr. H. would have us infer — of Timothy's being any thing more than a common pastor. There was need of this, as we plainly see in the fact, that the Elders of Ephesus had no authority or power to ordain to the ministry nor depose from it. And we need go no further than to compare the address made to these Elders at Miletus,* with the instructions to Timothy,! after he became resident among them, to be convinced that he could do what they could not, and, consequently, that they were not his equal. Observe the points of contrast: they are directed " to feed" the flock; but he is commissioned to appoint new shepherds, "lay \thoii\ hands suddenly on no man," but " the things that thou has heard of me * * * the same commit thou to faithful men" — they are allowed to from Rome, is highly probable. Having expressed an intention to visit Colosse, and under promise to see 'shortly" the Church at Philippi; in passing from Colosse to Philippi, he could hardly have failed to take Ephesus in his way ; and what more probable than that this was the going into Macedonia alluded to, 1 Tim. i. 3, alwhich time Timothy was -'besought to abide at Ephesus".' See McKnight's Preface to 1 Timothy; Paley's Horse Paulina>, ch. ,\i. * Acts XX. 28 — 32. t See Epistles to Timothy, passim. 43 exercise discipline over the people; but Ae is empowered to exercise discipline over them, " charge some [ministers] that they teach no other doctrine" — ^/iey might " watch" against errorists, but he was authorized to receive "an accusation against an Elder," and by himself alone, officially " rebuke" such ministers as were convicted of sin. With these facts before us, who that remembers that these different charges were addressed to ministers of the same city, is not satisfied that the young man, Timothy, to whom alone, among all the clergy of Ephesus, were en- trusted the high duties of ordaining, trying, and rebuking Elders, could have been no common pastor? This conclusion is fatal to Mr. Hart's position, that "in the days of the Apostles, Presbyters were expressly directed to ordain": the former of his two instances we were obliged to set aside as wholly inapplicable; and now the latter is shown to be not in point, inasmuch as it seems to \is demon- strated, that Timothy was not instructed to ordain as a com- mon pastor. But — 6. Says Mr. H., Chrysostom, Theophylact, Orcumenius, and Whitby testify that neither Timothy nor Titus held a higher office than this. Here again he is mistaken. The author of " a Letter to a Friend" is as unfortunate in his authorities as in his arguments. The passage quoted from Chrysostom does not assert, nor even imply, that Titus was no more than a common pastor or PreslDyter-Evangelist. Indeed, no one of the Fathers maintains the distinction be- tween Bishop and Presbyter, and the inability of the latter to ordain, more clearly than he; though in some other re- spects, he would have limited the power of the Bishop. In his eleventh homily he tells us that there is scarce any act of the Episcopal office which may not be exercised by Pres- byters, " except imposition of hands^^ ; and in his comment on " the Presbytery," who took part in the ordination of Timothy, he says, the Apostle " does not speak here of Presbyters, but of Bishops, for Presbyters did not ordain a Bishop." These quotations show, that whatever Chrysos- tom's opinions may have been with respect to the early Diocesan divisions of Crete, he can never be cited, with either fairness or success, to show that Titus and Timothy were mere Presbyters; for while he knew that they were empowered to set apart to the sacred office, he asserts above, unqualifiedly, that Presbyters cannot ordain. Besides, Mr. Hart's quotations from Chrysostom prove nothing to his purpose, as there were eleven Dioceses in Crete in his day, all of which were considered Apostolic, and to which the quoted language of this father was applied. 44 Had we space, it might be shown with equal clearness that the names of Theophylact and Orcumenius cannot, with truth, be mentioned as witnesses to the mere Presbyterial standing of Timothy and Titus. Whitby is so grievously misrepresented, that we deem it a duty to say a word in his vindication. He declares — we are told — that he could find no evidence in the writers of the first three centuries, that Timothy and Titus " bore the name" of Bishop — the one of Ephesus, and the other of Crete. We care little for Whitby's declaration, since a reference to Archbishop Ussher's " Discourse on Episcopacy," will convince any one that there is testimony wuthin the above period, that Timothy and Titus did bear the title in question. But why did not Mr. H. inform us, as he should, that this writer, after-making the declaration quoted, immediately adds, " but this defect is abundantly supplied by the concurrent suifrage of the fourth and fifth centuries." Our previous conclusion, then, that Timothy could not have been merely a common pastor, being rather strength- ened than otherwise, by an examination of the authorities adduced to establish a contrary opinion, must stand; and, as involved in it, the further conclusion, that Mr. H. has entirely failed to show that Presbyters were, in Apostolic times " directed to ordain." We have now gone through with all Mr. Hart's positive "Reasons for relying on Presbyterian Ordination," and been obliged to reject them; those based upon alledged con- cessions of Episcopalians, on the ground of mistake and ir- relevance; and those founded on culled passages from the Fathers, on account of the absence of a single discoverable case of Presbyterian ordination in passing upward from the sixteenth century. Coming to the Apostolic age, we have gone patiently over the Scripture grounds on which this scheme -.is pre- tended to be based. Taking its theory, which assumes that all the powers of the Apostolic commission were designed for every minister of the Gospel, we have considered one by one the proofs which Mr. H. has adduced in its support. And what is the conclusion? It is, that this position remains entirely unsustained: for not one instance is to be found in the Bible in which Presbyters ordained, nor so much as a jingle direction to them to perform such an act. How then can we look upon such ordination as scriptural? How can we regard those who have been set apart by it as ministers of Christ? Are they such? This is a question, not qi opinion, but pf fact. Had the claim set up by Mr. 45 H. in regard to the Apostolic commission been made out — had it been shown from the practice of the Apostles under that commission, that all its powers were intended to be conveyed to every minister of the Gospel, it would follow that the common pastor has power to ordain. But this has not been done, nor can it be; for the practice of the Apostles is directly opposed to this theory. In view of that practice we see, that as a matter of fact, they — acting under inspi- ration— did divide the powers of "the one commission" by witholding from common pastors the power of ordination; consequently, as a matter of fact, those who have been set apart to minister in holy things, by the unauthorized hands of a mere Presbyter, have no commission from Christ. It is from scriptural grounds that we infer, that those who have a right to act authoritatively in the Saviour's name are not to be found in a Presbyterian ministry — a ministry, which, in its unwarranted beginning, dates no further back than the sixteenth century. Indeed, we do not see that the Congregationalist would be in the least bettered in regard to the priesthood, even could he prove his right to the Pres- byterian ground; both schemes are equally unscriptural. It will be here observed by those who have Mr. Hart's Tract, that we have, as yet, left the whole of his first general head unexamined. As it is made up of merely pretended neg- ative proofs in favor of his theory, presented in the form of 06- jections to the Episcopal scheme, it seems most natural to consider them under that division; and it will be remembered that if these alledged objections to a superior order of min- isters shall be found, upon examination, not to lie against Episcopacy, they can, of course, furnish no shadow ol' sup- port for the Presbyterian theory. With this fact borne in mind, pass we to the consideration of — THE EPISCOPAL SCHEME. This scheme asserts that, by God's arrangement, there are three orders in the Christian Ministry, — Bishop, Priest, and Deacon ; that the power of ordination has been placed by the Sovereign Disposer, in the hands of the first of these grades alone; that this power is intransferable to either of the other two — and, therefore, that none can have authority to act as the Saviour's ambassadors, but such as have been set apart to his ministry by the imposition of a Bishop's hands. And in view of the previous steps taken, and conclusions arrived at, we are warranted in regarding this Episcopal cl.?iipi as something more than a bare assumption; coming to 46 it, as we do, with the conviction that God has some one form of ministry in the world, and with the clearest evidence that no one of those forms which we have examined is that true ministry; we are obliged to infer that the Episcopal — the only remaining one known among men — must be it. And what goes far to persuade us of the correctness of this conclusion is, the well known fact, that, under the previous dispensation, God's priesthood was, indisputably, of this three-fold character; and that even while the Church was in its transition state, from the Jewish to Christian dispensation, this same form of ministry was retained, as is plainly seen, in Jesus the Christian high priest, the twelve, and the seventy. Thus much negative testimony is there in favor of the Episcopal scheme. And this alone seems quite sufficient, in the present position of the case, to determine the question as to — " Who are Christ's Ministers." 1. But this scheme has positive proof on its side which claims our attention. To get a clear and comprehensive view of this direct evidence for Episcopacy, we first pass along to that point in the history of the Church, at which the Saviour conferred upon the eleven the powers which he himself had exercised in it on earth. This transaction took place at that solemn interview in which " he breathed on them," saying " receive ye the Holy Ghost," and "as my Father has sent me, even so send I you."* The context, especially the twenty-third verse, shows clearly that the sending spoken of in this declaration was for an official pur- pose; and it is only necessary to remember the capacity in which the Saviour acted in the Church, while in the flesh, to see that the words of this passage conveyed no empty com- mission. Whatever was necessary to complete the organi- zation of the Divine Society, and to provide for its govern- ment and perpetuity, the Apostles were now as fully em- powered to supply as even the Son himself. As the Father had sent Him to appoint teachers under him, to keep things in order in God's house, and to transfer the power of ap- pointment and supreme oversight to others; so, he here declares, that he sends them to ordain, to govern, and, in turn, to transmit this authority to some as their successors. Thus far their commission was designed to extend, as is ob- vious from its terms. Whether the priesthood was to be continued as heretofore in different grades, or only in one, cannot certainly be determined from the commission itself. To ascertain this we must take another step, and — * John XX. 21,22. 47 2. In the second place, observe how the eleven acted under this their commission. Their praclice, I repeat, must be looked to, if we would ascertain the mind of Clirist in re- gard to the form of the ministry. What, then, was that prac- tice'? First we find them appointing one to their own order.* Next we find them ordaining seven deacons.f And subse- quently, our attention is directed to the Apostles J Paul and Barnabas, going from place to place, setting Elders over every Church. § Surely this looks very much like a three- fold ministry: for the Deacons were proper ministers, as is obvious from the fact, that one of them, Philip, is found preaching and baptizing. II And the Elders, though clearly a separate order from the Deacons, H were yet, obviously, inferior to the Apostles m ministerial standing, as is indi- cated by the circumstance of their being distinguished thus whenever the sacred writer had occasion to speak of them in conjunclion, — as " Apostles and Elders;"** " Apostles and Elders and brethren ;"tt the form of expression making it evident that there was as clear a difference between " Apostles and Elders," as between " Elders and brethren." In this view the inferiority of " Elders" is sufficiently ap- parent. But it is put beyond all question by the circum- stance— so fully proved in our examination of the Presbyterian scheme — that the power of ordination was withheld from them. This the Apostles confined, for the time being, to themselves; and by so doing, continued the ministry in its three orders — then called Apostles, Elders or Bishops, and Deacons. 3. But was it to continue so, longer than the life-time of the chosen witnesses? Is there evidence that this ordinary ministerial superiority possessed by Apostles over Elders was designed by God to be transmitted by them to others, who alone, among many ministers, should have the ordain- ing power, and who, in turn, should have authority over the Elders of their times? There is. In the case of Timothy we have seen proof of this: in examining it we have seen St. Paul, acting under special divine guidance, setting an uninspired man over the numerous Ephesian Elders, and entrusting him, not only with the exclusive right to ordain in that city, J t but with power also to " charge some [min- * Acts i. 15—26. + Acts vi. 3—6 \ Acts xiv. 4. ^ Acts xi v. 23. II Should any one be disposed to question this, let him peruse Acts viii. 5 — 12, and see wliether he can tiud the least siiadow of proof that PhiMp, at the time of peiforming the ministerial acts there recorded, had received other than his first ordination. ir 1 Tim. iii. 1—13. ** Acts XV. 2,4,6, 22. tt Acts xv. 23. \\ Compare 1 Tim. v. 22, and 2 Tim. ii. 2, with Paul's address to the Elders of Ephesus, Acts XX. 17 — 38 ; and see our remarks on these different charges, under the head of the Presbyterian scheme. 48 isters] that they teach no other doctrine";* to receive accu* sations against Elders ;t and to " rebuke" such of them aS might need reproof. J Surely here is Episcopacy — continued Episcopacy. 4. But let us come a little further down, and see whether this distinction of grades in the ministry is perpetuated. The time of Timothy's being set over the Ephesian Church was, probably, about A. D. 65. Pass we down 31 years, which brings us to the occasion of sending to the Churches of Asia those brief epistles which we find recorded in the second and third chapters of the Revelation of St. John. The first of these is to Ephesus: and its address, "unto the angel of the Church of Ephesus," shows that in the year 96, just such a superior officer was there in the Church as Timothy was in it A. D. 65. It is in vain to say there was only one congregation in Ephesus, and that the angel of its Church was a common pastor. Nearly forty years previous to this there were, as we learn from Acts xx, numerous Elders in that city. The conclusion, therefore, is inevitable, unless the Ephesian Church can be shown to have decreased, that this person, called " the angel." and who is held indi- vidually responsible for the spiritual deficiency of the whole Ephesian Church, could be none other than its Bishop, dis- tinctively so called. Here, then, in the year 96, we still find Diocesan Episcopacy at Ephesus. 5. Take we now another step, of twenty years, which brings us over the line that separates us from the Apostolic age, to the year in which Ignatius, Bishop of Antioch, suf- fered martyrdom at Rome — A. D. 116.|| On his way to the imperial city, to shed his blood in defence of the Gospel, this holy man wrote an epistle or letter to the Church of Ephesus, which we still possess: and in that letter he speaks of the body of Presbyters belonging to that city, and of their Bishop, distinguishing the latter from the former sp clearly that no human ingenuity can confound them; and it is deser- ving of notice, that the Bishop of Ephesus was now not Timothy, who had gone to his reward, but Onesimus his successor in the Episcopate. With these facts in view, who can question that it was the design of the Apostles, and the will of Christ, that Episcopacy should continue? This case of Ephesus has been taken, not because of any peculiarity in it, but for the simple reason that we are in possession of more facts in relation to the Church in that than in most other places. Elsewhere the same organization. * Tim. i. 3. t 1 Tim. v. 19. t 1. Tim. v. 20. II Or as some suppose, A. D. 107. 49 of the ministry obtained. We can show this to be so. At the same time that Ignatius wrote to the Ephesians, that is, when on his way to Rome to suffer martyrdom, in the year 116; he sent letters also to the Churches of Magnesia, Tralles, Philadelphia, and Smyrna, which are still extant, and which any one may see who will take the pains to inquire for them. In these Epistles we every where meet with passages like these: ^' Your Bishop presiding in the place of God; your Presbyters in the place of the Council of the Apostles; and your Deacons most dear to me, being entrusted with the ministry of Jesus Christ" — " let all rever- ence the Deacons as Jesus Christ; and the Bishop as the Father; and the Presbytery as the sanhedrim of God, without these there is no Church.^' " He that is within the Altar is pure; but he that is without, that is, that does any thing without the Bishop and Presbyters and Deacons, is not pure in his conscience." Now, however much of hyperbole there may be in these expressions, it will be observed that what- ever be the degree of elevation which is given to the office of Presbyter, that of Bishop is placed still higher. This is decisive as to the matter of fact — it puts it beyond all doubt that the Church was Episcopal in the year 116. There is no possibility of evading this conclusion, in view of the evi- dence before us, except by questioning the competency of Ignatius as a witness, or denying the genuineness of his Epistles from which the above quotations are made. The former is what no one will think of who remembers that he was a disciple of the Apostle John himself; and the latter is what scarce any one will be found to do, who values his repu- tation as a scholar. One individual of some consequence, it is true, has, in this country, ventured to call the credi- bility of these Epistles in question; but we find that even he can quote them as good authority, when the object in hand, instead of being the defence of Presbyterianism, is the de- molition of Unitarianism. Their genuineness and the testi- mony we have drawn from them, may, therefore, be re- lied on. In the year A. D. 116, then. Episcopacy was received as the ordinance of God. And the united voice of History declares that, with unbroken succession, it continued to be so throughout the Christian world for 1500 years: indeed, by demonstrating the establishment of Episcopacy in Apos- tolic times, and disproving every alledged case of Presby- terian ordination within the above named period, we have arrived at the conclusion, by a regular induction from facts, that down to the sixteenth century, wherever the Christian 7 50 ministry was found, it presented the three-fold form ol Bishop, Priest, and Deacon. And now what is the inference from these facts? If the Apostles, acting under divine inspiration, did constitute the Christian ministry in three orders; if they never entrusted the power of ordination to common pastors, as is apparent from the fact that Apostles alone set apart to the sacred office in their own day, and from the fact that, when about to leave the world, they did appoint one, here and there, among many ministers to act, in their stead, in this superior ministerial capacity, as Timothy at Ephesus; and if this distinction was to be perpetuated, which is evident from the fact, that we find it prevailing, not only at A. D. 116, but through a period of 1500 years, is it not clear that such, and such only, as have been ordained by that officer of the Church who is superior to a common pastor are " Ministers of Christ"? When the power to set apart to the ministry was never conferred on common pastors, but was reserved for an order above them, and that as a standing divine arrange- ment, how is the conclusion to be avoided, that a commission to act authoritatively in the Saviour's name, can be derived only from that higher order of officers in the Church, who have succeeded to the ministerial rights which Apostles possessed above the Elders of their times? The inference seems perfectly unavoidable. But objections are urged against this position. Let us ex- amine them. Unless they are found to lie more heavily against this scheme than any thing which has yet been brought forward, we shall certainly feel obliged to abide by our present conviction, that an order higher than Presbyters can alone ordain, and that it is only such as have been set apart by this superior order that we have a right to regard as «' Christ's Ministers." Obj. 1. It is objected, by Mr. Hart, that the positron taken by Episcopalians, that God has set in the Church an order of ministers " superior to Presbyters," is unfounded, inas- much as the titles " Bishop and Presbyter, are used in the New Testament as words of the same import." p. 4. Answer. We admit that the name bishop is applied in Scripture to common pastors; but we deny that it can be in- ferred from hence that God has set in his Church no order of ministers "superior to Presbyters." That there was such an order in the first age we have proved. In the Apostles, in Timothy and Titus, and in the angels of the seven Asiatic Churches, we have seen a grade of ecclesiastical officers who were above common Elders in ministerial standing in that 51 they had the exclusive power of ordination, and right of supreme authority. Of what consequence is it about the name'? The question is, do the Scriptures show that there is in the Church an office superior to that of Eldership. Do they show that Presbyter-Bishops had some one over them, with power to receive accusations against them, to try and to depose them? We have seen that they do. Safely, then, may we concede that the name. Bishop,' is in the Scriptures applied to mere Presbyters. Indeed, we do not hesitate to declare it to be our opinion, that the title Bishop is seldom if ever applied, in the Scriptures, to this higher grade. This first order is found in the Bible in those called " Apostles,'* in Timothy and Titus, and in the " angels of the seven Churches." How the name " Bishop" came to be taken from the second order and appropriated exclusively to the first, let Theodoret tell: " Those now called Bishops were anciently called Apostles; but in process of time, the name of Apostle was left to those who were truly Apostles, and the name of Bishop was restrained to those who w^ere an- ciently called Apostles." In this view, we see there is no force in the objection which is grounded on the use of names; their sense is too shifting to determine any thing. We are inquiring for things; and with the fact before our eyes, that Presbyters, even while called Bishops, had officers over them who had power from Christ to rule the pastor while he ruled his flock, and to whom the sole right to ordain w^as entrusted, we cannot but feel that the claim of Episcopacy yet stands good. Obj. 2. Again; Mr. H. objects that there can be no superior order of ministers in the Church, because there was but a single commission given to the Apostles, p. 5. Answer. This objection has been examined and refuted in the course of our remarks upon " the Presbyterian scheme."* It was there shown that the powers conveyed by that one commission might be divided; and it was in- sisted that the only way to ascertain whether it w^as the will of Christ that they should or should not be divided, is to refer to the actual arrangements made by the Apostles acting under that commission. Such a reference we have made; and the result of our investigation is, that the twelve did in fact make a division of ministerial power, conferring a certain portion on Deacons; somewhat more upon Elders; but still reserving the right of ordination and supreme au- Page 30—33. 52 thority to themselves. These, I repeat, are truths which we have ascertained from an examination of Scripture. And before facts like these, Mr. Hart's mere theoretical ob- jection vanishes. It is idle to urge, as ]\Ir. Hart has done,* such texts as Luke XX. 24 — 26, against the doctrine of imparity in the priesthood; nay, in view of the fact, that the blessed Apos- tles constituted the ministry in various orders, and held the chief place in it themselves, it is impious. Obj. 3. It is objected, by Mr. Hart, that " there is no account in the New Testament of the appointment of an order superior to Presbyters or Elders." p. 5. Answer. This is not so. In view of the fact that the powers contained in the commission given to the eleven were designed to be divided into various portions; and that the Apostles, acting under inspiration, retained in their own hands superior ministerial rights and powers, with direction to transmit them to an order of men, who should forever remain superior to common pastors — we see that, in the giving of the commission to the eleven, the Saviour did then and thereby appoint an order of ministers in his Church superior to Presbyters. Obj. 4. It is objected that "the Bible is entirely silent as to the qualifications for more than one order of minis- ters." p. 6. Answer 1. Notwithstanding Mr. Hart's confidence on this point, to us it appears certain that his own references point out the qualifications of at least two orders of ministers. Presbyter-bishops are, confessedly, one order; and the fact that Philip, one of the seven, preached and baptized, laid by the side of what St. Paul declares to be requisite in one who is to be set apart to the Diaconate, conclusively proves that he who has been rightly ordained to this office is a proper minister of the word. So that in the very passage quoted to sustain the objection,! we find the qualifications express- ly laid down for two orders of ministers. Is it still objected that the Bible says nothing of the qualifications for an order superior to Elders or common pastors? Answer 2. It may be answered that were this as is alledg- ed, it would not be proof that God has set no such order in the Church, inasmuch as no other qualifications of any kind are necessary to fit one for elevation to the Episcopate, than those very ones which are required in him who seeks Page 5. t 1 Tim. iii. 1— IS. 53 advancement to the Eldership. While it may be said to be desirable that the former should possess the qualifications in an eminent degree; no difference in kind can be affirmed to be requisite: therefore it may be replied, that were there a total absence of all mention of qualifications for a higher order of ministers than Presbyters, it would militate nothinor against the position that there is such an order, since their qualifications may be regarded as included in those for Elders. A7iswer 3. But it may be denied that the Bible is silent as to the qualifications lor an order of ministers superior to common pastors. In the description which is given us of Timothy and Titus, men who are proved to have belonged to that superior order, we are plainly shown what a person should be to be fit for elevation to that high office. I cannot con- descend to reply to the insinuations which Mr. Hart has thrown out against prelates, but to the question, where are your specific qualifications for this superior officer of the Church, we answer, — look at those passages of the Bible in which one is described who " from a child had known the Holy Scriptures;"* whose heart was the abode of "faith unfeigned"! early imbibed; who had " professed a good profession before many witnesses;"! and, by his labors of love, earned the praise of all the Churches; — in him you find our model of a candidate for the office of an Apostle-Bish- op, and here you see the qualifications inquired for. Obj. 5. It is objected by Mr. Hart, that " Elders are never named [in Scripture] in conjunction with Bishops." From this it is inferred that the titles, " Elder" and " Bish- op" were interchangeable; and hence — because the name Bishop was sometimes applied to common pastors — it is concluded by him that there was no superior officer in the Church, p. 7. Answer. This objection, like the first, is built upon the shifting sense of a word — the mere use of a name. Had Mr. Hart known that no well informed Episcopalian thinks of contending that the name Bishop was, in that age, ap- propriated to the first order; had he known that we admit this title, as used in Scripture, to be perfectly synonymous with that of Elder; and that we even claim that this superior grade is to be looked for in the Bible, in persons bearing other names than that of " Bishop," he would not have asked so many impertinent questions as he has under this head. He seems to have thought that if a name could not be * 2 Tim. iii. 15. t 2 Tim. i. 6. \\ Tim. vi, 12. 54 claimed, the thing contended for, must, also, be surrendered. Not so. Without the least hazard to the Episcopal scheme may it be admitted that common pastors were called Bishop till after the age of the Apostles, so long as we can show from acts, that there were ecclesiastical officers, of any or of no distinctive name, possessed of such ministerial rights and powers as made them Bishops over these Presbyter-Bishops. Such officers there were, as we have seen, in the Apostles, in Timothy and Titus, and in "the angels of the seven Churches." The short and decisive answer then to all such questions as ask, " Where was the Bishop of Jerusa- lem."— " Where was the Bishop of Ephesus" is, you see him in the presiding Apostle: James was that superior officer in the Church of Jerusalem; and, at the time of the inter- view at Miletus, Paul was the man who sustained that re- lation to the Elders of Ephesus, Timothy not being, as yet, set over that Church. To the inquiry, why did not Peter salute these superior officers as well as " the Elders" in those regions in which he designed his Epistles to circulate, our reply is, at that early day, A. D. 61, it is not probable that any such officer was resident among " the strangers scattered throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, snd Bythinia;" the presumption being, that each of these isolated Churches then had for its chief minister the Apostle who had planted it. Obj. 6. Again it is objected by Mr. Hart, that the Scrip- tures give us no account of the ordination of an order supe- rior to Presbyters, p. 8. Ansioer 1. This objection would be of no force even if we were unable to instance one case of elevation to the su- perior order in question; for the recording of such transac- tions was, manifestly, far from being a prominent object with the sacred writers. What do we know of the ordina- tion of those many ministers who are mentioned in the Acts of the Apostles, and in their Epistles? Mr. Hart says " we have an account of the ordination of Paul, Barnabas, and Timothy." Of the two former, this is not so; the first, as we have seen, was never set apart by any human hands; of the ordination of the second we have no account; and even the laying on of hands on Timothy, is mentioned only incidentally. Indeed it is only in this incidental way, that with two or three exceptions, any ordinations are noticed in the Scriptures. So that were we unable to produce a single case of setting apart to an office in the Church superior to that of Eldership, it would be no proof that there is no such office. But — Answer 2. We can produce a case; it is found in the 55 elevation of Matthias to the Apostleship.* In being raised to that station he was, of course, made to participate not only in the inspired part of the Apostles character, but also in whatever ordinary powers may have been entrusted to them. The eleven we have seen did possess superior rights and standing as ministers. Hence it follows, inasmuch as Matthias must have been made equal to them in this res- pect, that in the setting apart of this Apostle we have a case of ordination to the superior order of the ministry. The Episcopal claim, then, yet stands good. Obj. 7. But again it is objected, by Mr. Hart, that " the Bible prescribes no duties''^ for an order of ministers, supe- rior to Presbyters, p. 9. Answer. This allegation is wholly untrue. The Scrip- tures do prescribe special duties for such an order of officers. Who else is directed to ordain — who else has a warrant to " rebuke" offending ministers'? Full as the Bible is of rules for the guidance of common pastors, it is more abundant in instructions to those whom God hath set over them. What is the greater part of the Epistles to Timothy and Titus, made up of but directions to such ministers'? This objection is therefore, utterly without foundation. Obj. 8. Another objection urged by Mr. H. against im- parity is, that " the duties assigned exclusively to Bishops by Episcopalians, are, in the Bible, expressly enjoined upon Presbyters." p. 9. .Answer 1. So far as Ordination is concerned, we are war- ranted in saying, that this assertion is utterly groundless; for after a thorough examination of all the instances claimed by Mr. Hart, we could find no passage in the Bible in which '^ Presbyters are directed to ordain." Answer 2. As to ConJirmation,f it is certain that not all who are commissioned to preach, can administer it; else, when Philip had converted and baptized a number of the Samaritans, it had not been necessary to send thither two Apostles from Jerusalem to give this rite of laying on ol hands. I At least, the Scriptures furnish no warrant to any ministers to confirm, but only such as are in that superior grade, which Apostles once filled. The objection therefore does not bear examination in regard to this particular. * Acts i. 16—26. I If any one wishes to see the lawfulness of this rite vindicated ; and the obli- gation resting on every Christian to receive it clearly shown ; lie may do so by reading " The Pastor's Testimony," by the Rev, J. A. Clark. } Acts viii. M— 17. 56 Answer^. With respect to Government, ih.e objection states an untruth. It is not true that Episcopalians hold that " the power of ruling belongs only to Bishops." They do, indeed, maintain that these superior officers are, under God, the only source of ecclesiastical authority; which is a self- evident truth in view of the fact, that they are Christ's only ordainers; but that all power of government is so vest- ed in them that none in the Church but they can administer it, in any degree, is what no Episcopalian ever asserts: For the right of every Presbyter to exercise discipline among his own flock is understood to be inherent in his commission. His acts, it is true, are subject to Episcopal oversight and revision : still it is his right to administer disci- pline— no Bishop may take it from him. The power of ruling then is not vested " exclusively" in these superior officers. Still, it is to be remembered, that there are necessary acts of government which the common pastor has no commission to exercise. For example: while he may rule his flock, he has no authority to administer discipline to a fellow Pres- byter: to receive an accusation against an Elder, to try, rebuke, suspend, or degrade him, as need may require, is what a common pastor can show no warrant for doing. Timothy, the Apostle-Bishop was the only minister in all Ephesus who had authority to execute such acts. So it must be now; common pastors cannot perform these neces- sary duties. Therefore, the objection under consideration which is based upon the assumption, that a superior officer is unnecessary, falls to the ground. Obj. 9. Again it is objected to the Episcopal scheme, by Mr. Hart, that " it is impossible for Diocesan Bishops to perform to the people of their extensive charge, certain du- ties— particularly being an ensample to the flock — w^hich the Gospel enjoins on all settled as stationary ministers." P- 11. Answer. This objection is as applicable to St. Paul as to modern Bishops; and would Mr. Hart have dared to assert, that the Apostle was not an example to the Christians of all those extensive regions over which he traveled? With what consistency, then, could he who would have shrunk from such a declaration, urge this objection against Diocesan Bishops? An objection which proves too much, proves nothing. Obj. 10. Once more it is objected, by Mr. Hart, that " the subjects of a Diocesan Bishop cannot perform their duties to him as a Gospel minister, p. 11. 57 Answer 1. To this we reply, as we did to the preceding objection, that it bears as hard against that multitude of Christians of whom the great Apostle of the Gentiles had the spiritual supervision, as it can against modern Episco- palians. Jinswer 2. But it is not true that we cannot perform toward our Diocesan, the duties which a Christian people owe to a Gospel minister. In proof of this, the writer of these pages may be allowed to testify, for himself and in behalf of his people, that we " know^' him who is over us, in this capacity, as one who " labors in word and doctrine;" and as one whom we " esteem very highly, in love for his work's sake." We have now gone over the whole of Mr. Hart's objec^ tions against Episcopacy, which are pretended to be based on Scripture, and one by one, we have seen them vanish. Their advancement has but served to strengthen us in the conviction that the Episcopal scheme is divine; for it has showed us that nothing can be brought from the Bible against it, which may not easily be set aside. And here we might close our examination. Having seen that Episco- pacy is not only consonant with the w^ord of God, but pos- itively enjoined by it; we may with reason ask, what need there is of going further. There is none; if Episcopacy bear the test of Scripture, it is surely enough. But since this advocate for Presbyterianism has seen fit to attempt, under the head we are now examing, to make the Fathers and Reformers bear witness that there was, in their day, no officer in the Church superior to Presbyters, it may be well for us to follow him over the ground of antiquity, to see hoW little force there is in his objections drawn from this source. But of this we shall make speedy work; for since we have seen, in considering " the Presbyterian scheme," that Mr. Hart was unable to bring any authorities from the Fathers or Reformers in favor oi it, which would bear investigation; we are warranted to conclude, before entering on the exam- ination, that no solid objections can be raised on their testi- mony against Episcopacy. Obj. 11. Still it is urged, by Hr. Hart, that "it is ap- parent from the Fathers of the first and second centuries, that in the primitive Church there were no ministers superior to Presbyters." p. 12. In support of this alledged fact — 1. He first cites, what he calls testimony in its favor, from Clement of Rome. But the very language which he quotes from this Father, proves the direct contrary: " The Apostles went forth* * * * and * * * « con- 8 58 stifuted the first fruits of their ministry for Bishops and Deacons." Here in the Apostles, and Bishops,* and Dea- cons, we find our three orders. Clement of Rome, then, does not support the objection. 2. His next witness is Ignatius. After seeing the quota- tions which have already been made from this Father, we may well be surprised that any man should presumptu- ously attempt to show from his writings, that there was no officer in the Church in his day, corresponding to our modern Bishops. Mr. Hart would have us believe, that since this Father uses the word Church in the singular in his Epistles, there could have been but one congregation in each of the cities to which he wrote. Had Mr. Hart forgotten that in Ephesus, one of these cities, Christians had becorhe so nu- merous more than fifty years before this as to require the services of many ministers?! And when he was making his quotation from the address of Ignatius' Epistle " To the Church in Philadelphia," did he not see it added within a half dozen lines, "if they are at unity with the Bishop, and the Presbyters that are with him, and the Deacons'''' ? Whatever Ignatius did mean by his " one altar," &c., no one who reads his Epistles with a candid eye, can question that he knew of no ministry but one of three orders. J As many as thirty times, within the compass of a few pages, does he, in one way and another, declare the Christian Ministry to be of this form. Ignatius, then, instead of sus- taining the objection under examination, is at utter war with it. Mr. Hart could never have seen these Epistles. He must have been ignorant of their contents. By no other supposition can his woful misrepresentations of this author's testimony be reconciled with the idea of common honesty. 3. His next witness is Polycarp. But he cannot be made to bear testimony against Episcopacy. For this Father certainly held to the three orders as strongly as his fellow Scholar Ignatius. This can be made to appear from that very Epistle of his to the Philippians from which Mr. Hart has quoted to prove him a Presbyterian. In that Epistle he endorses, and thereby adopts the sentiments of Ignatius on this subject. Thus, in his Epistle he says to the Philip- pians, " the Epistles of Ignatius which he wrote unto us, together with what others of his as have come into our hands, we have sent unto you, * * * * ^y which you * We agree with Mr. Hart, that Presbyter-Bishops are here intended. + See Acts, xx. X It is the wish of the writer of these pages, that every one may examine these Epistles for himself. 59 may be greatly profited." One of these transmitted Epistles must have been that which Ignatius had sent to the Srayr- ncans, Polycarp's own people ; and in that Epistle the fol- lowing language is held, " follow your Bishop as Jesus Christ, the Father; and the Presbytery as the Apostles; and reverence the Deacons. ^^ This, with much more of the same import, Polycarp endorses by sending it to the Philip- pians, with the assurance that thereby they might " be greatly profited." Polycarp, then, who, at the time of wri- ting the Epistle in question, seems to have been acting as Bishop of the Church at Philippi, as well as being the actual Bishop of Smyrna, cannot be regarded as sustaining the objection. 4. Mr. Hart's next witness is Justin Martyr. But the quotation from him is not in point: for his description of public worship suits an Episcopal congregation as well as any other; and since neither he nor any wa-iter of his age, gives us the slightest reason to suppose that there was then, any religious assemblies other than Episcopal, to assume that there was, is unwarrantable. Justin, then, does not sustain the objection. 5. The next w^itness cited is Irenseus. And the quo- tations which Mr. H. has made from this Father, as quoted by him, apparently lend some countenance to the objection. But it is only in appearance: the seeming Presbyterian cast of the passages cited from this author, is given to them, simply by his applying to Bishops the name of Presbyter: — such an application he plainly makes, and upon the prin- ciple that the greater contains the less — a Bishop being also a Presbyter, and without impropriety, so styled. That those to whom the language is applied were so, is proveable: thus, in the third chapter of his third book against heresies, he has occasion to speak of the succession of those whom, in a general but unofficial sense, he sometimes denominates Presbyters^ but always officially. Bishops — wishing to show how perfect the chain was in every place, he takes, for illustration, the Church of Rome and, though it had nu- merous common pastors,* traces the sucession of only a sin- gle individual — the Bishop. This is decisive as to the de- * That there were numerous common pastors in Rome at this lime (A. D. 176.J we infer (.J ~) from the circnmstance that we find in other popnlons cities, as Eph sens, a rompanij of FJders even in the A postolic times, Acts xx ; (2) from the fact that St. Paul's Ci)istle to ihe Christians of Rome tnakes mention of several per sons, who, at that early day, seem to have been acting there in this capacity, Rom. xvi. 3 — 12; and (3) from the additional fact that not more than fifty years after the time in question there certainly were forty-six ministers in that city.— See Eusehins, B. vi. c. 43. 60 scription of officers, of whose succession he speaks: it makes it clear that they were peculiar Presbyters — ministers of the highest grade. This conclusion is confirmed by the following declaration of Irenseus, " We can enumerate those w^io were appointed by the Apostles, Bishops in the Churches and their succes- sors even unto us — the succession of all the Churches ;" he cannot be here speaking of mere Presbyters, the number of whom up to his day, " in all the Churches, must have been many thousands — this is not credible. When, therefore, he speaks of successors of the Apostles — call them by what name he wuU — he must be understood to intend Bishops pro- per. Irenaeus, then, is not the witness to sustain Mr. Hart's objection. 6. His next witness is Tertulian. In the passage quoted from him, there is nothing which does not agree perfectly with the management of a congregation by an Episcopal Presbyter, not excepting the particular of discipline ; for, as we have before had occasion to remark, it is not true that this order of Episcopal ministers are denied the right of ex- ercising this powder. Tertulian, then, does not bear witness against "the Episcopal scheme;" but on the contrary he is an unanswerable witness for it, in numerous places. 7. The next witness cited by Mr. H., is Clement of Alex- andria. But neither does Clement speak at all to his pur- pose. The most that the quotation made from him can prove is, that he, like Irenseus, sometimes calls a Bishop proper by the unofficial name of Presbyter.* That this writer is no witness against Episcopacy, let the following unambiguous language of his testify: — " Jn the Church, the orders of Bishops, Presbyters, and Deacons are, I think, imitations of the angelic glory." — Stromata, Book VI. We have now come down, in our examination of the au- thors cited by Mr Hart, to the third century. And do we not, as inquirers and examiners, feel at this point that this advocate of Presbyterianism has failed to show from the Fathers, that in the first and second centuries there were no ministers in the Church superior to Presbyters'? Has not * This langiia. 763 78 Athelard, 793 79 Wulfred, . 807 80 Theolgild, 830 81 Ceolnoth, 830 82 Athelred, . 871 83 Phlegmund, 891 84 Athelm, 915 85 Wulfelm, 924 $6 Odo Severus, 934 87 Dunstan, . 959 88 Ethelgar, 988 89 Siric, 989 90 Aluricius, 989 91 Elphege, . 1006 92 Living, 1013 93 Agelnoth, 1020 94 Edsine, or Eadsius^ 1038 95 RobertGemitcencis ,1050 96 Stigand, . 1052 97 Lanfranc, . 1070 98 Anselm, 1093 99 Rodulph, . 1114 100 W. Corboil, 1122 101 Theobald, 1138 102 T. Becket, 1162 103 Richard, . 1171 104 Baldwin, . 1184 105 Reginald Fitz-Joce - lain, 1191 106 Hubert Walter, 1193 107 Stephen Langton, 1207 108 Richard Wethers- field, 1229 109 Edmund, . 1234 110 Boniface, 1245 111 Robert Kilwarby, 1272 112 John Peckham, 1278 113 Rob. Winchelsey, 1294 72 himself, that there is rio break in this succession. Conse- quently, every minister in the Episcopal Church is able to show, from whom, and through what channel he has receiv- ed his authority to minister in the Church. He can show through whom his title to office has come, and can show beyond all doubt, the right of each of his predecessors to his office. ErratI. — Owing to (he aulbor's residence at a distalice from (he (ilaCe of publication, some errors have escaped notice. The reader is requested to msJke the following corrections : p. 10, line 6, insert " and which," before " holds." p. 25, la?t line, insert " and," after " Church." ppi 43 and 44, Oeonmenius, for Orcumeniu3. N 4978 T% 41 1 12-20-95 32180" Princeton Theological Seminary Libraries 1 1012 01167 5248 DATE DUE H.GHSM.^'*^^^^