^JJftf OF PRINCf^ 
 
 BV 647 .B27 1855 
 
 Barnes, Albert, 1798-1870 
 
 The apostolic church 
 
THE APOSTOLIC CHURCH, 
 
 AN INQUIRY INTO ITS 
 
 ORGANIZATION AND GOVERNMENT, 
 
 PARTICULARLY WITH REFERENCE TO THE 
 
 CLAIMS OF EPISCOPACY. 
 
 By ALBERT BARNES. 
 
 PHILADELPHIA : 
 
 PRESBYTERIAN PUBLICATION COMMITTEE, 
 
 1334 CHESTNUT STREET. 
 
 NEW YORK : A. D. F. RANDOLPH, 770 BROADWAY. 
 
Entered according to Act of Congress, in the year 1855, by 
 
 ALBERT BARNES, 
 
 in the Clerk's Office of the District Court of the United States for the 
 Eastern District of Pennsylvania. 
 
 STEREOTYPED BV L. JOHNSON A CO. 
 PHILADELPHIA. 
 
This volume is designed to be a Manual that 
 
 may be put into the hands of those who are led 
 
 to inquire into the organization of the Christian 
 
 church. It is not intended to be controversial, or 
 
 of such a character as to provoke reply; and it is 
 
 hoped that it will not be construed as an attach 
 
 on the Episcopal Church. It is submitted to the 
 
 public because it is believed that there is no book 
 
 on this subject that is precisely what is needed, 
 
 in regard to size and character, to put into the 
 
 hands of those in the churches who are interested 
 
 in this inquiry. There are many persons who are 
 
 interested in the inquiry who have not the time or 
 
 the means to examine it very extensively. Most 
 
 of the works, also, which have been written on this 
 
 subject, instead of confining the investigation to 
 
 the Bible, are mainlv occunied with an examination 
 
 3 
 
4 PREFACE. 
 
 of the antiquities of the church, and the customs 
 and sentiments of the " Fathers." The claims of 
 Episcopacy, also, are often urged with great zeal, 
 and pressed, sometimes in such a manner as to 
 create embarrassment, on those who have been 
 trained in non-episcopal churches; and there is no 
 convenient "manual" accessible to which they can 
 at once be referred as showing precisely how this 
 matter stands in the New Testament. 
 
 The argument here presented is wholly scriptu- 
 ral. The characteristic of the volume is, that it is 
 an appeal to the Bible, as the only authority in the 
 case, and as a sufficient authority to settle the ques- 
 tion. It is presumed that in a revelation given to 
 mankind, God has made it possible to ascertain 
 what was the original organization of the church, 
 and that the evidence thus furnished is such that 
 it can be understood and appreciated by the mass 
 of mankind. It is assumed in this argument that 
 nothing but the testimony of the Bible on the 
 subject can be binding on the conscience, and that 
 the whole matter must be, and may safely be, left 
 there. It is not intended to be conceded, however, 
 that the argument from history and from the 
 " Fathers" would be in favour of Episcopacy, but 
 
PREFACE. O 
 
 thai point is not referred to ; for, whatever may be 
 the truth in -regard to that, it can have no author- 
 ity in determining what was the constitution of the 
 church as established by the Saviour. 
 
 The foundation of the argument here presented 
 was embodied in two reviews of the tract entitled 
 " Episcopacy Tested by Scripture/' by the Right 
 Rev. Dr. H. U. Onderdonk, Bishop of the Diocese 
 of Pennsylvania. Those reviews were first pub- 
 lished in the Quarterly Christian Spectator, of New 
 Haven, in 1834 and 1835, and subsequently in a 
 small volume, without material alteration. They 
 were afterward /mostly rewritten, and were cast 
 into the form of a consecutive argument; and 
 in this form they were again published in this 
 country in 1843, and were soon after -republished 
 in London. 
 
 The work has again been revised for the pre- 
 sent edition, with the design, mainly, of removing 
 from it its controversial aspect, and making it, as 
 its title indicates, "An Inquiry into the Organi- 
 zation and Government of the Apostolic Church." 
 It has been necessary, of course, to examine with 
 freedom the arguments in favour of Episcopacy, 
 so far as they are derived from the Scriptures; 
 
6 
 
 PREFACE. 
 
 and for this purpose, the reference to the tract 
 of Dr. Onderdonk is, in some places, retained. 
 This has been done the more freely because 
 the tract has been published by the "Protestant 
 Episcopal Tract Society/'* and because it would 
 be impossible to find, in the writings in defence of 
 Episcopacy, a more full, candid, and able reference 
 to the proof from Scripture texts relied on by 
 Episcopalians, than is to be found in this tract of 
 Dr. Onderdonk. An examination of the reasons 
 there assigned for Episcopacy is, therefore, an ex- 
 amination of the reasons on which the Episcopal 
 argument rests ; and the tract has^ been referred to 
 in the edition of this work now published, in the 
 same manner as other Episcopal authorities. 
 
 This work has but one* claim to public atten- 
 tion. It is that of being an examination of all 
 that can be found in the New Testament that 
 bears on the organization of the church. Much 
 is gained in the inquiry into the organization and 
 government of the church, if the investigation can 
 be confined wholly to the Scriptures. There all 
 who are not Episcopalians are willing to leave the 
 
 * Printed at the Protestant Episcopal Press, 1835. 
 
PREFACE. I 
 
 inquiry; and by that authority alone the question 
 must be ultimately determined. It is perilous for 
 Episcopacy to make its appeal solely to the Bible, 
 and much is gained in the argument when there is 
 a willingness to leave the question there. 
 
 This work, which is now again submitted to the 
 public, contains nothing, it is believed, which can 
 pain the feelings of any friend of Episcopacy, or 
 which can be construed into a want of respect for 
 the Episcopal Church. For the favourable regards 
 of the public, few men have more occasion for gra- 
 titude than I have ; and now, after so many years 
 have passed away since the argument was first 
 penned, whatever may be the value of my opinion, 
 early or matured, on this subject, I desire that this 
 work should go forth in this permanent form as 
 expressing my conviction — the result of all my 
 study of the Bible — in regard to the organization 
 and government of the apostolic church. 
 
 Albert Barnes. 
 
 Philadelphia, Aug. 21, 1855. 
 
CONTENTS. 
 
 CHAPTER I. 
 
 Reasons why the Argument ox the Constitution 
 of the Church should be confined to the 
 Scriptures 13-32 
 
 (1.) The whole subject one of mere revelation, 13-15. 
 (2.) No authority has been given to the Fathers to 
 determine the question, 15, 16. (3.) Evidence in 
 the New Testament that the appeal should be con- 
 fined to the Scriptures, 16-18. (4.) The Fathers 
 of the church were not in circumstances so favour- 
 able to give the proper information as the Apostles, 
 18, 19. (5.) It is impossible to settle the question 
 by an appeal to the Fathers, 19-30. (6.) The 
 point conceded by Episcopalians themselves, 30-32. 
 
 CHAPTER II. 
 
 The Claims which are advanced by Episcopacy... 33-37 
 
 CHAPTER III. 
 
 Examination of the Particular Claims of Epis- 
 copacy 39-189 
 
 Sec. 1.— The Exclusive Claim of the "Bishop" to the 
 Right of Ordination. — The question whether the 
 
 9 
 
10 CONTENTS. 
 
 PAGES 
 
 apostles alone had this right, 38-40. The peculiarity 
 of the apostolic office. — The apostles were originally 
 appointed to be " witnesses" of the resurrection of 
 Christ, 40-45. This confirmed by the election of 
 Matthias, 45-47 ; by the statements of the apostles, A 
 
 47, 48 ; by the case of Paul, 48-53. 
 
 The inquiry whether there was any arrangement 
 for continuing the " succession of the apostles," 54. 
 The burden of proof on Episcopalians, 54, 55. (1.) 
 There is no express statement that the " succession" 
 was to be continued, 55-62 ; (2.) There is no ar- 
 rangement which shows that it was designed that it 
 should be continued. Examination of the alleged 
 proofs : — the argument from the case of Matthias, 
 63-72 ; of Barnabas, 72-81 ; of James, 81 ; of An- 
 dronicus and Junia, 81, 82 ; from the charge of Paul 
 to the elders of Ephesus, 82, 83; from the case of 
 Timothy, 84-107; of Titus, 107-110; of the "an- 
 gel" of the churches in Rev. ii. iii., 1] 1-122. The 
 point practically conceded by Episcopalians, 123- 
 126 ; the impossibility of establishing the " succes- 
 sion" — case of the ordination of English "bishops" 
 by Scotch presbyters, 127-130 ; testimony of Hook- 
 er, 130, 131 ; concession and argument of Arch- 
 bishop Whately, 131-137. 
 
 Sec. 2.— The Rite of Confirmation 138-164 
 
 What understood by it, 138-140; claimed to be 
 of divine authority, 141-144. The use of the word 
 "confirm" in the New Testament, 144-146. The 
 laying on of hands urged in support of the claim 
 shown to be connected with imparting the mira- 
 culous gifts of the Holy Spirit, 146-151. Examina- 
 tion of the passage in Heb. vi. 1, 2, 151-155. The 
 Saviour appointed no such rite, 155, 156. Objec- 
 tions to the rite, 156-164. 
 
CONTENTS. 11 
 
 PAGES 
 
 Sec. 3.— The Claims of the "Bishop" to the Right 
 
 of Supervision and Discipline 164-189 
 
 The two cases of discipline appealed to hy Epis- 
 copalians examined : that in Corinth, 167-181: that 
 in Ephesus, 181-189. 
 
 CHAPTER IV. 
 
 The Constitution* of the Church as established 
 
 by the Saviour axd the Apostles 189-252 
 
 Sec. 1.— The Officers of the Church 190-209 
 
 I. Those which were designed to be temporary : 
 (1.) The Apostles, 190-193; (2.) The Seventy Dis- 
 ciples, 193-195; (3.) Prophets, 195, 196; (4.) Dea- 
 conesses, 196, 197. 
 
 II. Permanent officers mentioned in the organi- 
 zation of the church in the New Testament: (1.) 
 Those appointed to the office of Ministers, 197-201, 
 under the names of (a) preachers, 198 — (6) bishops 
 or overseers, 198, 199— (c) pastors, 199, 200— (d) 
 teachers, 201 — (e) evangelists, 201; (2.) Rulers, 
 201-204; (3.) Deacons, 205, 206. (4.) Evidence 
 that the permanent pastoral relation was intended, 
 206-209. 
 
 Sec. 2. — The actual Organization and Government of 
 
 the Church as described in the New Testament 209-230 
 
 (1.) Presbyters had the right of ordaining, 209, 
 aeq. Proof from 1 Tim. to. 14, pp. 218-223. (2.) 
 The churches were intrusted with the right of ad- 
 ministering discipline. Proof from Acts xx. 17, 
 28, p. 224 ; from 1 Pet. v. 2, 3, p. 224 ; from Heb. 
 xiii. 7 ; from 1 Thess. v. 12, pp. 225-230. 
 
 Sec. 3. — The Primitive Churches were organized with- 
 out a Prelate, and without three " Orders of Clergy" 230-238 
 
 Sec. 4. — Conclusion 238-252 
 
THE APOSTOLIC CHURCH. 
 
 CHAPTER I. 
 
 REASONS WHY THE ARGUMENT ON THE CONSTI- 
 TUTION OF THE CHURCH SHOULD BE CONFINED 
 TO THE SCRIPTURES. 
 
 In the discussion pursued in this volume, the 
 argument will be confined wholly to the Scriptures, 
 for the following reasons : 
 
 1. The whole subject of the organization and 
 government of the church is one of mere revela- 
 tion. It is connected with a revealed religion, and 
 there can, therefore, be no authority in the case, 
 except that which is derived from the declared will 
 of God. It is claimed for the church, by all the 
 parties in the controversy, that it is a divine insti- 
 tution ; and the advocates of Episcopacy, with one 
 voice, maintain that their ministry is of divine ap- 
 pointment. It never occurs to them to affirm that 
 the arrangement of the clergy into " three orders" 
 is a mere matter of expediency, or is adopted 
 
 2 13 
 
14 ORGANIZATION AND GOVERNMENT 
 
 because experience has shown that this is the best 
 ■ arrangement, or because other methods have failed 
 in promoting the spirituality of the church, or even 
 because it has unbroken tradition in its favour. It 
 is urged that the arrangement is of divine authority, 
 and it is adopted primarily because it is believed to 
 be founded on the Bible. So uniform are the claims 
 on this point, that, if this were abandoned, the whole 
 fabric would fall, and the claim of being the only 
 arrangement which God has made for the govern- 
 ment of the church, which is now set up by the ad- 
 vocates of prelacy, must then be given up ; for, if 
 it were a mere matter of expediency, any other sys- 
 tem founded on expediency would be equally proper 
 and binding. 
 
 Such being the case, it is clear that the whole 
 argument should be confined to the Scriptures. If 
 the religion with which the ministry is connected 
 were a matter of mere human origin or human ap- 
 pointment, then an appeal to the Bible as a supposed 
 revelation would be impertinent and improper. If 
 it were a religion of the state, then all that would 
 be needful would be to appeal to the statutes of the 
 land. If it were a question of expediency, then the 
 appeal should be to what experience has shown to 
 be the best methods of government, and to the dif- 
 ferent degrees of probable advantage which could be 
 urged in favour of different systems. If it were to 
 be settled by mere custom, or by antiquity — as it 
 
 
OF THE APOSTOLIC CHURCH. 15 
 
 may occur that the claim to title to lands is to be 
 settled, or as it may be necessary to determine 
 some usage or right under a civil government — then 
 it would be proper to appeal to antiquity, and to 
 call in the aid of the Fathers. But none of these 
 things exist. It is not a human institution j nor is 
 it a mere creature of the state ; nor is it a thing of 
 expediency; nor is it a simple question about anti- 
 quity : — it is a question whether God has appointed 
 the Episcopal orders of the ministry to govern the 
 churches; and this question can be settled only by 
 an appeal to the Scriptures. 
 
 2. No authority has been given to the "Fathers" 
 to determine this question. There is no evidence 
 that they were authorized by the Head of the 
 Church, either individually or by councils, to deter- 
 mine what should be the arrangement in the govern- 
 inent of the church ; nor is there any evidence that 
 they were to be regarded as the infallible expounders 
 of what the will of the Author of the Christian sys- 
 tem was. It was not promised that they should have 
 any special wisdom to arrange matters in the church ; 
 to appoint officers ; to settle controversies, or to ap- 
 point orders in the ministry which should be re- 
 garded as commissioned by God. If the importance 
 which has been attached to their views in this mat- 
 ter had been contemplated by the Saviour, it is 
 remarkable that he left no intimation that their 
 sentiments would be entitled to such deference, or 
 
16 ORGANIZATION AND GOVERNMENT 
 
 that their declarations should be authoritative in 
 the churches. If it had been intended that coun- 
 cils should be regarded as having authority to settle 
 this, then there is every reason to suppose that some 
 intimation of this would be furnished in the dis- 
 courses of the Saviour. It is needless, however, to 
 say that no such authority from the New Testament 
 can be adduced. 
 
 8. There is evidence in the New Testament itself, 
 that the appeal should be confined to the Scriptures, 
 and that Christ meant that the inquiry should be 
 limited to them. This evidence is found in such 
 facts as these : The account of the manner in which' 
 he organized the church looks as if he designed to 
 arrange the whole subject himself, so as to leave no 
 ground for the necessity of an appeal to coming 
 generations of men. He set apart an order of men 
 with great solemnity, and invested them with great 
 authority, for the purpose of preaching the gospel 
 and organizing the church. He taught them per- 
 sonally more than three years, and in such a way as 
 to make them fully acquainted with his views and 
 designs. He gave them full authority in the case 
 to "bind and loose ;" to establish and dissolve; 
 with no intimation that this duty was to devolve on 
 any of their successors. The instructions which he 
 gave, were given to them, not to a fancied order of 
 successors; to those whom he had trained under 
 his own eye, not to those who were to be trained 
 
 
OF THE APOSTOLIC CHURCH. 17 
 
 under theirs. He never intimated that they would 
 be unable to complete the arrangement, and to 
 settle the church on a permanent basis ; or that it 
 would be necessary for them to leave any part of 
 the arrangement to be perfected in future times. 
 Those men, thus appointed, actually undertook the 
 work, fully believing that they were competent to 
 it, and acting just as if they were empowered to 
 complete the arrangement. They went forth and 
 preached ; they founded churches ; they appointed 
 officers j they gave directions in regard to the rites 
 and observances of worship ; and they undeniably 
 left the impression everywhere that they regarded 
 themselves as invested with the fullest authority to 
 organize the church. A record has been preserved, 
 containing a full account of what was done by them 
 in establishing churches; and to what can we so 
 naturally look as to that, to know in what manner 
 the Saviour designed that it should be done? 
 There is no intimation in that record, or in any of 
 the writings of these apostles, that they left any 
 thing to be done by those who should succeed them. 
 There is no hint that their successors were to com- 
 plete or to perfect the plan ; or that they were to 
 give information about what the apostles had done. 
 Any one who reads the Acts of the Apostles and 
 the Epistles, cannot fail to be convinced that the 
 writers supposed they were giving all the informa- 
 tion which was needful for the guidance of nian- 
 
 2* 
 
18 ORGANIZATION AND GOVERNMENT 
 
 kind about the organization of the Christian 
 church. 
 
 4. The " Fathers" of the church were not in cir- 
 cumstances so favourable to give the proper infor- 
 mation as the apostles themselves. The " Fathers" 
 comprise a succession of men who lived in the first 
 centuries of the Christian era — usually supposed to 
 include those who lived in the first four or five cen- 
 turies. Subsequent to that period no one appeals to 
 the "Fathers" in proof of what was the early con- 
 stitution of the Christian church. Yet, within that 
 time, what extraordinary advantage had they for 
 knowing what was done by the apostles? Why 
 should we appeal to them, rather than to the record 
 which the apostles themselves made of what they 
 had done ? They were not inspired men ; most of 
 them lived in places remote from the fields where 
 the apostles laboured ; and not a few of them, un- 
 deniably, several generations after the apostles. 
 Why should we go to them to know what order the 
 apostles established in the church? Why should 
 we dip up water from the Ganges or the Mississippi 
 where they pour their floods into the ocean, after 
 they have worn the shores and mingled with the 
 streams flowing into them for thousands of miles, to 
 know what the water is at the fountains ? He who 
 could stand near those fountains, and drink the 
 water there, would never think of wandering by the 
 course of the turbid river to examine it as it flows 
 
OF THE APOSTOLIC CHURCH. 19 
 
 along, or as it mingles with the ocean, to know what 
 were its qualities. 
 
 5. It is impossible to settle the question by an 
 appeal to the " Fathers." The attempt has been 
 made in this controversy for centuries, and with no 
 prospect of coming any nearer to a termination. 
 To whatever cause it may be traced, it is a simple 
 matter of history, that no witnesses of facte have 
 ever been less satisfactory than the so-called Chris- 
 tian Fathers. No set of writers has ever lived, 
 from whom so contradictory statements are de- 
 rived; who can be appealed to with so much plausi- 
 bility on both sides of a question, and whom it is so 
 easy to set in array against each other. As this 
 will be conceded by all who have ever read them, 
 or who have ever looked into the controversies on 
 the subject of the organization of the church, it is 
 unnecessary to adduce any proof of it. This re- 
 mark can be made without, in the least, impeaching 
 the piety of the "Fathers," or undervaluing the ser- 
 vices which they rendered to the cause of truth, or 
 displacing them from the position which they ought 
 to hold in the affections and grateful remembrance 
 of mankind. Whatever may be the fact about the 
 actual contradictions, or want of consistency, of 
 any of the "Fathers," it can be traced to other 
 causes than to a want of piety or general excel- 
 lence of character. Much may be said, on each of 
 these points, with more plausibility and probability 
 
20 ORGANIZATION AND GOVERNMENT 
 
 than would be desirable when speaking of good men, 
 but it is not necessary to say this in order to see 
 their entire unfitness to decide the Episcopal contro- 
 versy. In the management of this controversy 
 hitherto, it is impossible for any one, who has any 
 suitable regard for the authority of the Bible, not to 
 feel pain at the manner in which the argument has 
 been conducted. 
 
 By common consent, almost, the writers on both 
 sides have turned from the New Testament, where 
 the controversy might have been brought to a speedy 
 issue, to listen to the decisions of the " Fathers j" 
 and as might have been expected, have 
 
 "Pound no end, in wandering mazes lost." 
 
 It was the policy of the friends of prelacy to do so; 
 and it was the folly of their opponents to suffer them 
 to choose the field of debate, and to weary them- 
 selves in an effort to fix the meaning, to secure the 
 consistency, and obtain the suffrages of the " Fa- 
 thers/' Full well was it known by the friends of 
 Episcopacy in other times, that the New Testament 
 could furnish only the most slender support for their 
 claims. In the tinies of the papacy, it had always 
 been defended by an appeal to the "Fathers." The 
 system had risen there, sustained not even profess- 
 edly by the authority of the Bible, but by the tra- 
 ditions of the elders. The ranks and orders of the 
 papal priesthood could be defended only by the au- 
 
 
OF THE APOSTOLIC CHURCH. 21 
 
 thority of a church which claimed infallibility, and 
 which might dispense, therefore, with the New Tes- 
 tament. The Reformers came forth from the bosom 
 of the papacy with much of this feeling. They ap- 
 proached this subject with high reverence for the 
 opinions of past times ; with a deference for the Fa- 
 thers, nourished by all the forms of their education, 
 by all existing institutions, and by the reluctance of 
 the human mind to break away from the established 
 customs of ages. On the one hand, the advocates 
 of Episcopacy found their proofs in the common law 
 of the church — the institutions which had existed 
 " time whereof the memory of man runneth not to 
 the contrary;" and, on the other hand, the opponents 
 of prelacy were equally anxious to show that they 
 had not departed from the customs of the Fathers, 
 and that the defence of their institutions might be 
 found in times far remote, and in records which re- 
 ceived the veneration and commanded the confi- 
 dence of the Christian world. Into this abyss both 
 parties plunged. In this immense chaos of opinions 
 and interpretations — into these moving, disorganized, 
 jostling elements, where, as in the first chaos, light 
 struggled with darkness, and confusion reigned, they 
 threw themselves, to endeavour severally to find 
 support for their opinions. " Whatsoever time, or 
 the heedless hand of blind chance," says Milton, 
 " hath drawn down from of old to this present, in 
 her huge drag-net, whether fish or sea-weed, shells 
 
22 ORGANIZATION AND GOVERNMENT 
 
 • 
 
 or shrubs, unpicked, unchosen, those are the Fa- 
 thers." With those who, according to Mosheim,* 
 deemed- it not only lawful, but commendable, to de- 
 ceive and lie for the sake of truth and piety, how 
 could any point be settled that involved contro- 
 versy? With men who held to every strange and 
 ridiculous opinion ; to every vagary that the human 
 mind can conceive;*}* it would be strange if both 
 sides in this controversy did not find enough that 
 had the appearance of demonstration, to perplex 
 and embarrass an opponent. In examining this 
 controversy, as it was conducted in former times, 
 no one could help being amused or pained at the 
 perfect complacency with which a passage from 
 one of the Fathers is adduced in defence of either 
 side of the question, and the perfect ease with 
 which, by a new translation, or by introducing a 
 few words of the context, or, more frequently, by an 
 appeal to some other part of the same author, not 
 studious himself of consistency, the passage is 
 shown to mean just the contrary; and then again a 
 new version, or yet another quotation, would give it 
 a new aspect, and restore it to its former honours. J; 
 Thus, the Fathers became a mere football between 
 
 * Murdock's Mosheim, yoI. i. p. 159. 
 f See Tillemont's Ecclesiastical History, passim. 
 J See the Letters of Dr. Miller, and Dr. Bowden on Episco- 
 pacy, passim. 
 
OF THE APOSTOLIC CHURCH. 23 
 
 the contending parties; and thus, in this con- 
 troversy, the weary searcher for truth finds no 
 solid ground. Eminently here, " he which is first 
 in his cause seeineth just; but his neighbour 
 cometh and searcheth him." Prov. xviii. 17. To 
 this wearisome and unsatisfactory toil he is doomed 
 who will read all the older controversies on Episco- 
 pacy. There he, 
 
 V O'er bog or steep, through strait, rough, dense, or rare, 
 With head, hands, wings, or feet, pursues his way, 
 And swims, or sinks, or wades, or creeps, or flies." 
 
 The following very striking remark of Bishop 
 Jeremy Taylor — himself one of the brightest orna- 
 ments of Episcopacy — expresses undoubtedly the 
 true view in regard to the value of the Christian 
 Fathers as instructors and guides : — " It must be 
 acknowledged," says he, "that the writers of the an- 
 cient dispensation were such as those should be who 
 were looking onward toward the bright day of gospel 
 splendour; while the early Christian doctors were 
 just such as one might expect to find in those who 
 were looking onward toward that deep night of super- 
 stition which covered Europe during the Middle 
 Ages. The dawn is seen to be gleaming upon the 
 foreheads of the one class of writers, while a sullen 
 gloom overshadows the brows of the other."* 
 
 * Quoted in the Biblical Repository for January, 1824, p, 105. 
 
24 ORGANIZATION AND GOVERNMENT 
 
 Were we to adduce the most striking instance of 
 the plastic nature of the proof adduced from the 
 Fathers, we should refer to the epistles of Ignatius. 
 They seem to he a plain, straight-forward account of 
 the existence of Presbyterianism in his time. They 
 are substantially such a description as a man would 
 give, writing in the inflated and exaggerated man- 
 ner in which the Orientals wrote, of Presbyterianism 
 as it exists in the United States. Yet it is well 
 known that, with the utmost pertinacity, those let- 
 ters have been adduced as proving the divine origin 
 of Episcopacy. And so confident have been the 
 assertions on this subject, that not a few non-Epis- 
 copalians have given them up as unmanageable, 
 and have stoutly contended, what may be very true, 
 that no inconsiderable part of them are forgeries. 
 
 Any man can see what a hopeless task is before 
 him if he endeavours to settle this controversy by 
 the authority of the Fathers. The waste of time, 
 and talent, and learning, on this subject, is fitted 
 deeply to humble the heart. And the passion has 
 not ceased. Even now, men high in oflice and in 
 rank, leave the New Testament and appeal to the 
 Fathers. Episcopacy is discarded, not principally 
 because the New Testament is a stranger to it, but 
 because Jerome was not a prelatist; it is rejected, 
 not because it cannot be made out from the Bible, 
 but because it is a matter of debate whether the 
 Fathers teach it or not. 
 
OF THE APOSTOLIC CHURCH. 25 
 
 But, apart from all that might be said to impugn 
 the authority of the Fathers on certain points, there 
 are other circumstances which show, in the most 
 ample manner, that such a controversy cannot he 
 settled by an appeal to them. One is, the great. 
 number of the authorities to be examined, and the 
 amount of writing with which a man must become 
 familiar who relies on this testimony — putting it 
 wholly out of the power of the great mass of Chris- 
 tians, and even of ministers of the gospel, to deter- 
 mine what was the organization of the church, if the 
 appeal is to be made to them. In the works of the 
 Fathers to which I have access, embracing those of 
 the first five centuries of the Christian era, there are 
 no less than fifty-four folio volumes, besides a con- 
 siderable number of smaller size. How could the 
 mass of Christians hope to obtain sufficient famili- 
 arity with those numerous and massive tomes, to be 
 able to educe from them a correct view of the con- 
 stitution of the primitive church ? How different is 
 such an appeal, in regard to the facility of coming 
 to any satisfactory conclusion, from that which all 
 men may make to the small volume of the New 
 Testament ! — A second circumstance is this : those 
 volumes are all in languages now unspoken. There 
 is of necessity, therefore, much difficulty in arriving 
 with certainty at the exact meaning of the writers. 
 There is much ambiguity; much to perplex the 
 scholar ; much which may be plausibly interpreted 
 
 3 
 
26 ORGANIZATION AND GOVERNMENT 
 
 in different modes, and which may, by a new trans- 
 lation, or by being presented in a different connec- 
 tion, be adduced on both sides of a question. Be- 
 sides, how are the mass of Christians all over the 
 world to have access to those volumes ? Can it be 
 presumed that they are sufficiently familiar with the 
 Greek and Latin lau ^liases to be able to settle a 
 controversy of this nature ? — A third circumstance 
 is this : there is much that is vague in statement ; 
 unsettled in definition ; loose in narrative or decla- 
 mation among those writers, as there must be 
 alwa}-s among so voluminous authors. It is unde- 
 niable, too, that they not unfrequently contradict 
 each other and themselves. — A fourth circumstance 
 may be adverted to : it is the remarkable difference 
 in regard to simplicity, clearness, directness, appa- 
 rent honesty, and all that gives value to written tes- 
 timony, between the character of the writings of the 
 Apostles and the Fathers. This difference I cannot 
 better express, than in the language of one emi- 
 ' nently qualified to express it, and who has noticed 
 the difference with no reference to^the point now 
 under discussion. It is the testimony of Neander.* 
 " The first authors which succeeded the apostles are 
 the so-called Christian Fathers, who began at the 
 apostolic times, and should have been the scholars 
 of the apostles. In this kind of writers, a particular 
 
 * Geschicbte d. Christlichen Religion und Kirche, 1. c. 1009. 
 
OF THE APOSTOLIC CHURCH. 27 
 
 thing deserving attention is, the remarkable differ- 
 ence between the writings of the apostles and the 
 writings of the apostolic Fathers who lived even so 
 near to their times. The transition from one class 
 of writers to another, is usually gradual ; here it is 
 sudden. There is here no gradual transition, but 
 a spring, [or leap — ein Sprung,^ which is sufficient 
 to turn the attention to the recognition of the spe- 
 cial efficiency of the Divine Spirit in the souls of the 
 apostles. " 
 
 On this subject, also, the following remarks of 
 Archbishop Whately will commend themselves to 
 every candid mind; and they are of the more 
 value as they come from one who has been ho- 
 noured with the highest office in the gift of the 
 Episcopal Church : 
 
 " For when referred to the works of the orthodox 
 ancient Fathers, they [men] find that a very large 
 portion of these works are lost; or that some frag- 
 ments or reports of them by other writers alone 
 remain : they find again that what has come down 
 to us is so vast in amount that a life is not sufficient 
 for the attentive study of even the chief part of it : 
 they find these authors by no means agreed, on all 
 points, with each other, or with themselves, and 
 that learned men again are not agreed in the inter- 
 pretation of them ; and still less agreed as to the 
 orthodoxy of each, and the degree of weight due to 
 his judgment on several points; nor even agreed 
 
28 ORGANIZATION AND GOVERNMENT 
 
 by some centuries as to the degree of antiquity that 
 is to* make the authority of each decisive, or more 
 or less approaching to decisive. 
 
 " Every thing in short pertaining to this appeal is 
 obscure — uncertain — disputable — and actually dis- 
 puted — to such a degree, that even those who are 
 not able to read the original authors may yet be 
 perfectly competent to perceive how unstable a 
 foundation they furnish. They can perceive that 
 the mass of Christians are called on to believe and 
 to do what is essential to Christianity, in implicit 
 reliance on the reports of their respective pastors 
 as to what certain deep theological antiquaries 
 have reported to them, respecting the reports given 
 by certain ancient Fathers, of the reports current in 
 their times concerning apostolical usages and insti- 
 tutions ! And yet, whoever departs in any degree 
 from these, is to be regarded at best in an interme- 
 diate state between Christianity and heathenism ! 
 Surely the tendency of this procedure must be to 
 drive the doubting into confirmed (though, perhaps, 
 secret) infidelity, and to fill with doubts the most 
 sincerely pious, if they are anxiously desirous of 
 attaining truth, and unhappily have sought if from 
 such instructors/'* 
 
 In settling an important question, how different is 
 the argument derived from such writings, from an 
 
 * Kingdom of Christ Delineated, Essay ii. # 21. 
 
OF THE APOSTOLIC CHURCH. 29 
 
 appeal to the New Testament ! That is one small 
 volume; simple in its character and statements; 
 easily perused; with no ambiguity, no pomp of 
 rhetoric, no prejudice in favour of an existing cus- 
 tom ; with no contradiction between one writer and 
 another, and no inconsistency in the statements of 
 the same writer at different times and in different 
 circumstances. It contains not, moreover, the lan- 
 guage of conjecture; it does not depend for its au- 
 thority on human reasoning ; and it is undiluted in 
 any of its statements by the reasonings of philosophy 
 or by tradition. 
 
 If it should be said here, that experience has 
 shown that it is impossible to settle this controversy 
 by an appeal to the Scriptures ; that men differ as 
 much about the meaning of the sacred writers on 
 the constitution of the church as they do about the 
 testimony of the Fathers; and that, though the 
 churches have had the Bible for eighteen hundred 
 years, the Christian world is still wholly divided in 
 opinion on the subject, — I reply, (1.) That whatever 
 may be the reasons why men have varied so much 
 in their interpretation of the New Testament in the 
 case, it is still true that it is easier to come to a de- 
 termination of the question by an appeal to that 
 than by an appeal to the Fathers. To the eye of 
 common sense it is clear, that the testimony of a 
 small volume like the New Testament, written at 
 the time when the church was organized, and by 
 
 3* 
 
30 ORGANIZATION AND GOVERNMENT 
 
 the men who did it, can be more easily arrived at 
 than those of a succession of voluminous writers 
 such as the Fathers are, extending through a period 
 of several hundred years. I reply, (2.) That one 
 main reason, and perhaps the only reason, why the 
 sentiments of men have been divided in the case, 
 and why the whole controversy has not been long 
 since settled is, that they are constantly leaving the 
 New Testament and appealing to the Fathers. The 
 argument has never been confined, on either side, 
 to the Bible. Each party has felt itself bound, 
 either in self-defence or to meet its opponent, to 
 appeal to the Fathers. The war has raged there. 
 The triumphs or defeats have been on that field ; 
 and, in the whole range of the controversy, it is be- 
 lieved there is not a single volume, on either side, 
 that makes the appeal solely and exclusively to the 
 Bible. And if this be so, then it should not be said 
 that experience has shown that it is impossible to 
 settle this inquiry by an appeal to the Scriptures. 
 Were the volumes of the Fathers all burned and 
 forgotten, and were all the influence which they 
 have exerted over this controversy removed, it 
 would require but a brief period to determine 
 whether Episcopacy is founded on the Bible. 
 
 G. That the appeal should be made to the Scrip- 
 tures alone is now conceded by Episcopalians them- 
 selves. It was long, indeed, before the advocates 
 for prelacy were willing to concede, in so many 
 
OF THE APOSTOLIC CHURCH. 31 
 
 words, that the controversy was to be determined 
 by the Bible ; and that it is conceded in principle 
 is a point gained of inestimable importance, and 
 will bring the controversy to a termination whenever 
 it is honestly and fully applied. That it is conceded 
 is clear from the admissions of one who, as a prelate 
 of the Episcopal Church, has a right to express 
 the prevalent sentiment in that church, and whose 
 words may be regarded as having the force of 
 authority. The sentiment, also, should be allowed 
 to have greater weight because the tract in which 
 it occurs has been issued by the "Protestant 
 Episcopal Tract Society/' and may be supposed, 
 therefore, to express the present views of the whole. 
 Episcopal Church, at least in the United States. 
 The language of Dr. Onderdonk, in the tract re- 
 ferred to,* is the following : " The claim of Epis- 
 copacy to be of divine institution, and, therefore, * 
 obligatory on the church, rests fundamentally on 
 the one question : Has it the authority of Scripture ? 
 If it has not, it is not necessarily binding. This 
 one point should be kept in view in every discus- 
 sion of the subject; no argument is worth taking 
 into the account that has not a palpable bearing on 
 
 * "Episcopacy tested by Scripture." I quote now, and 
 shall hereafter, from the tract published at the " Protestant 
 Episcopal Press," in connection with other articles on the 
 subject, and called "Episcopacy Examined and Re-examined." 
 New York, 1836. 
 
32 ORGANIZATION AND GOVERNMENT 
 
 the clear and naked topic — the scriptural evidence of 
 Episcopacy." P. 3. The simple and honest avowal 
 of a sentiment like this from such a quarter, should 
 be hailed by every friend of the truth as placing 
 the whole of this discussion on a proper basis. It 
 is a subject of sincere congratulation that it is now 
 conceded that we may bring to this subject the 
 great principle of the Reformation, that all religious 
 opinions are to be tested by the Scriptures. It in- 
 dicates a healthy state of things in the Episcopal 
 Church in this country. It will save endless dis- 
 putes about words, and much useless toil in endea- 
 vouring to give consistency and sense to the Fathers. 
 This mode of reasoning, too, will soon decide the 
 controversy. Hereafter, let it be held up as a great 
 principle from which, neither in spirit nor in form, 
 we are ever to depart, that if the peculiar doctrines 
 of Episcopacy are not found in the Scriptures, they 
 are to be abandoned, or held, as Cranmer held them, 
 as matters of mere expediency. Let this truth go 
 forth, never to be recalled ; and let every man who 
 attempts to defend the claims of prelates appeal to 
 the Bible alone. On this appeal, with confidence, 
 we rest the issue of this case. 
 
 For reasons such as have now been stated, it is 
 proposed to conduct the following investigation 
 solely with reference to the testimony of the Scrip- 
 tures. By the results of such an investigation the 
 Protestant community must ultimately abide 
 
OF THE APOSTOLIC CHURCH. 33 
 
 CHAPTER H. 
 
 THE CLAIMS WHICH ARE ADVANCED BY 
 EPISCOPACY. 
 
 Episcopacy is a religion of claims. It advances 
 certain pretensions relating to important points in 
 the government and organization of the church, 
 which, if well founded, are binding on all churches, 
 and which, in their tendency, go to unsettle the 
 claims of all others. It is not an argument, on the 
 part of the Episcopalian, drawn from expediency, or 
 human prudence, or a conventional arrangement 
 among men ; nor is it an argument which can admit 
 other churches to be on the same basis with them- 
 selves, or other ministers to be the commissioned 
 servants of God. If Episcopacy be of divine origin; 
 if it be the form prescribed in the New Testament 
 for the organization of the church; if it was insti- 
 tuted by the Redeemer and the apostles, — then, 
 whatever other consequences may flow from it, or 
 however inconsistent the advocates of Episcopacy 
 may be in carrying out these principles, the regular 
 result of the claim is, that the Episcopal Church is 
 the only true church, and that all other churches 
 
34 ORGANIZATION AND GOVERNMENT 
 
 are of human origin. This consequence follows 
 inevitably. These remarks are not made with 
 a view of exciting prejudice in any minds against 
 the system, but merely to show the nature of the 
 claims which are thus advanced. It is well known 
 that these consequences are not allowed by many 
 Episcopalians ; and there is much gained on the 
 score of charity in the fact that the advocates of a 
 system are not always consistent with their own 
 principles. Yet any one can see that the claims 
 of any system to be exclusively scriptural or of 
 divine authority in its origin leads, in fact, as a 
 necessary consequence, to the conclusion that all 
 others are mere human and unauthorized arrange- 
 ments. 
 
 In pursuance of this thought, I remark, then, that 
 the burden of proof lies wholly on the friends of 
 Episcopacy. They set up a claim — a claim which 
 they affirm to be binding on all the churches of 
 every age. It is a claim which is specific, and 
 which must be made out, or their whole pretensions 
 fall. In what predicament it» may leave other 
 churches, is not the question. It would not prove 
 Episcopacy to be of divine origin, could its friends 
 show that Presbyterianism is unfounded in the Scrip- 
 tures; or that Congregationalism has no claims to 
 support; or that Independency is unauthorized; 
 or that lay ordination is destitute of direct support. 
 The question, after all, might be, whether it was 
 
OF THE APOSTOLIC CHURCH. 35 
 
 the design of the apostles to establish any par- 
 ticular form of church government any more than 
 to establish a fixed code of civil administration ? 
 The specific point to be made out by Episcopalians 
 is, That there is scriptural authority for that which 
 is claimed for bishops. This is not a claim which 
 can be defended by any doubtful passages of 
 Scripture, or by any circuitous mode of argu- 
 mentation. As it is expected to affect the whole 
 constitution of the church; to constitute, in fact, 
 the peculiarity of its organization ; and to deter- 
 mine, to a great extent at least, the validity of 
 all its ordinances and its ministry, we have a 
 right to demand that the proof should not be of 
 a doubtful character, or of a nature which is not 
 easily apprehended by the ordinary readers of the 
 New Testament. 
 
 It is a point of essential importance in this con- 
 troversy, that the burden of proof lies on the friends 
 of Episcopacy. It is theirs to make out this 
 specific claim. To decide whether they can do 
 so, is the object of the present inquiry. 
 
 The claims of Episcopacy, as a peculiar institu- 
 tion, are stated by Bishop Onderdonk, in the tract 
 above referred to, in the following words: "Epis- 
 copacy declares that the Christian ministry was 
 established in three orders, called, ever since the 
 apostolic age, Bishops, Presbyters, or Elders and 
 Deacons; of which the highest only has the right 
 
36 ORGANIZATION AND GOVERNMENT 
 
 to ordain and confirm, that of general supervision 
 in a diocese, and that of the chief administration 
 of discipline, besides enjoying all the powers of the 
 other grades. The main question being thus con- 
 cerning the superiority of bishops, and the rights 
 of the next order being restricted only so much as 
 not to be inconsistent with those of the hisrhest, we 
 need not extend our investigation of Scripture be- 
 yond what is requisite for this grand point. If we 
 cannot authenticate the claims of the episcopal 
 office, we will surrender those of our deacons, and 
 let all power be confined to the one office of pres- 
 byters." P. 11. The same view of the main point 
 of the controversy is given by Hooker, in his 
 Ecclesiastical Polity, b. vii. It will be seen, there- 
 fore, that the main point of the discussion, in 
 the estimation of Episcopalians, relates to bishops 
 or prelates, and that the claim set up for them ex- 
 tends to several points. One is, the right of ordina- 
 tion; a second, that of confirmation; a third, that 
 of general supervision ; a fourth, that of the gene- 
 ral administration of discipline. As all that is 
 peculiar to Episcopacy is involved in these claims, 
 it is proposed to examine them in order, to as- 
 certain whether these important matters in the 
 organization of the church are intrusted in the 
 New Testament to prelates. If the claim ill re- 
 gard to each of them cannot be made out from 
 the New Testament, it is worthless ; for " no argu- 
 
OF THE APOSTOLIC CHURCH. 37 
 
 ment is worth taking into account that has not 
 a palpable bearing on the clear and naked topic 
 — the scriptural evidence of Episcopacy." These 
 points must be made out separately by Episco- 
 palians, to wit : — that " bishops" have the sole 
 right of ordination • that the rite called " con- 
 firmation" is directed in the Scriptures to be ad- 
 ministered by them; that they have a general 
 supervision of the churches within a certain dis- 
 trict ; and that the general administration of disci- 
 pline is intrusted to them. If these are not made 
 out, it will follow, by the admission above, and by 
 the nature of the case, that presbyters have the 
 right of ordination ; that the ministers of the gospel 
 are equal in authority and rank; and that the 
 church, as organized by the Saviour and his apos- 
 tles, was not episcopal in its form. "We enter now, 
 therefore, upon a particular examination of each 
 of these topics. 
 
38 ORGANIZATION AND GOVERNMENT 
 
 CHAPTER III. 
 
 EXAMINATION OF THE PARTICULAR CLAIMS OF 
 EPISCOPACY. 
 
 Sect. 1. — The Exclusive Claims of the "Bishop" 
 to the Right of Ordination. 
 
 The claim in regard to the superiority of the 
 "order of bishops" to that of presbyters or elders, 
 rests on two points : — one is, that the peculiarity 
 of the apostolic office consisted in the right of 
 ordination ; and the other, that, supposing this 
 were so, "there was continued, as had been begun 
 in the apostles, an order of ministers superior to 
 the elders." Tract, p. 16. If either of these points 
 cannot be made out, the claim is invalid. For, if 
 it were demonstrated that there was intrusted to 
 the apostles the right of ordination as the peculiarity 
 •of their office, it would by no means follow that 
 that right was to be continued in the church. It 
 might be a temporary arrangement, a thing valu- 
 able in the organization of the church, but whose 
 necessity would expire when the church was fairly 
 established. Even on the supposition, therefore, 
 that the right had ever existed, it would be necessary 
 
OF THE APOSTOLIC CHURCH. 39 
 
 to show from the New Testament — for no testimony 
 of the Fathers will do here — that the Lord Jesus 
 meant that such a peculiarity of the apostolic office 
 should be continued. But if it shall appear that the 
 right of ordination never was a peculiarity of the 
 apostolic office, but that the apostles were called for 
 a specific purpose of a different kind — a purpose 
 which ceased, of course, when they died — then it 
 will follow thaf all the claims of "bishops" as their 
 " successors," are void. It is proposed, therefore, 
 to examine the New Testament with particular re- 
 ference to each of these inquiries : — first, whether 
 the right of ordination is represented as the pecu- 
 liarity of the apostolic office; and, secondly, whether 
 there is any proof in the New Testament that it was 
 designed that they should have any "successors" in 
 their office. 
 
 The question then is, Has a bishop the sole 
 power of ordaining ? Is the right of setting apart 
 to the office of preaching, and administering the 
 sacraments, confined in the New Testament exclu- 
 sively to this order of ministers ? The Episcopa- 
 lian claims that it is. We deny it, and ask him for 
 the explicit proof of a point so simple as this, and 
 one which we have a right to expect he will make 
 out, with very great clearness, from the sacred 
 Scriptures. 
 
 The first proof of this point adduced by Episco- 
 palians is, that the apostles had the sole power of 
 
40 ORGANIZATION AND GOVERNMENT 
 
 ordaining. This is a highly important point in the 
 discussion, or, rather, the very hinge of the contro- 
 versy. The argument as stated in the tract of 
 Dr. Onderdonk, (pp. 14-16,) rests on the assump- 
 tion that the apostles ordained. " That the apostles 
 ordained, all agree." Now, if this means any thing 
 to the purpose, it means that they ordained as 
 apostles, or that they were set apart to the apostolic 
 office for the purpose of ordaining. Having made 
 this assumption, the writer adds, that a distinction 
 is observed in the New Testament between "the 
 apostles and elders," " the apostles and elders and 
 brethren." He next attempts to show that this 
 distinction was not made because they " were ap- 
 pointed by Christ personally;" nor because "they 
 had seen our Lord after his resurrection j" nor 
 "because of this power of working miracles;" — 
 and then adds : " It follows, therefore, or will not 
 at least be questioned, that the apostles were dis- 
 tinguished from the elders because they were supe- 
 rior to them in ministerial power and rights." 
 This is the argument; and this is the whole of it. 
 On the making out of this point depends the stu- 
 pendous fabric of Episcopacy. Here is the corner- 
 stone on which rests the claims of prelates ; this the 
 position on which the stupendous and mighty super- 
 structure has been reared. 
 
 Now, the only way of ascertaining whether this 
 claim be well-founded, is to appeal at once to the 
 
OF THE APOSTOLIC CHURCH. 41 
 
 New Testament. The question, then, is, Whether 
 the apostles were chosen for the distinctive and pe- 
 culiar work of ordaining to sacred offices ? This 
 the Episcopalian affirms. This we take the liberty 
 of calling in question. 
 
 The evangelists have given three separate and 
 full accounts of the appointment of the apostles. 
 One is recorded by Matthew, ch. x. ; another by 
 Mark, ch. iii. ; the third by Luke, ch. vi. They 
 were selected from the other disciples, and set 
 apart to their work with great solemnity. The act 
 was performed in the presence of a great multi- 
 tude, and after the Saviour had passed the night in 
 prayer to God. Luke vi. 12. The directions given 
 to them on the occasion occupy, in one part of the 
 record, (Matt.) the entire chapter of forty-two verses. 
 Those directions are given with very great particu- 
 larity, embracing a great variety of topics, evidently 
 intended to guide them in all their ministry, and to 
 furnish them with ample instruction as to the nature 
 of their office. They refer to times which would 
 follow the death of the Lord Jesus, and were de- 
 signed to embrace the whole period of their pecu- 
 liar work. 
 
 Now, on the supposition of Episcopalians, that 
 the peculiarity of their work was to ordain, or 
 that " they were distinguished from the elders be- 
 cause they were superior to them in ministerial 
 
 powers and rights," it cannot but be regarded as 
 
 4* 
 
42 ORGANIZATION AND GOVERNMENT 
 
 unaccountable that we find not one word of this 
 here. There is not the slightest allusion to any 
 such distinguishing " powers and rights." There 
 is nothing which can be tortured into any such 
 claim. This is the more remarkable, as, on an- 
 other occasion, he sent forth seventy disciples at 
 one time, (Luke x. 1-16,) usually regarded by 
 Episcopalians as the foundation of the second order 
 of their ministers; and -there is not the slightest 
 intimation given that they were to be inferior to 
 the apostles in the power of ordaining, or in su- 
 perintending the churches. What explanation will 
 the Episcopalian give of this remarkable omission 
 in the instructions of the primitive "bishops?" 
 
 This omission is not the less remarkable in the 
 instructions which the Lord Jesus gave to these 
 same apostles after his resurrection from the dead. 
 At that time we should assuredly have expected an 
 intimation of the existence of some such peculiar 
 power. But not the slightest hint occurs of any 
 such exclusive authority and superintendence. 
 Matthew, (xxviii. 18-20,) Mark, (xvi. 15-18,) 
 and Luke, (xxiv. 47-49,) have each recorded these 
 parting instructions. They tell us that he directed 
 them to remain in Jerusalem until they were en- 
 dued with power from on high, and then to go 
 forth and preach the gospel to every creature ; but 
 not a solitary syllable occurs about any exclusive 
 power of ordination ; about their being a peculiar 
 
OF THE APOSTOLIC CHURCH. 43 
 
 order of ministers ; about their transmitting the pe- 
 culiarity of the apostolic office to others. What is 
 the explanation of this fact ? How is it to be ac- 
 counted for, if the peculiarity of their office con- 
 sisted in " superiority of ministerial powers and 
 rights," that neither at their election and ordina- 
 tion, nor in the departing charge of the Saviour, 
 nor in any intermediate time, do we ever hear of it 
 — that even the advocates for the powers of the 
 "bishop" never pretend to adduce a solitary expres- 
 sion that can be construed into a reference to any 
 such distinction ? 
 
 I proceed now to observe that there is not any- 
 where else, in the New Testament, a statement that 
 this was the peculiarity of the apostolic office. Of 
 this any man may be satisfied who will examine 
 the New Testament. Or he may find the proof in 
 a less laborious way by simply looking at the fact 
 that none of the advocates of Episcopacy pretend 
 to adduce any such declaration. The apostles often 
 speak of themselves; the historian of their doings 
 (Luke*) often mentions them; but the place re- 
 mains yet to be designated, after this controversy 
 has been carried on by keen-sighted disputants for 
 several hundred years, which speaks of any such 
 peculiarity of their office. 
 
 This point, then, I shall consider as settled, and 
 
 * In the Acts of the Apostles. 
 
44 ORGANIZATION AND GOVERNMENT 
 
 shall feel at liberty to make all the use of it to 
 which it can be fairly applied in the argument. 
 I might here insist on the strong presumption 
 thus furnished, that this settles the inquiry. We 
 should be very apt to regard it as decisive in any 
 other case. If two men go from a government to a 
 foreign court, and one of them claims to be a pleni- 
 potentiary, and affirms that the other is a mere 
 private secretary, or a consul, we expect that the" 
 claimant will sustain his pretensions by an appeal 
 to his commission or instructions. If he maintains 
 that this is the peculiarity of his office, we expect 
 to find this clearly stated in the documents which 
 he brings. If he is mentioned by no name that 
 designates his office — as the Episcopalian admits 
 the " bishop" is not; if his commission contains no 
 such appointment; and if we should learn that 
 specific instructions were given to him at his ap- 
 pointment, and again repeated in a solemn manner 
 when he left his native shores, — we should look 
 with strong suspicions on these remarkable claims. 
 Would not any foreign court decide at once that 
 such pretensions, under such circumstances, were 
 utterly unfounded? 
 
 Let us, then, proceed to inquire whether it is 
 possible to ascertain the peculiarity of the apostolic 
 office; for it must be conceded that there was some- 
 thing to distinguish the apostles from the other 
 ministers of the New Testament. Here, happily, 
 
OF THE APOSTOLIC CHURCH. 45 
 
 we are not left in the dark. The sacred writers 
 themselves have given an account which cannot be 
 easily mistaken, and it is a matter of amazement 
 that it ever has been mistaken. The first account 
 which I adduce is from the lips of the Saviour 
 himself. In those solemn moments when he was 
 about to leave the world, when the work of atone- 
 ment was finished, and when he gave the apostles 
 their final commission, he indicated the nature of 
 their labours and the peculiarity of their office in 
 these words : — " And said unto them, Thus it is 
 written, and thus it behooved Christ to suffer, and 
 to rise from the dead on the third day : — And ye 
 are witnesses of these things." Luke xxiv. 46-48. 
 The object of their peculiar appointment, which he 
 here specifies, was, that they should be witnesses 
 to all nations. (Comp. Matt, xxviii. 18, 19.) The 
 u things' ' of which they were to bear witness he 
 mentions distinctly. They were his sufferings in 
 accordance with the predictions of the prophets : 
 " thus it is written, and thus it behooved Christ to 
 suffer;" and his resurrection from the dead: "and 
 to rise from the dead the third day." These were 
 the points to bear "witness" to which they had 
 been selected ) and these were the points on which 
 they, in fact, insisted in their ministry. 
 
 I would next remark that this is expressly de- 
 clared to be the " peculiarity" of the apostolic 
 office. It was done so at the election of an apostle 
 
46 ORGANIZATION AND GOVERNMENT 
 
 to fill up the vacated place of Judas. Here, if the 
 peculiar design had been to confer " superiority in 
 ministerial rights and powers/' we should expect to 
 be favoured with some account of it. It was the 
 very time when it was natural and proper to give a 
 statement of the reason why they filled up the va- 
 cancy in the college of apostles, and when they 
 actually did make such a statement. Their words 
 are these : — " Wherefore, of those men which have 
 companied with us, all the time that the Lord Jesus 
 went in and out among us, beginning from the bap- 
 tism of John, unto that same day when he was 
 taken up from us, must one he ordained to be a 
 witness WITH US of his resurrect ion." Acts i. 
 21, 22. This passage I consider to be absolutely 
 decisive on the point before us. It shows, first, for 
 what purpose they ordained the newly-elected apos- 
 tle; and, second, that they were ordained for the 
 same purpose. Why do we hear nothing on this 
 occasion of their "superiority of ministerial rights 
 and powers ?" Why nothing of their peculiar pre- 
 rogative to ordain ? Why nothing of their " gene- 
 ral superintendence" of the church ? Plainly be- 
 cause they had conceived of nothing of this kind as 
 entering into their original commission and the 
 peculiar design of their office. For this purpose of 
 bearing testimony to the world of the resurrection 
 of the Messiah, they had been originally selected. 
 For this they had been prepared by a long and 
 
OF THE APOSTOLIC CHURCH. 47 
 
 intimate acquaintance with the Saviour. They had 
 seen him; had been with him in various scenes 
 fitted to instruct them more fully in his designs and 
 character; had enjoyed an intimate personal friend- 
 ship with him, (1 John i. 1,) and they were thus 
 qualified to go forth as "witnesses" of what they 
 had seen and heard; to confirm the great doctrine 
 that the Messiah had come, had died, and had 
 risen, according to the predictions of the prophets. 
 — I add, here, that these truths were of sufficient 
 importance to demand the appointment of twelve 
 honest men to give them confirmation. There was 
 consummate wisdom in the appointment of wit- 
 nesses enough to satisfy any reasonable mind, and 
 yet not so many as to give it the appearance of 
 tumult or popular excitement. The truth of the 
 whole scheme of Christianity rested on making out 
 the fact that the Lord Jesus had risen from the 
 dead, (eomp. 1 Cor. xv. ;) and the importance of 
 that religion to the welfare of mankind demanded 
 that this should be substantiated to the conviction 
 of the world. Hence the anxiety of the eleven 
 to complete the number of the original witnesses 
 selected by the Saviour ; and hence their care that 
 the person chosen should have the same acquaint- 
 ance with the facts which they had themselves. 
 
 It is worthy also of remark, that, in the account 
 which the historian gives of their labours, this is the 
 main idea which is presented. Acts ii. 32: "This 
 
48 ORGANIZATION AND GOVERNMENT 
 
 Jesus hath God raised up, whereof we are icit- 
 nesses." V. 32 : "And we are witnesses of these 
 things." X. 39—42 : " And we are witnesses of all 
 things which he did, both in the land of the Jews 
 and in Jerusalem, whom they slew and hanged on a 
 tree. Him God raised up the third day, and 
 showed him openly ; not to all the people, hut unto 
 WITNESSES chosen before of God, even unto us, who 
 did eat and drink with him after he rose from the 
 dead. And he commanded us to preach unto the 
 people, and to testify — Sia/iapropatr^oc —that it is 
 he which was ordained of God to be the judge of 
 quick and dead." In this place, also, we meet with 
 another explicit declaration that this was the object 
 of their original appointment. They were " chosen" 
 for this, and set apart in the holy presence of God 
 to this work. Why do we not hear any thing of 
 "their superiority in ministerial rights and powers?" 
 Why no intimation of the power of " confirming," 
 and of " general superintendence ?" I repeat, that 
 it is not possible to answer these questions except 
 on the supposition that they did not regard any such 
 powers as at all entering into the peculiarity of their 
 commission. 
 
 Having disposed of all that is said in the New 
 Testament of the original design of the appointment 
 to the apostolic office, I proceed to another and 
 somewhat independent source of evidence. The 
 original number of the apostles was twelve. The 
 
OF THE APOSTOLIC CHURCH. 49 
 
 design of their selection we have seen. For im- 
 portant purposes, however, it pleased God to add to 
 their number one who had not been a personal 
 attendant on the ministry of the Saviour, and who 
 was called to the apostleship four years after his 
 crucifixion and resurrection. Now, this is a case, 
 evidently, which must throw very important light 
 on our inquiries. It is independent of the others. 
 As he was not a personal observer of the life arad 
 death of Jesus, as he was not an original " witness" 
 in the case, we may expect in the record of his 
 appointment a full account of his " superiority in 
 ministerial rights and powers." If such superiority 
 entered into the peculiarity of the apostolic office, 
 this was the very case where we should expect to 
 find it. His conversion was subsequent to the 
 resurrection. He was to be employed extensively 
 in founding and organizing churches. He was to 
 have committed to his apostolic care almost the 
 entire pagan world. (Comp. Rom. xi. 13; xv. 16; 
 Gal. ii. 7.) His very business was one that seemed 
 to call for some specific account of " superiority in 
 ministerial rights," if any such rights were involved 
 in the apostolic office. How natural to expect a 
 statement of such rights, and of an account of the 
 " general superintendence" intrusted to him as an 
 apostle ! Let us look, therefore, and see how the 
 case stands. We have three distinct accounts 
 of the appointment of the apostle Paul to the 
 
 5 
 
50 ORGANIZATION AND GOVERNMENT 
 
 apostleship, in each of which the design of his ap- 
 pointment is stated. In his discourse before the 
 Jews, (Acts xxii. 14, 15,) he states the charge 
 given to him by Ananias at Damascus : " The God 
 of our fathers hath chosen thee, that thou shouldst 
 know his will, and see that Just One, and shouldst 
 hear the voice of his mouth. For thou shalt be his 
 WITNESS unto all men of what thou hast seen and 
 heard^ Again, in his speech before Agrippa, 
 (Acts xxvi. 16,) Paul repeats the words addressed 
 to him by the Lord Jesus in his original commis- 
 sion : " I have appeared unto thee for tin's purpose, 
 to make thee a minister — Oizypiryv — and a wit- 
 ness, both of those things which thou hast seen, 
 and of those things in the which I will appear 
 unto thee." Again, in the account which is given 
 of his past and future work, (Acts xxiii. 11,) it is 
 said: " As thou hast testified of me in Jerusalem, 
 so must thou bear witness also at Rome." 
 
 This is the account which is given of the call of 
 Saul of Tarsus to the apostolic office. But where 
 is there a single syllable of any " superiority in 
 ministerial powers and rights," as constituting the 
 peculiarity of his office ? We may respectfully ask 
 all the advocates of Episcopacy to point to us a 
 shadow of any such episcopal investment. We 
 think their argument demands it. And if there 
 is no such account, either in the original choice of 
 the twelve, or in the appointment of Matthias, or in 
 
OF THE APOSTOLIC CIIURCH. 51 
 
 the selection of the " apostle to the Gentiles," it 
 is right to insist with firmness on a satisfactory 
 explanation of the causes which operated to pro- 
 duce the omission of the very gist of their office, 
 according to Episcopacy. Some reasons should be 
 suggested, prudential or otherwise, which made it 
 proper to pass over the very vitality of the original 
 commission. 
 
 But we have not done with the apostle Paul. 
 He is too important a " witness" for us, as well as 
 for the purpose for which he was appointed, to be 
 dismissed without further attention. It has been 
 remarked already that he was not a personal fol- 
 lower of Jesus of Nazareth, and was not present at 
 his death and ascension. It may be asked, then, 
 how could he be a " witness" in the sense and for 
 the purposes already described ? Let us see how 
 this was provided for. I transcribe the account 
 from his own statement of the address made to him 
 by Ananias. Acts xxii. 14 : " The God of our 
 fathers hath chosen thee, that thou shouldst know 
 his will, and see that Just One, and shouldst hear 
 the words of his mouth." That he had thus seen 
 him, it is not necessary to prove. See 1 Cor. xv. 8; 
 Acts ix. 5, 17. The inference which I here draw 
 is, that he was permitted to see the Lord Jesus in 
 an extraordinary manner, for the express purpose of 
 qualifying him to be invested with the peculiarity 
 of the apostleship. This inference, sufficiently clear 
 
52 ORGANIZATION AND GOVERNMENT 
 
 from the very statement, I shall now proceed to put 
 beyond the possibility of doubt. 
 
 Let us turn, then, to another account which Paul 
 has given of his call to the apostleship, 1 Cor. ix. 1, 
 2 : "Am I not an apostle ? Am I not free ? Have 
 I not seen Jesus Christ our Lord?'' I adduce this 
 passage as proof that to have seen Jesus Christ 
 was considered as an indispensable qualification for 
 the apostleship. So Paul regarded it in his own 
 case. It is adduced also for another purpose, viz. 
 to strengthen my main position, that the apostles 
 were designated to their office specifically - as wit- 
 nesses to the character and resurrection of Christ. 
 If this was not the design, why does Paul appeal to 
 the fact that he had seen the Saviour, as proof that 
 he was qualified to be an apostle ? And we may 
 further ask, with emphasis, If the apostles, as Epis- 
 copalians pretend, did, in virtue of their office, pos- 
 sess "superiority in ministerial powers and rights/' 
 why did not Paul once hint at the fact in this pas- 
 sage ? His express object was to vindicate his claim 
 to the apostleship. In doing this he appeals to that 
 which I am endeavouring to show constituted the 
 peculiarity of the office — his being " witness" to the 
 Saviour. In this instance we have a circumstance 
 of which Paley would make much in an argument if 
 it fell in with the design of the " Horae Paulinae." 
 We claim the privilege of making as much of it 
 upon the question whether the peculiarity of the 
 
OF THE APOSTOLIC CHURCH. 53 
 
 apostolic office was "superiority of ministerial powers 
 and rights." 
 
 I have now examined all the passages of Scrip- 
 ture which state the design of the apostleship. It 
 has been shown, if I mistake not, that the ground 
 of the distinction between the " apostles and elders," 
 "the apostles and elders and brethren," was not 
 that the former had superiority of " ministerial 
 powers and rights." We might leave the argument 
 here ; for, if Episcopalians cannot make out this 
 point to entire satisfaction, all that is said about 
 successors in the apostolic office, and about perpetu- 
 ating the apostleship, must be nugatory and vain. 
 But there is an independent topic of remark here, 
 and one which bears on the subject, therefore, with 
 all the force of a cumulative argument. This is 
 stated in the following words : that " there was ton- 
 tinued, as had begun in the apostles, an order of 
 ministers superior to the elders." Tract, p. 16. 
 This the author of the tract representing the argu- 
 ments of Episcopalians on the subject attempts to 
 prove, on the ground that " there is no scriptural 
 evidence that mere elders (presbyters) ordained," 
 (pp. 16-23,) and that "the above distinction be- 
 tween elders and a grade superior to them in regard 
 especially to the power of ordaining, was so per- 
 severed in as to indicate that it was a permanent 
 arrangement, and not designed to be but tempo- 
 rary." Pp. 23, 24. 
 
 5* 
 
54 ORGANIZATION AND GOVERNMENT 
 
 In the inquiry, then, whether this distinction was 
 continued or persevered in, we might insist on what 
 has been already shown as decisive. If the original 
 distinction was what it has been shown to be, that 
 the design of selecting and appointing the apostles 
 to their office was that they might be " witnesses" 
 of the life, the teachings, the death, the resurrec- 
 tion, and the ascension of the Saviour, then it 
 could not be persevered in without (as in the case 
 of Paul) a personal, direct manifestation of the as- 
 cended Saviour, to qualify every future incumbent 
 in the apostleship. 1 Cor. ix. 1. No modern 
 "bishop," it is presumed, will lay claim to this. 
 The very supposition that any such revelation was 
 necessary would dethrone every prelate and pros- 
 trate every mitre in Christendom. 
 
 But we have, as before remarked, an independent 
 train of arguments on this point. It is evident that 
 the whole burden of proof here lies on the Episco- 
 palian. He maintains that such an original dis- 
 tinction existed, and that it was perpetuated. Both 
 these positions we deny. The first has been shown 
 to be unfounded, and has thus virtually destroyed 
 the other. Let us proceed, however, to the com- 
 paratively needless task of showing that the posi- 
 tion, that there was an arrangement by which an 
 order of men " superior to the elders" was con- 
 tinued in the church, is equally unfounded. 
 
 The argument in support of the position, that 
 
OF THE APOSTOLIC CHURCH. 55 
 
 there was to be an order o? men of substantially the 
 same rank as the apostles, and superior to another 
 grade of ministers in the church, can be made out 
 only by substantiating oue or both of the following 
 positions : either (1) that it is expressly stated in 
 the New Testament that the " order" was con- 
 tinued, or was to be continued; or (2) by an induc- 
 tion of particulars, showing that though there was 
 no formal statement on this point, yet that the 
 order was, in fact, continued. Either of them, I 
 admit, would settle the question in favour of Epis- 
 copacy; if both fail, then it is equally clear that the 
 claim is unfounded. It is proposed to examine both 
 these points by the New Testament. 
 
 First, then, there is no express statement in the 
 New Testament that such a " superior order" of 
 ministers was to be " continued" in the church, or 
 that the apostles were to have " successors" in the 
 peculiarity of their office. This point is so clear 
 that even Episcopalians do not pretend to affirm it. 
 There is nothing to which they refer as conveying 
 this idea. Neither in the instructions of the Saviour 
 himself when he called them to their office, nor in 
 any declaration which fell from his lips during his 
 ministry, nor in any thing that the apostles them- 
 selves said, either before or subsequent to the resur- 
 rection of the Saviour, is it declared that the pecu- 
 liarity of the apostolic office was to be continued 
 by a " succession" of men extending into future 
 
56 ORGANIZATION AND GOVERNMENT 
 
 times. This assertion is made with entire confi- 
 dence, and it is not and cannot be denied by the 
 advocates of Episcopacy. The only declaration in 
 the New Testament that has any resemblance to 
 such a position, or that is ever even remotely 
 referred to by Episcopalians on this point, is the 
 promise of the Saviour in Matt, xxviii. 20 : " Lo, 
 I am with you alway, even unto the end of the 
 world." But, assuredly, this passage will not 
 demonstrate that the peculiarity of the apostolic 
 office was to be perpetuated, or that the apostles 
 were to have successors in their office, or that there 
 was to be an order of men continued in the church 
 superior in rank and power to a certain other order 
 of men. It does not prove this for the following 
 reasons : (1.) There is no declaration in this pro- 
 mise, express or implied, that the peculiarity of 
 their office was to be continued. That, certainly, 
 is not the point of the promise, whatever may be its 
 real import. The point of the promise is, the pre- 
 sence of the Saviour to the end of time with those 
 who were to go and preach the gospel. (2.) There 
 is no allusion to any such fact as that they were to 
 be "superior" to another order of men, or that an 
 order of men superior to others was to be continued 
 in the church. No mention is made of any such 
 " orders" of men; there is no intimation that there 
 would be. (3.) .The promise is one that is adapted 
 to all authorized preachers of the gospel, whatever 
 
OF THE APOSTOLIC CHURCH. 57 
 
 rank or order they may sustain. According to the 
 Saviour's commission, the promise extends to all 
 those who should be called by him and commis- 
 sioned to go and teach all nations, baptizing them 
 in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of 
 the Holy Ghost." Matt, xxviii. 19. It was to such 
 persons (ver. 20) that the promise of his presence 
 was made by the Saviour; and wherever any per- 
 sons have evidence that they are authorized by him 
 to engage in that work, they have a right to apply 
 this promise to themselves. But is this work to be 
 confined to prelates, the pretended " successors" of 
 the apostles ? Are no others authorized to go and 
 disciple the nations ; to baptize in the name of the 
 Trinity, and to teach men to observe the command- 
 ments of God ? Assuredly, this will not be pre- 
 tended, for no Episcopalian ever supposed that 
 " bishops" only were authorized to become mission- 
 aries to the heathen. 
 
 But, if this text will not support the pretensions 
 to a " succession" in the peculiarity of the apostolic 
 office, which it neither expresses nor implies, then 
 there is no express declaration in the New Testa- 
 ment that an order of men was to be " continued" 
 in the ministry "superior" to another order. And 
 if this be so, we have here one of the most remark- 
 able facts that has ever occurred in the institution 
 of any office whatever; a fact so remarkable as to 
 render it incredible that it should ever have occurred. 
 
58 ORGANIZATION AND GOVERNMENT 
 
 A brief glance at the circumstances of the case will 
 illustrate this. They are these : 
 
 According to the belief of Episcopalians, this 
 "order" of the ministry — to wit, that of ''bishops" 
 as the successors of the apostles, — was to continue 
 forever. It was intended by the Saviour that at nc 
 time should the church be without an order of 
 men who should be properly the " successors of th< 
 apostles." 
 
 According to their belief, that arrangement was 
 to take place in- all lands where the gospel was 
 preached. No matter what might be the form of 
 civil government there prevailing — whether a re- 
 public, a democracy, an aristocracy, or a monarchy — 
 there was to be but one form in which the church 
 was to be organized; and in every land there was to 
 be an order in the ministry who should be properly 
 the " successors of the apostles." 
 
 According to their belief, the correct organization 
 of the whole church was dependent on the ob- 
 servance of the distinction between this "supe- 
 rior grade" and an inferior grade in the ministry; 
 and there could be, in fact, no properly organized 
 church unless there was an order of men who 
 should be properly " the successors of the apos- 
 tles." 
 
 According to their belief, the validity of all ordi- 
 nations everywhere depended on this, and no one 
 could be authorized to preach the gospel unless 
 
OF THE APOSTOLIC CHURCH. 59 
 
 there had bee a laid on him the hands of those who 
 were properly the "successors of the apostles." 
 
 According to their belief, the validity of all sacra- 
 ments depended on this, and no one could properly 
 administer the rite of baptism or the Lord's supper 
 unless he had derived his authority from those who 
 were properly " the successors of the apostles." 
 
 According to their belief, the proper government 
 of the church everywhere depended on this, and 
 none would have a right to administer discipline 
 except those who were properly the " successors of 
 the apostles." 
 
 According to their belief, if these things are not 
 so, and if there is no such " succession" of men in 
 the church, the churches are unauthorized assem- 
 blies, without a valid ministry; with no sacraments 
 properly administered; with none empowered by 
 the great Head of the church to proclaim salvation, 
 to offer pardon, to minister consolation, or to bury 
 the dead. 
 
 With these consequences full in view, we turn, 
 then, to the original commission of these men whose 
 " successors" were to be intrusted with so much 
 power, and the continuation of whose office was to 
 involve the destiny of countless millions of mankind. 
 We go and listen to the Saviour when he called 
 them on the banks of Gennesareth. We examine all 
 the instructions that he gave them in three years of 
 his most faithful ministry. We listen to his voice 
 
60 ORGANIZATION AND GOVERNMENT 
 
 when he was about to ascend to heaven, and when 
 he gave them his parting counsel and issued his 
 great commission. Strange to tell, in all this, not 
 one word do we hear of any such tremendous re- 
 sults depending on the fact that there were to be 
 those who should be " successors" in the peculiari- 
 ties of their office, nor is there even a hint that 
 they were to have any such successors. 
 
 We turn then to another fact — a fact which must 
 have been before the eyes of the Redeemer. It is 
 the arrangement made in regard to the priestly 
 office in the Old Testament. There every thing 
 was ordered in the most exact manner. There is 
 no ambiguity. There is no reason for doubting 
 that Moses intended that the ministry which he in- 
 stituted should be arranged in three orders, or that 
 it was designed that there should be a " successor" 
 to the one of "superior order" — the high-priest. 
 Every thing relating to that officer, and to the 
 "succession," is specified with the utmost particu- 
 larity, and the arrangement entered into the essen- 
 tial structure of the constitution of the Jewish 
 commonwealth. Can any one believe that the 
 Saviour intended that there should be similar dis- 
 tinctions in his church, essential to its very exist- 
 ence, and yet that there should not be a single 
 word in regard to it in his own statements of the 
 nature of the ministry? They may explain this 
 who can ; but if such results were to be dependent 
 
OP THE APOSTOLIC CHURCH. 61 
 
 on the fact that an order of men was to be con- 
 tinued in the church, who should be the " succes- 
 sors" of the apostles in the peculiarity of their office, 
 and yet not one word of this ever occurred in the 
 account of its organization, then the church of the 
 Lord Jesus is the most singularly organized body 
 that ever pretended to have a constitution. 
 
 Leaving this matter to be explained by Episcopa- 
 lians as it may be — a work which remains yet to be 
 attempted — the fact is all that is of essential im- 
 portance to us now. That fact is, that there is no 
 intimation in the instructions or counsels of the 
 Saviour that he ever designed that the peculiarity 
 of the apostolic office should be transmitted to a 
 body of men who should be their " successors." 
 
 The second point of the inquiry, then, is, Whether 
 the recorded facts in the doings of the apostles 
 themselves are such as to show that this was in- 
 tended? It is certainly undeniable that it might be 
 so. Though there were not in the original commis- 
 sion of the apostles themselves, or in any declaration 
 of the Saviour, an express statement that this order 
 of men was to be continued in a regular " succes- 
 sion," yet it must be admitted that such might 
 have been the organization of the church under 
 them, and such their uniform practice, as to show 
 that this regular succession was contemplated, and 
 is still indispensable to the existence of the church. 
 It is conceivable that in every case where a vacancy 
 
62 ORGANIZATION AND GOVERNMENT 
 
 occurred in the apostolic college, they should forth- 
 with ordain a "successor;" or that they should, in 
 some sufficiently intelligible and formal way, appoint 
 men over others, with the powers and functions of 
 their own office; or that, having ordained certain 
 men to the ministry, they should uniformly address 
 them as apostles, and as invested with the functions 
 of the apostolic office ; or that, in every country 
 where churches were organized in sufficient number, 
 they should constitute some one with the right of 
 confirmation, and with the general charge of govern- 
 ing; the churches, and with instructions to transmit 
 his peculiar authority to some " successor" of the 
 same rank. In either of these cases it is admitted 
 that there would be a sufficient indication that the 
 church was to be constituted and governed in this 
 manner — however we might explain the want of 
 any such statement in the original commission. 
 The defect in the original commission would be 
 practically supplied, and the authority for the supe- 
 rior "apostolic" order in the church could not, with 
 propriety, be called in question. The advocates 
 for Episcopacy, conceding the want of the express 
 statement in the original commission on this point, 
 suppose that they find evidence of such an arrange- 
 ment in the subsequent organization of the church ; 
 or such evidence that the apostles intended that 
 their own "order" or rank in the ministry should 
 be continued as to amount to a proof that this was 
 
OF THE APOSTOLIC CHURCH. Q'S 
 
 the intention of the Saviour. That evidence is 
 found, they think, not in any express declaration 
 of the apostles themselves, but in such supposed 
 acts as to show that there was the same authority 
 transmitted which they had, as apo ties, and that 
 this was to be a permanent arrangement. The evi- 
 dence consists in the alleged fact that certain indi- 
 viduals are mentioned with such appellations, and 
 designated to perform such offices, as to show that 
 they belonged to an order of the clergy " superior" 
 to the presbyters, and were iu the same rank as the 
 apostles. To examine this claim, therefore, is essen- 
 tial to a correct understanding of the subject, and 
 this examination will settle the question. This 
 must be done by an investigation of the cases of 
 the particular individuals who are claimed to be 
 the successors of the apostles. It is proposed to 
 take up these cases in the order in which they are 
 usually presented by Episcopalians, and to inquire, 
 What is the evidence that they succeeded the apostles 
 in €ie peculiarity of the apostolic office, so as to show 
 that it was intended that this should he a permanent 
 arrangement in the church? 
 
 The first case is that of Matthias, Acts i. 15-26. 
 The argument which is relied on in his case is, that 
 one of the first acts of the apostles, after they re- 
 ceived the apostolic office, was to ''transfer the very 
 same power which they had received from Christ;" 
 (Bishop McCoskry;) and that Matthias was so se- 
 
64 ORGANIZATION AND GOVERNMENT 
 
 lected, and such power conferred on him, as to 
 prove that he was to be ranked among the apostles, 
 and to indicate that this was to be a permanent 
 arrangement. It is supposed to be the first step in 
 the doings of the apostles, indicating that their 
 order was to be continued in the churches, and that 
 it was not to be allowed to become extinct by the 
 death of those sustaining the office. 
 
 Now, in regard to the case of Matthias, the follow- 
 ing remarks will show the bearing of this example 
 on the argument : 
 
 1. He was undoubtedly chosen to be an apostle 
 in the proper sense of the word. This is implied 
 in the whole transaction, and is, indeed, expressly 
 affirmed. Peter states, in his argument for going 
 into the election, that one of their number had com- 
 mitted suicide, and that it was proper that his place 
 should be supplied by an election. The propriety 
 of this he argues by a quotation from Psalm lxix. 
 25 : " Let his habitation be desolate, and let no 
 mand well therein ; and his bishopric let another 
 take ;" that is, let his office, or charge — htiaxoi&p 
 — be conferred on another. The word is applied to 
 any oversight or care of a thing, and in the New 
 Testament refers to having the care or oversight of 
 the church, without reference to any particular 
 rank in doing it. See Acts xx. 28, and Phil. i. 1, 
 where it is applied to presbyters. On the ground 
 of this ancient prediction, Peter argued that it was 
 
OF THE APOSTOLIC CHURCH. 65 
 
 necessary and proper to elect one with suitable 
 qualifications to fill the office with which Judas 
 had been invested, or to accomplish what he was 
 chosen to accomplish as an apostle. That it was 
 understood that he was to be an apostle, with the 
 rank, title, and prerogatives of an apostle, is clear. 
 He was to be in the office what Judas would have 
 been, if he had not, by transgression, fallen. Ac- 
 cordingly, it is expressly stated that " he was num- 
 bered with the eleven apostles," (Acts i. 26,) and 
 the apostles are twice referred to afterwards, in 
 their collective capacity, in such a manner as to 
 lead to the supposition that Matthias was with 
 them. Thus it is said, (Acts ii. 14,) " But Peter 
 standing up with the eleven, lifted up his voice;" 
 and in Acts vi. 2, " Then the twelve called the 
 multitude of the disciples unto them," implying 
 that at that time Matthias was recognised as one of 
 the number of the apostles, or that the apostolic 
 college was full. 
 
 2. I am willing to admit that all this was done 
 under the full influence of inspiration, and by the 
 sanction of the Holy Spirit. It is true that the 
 presence of the other ten apostles on the occasion 
 is not mentioned ; that the question was submitted, 
 not particularly to them, but to the whole of the 
 assembled church, (Acts i. 15 ;) that probably the 
 whole church acted in the selection of the successor 
 of Judas, and voted on the occasion, (see Acts i. 15, 
 
 6* 
 
66 ORGANIZATION AND GOVERNMENT 
 
 coinp. vs. 23, 26;) and that Peter seems to have 
 been led to the conclusion that such an election was 
 proper by a course of reasoning on the declaration 
 in the lxixth Psalm; but I see no reason to doubt 
 that he acted in accordance with the will of the 
 Great Head of the church, and under the guidance 
 of the Holy Grhost. This would seem to be fairly 
 implied in the general promises which the Re- 
 deemer made to the apostles in regard to the 
 organization of the church. John xiv. 26; Matt, 
 xvi. 19 ; xviii. 18. Whatever inferences may fol- 
 low from this fact, the fact itself should be cheer- 
 fully conceded. 
 
 But, if these points are conceded, the question 
 then is, What is the exact bearing of this case on 
 the question, whether it was intended that the ar- 
 rangement should be " permanent" in the church, 
 and that there should be a regular "succession" 
 of men invested with the functions of those who 
 sustained the apostolic office ? It is important, 
 then, to look at this case just as it is presented 
 in the New Testament; and the following facts, 
 which no one will dispute, comprise all that is 
 said in regard to it, and embrace all that can be 
 construed into an argument in regard to the suc- 
 cession. 
 
 (1.) It was an election to a vacancy, not to a 
 succession in the office. The reason which Peter 
 gives for the election at all is that it was proper 
 
OF THE APOSTOLIC CHURCH. 67 
 
 because a vacancy had occurred by the death of 
 Judas, not because it was necessary to keep up the 
 " succession." One had been removed who had 
 been chosen to fill a specific place and to accom- 
 plish a particular object, and it was important that 
 his place should be filled. If it were possible to 
 perpetuate the apostolic office in its peculiarity — as 
 we have seen that it is not — this reasoning of Peter 
 would be forcible to demonstrate that the number 
 twelve was to be continued, and that when a va- 
 cancy occurred, it was to be supplied by election; 
 but it is of no force whatever to demonstrate that 
 there must be a "succession" of an unlimited num- 
 ber, and that the office was to be transmitted by 
 embracing hundreds or thousands in the "apostolic 
 college" in every successive age. The argument 
 of Peter is, that Judas was " numbered with them, 
 and had obtained part in the same ministry" with 
 them ; that he had fallen from this office, and that 
 it was predicted that another should take " his" 
 place; and that, such being the case, it was proper 
 Jo appoint another, having the proper qualifications, 
 who might be, as Judas would have been had he 
 lived, a " witness of the resurrection" of the Sa- 
 viour. In all this there is not one word about a 
 "succession;" not an intimation that it was to be 
 a permanent arrangement; not a hint that the ori- 
 ginal number was ever to be enlarged or to have 
 any other qualifications than the original apostles 
 
68 ORGANIZATION AND GOVERNMENT 
 
 had — the qualifications which made them competent 
 to bear witness of the resurrection of the Saviour. 
 There is all the difference imaginable between the 
 power to fill a vacancy in an office, and a power to 
 perpetuate an ORDER of men — and especially if that 
 "order'' is to be indefinitely enlarged. 
 
 (2.) It was an election by the church, and not 
 particularly by the apostles. Indeed, it is only from 
 the probability that the apostles icould be present on 
 such an occasion that there is any reason to believe 
 that they were there, for they are not mentioned. 
 The address of Peter was made to the " disciples," 
 who are said to have been "about a hundred and 
 twenty," (Acts i. 15;) and it is manifest from the 
 narrative that the votes in the case were given by 
 them. No intimation is furnished that any others 
 voted than those before whom the proposition of 
 Peter was made j and it is morally certain that if 
 the vote had been given only by the apostles, such 
 a fact would have been stated. This account shows 
 that the apostles did not mean of themselves to ap- 
 point successors; but, so far as it goes, it shows that 
 the selection was made by the body of the commu- 
 nicants in the church. If they had been intrusted 
 with a special commission to continue their " pecu- 
 liar order," and to " transfer their authority," as a 
 permanent arrangement, it is scarcely credible that 
 the execution of this should have been left to the 
 body of communicants. At all events, this has 
 
OF THE APOSTOLIC CHURCH. 69 
 
 much more of a democratic aspect than is found 
 now in Episcopacy. In the whole of the speech of 
 Peter, he never breathes a note of either himself or 
 his fellow-apostles conferring apostolic power on 
 Matthias, or on any one else. He submitted the 
 nomination in the most anti-Episcopal manner to 
 the whole of the disciples, and then referred the 
 final decision to the Lord. "They appointed two, 
 Joseph, called Barsabas, who was surnamed Justus, 
 and Matthias." The fair and obvious construction 
 of this is, that it was done by the " hundred and 
 twenty disciples" to whom Peter had submitted the 
 proposition respecting the necessity of electing one 
 to fill the vacancy. 
 
 (3.) The purpose for which Matthias was chosen 
 is specifically mentioned. It was that he might be, 
 in the proper sense of the word, as explained above, 
 an apostle — a "witness" of the resurrection of the 
 Saviour. " Wherefore, of these men which have 
 companied with us all the time that the Lord Jesus 
 went in and out among us — must one he ordained 
 TO be A witness with us of his resurrection/' (ver. 
 21, 22.) Here the same object is referred to which 
 is specified by the Saviour as implied in the nature 
 of the apostolic office — to be his witnesses to the 
 world. In order to divest this of all doubt as to 
 what was intended in the case, Peter specifies all 
 the qualifications which were necessary in the elec- 
 tion. He who was to be chosen was to have just 
 
70 ORGANIZATION AND GOVERNMENT 
 
 such qualifications as to fit him to be a competent 
 "witness" of the resurrection of the Saviour. In 
 order to that, it was indispensable that he should 
 have been with him; that he should have been 
 familiar with his person and his instructions, that 
 he might thus be qualified to bear witness to his 
 identity after his resurrection. Accordingly, Peter 
 says that it was necessary that he should have been 
 with them " all the time that the Lord Jesus went 
 in and out among them, beginning from the baptism 
 of John unto that same day when he was taken up 
 from them," (ver. 21, 22 ;) thus embracing the en- 
 tire period of his public ministry, his crucifixion, 
 and the forty days in which he appeared to his dis- 
 ciples after his resurrection. It was to bear witness 
 to these things, as we have seen, that the apostles 
 were originally chosen ; and it was for this specific 
 purpose that Matthias was selected in the room of 
 one who would have been abundantly qualified for 
 this had he lived. In all that Peter says on this 
 subject, there is not an intimation of the necessity 
 of any other qualification than this; there is no 
 hint that he ought to be endowed with uncommon 
 talents, eloquence, or learning; there is no allusion 
 to any power, control, or jurisdiction that he was to 
 exercise over the churches ; there is no suggestion 
 that he was to perform the ceremony of " confirma- 
 tion/ ' or that he was to take the jurisdiction over a 
 particular district or "diocese;" nor is there any 
 
OF THE APOSTOLIC CHURCH. 71 
 
 allusion to any such fact as that he was to transmit 
 his power and authority to " successors." The pur- 
 pose was specific; it was just that for which all the 
 apostles had been called by the Saviour. 
 
 These are the simple facts in regard to the elec- 
 tion of Matthias. It is to be remembered now that 
 this is the only case of an election to the apostolic 
 office recorded in the New Testament. The only 
 other apostle, respecting whose authority and rank 
 there is no dispute, was Paul. He was called di- 
 rectly from heaven, without any arrangement, elec- 
 tion, designation, or ordination by the other apos- 
 tles ', and he was qualified for the peculiarity of the 
 apostolic office by having been permitted, in a mi- 
 raculous manner, to see the Saviour after his resur- 
 rection. "Am I not an apostle? Have I not seen 
 Jesus Christ our Lord?" 1 Cor. ix. 1. When 
 James, the brother of John, was put to death by 
 Herod, (Acts xii. 1,) there was no election to supply 
 his place, nor is there any mention that as the 
 apostles died their places were supplied. The pur- 
 pose of the original appointment of twelve — a com- 
 petent number to establish the important truth of 
 the resurrection of Jesus — had been accomplished 
 when they died; and it was alike useless and impos- 
 sible to continue the succession — useless because 
 the twelve had testified to the world the fact of his 
 resurrection in such a manner as to secure the per- 
 manent establishment of the Christian religion ; and 
 
72 ORGANIZATION AND GOVERNMENT 
 
 impossible because the original witnesses of the 
 resurrection of the Redeemer died. How could 
 an order of men be kept up in the world from age 
 to age, qualified to be "witnesses" of his resurrec- 
 tion ? — It is left, then, to the judgment of all to 
 determine with what propriety the case of Matthias 
 is referred to as an evidence that it was designed 
 that there should be a permanent arrangement in 
 the church to perpetuate the apostolic office, or to 
 continue the appointment of an order of men of 
 " superior qualifications and rank" in the ministry. 
 If the very first link fails, all the others will be 
 likely to fail also. 
 
 The next case on which reliance is placed by the 
 advocates of Episcopacy is, that of Barnabas. The 
 argument in support of his claims to the apostleship 
 is based mainly on the fact that the name apostle is 
 given to him. Acts xiv. 14: "Which when the 
 apostles Barnabas and Paul heard of, they rent 
 their clothes." See the tract "Episcopacy tested 
 by Scripture," p. 18, and Bishop McCoskry's Ser- 
 mon, p. 24. In connection with the fact that the 
 name apostle is given to Barnabas, it is urged by 
 the author of the tract that the transaction re- 
 corded in Acts xiii., by which Paul and Barnabas 
 were designated to a particular work, and in the 
 performance of which they are called "apostles," 
 was not an "ordination" in the peculiar sense of the 
 word, but a mere designation to a special missionary 
 
OF THE APOSTOLIC CHURCH. 73 
 
 service; and that, as the term "apostle" belonged 
 of right to Paul before this, so it is to be inferred 
 that the same designation belonged to Barnabas, 
 and to each of the others who were there named — 
 " Simeon, and Niger, and Lucius, and Manaen." 
 Tract, pp. 16, 17. The argument is, that if this 
 were not an "ordination," the name "apostle" was 
 not given to them in virtue of this transaction, but 
 must have appertained to them before. 
 
 As this is a point of some importance, anff as it 
 is an argument much insisted on by Episcopalians, 
 that because the name apostle is given to certain 
 men in the New Testament, therefore they were of 
 a grade superior in rank to other " clergy," and 
 that the "order" was designed to be perpetuated, 
 it is important first to examine the meaning of the 
 word "apostle," and then to inquire in what sense 
 it is applied to Barnabas. The word irx&eroXoq — 
 apostle, meaning one sent forth , a messenger — occurs 
 in the New Testament eighty-one times. It is ap- 
 plied to the following persons: — (1.) To the Saviour 
 himself, as sent from God — the Great Apostle to 
 the world. Heb. iii. 1. Compare here the nume- 
 rous places where the Saviour says he was " sent" 
 from God into the world. (2.) To the original 
 number whom the Saviour chose to be his apostles 
 to the world. Matt.' x. 2 ; Mark vi. 30 ; Luke vi. 
 13; ix. 10; xi. 49; xvii. 5; xxii. 14; xxiv. 10; 
 Acts i. 2, 26; ii. 37, 42, 43; iv. 33, 35-37; v. 2, 
 
 7 
 
74 ORGANIZATION AND GOVERNMENT 
 
 12, 18, 29, 34, 40; vi. 6; viii. 1, 14, 18; ix. 27 
 xi. 1; xiv. 4; xv. 2, 4, 6, 22, 23, 33; xvi. 4 
 Rom. xvi. 7; 1 Cor. xii. 28, 29; xv. 7; Gal. i. 17 
 19; Eph. ii. 20; iii. 5j iv. 11; 1 Thess. ii. 6, 11 
 2 Pet. i. 1; ii. 1 ; iii. 2; Jude 17; Rev. xviii. 20 
 xxi. 14. (3.) To Paul, reckoned as an apostle, and 
 especially endowed for this purpose by having had a 
 miraculous view of the Saviour after his ascension. 
 Acts xiv. 14; Rom. i. 1; xi. 13; 1 Cor. i. 1; ix. 
 1, 2; xv. 9; 2 Cor. i. 1; xii. 12; Gal. i. 1; Eph. 
 i. 1; Col. i. 1; 1 Tim. i. 1; ii. 7; 2 Tim. i. 1, 11; 
 Titus i. 1. (4.) To Barnabas in one instance only: 
 Acts xiv. 14. (5.) To certain "brethren" who 
 accompanied Titus when he was sent by Paul to 
 Corinth, and who are called "the messengers of the 
 churches" — axoc-oXoi t/./.X^mcuv — the aj)ostles of the 
 churches. The number and names of these persons 
 are imknown, but the only rank which they sus- 
 tained was that of being sent from one church to 
 another. 2 Cor. viii. 23. (6.) In a similar sense it 
 is applied in Phil. ii. 25, to Epaphroditus, sent by 
 the church at Philippi to Rome, to supply the 
 wants of Paul when a prisoner there. (7.) It is 
 applied to any one who is sent to perform any office 
 whatever. "The servant is not greater than his 
 Lord ; neither is he that is sent (oud£ a-oaroXoq — 
 neither the apostle) greater than he that sent him." 
 John xiii. 16. 
 
 These passages show the sense in which the word 
 
OP THE APOSTOLIC CHURCH. 75 
 
 is used in the New Testament, and the true force of 
 any argument that may be derived from its use. It 
 means properly one who is sent, and may be used 
 with reference to one who is sent for any purpose, 
 and may be applied, therefore, to any minister of 
 religion, or to any one sent for a specific object, who 
 is not even a minister of religion. The mere use 
 of the word, therefore, proves nothing in respect to 
 the matter under consideration. The argument 
 relied on by the Episcopalian is, that the fact that 
 the word is applied to an individual proves that he 
 was an apostle in the strict and proper sense. But, 
 in order to the validity of this argument, it is neces- 
 sary to believe that the word is used in no other 
 sense in the New Testament; and this would prove, 
 not only that Barnabas was an apostle properly so 
 called, but that Epaphroditus was, and that all the 
 messengers whom Paul sent with Titus were; and 
 that any one who was ever sent for any purpose was 
 called an "apostle" in the strict and proper sense. 
 If the Episcopalians, therefore, insist on it that the 
 fact that the name "apostle" was given to Barnabas 
 or Silas proves that they were apostles, and that the 
 "order" was intended to be "continued," then we 
 insist on it that the church at Philippi sent a pre- 
 latical bishop — Epaphroditus — to "minister to the 
 wants of Paul," and that Paul sent a whole com- 
 pany of "apostles," or prelatical bishops, on a gene- 
 ral exploring tour chrough Greece, or more likely 
 
76 ORGANIZATION AND GOVERNMENT 
 
 on a visit to a particular church there. 2 Cor. viii. 
 23. But, as this consequence will not be conceded 
 by Episcopalians, it follows that the argument on 
 which they rely, derived from the fact that the 
 name " apostle" is given to Barnabas, is worthless. 
 In fact, it is known to be worthless by Episcopa- 
 lians themselves. Dr. Onderdonk himself practically 
 concedes it in the following judicious observation, 
 Tract, p. 13: — "A little reflection and 'practice will 
 enable any of our readers to look in Scripture for 
 the several sacred OFFICES, independently of the 
 names there or elsewhere given to them." The 
 truth is, in regard to this word, and to all others, 
 that the specific sense in which it is used is to 
 be determined by the connection and the circum- 
 stances. 
 
 Let us, then, inquire in regard to the case of 
 Barnabas, whether there is any thing in the con- 
 nection and circumstances where the term is ap- 
 plied to him, which shows that he was an apostle 
 in the strict and proper sense, or that it was 
 intended that the "order" should be perpetuated 
 through him. 
 
 The only instance in which the word apostle is 
 applied to Barnabas, as has already been remarked, 
 is in Acts xiv. 14 : — " Which when the apostles 
 Barnabas and Paul heard of, they rent their 
 clothes." Now, to see the fair and proper mean- 
 ing of the word, as here applied to Barnabas, we 
 
OF THE APOSTOLIC CHURCH. 77 
 
 may advert to the following considerations : — (1.) 
 There is no account that Barnabas was ever elected, 
 ordained, or appointed, in any way, to the apostolic 
 office. There is a particular account of the election 
 of Matthias, and of the manner in which Paul was 
 selected and set apart to be an apostle; but there is 
 no intimation that Barnabas was ever chosen in any 
 manner for that office. (2.) Barnabas is repeatedly 
 mentioned in the New Testament, but in no other 
 instance as an apostle. He first appears in Acts 
 iv. 36, where it is said that he came with other 
 converts having property and laid it at the apostles' 
 feet. He is then mentioned (Acts xi. 22) as hav- 
 ing been sent by the "church in Jerusalem" to 
 Antioch, on occasion of a revival of religion there, 
 and an account of his success as a preacher is there 
 given. He is then referred to as having voluntarily 
 gone to seek the apostle Paul at Tarsus, to induce 
 him to come to Antioch. At this time, Paul and 
 Barnabas laboured together a whole year at Antioch, 
 but there is no intimation that he was ordained to 
 the apostleship. Acts xi. 26. He is then mentioned 
 as going up to Jerusalem with Paul in a time of 
 famine to carry to afflicted Christians there the 
 benefactions of the church at Antioch. Acts xi. 30. 
 In Acts xii. 25, it is said that, having accomplished 
 this, Barnabas and Saul returned from Jerusalem 
 to Antioch, taking with them John Mark. Subse- 
 quently, Barnabas and Paul are mentioned as 
 
 7* 
 
78 ORGANIZATION AND GOVERNMENT 
 
 travelling companions, and Barnabas is not adverted 
 to except in connection with Paul. Acts xiii. 1, 2, 
 50; xiv. 12; xv. 2, 12, 37; 1 Cor. ix. 6; Gal. ii. 
 1, 9, 13 ; Col. iv. 10. In all this, however, there 
 is no intimation that he was ever selected and or- 
 dained to the apostolic office. In the numerous in- 
 stances in which he is mentioned, the name apostle 
 is never given to him but once. (3.) The reason 
 why the name was given to him on that occasion, it 
 is not difficult to understand. It was not because 
 he was in the proper sense of the term an " apostle," 
 but in the same sense in which Epaphroditus was 
 the "apostle" of the church at Philippi, (Phil, 
 ii. 25,) and as the "brethren" sent with Titus 
 were the "apostles" of the churches, (2 Cor. viii. 
 23 ;) that is, they were the messengers of the 
 churches. We find the following account of an 
 important transaction in relation to Barnabas before 
 this name is given to him at all. In the church at 
 Antioch there were "certain prophets and teachers, 
 as Barnabas, and Simeon, and Lucius, and Manaen, 
 and Saul." The rank which they together sus- 
 tained was that of "prophets and teachers;" and 
 the only title which appears to have been conferred 
 on Barnabas was that of a "prophet and teacher." 
 That also appertained to Paul, though from many 
 other places we also know that before this he was 
 entitled to the proper name of an apostle. As these 
 "prophets and teachers" ministered to the Lord 
 
OF THE APOSTOLIC CHURCH. 79 
 
 and fasted, "the Holy Ghost said, Separate me 
 Barnabas and Saul for the work whereto I have 
 called them. And when they had fasted and 
 prayed, and laid their hands on them, they sent 
 them away. So they, being sent forth by the Holy 
 Ghost, departed unto Seleucia." Acts xiii. 1-5. 
 Now, two things are manifest in this account. The 
 first is, that this was not an ordination to the ajios- 
 tolic office. This is perfectly apparent from the 
 face of the transaction, for (cr) Paul was an apostle 
 before; (&) the persons engaged in the ordination, 
 if it were an ordination, were not themselves apos- 
 tles ; (c) the purpose for which they were set apart 
 is particularly specified, and that is a distinct design 
 from the apostolic office. Indeed, so clear is this, 
 that Dr. Onderdonk has admitted that this was not 
 an ordination at all. Tract, pp. 16, 17: "If it 
 was not an ordination," says he, "as it certainly 
 was not, it was a mere setting apart of those two 
 apostles (?) to a particular field of duty/' "That 
 this transaction at Antioch related only to a special 
 missionary 'work/ will be found sufficiently clear 
 by those who will trace the progress of Paul and 
 Barnabas through that work from Acts xiii. 4, to 
 xiv. 26, where its completion is recorded." " This 
 call, therefore, this separation, this work, related 
 only to a particular mission, and this laying on of 
 hands was no ordination." The second thing appa- 
 rent from this account is, that this setting apart to a 
 
80 ORGANIZATION AND GOVERNMENT 
 
 particular work laid the foundation for the ap- 
 propriate designation of Barnabas and Paul as 
 "apostles/' in the sease that they were the mes- 
 sengers of the churches. They were designated 
 to a particular "missionary work." They were 
 "sent forth" to accomplish this. They are de- 
 signated as thus sent forth, or as apostles or 
 messengers of the church, by the inspired his- 
 torian, (comp. Phil. ii. 25; 2 Cor. viii. 23,) and all 
 the circumstances of the case are met by this sup- 
 position. (4.) This view is confirmed by a fact 
 which can be explained on no other supposition, 
 that the name apostle is never given to Barnabas 
 subsequent to his fulfilling this missionary appoint- 
 ment with the apostle Paul. He is repeatedly 
 mentioned after this, but in no case as an apostle. 
 No instance is referred to of his performing any 
 other functions than those of a travelling companion 
 of the apostle Paul as a preacher and a beloved 
 brother; nor is there an intimation that he sus- 
 tained any other "rank," or belonged to any other 
 "order" than that which appertained to all who 
 were preachers of the gospel. With what pro- 
 priety, then, is he pressed into the service of Epis- 
 copacy ? And what must be the real strength of 
 that cause which is constrained to rely on such an 
 instance to prove that there was such "an arrange- 
 ment persevered in as to prove that the apostolic 
 
I 
 
 OF THE APOSTOLIC CHURCH. 81 
 
 order was to be permanent' ' in the church to the 
 end of the world ? 
 
 The next case relied on by Episcopalians is 
 " James, the brother of onr Lord." Tract, p. 15. 
 " James, the Lord's brother," is once mentioned as 
 an apostle. Gal. i. 19. But it should be remem- 
 bered that there were two of the name of James 
 among the apostles, in the specific sense of the 
 term, viz. James the brother of John and son of 
 Zebedee, and James the son of Alpheus. Matt. x. 
 3 ; Luke vi. 15. Nor should it be forgotten that- 
 the word brother was used by the Hebrews to de- 
 note a relation more remote than that which is 
 designated by the ordinary use of the word among 
 us, and that Alpheus was probably a connection of 
 the family of our Lord. What proof, • then, is 
 there that he was not referred to in the passage 
 before us ? 
 
 Silvanus and Timothy are the next mentioned. 
 As their claim to be considered apostles rests on 
 the same foundation, so far as the name is any 
 evidence, these cases will be disposed of by con- 
 sidering that of Timothy at length in a subsequent 
 part of the argument. 
 
 The other cases are those of Andronicus and 
 Junia. The foundation for their claim to be en- 
 rolled as apostles is the following mention of them 
 by Paul, Rom. xvi. 7 : — " Salute Andronicus and 
 Junia, my kinsmen, who are of note among the 
 
82 ORGANIZATION AND GOVERNMENT 
 
 apostles," olrtviq eiffiv tTtitnijfwi £v roTq arzoGroXots. 
 On this claim I remark : (1.) Admitting that they 
 are here called apostles, the name, as has been 
 proved, does not imply that they had any " supe- 
 riority of ministerial rights and powers." They 
 might have been distinguished as messengers, like 
 Epaphroditus. (2.) It is clear that Paul did not 
 mean to give them the name of aj^ostles at all. If 
 he had designed it, the phraseology would have 
 been different. Compare Rom. i. 1 -, 1 Cor. i. 1 ; 
 2 Cor. i. 1 j Phil. i. 1. (3.) All that the expres- 
 sion fairly implies is, that they, having been early 
 converted, (Rom. xvi. 7,) and being acquainted 
 with the apostles at Jerusalem, were held in high 
 esteem by them; that is, the apostles regarded them 
 with confidence and affection. 
 
 The next point of proof, "that the distinction 
 between elders and a grade superior to them, in 
 regard especially to the power of ordaining, was so 
 persevered in as to indicate that it was a permanent 
 arrangement," — and a point much insisted on by 
 Episcopalians, — is drawn from the charge given by 
 the apostle Paul to the elders of Ephesus. Acts xx. 
 28-35. The point of this evidence is this : Paul 
 charges the elders at Ephesus to "take heed to 
 themselves," — " to take heed to all the flock over 
 which the Holy Ghost had made them overseers — 
 to feed the church of God — to watch against the 
 grievous wolves that would assail the flock/' etc. 
 
OF THE APOSTOLIC CHURCH. 83 
 
 In all this, we are told, there is not a word respect- 
 ing the power of ordaining, nor any thing which 
 shows that they had the power of clerical discipline 
 " No power is intimated to depose from office one 
 of their own number, or an unsound minister 
 coming among them." They are to " tend" or 
 "rule" the flock as shepherds; " for shepherds do 
 not tend and rule shepherds." 
 
 This is affirmed to be the sole power of these 
 elders. In connection with this, we are asked to 
 read the epistles to Timothy — the power there given 
 "personally to Timothy at Ejrfiesits," (Tract, p. 23,) 
 or as it is elsewhere expressed, " Compare now with 
 this sum total of power assigned to mere elders, or 
 presbyters, that of Timothy at Ephesus, the very 
 city and region in which those addressed by Paul 
 in Acts xx. resided and ministered." P. 25. It is 
 said by Episcopalians that in those epistles the 
 " right of governing the clergy and ordaining, is 
 ascribed to him personally;" and numerous undis- 
 puted passages are adduced by them to show that 
 Timothy is addressed as having this power. 1 Tim. 
 i. 18; iii. 14, 15; iv. 6; 1 Tim. i. 3; v. 19-21, 
 etc. etc. 
 
 Now, this argument proceeds on the following' 
 assumptions, viz. 1. That Timothy was called an 
 apostle, and was therefore invested with the same 
 powers as the apostles, and was one of their suc- 
 cessors in the office. 2. That he was, at the time 
 
84 ORGANIZATION AND GOVERNMENT 
 
 when Paul gave his charge to the elders at Mile- 
 tus, bishop of Ephesus. 3. That the "elders" sum- 
 moned to Miletus were ministers of the gospel of 
 the second order, or, as they are now usually termed, 
 priests, in contradistinction from bishops and dea- 
 cons. If these points are not made out from the 
 New Testament, or if any one of them fails, this 
 argument for Episcopacy will be of no value. 
 
 The first claim is, that Timothy is called an 
 "apostle," and was, therefore, clothed with apos- 
 tolic powers. The proof on which this claim is 
 made to rest is contained in 1 Thess. i. 1, com- 
 pared with 1 Thess. ii. 6. Paul, Silvanus, and 
 Timothy are joined together in the commencement 
 of the epistle, as writing it to the church at Thessa- 
 lonicaj and in ch. ii. 6, the following expression 
 occurs: "Nor of man sought we glory — when we 
 might have been burdensome as the apostles of 
 Christ." This is the sole proof of the apostleship 
 of Timothy, of which so much is made in the 
 Episcopal controversy, and which is usually ap- 
 pealed to as of itself sufficient to settle the ques- 
 tion. 
 
 Perhaps there is no point in this controversy 
 'asserted with more confidence, or more relied on by 
 Episcopalians, than that Timothy was an "apostle," 
 and was "bishop" or prelate of Ephesus. It is of 
 importance, therefore, to show how this matter is in 
 the New Testament; and having disposed of this 
 
OF THE APOSTOLIC CHURCH. 85 
 
 case, the argument about the immediate " succes- 
 sors" of the apostles is at an end. 
 
 Now, without insisting on the point which has 
 been made out, that the apostolic office was con- 
 ferred not to impart "superiority of ministerial 
 rights and powers," but to bear "witness'' to the 
 great events in the life and teachings of the Saviour, 
 the claim will be disposed of by the following con- 
 siderations : 
 
 1. The passage in 1 Thess. ii. 6 does not fairly 
 imply that Timothy was even called an apostle. 
 For it is admitted (Tract, p. 15) that "it is not 
 unusual for St. Paul to use the plural number of 
 himself only." It is argued, indeed, that the words 
 "apostles," and "our own souls," (v. 8,) being in- 
 applicable to the singular use of the plural number, 
 the "three whose names are at the head of the 
 epistle are here spoken of jointly." But if Paul 
 used the plural number as applicable to himself, 
 would it not be natural for him to continue its use, 
 and to employ the adjectives connected with it in 
 the same number? Besides, there* is conclusive 
 evidence that Paul did not intend to include the 
 "three" named at the head of the epistle in this 
 expression in ver. 6. For in the verses immediately 
 preceding the following language occurs : " We had 
 suffered before, and were shamefully treated, as ye 
 know, at Philippi," etc. Now it is capable of de- 
 monstration that Timothy was not present at that 
 
 8 
 
86 ORGANIZATION AND GOVERNMENT 
 
 time, and was not subjected to those sufferings at 
 Philippi. Acts xvi. 12, 19; xviii. 1-4. It fol- 
 lows, therefore, that Paul did not intend here to 
 imply that "the three named at the head of the 
 epistle" were apostles, and that he intended to 
 speak of himself alone in ver. 6. That this is so, 
 is evident from chap. iii. In ver. 1 of that chapter 
 Paul uses the plural term also: "When we could 
 no longer forbear, ice thought it good to be left at 
 Athens alone." Comp. ver. 5. "For this cause, 
 when I could no longer forbear, /sent to know your 
 faith." From this it is clear that Paul, when he 
 uses the plural here, refers only to himself, and that 
 Timothy and Silas are associated with him in chap, 
 i. 1, not as having apostolic authority, but for the 
 mere purpose of salutation or kind remembrance. 
 
 2. Our next proof that Timothy was not an apos- 
 tle is, that he is expressly distinguished from Paul 
 as an apostle; that is, in the same verse Paul is 
 careful to speak of himself as an apostle, and of 
 Timothy as not an apostle. Thus, 2 Cor. i. 1 : 
 "Paul an apostle of Jesus Christ, and Timothy our 
 brother" Again, Col. i. 1: "Paul an apvstle of 
 Jesus Christ, and Timothy our brother." Now the 
 argument is this, that if Paul regarded Timothy as 
 an apostle, it is remarkable that he should be so 
 careful to make this distinction, when his own name 
 is mentioned as an apostle. Why did he not also 
 make the same honourable mention of Timothy f 
 
OF THE APOSTOLIC CHURCH. 87 
 
 The distinction is the more remarkable from the 
 next consideration to be adduced, which is, that 
 Paul is so cautious on this point — so resolved not to 
 call Timothy an apostle — that when their names are 
 joined together, as in any sense claiming the same 
 appellation, it is not as apostles, but as servants. 
 Phil. i. 1: "Paul and Timotheus, the servants of 
 Jesus Christ." See, also, 1 Thess. i. 1 ; 2 Thess. i. 1. 
 These considerations put it beyond debate that Timo- 
 thy is not called an apostle in the New Testament. 
 
 The second claim for Timothy is, that he was 
 bishop — that is, prelate — of Ephesus. This is com- 
 monly assumed by Episcopalians as an indisputable 
 or conceded point. Indeed, so confident are they 
 of this, that it is not deemed necessary by them to 
 suggest any arguments in the case, but it is adverted 
 to as if it were among undoubted historical facts. 
 Thus, in one of the latest publications on Episco- 
 pacy, Dr. McCoskry says, "The apostle places him 
 [Timothy] over the church at JEj)hesus, and gives 
 him the power to ordain elders and deacons in the 
 churches, as is evident from his instructions to 
 him." Now this point should be made out, for it 
 is not. one of those which we are disposed by any 
 means to concede. It is to be remembered, too, that 
 it is a point which is to be made out from the New 
 Testament, for our inquiry is, Whether Episcopacy 
 can be defended "by Scripture." Let us see how 
 this matter stands. 
 
05 ORGANIZATION AND GOVERNMENT 
 
 It may be proper here to remark, that the sub- 
 scription at the close of the Second Epistle to Timo- 
 thy* is admitted on all hands to be uninspired, and 
 of no authority in the argument. Assuredly, Paul 
 would not close a letter by seriously stating to Ti- 
 mothy that he wrote "a second epistle" to him, in- 
 forming him that he was " ordained the first bishop 
 of the church of the Ephesians," and that it was 
 "written from Rome when Paul was brought before 
 Nero the second time." None of the subscriptions 
 at the close of the -epistles in the New Testament 
 are of any authority whatever; several of them 
 are undoubtedly false ; and where they happen to be 
 correct, the correctness is to be made out from other 
 considerations than the fact that they are found 
 there. 
 
 Now, how does the case stand in the New Testa- 
 ment with respect to Timothy? What testimony 
 does it afford as to his being "bishop of Ephesus?" 
 A few observations will show what is the real 
 strength of the proof relied on by Episcopalians in 
 the case : 
 
 1. It is admitted that he was not at Ephesus at 
 the time when Paul made his address to the- elders 
 at Miletus. Acts xx. 17-35. Thus, Dr. Onder- 
 donk (Tract, p. 25) says, "Ephesus was without a 
 
 * "The second epistle unto Timotheus, ordained the first 
 bishop of the church of the Ephesians, was written from Rome, 
 when Paul was brought before Nero the second time." 
 
OP THE APOSTOLIC CHURCH. 89 
 
 bishop when Paul addressed the elders, Timothy 
 not having been placed over that church till some 
 time afterward/' Here, then, was one diocese, or 
 one collection of churches, which is admitted to 
 have been constituted without a prelate. The pre- 
 sumption is, that all others were organized in the 
 same way. 
 
 2. The charge which Paul saves to the elders 
 proves that Timothy was not there; and proves fur- 
 ther, that they, at that time, had no prelatical 
 bishops, and that they previously had had none. 
 The}- are charged to take heed to themselves and 
 to all the flock; "to feed" or "to rule" the flock 
 etc. But not one word is to be found of their 
 having then any prelatical bishop; not one word of 
 Timothy as their episcopal leader. Not an exhorta- 
 tion is given to be subject to any prelate; not an 
 intimation that they would ever be called on to re- 
 cognise any such officer. Not one word of lamenta- 
 tion or condolence is expressed, that they were not 
 fully supplied with all proper episcopal authority. 
 Now, all this is inexplicable on the supposition 
 that they were then destitute, and that it was desi- 
 rable that they should be supplied with an officer 
 " superior in ministerial rights and powers." Nay, 
 they are themselves expressly called bishops, without 
 the slightest intimation that there were any higher 
 or more honourable prelates than themselves. Acts 
 xx. 28: "Take heed, therefore, to yourselves, and 
 
90 ORGANIZATION AND GOVERNMENT 
 
 to all the flock over the which the Holy Ghost hath 
 made, you bishops" -*—&mffx6izouq, 
 
 3. It is admitted by non-Episcopalians that Timo- 
 thy subsequently was at Ephesus, and that he was 
 left there for an important purpose by the apostle 
 Paul. This was when he went to Macedonia, 
 1 Tim. i. 3 : " As I besought thee to abide still at 
 Ephesus, when I went into Macedonia, that thou 
 mightest charge some that they teach no other doc- 
 trine, neither give heed to fables and endless ge- 
 nealogies." This is the only intimation in the New 
 Testament, that Timothy was ever at Ephesus at 
 all, except in the incidental statement in Acts xix. 
 22, that he was one of those who had there, in con- 
 nection with Erastus, "ministered" to Paul: "So 
 he [Paul] sent into Macedonia two of them that 
 ministered unto him, Timotheus and Erastus. " It 
 is absolutely certain from this that Timothy was not 
 "bishop" of Ephesus at that time; and if the fact 
 that he was at Ephesus would prove that he was, 
 the statement would prove that Erastus was also. 
 Lt is important, then, to ascertain whether, when he 
 was left there by Paul on his going into Macedonia, 
 he was left there as a, permanent bishop? Now, in 
 settling this, I remark, it is nowhere intimated in 
 the New Testament that he was such a bishop. 
 The passage before us (1 Tim. i. 3) states, that 
 when they were travelling together, Paul left him 
 there, while he himself should go over into Mace- 
 
OF THE APOSTOLIC CHURCB 91 
 
 donia. The object for which he left him is explicitly 
 stated, and that object was not that he should be a 
 permanent prelatical bishop. It is said to be — u to 
 charge some that they teach no other doctrine, nei- 
 ther to give heed to fables and endless genealogies ;" 
 that is, manifestly, to perform a temporary office of 
 regulating certain disorders in the church; of silenc- 
 ing certain false teachers of Jewish extraction ; of 
 producing, in one word, a harmonizing effect which 
 the personal iufluence of the apostle himself might 
 have produced, but for a sudden and unexpected call 
 to Macedonia. Acts xx. 1. Hence, it is perfectly 
 clear that the apostle designed this as a temporary 
 appointment for a specific object, and that object 
 was not to he prelate of the church. Thus he says, 
 1 Tim. iv. 13, " Till I come, give attention to read- 
 ing;" implying that his temporary office was then 
 to cease. Thus, too, referring to the same purpose 
 to return and join Timothy, he says, 1 Tim. iii. 14, 
 15 : " These things I write unto thee, hoping to 
 come unto thee shortly; but, if I tarry long, that 
 thou mightest know how thou oughtest to behave 
 thyself in the house of God;" implying that these 
 directions were particularly to serve him during his 
 appointment to the sp>ecific business of regulating 
 the disordered affairs caused by false teachers, and 
 which might require the discipline of even some of 
 the bishops and deacons of the church, ch. v. vi. 
 These directions, involving general principles in- 
 
92 ORGANIZATION AND GOVERNMENT 
 
 deed, and of value to regulate his whole life, had, 
 nevertheless, a manifest special reference to the 
 cases which might occur there, in putting a period 
 to the promulgation of erroneous doctrines hy Jewish 
 teachers. 
 
 4. The claim that Timothy was bishop of Ephe- 
 sus is one that must be made out by Episcopalians 
 from the New Testament. But this claim has not 
 been made out, nor can it ever be. There is no- 
 where in the New Testament a declaration or an 
 intimation that he was constituted bishop of Ephe- 
 sus. No assertion, so far as the New Testament is 
 concerned, could possibly be more gratuitous than 
 that he was " bishop of Ephesus;" and the wonder 
 is, that such an assertion was ever made as depend- 
 ing on the authority of the New Testament, or that 
 it should continue to be persevered in. Probably, 
 the real ground of confidence in those who continue 
 to make this assertion is the subscription at the 
 close of the Second Epistle to Timothy — a subscrip- 
 tion whose age and author are unknown, and which 
 is destitute of every shadow of authority. 
 
 5. The Epistle to the Ephesians shows further, 
 that at the time when that was written, there was 
 no prelatical bishop at Ephesus. Though, in that 
 epistle, the apostle gives the church various in- 
 structions about the relations which existed, there 
 is not the slightest hint that Timothy was there ; 
 nor is there the least intimation tuat any such 
 
OF THE APOSTOLIC CHURCH. 93 
 
 officer ever had been, or ever would be, set over 
 them. 
 
 The evidence from this epistle deserves more 
 notice than has been usually bestowed upon it, and, 
 taking all the circumstances of the case into con- 
 sideration, is decisive on the question whether the 
 church there had an Episcopal bishop. The cir- 
 cumstances are these : (1.) If Timothy was there 
 as a " bishop" when the epistle was written, it is 
 remarkable that there is no allusion to him in the 
 epistle. A total want of all mention of him would 
 have been an act of discourtesy such as we should 
 not expect from the apostle Paul. (2.) If he had 
 been formerly there and was then absent, it is no 
 less remarkable that no allusion is made to the ab- 
 sent " bishop" of the church. It is difficult to ac- 
 count for it that there is no kind reference to his 
 labours and fidelity j no expression of a wish that 
 the church might soon enjoy his labours again. 
 (3.) If the church was deprived of its bishop, or 
 had none, and this " grade of officers" was essential 
 to the proper organization of the church, then it is 
 equally remarkable that there is no allusion to this 
 fact, and no exhortation to take the proper measures 
 to complete their organization by securing .the ser- 
 vices of one of the " successors of the apostles." 
 (4.) Very specific instructions are given in the 
 epistle to a great variety of persons, but none in 
 relation to the " bishop," or their duties to him. 
 
94 ORGANIZATION AND GOVERNMENT 
 
 Thus, we have special exhortations addressed to the 
 church, ch. iv. ; to husbands and wives, ch. v. 21- 
 23; to children and fathers, ch. vi. 1-4; to ser- 
 vants, ch. vi. 5-8 ; to masters, ch. vi. 9 ; but not 
 one word in regard to the prelate or their duty to 
 him. If it be said here that the same thing is true 
 in regard to all ministers, and that they are not 
 alluded to, the answer is obvious. Paul had given 
 them a solemn charge personally when at Miletus, 
 (Acts xx. 17-35,) and it was not necessary to allude 
 to the subject in the epistle. He had said to them 
 all which it was desirable to say, and no reference, 
 therefore, is made to the subject in the epistle. 
 
 Now, if it cannot be made out that Timothy was 
 bishop of Ephesus, then, in reading Paul's charge to 
 the elders at Miletus, we are to regard them as in- 
 trusted with the care of the church at Ephesus. It 
 is not necessary to our argument at present to in- 
 quire whether they were mere ruliDg elders, or pres- 
 byters ordained to preach as well as to rule. All 
 that is incumbent on us is, to show that the New 
 Testament does not warrant the assumption that 
 they were subject to a diocesan bishop. We affirm, 
 therefore, simply, that Paul addressed them as in- 
 trusted with the spiritual instruction and govern- 
 ment of the church at Ephesus, without any re- 
 ference whatever to any person, either then or after- 
 ward placed over them, as superior in ministerial 
 rights and powers. And this point is conclusively 
 
OF THE APOSTOLIC CHURCH. 95 
 
 established by two additional considerations : — first, 
 that they themselves are expressly called bishops, 
 tztaxoTzouq — a most remarkable appellation, if the 
 apostle meant to have them understand that they 
 were to be under the administration of another bishop 
 of superior ministerial powers and rights ; and, se- 
 cond, that they are expressly intrusted with the whole 
 spiritual charge of the church: " Feed the church 
 of God" — Tcotfiabsat ttjv ixx/.r^iriav x.t.X. But every 
 thing in this case is fully met by the supposition 
 that they were invested with the simple power of 
 ruling. ,No one can deny that the word here used 
 in the instructions of Paul to the elders of Ephesus 
 involves the idea of ruliny or governing. It pro 
 perly means to feed, pasture, guard, defend, tend, 
 as applied to a flock, and refers to all the care 
 which a shepherd would extend over his flock. 
 This includes not merely the feeding, properly so 
 called, but the attention implied in protecting them, 
 guiding them, saving them from danger, from ene- 
 mies, &c. This language, when transferred to the 
 shepherd of souls, the minister of the church, 
 means that he is to exercise a similar care over the 
 flock intrusted to him, the church. The mere busi- 
 ness of counsel and instruction, of preaching and 
 exhortation, does not meet the full sense of the 
 word, any more than the mere business of feeding a 
 flock would embrace all that the word means when 
 applied to a shepherd. See Passow Lex. The 
 
9ff 
 
 ORGANIZATION AND GOVERNMENT 
 
 word is used in the New Testament in the follow- 
 ing places, and translated in the following manner: 
 In Matt. ii. 6, Rev. ii. 27, xii. 5, xix. 15, it is ren- 
 dered rule ; and in Luke xvii. 7, John xxi. 16, Acts 
 xx. 28, 1 Cor. ix. 7, 1 Pet. v. 2, Jude 12, Rev. 
 vii. 17, it is rendered feed. In two of these places 
 (Luke xvii. 7, 1 Cor. ix. 7) it is applied to the 
 literal care of a flock ; and in the others, where it 
 is applied to a people, it involves the idea ^f govern- 
 ment or control over them. The idea which would 
 have been conveyed to the elders of Ephesus by the 
 language employed by Paul would be, that they 
 were to exercise the same care over the church 
 which a shepherd does over his flock, or which a 
 governor does over his people, or which the com- 
 mander of an army does over his army. Every 
 thing involved in control, care, discipline, govern- 
 ment, would be fairly and obviously conveyed by 
 the use of the term. It is the same language which 
 the Saviour used when he addressed Peter, one of 
 the apostles, in regard to the rule which he was to 
 exercise over the church, (John xxi. 16,) and which 
 he afterward himself addressed to the " elders" of 
 the church, ranking himself with them as an elder. 
 (1 Peter v. 2,) — in both places rendered I'feed;" 
 and is language which would not suggest the idea 
 that there was a superior "grade" of ministers over 
 them, and which would not have been used if there 
 had been such a grade. The difficulty implied in 
 
OF THE APOFTOLIC CHURCH. 97 
 
 the use of this word here bj Paul, as addressed to 
 the elders at Ephesus, has been felt by all Episco- 
 palians. Dr. Onderdonk (Tract, p. 24) asserts, in 
 order to meet the difficulty, that the authority of 
 the elders at Ephesus extended only to the " laity,' ' 
 or church members, while Timothy, their bishop, 
 had authority over the clergy. But where is the 
 proof of this ? No such intimation is found in the 
 address of Paul. The authority given them was 
 " to feed, rule, or govern the church" of which they 
 were the " bishops'' — l-iffxarzouq. 
 
 Let us now state the results of our investigation, 
 and dispose of the case of Timothy. It has been 
 shown that he was not an apostle. It has been fur- 
 ther shown that there is no evidence that he was 
 bishop of Ephesus. We have thus destroyed the 
 claim of the permanency of the apostolic office, so 
 far as Timothy is concerned. And we now insist 
 that they who wish to defend Episcopacy by " Scrip- 
 ture" should read the two epistles to Timothy, 
 without the vain and illusory supposition that he 
 was bishop of Ephesus. With this matter clear 
 before us, how stands the case in these two epistles ? 
 I answer, thus : — 
 
 (1.) Timothy was left at Ephesus for a special 
 purpose — to allay contentions, and prevent the 
 spreading of false doctrine. The object for which 
 he was left there is so explicitly stated, that there 
 need be no occasion for ambiguity or doubt : u I be- 
 
 9 
 
98 ORGANIZATION AND GOVERNMENT 
 
 sought thee to abide still at Ephesus, when I went 
 into Macedonia, that thou mightest charge some 
 that they teach no other doctrine, neither gave heed 
 to fables and endless genealogies." 1 Tim. i. 3, 4. 
 The object was not to perform the rite ot' confirma- 
 tion, nor to take the general oversight of a diocese, 
 nor to ordain ministers, nor to administer discipline. 
 None of these things, which are now understood to 
 be the proper functions of prelatical bishops, are 
 alluded to or hinted at. It was to make use of his 
 influence, under the authority of the apostle, to pre- 
 vent the propagation of error, and to maintain the 
 truth — a work which would fall in with the proper 
 functions of any minister of the gospel. In this, 
 assuredly, there was nothing that claimed peculiarly 
 episcopal authority and rank, for it is not even now 
 claimed as one of the peculiar rights of Episcopal 
 bishops. 
 
 (2.) It is not intimated or implied that Timothy 
 was ordained, constituted, or appointed there at all. 
 The language is, " I besought thee to abide still at 
 Ephesus when I went into Macedonia." The fact 
 in the case was, that Paul and Timothy had been 
 labouring there conjointly. Neither of them was 
 bishop of the place. Paul was himself called to go 
 to Macedonia, but he felt that it was important for 
 one of them to remain at Ephesus for a time, and 
 he " besought" Timothy to do it. Had it not been 
 for this request of Paul, Timothy would have gone 
 
OF THE APOSTOLIC CHURCH. 99 
 
 with him as a matter of course j that is, if he was 
 the "bishop" of Ephesus, he would have gone off 
 with the apostle — would have left his diocese — ■ 
 would have travelled to another part of the world ; 
 and it was only by the earnest exhortation of the 
 apostle Paul that this "prelate" was induced to re- 
 main and attend to the appropriate functions of his 
 episcopate. If Timothy was such a " bishop" as 
 this, he set a bad example to his " apostolical suc- 
 cessors." There are very few Presbyterian pastors 
 who would have needed the exhortation of an 
 apostle to remain and attend to the proper duties of 
 his own charge. 
 
 (3.) This arrangement, as appears from the 
 epistles, and as proved above, was to be temporary. 
 Thus, Paul says that he left him there, not to be a 
 permanent bishop of the church, but " that he might 
 charge some that they teach no other doctrine." So 
 far as the terms of this commission go, as soon as he 
 had in a proper way delivered this charge, and so 
 settled matters that there would not be danger that 
 the erroneous doctrine would be taught, he would 
 be at liberty to change the place of his labours. 
 That this was designed to be a temporary arrange- 
 ment, and not a permanent appointment to the 
 office of a prelate, is further manifest from another 
 statement in the epistle itself, (ch. iii. 14, 15:) 
 " These things write I unto thee, hoping to come 
 unto thee shortly: but if I tarry long, that thou 
 
100 ORGANIZATION AND GOVERNMENT 
 
 majest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself 
 in the house of God." Here it is evident that, 
 whatever was the reason why the apostle was sepa- 
 rated from him on this occasion, he expected that 
 the cause would soon cease, and that their united 
 labours would soon be resumed as before. Timothy 
 was young and inexperienced, and Paul gave him 
 such directions as would aid him in the work which 
 was for a time intrusted to him. But suppose that 
 Timothy was the permanent bishop of Ephesus : 
 how incongruous and improper would it have been 
 for Paul to say that he had given him instructions 
 that would be adapted to direct him during his own 
 temporary absence, and that he hoped soon to re- 
 turn to him again. — The same thing is implied in 
 ch. iv. 13, of this same epistle : "Till I come, give 
 attendance to reading, to exhortation, to doctrine." 
 Why is the phrase " till 1 come" inserted, if Timothy 
 was the established prelatical bishop over Ephesus? 
 How can it be explained, except on the supposition 
 that Paul regarded their separation as temporary, 
 and that he supposed they would again resume 
 their joint labours as they had done before, without 
 either of them having any especial jurisdiction over 
 Ephesus or any other "diocese"? 
 
 (4.) Timothy, as appears from the epistles, was 
 intrusted with the right of ordination, and with the 
 authority of government in the church, just as all 
 ministers of the gospel are. He is charged, indeed, 
 
OF THE APOSTOLIC CHURCH. 101 
 
 to "lay hands suddenly on no man," (1 Tim. v. 22;) 
 to " commit the things which he had heard of Paul 
 among many witnesses, to faithful men who should 
 be able to teach others also," (2 Tim. ii. 2;) to "put 
 the brethren in remembrance of these things," 
 (1 Tim. iv. 6;) to " charge some that they taught 
 no other doctrine," (1 Tim. i. 3;) not to "receive 
 ah accusation against an elder, but before two or 
 three witnesses," (1 Tim. v. 19;) and not to "rebuke 
 an elder, but to entreat him as a father." 1 Tim. 
 v. 1. These are all the specifications to be found 
 in the epistles to Timothy, showing that Timothy 
 had the right of ordaining or of governing the 
 church intrusted to him at all, and there is not a 
 syllable in them that contains any thing peculiar to 
 the supposed office of a prelatical bishop, or that im- 
 plies that Timothy had any such office. They are 
 just such directions as would be given to any minis- 
 ter of the gospel authorized to preach, to ordain, to 
 administer the ordinances of the church and its dis- 
 cipline — just such as are, in fact, given now to men 
 who hold to the doctrine of ministerial parity. The 
 " charges" which are given to Presbyterian and 
 Congregational ministers at their ordination are 
 almost uniformly couched in the same language 
 which is used by Paul in addressing Timothy; nor 
 is there any thing in those epistles which may not 
 be, and which is not in fact, often addressed to 
 ministers on such occasions. With just as much 
 
 9* 
 
102 ORGANIZATION AND GOVERNMENT 
 
 propriety might some antiquary hereafter — some 
 future advocate for Episcopacy — collect together 
 the charges now given to ministers, and appeal to 
 them as proof that the Presbyterian and Congrega- 
 tional churches in this country were Episcopal, as 
 to appeal now to the epistles to Timothy to prove 
 that he was a prelate. 
 
 5.) The work which Timothy was to perform, 
 even in Ephesus, is accurately defined : " Watch 
 thou in all things ; endure afflictions ; do the work 
 of an evangelist ; make full proof of thy ministry." 
 Here Timothy is expressly addressed as an evan- 
 gelist. This was his appropriate business ; this, his 
 ofiice. There is no direction to exercise any of the 
 peculiar functions of a prelatical bishop ; there is 
 that he should be faithful in performing the work 
 of an evangelist. How remarkable, if he was a 
 " successor'' of the apostles in the peculiarity of 
 their office, that the apostle should limit his in- 
 structions to his faithfully performing the compara- 
 tively humble duties of an evangelist I 
 
 (6.) The epistles themselves contain evidence of 
 the falsehood of the supposition that there was an 
 order of men superior to the presbyters in " minis- 
 terial powers and rights. " There are but two 
 orders of ministers spoken of or alluded to in them — 
 bishops and deacons. Let the emphatic remark of 
 Dr. Onderdonk here be borne in mind, (Tract, 
 p. 12 :) " All that we read in the New Testament 
 
OF THE APOSTOLIC CHURCH. 10S 
 
 concerning 'bishops,' is to be regarded as pertain- 
 ing to the 'middle grade;" i.e. nothing in these 
 epistles or elsewhere, where this term is used, ha? 
 any reference to a rank of ministers superior in 
 ministerial powers and rights," The case, then, by 
 the supposition of the Episcopalians, is this : Two 
 epistles are addressed by an apostle to a successor 
 of the apostles, designated as such, and both of 
 which are intended to perpetuate the same rank 
 and powers. These epistles are designed to instruct 
 Timothy in the organization and. government of the 
 churches. They contain ample information, and 
 somewhat protracted discussions, on the following 
 topics : The office of a presbyter ; the qualifications 
 for that office ; the office of the deacons ; the quali- 
 fications for that office ; the qualifications of deacons' 
 wives; the proper discipline of an elder; the quali- 
 fications of those who were to be admitted to the 
 office of deaconesses ; the duties of masters and ser- 
 vants ; the duties of laymen ; the duties of Chris- 
 tian females. Nay, they contain directions about 
 the apostle's cloak and parchments, (2 Tim. iv. 13;) 
 but, from the beginning to the end, not one syllable 
 occurs respecting the existence of a grade of officers 
 in the church superior " in ministerial rights and 
 powers;" not a word about their qualifications, or 
 about the mode of ordaining or consecrating them, 
 or about Timothy's fraternal intercourse with his 
 brother prelates; nothing about the subjection of 
 
104 ORGANIZATION AND GOVERNMENT 
 
 the priesthood to them, or about their peculiar 
 functions of confirmation and superintendence. In 
 one word, taking these epistles by themselves, no 
 man would dream that there were any such officers 
 in existence. I ask, now, whether any candid 
 reader of the New Testament can believe that there 
 were any such officers, and that two epistles could 
 have been written, in these circumstances, without 
 the slightest allusion to their existence or powers ? 
 Credat Judseus Apella* Can there be found now, 
 among all the charges which Episcopal bishops 
 have given to their clergy, any two in which there 
 shall not be found some allusion to the " primitive 
 and apostolic order" of bishops in the churches? 
 It remains far our eyes to be blessed with the sight 
 of one Episcopal charge, reminding us in this re- 
 spect of the charges of Paul to Timothy. The re- 
 marks of Archbishop Whately in relation to this 
 are so forcible and appropriate, that it may be pro- 
 per to insert them here. " It is plainly recorded, " 
 says he, " that they (the apostles) did establish 
 churches wherever they introduced the gospel ; that 
 they ordained elders in every city, and the apostles 
 again delegated this office to others ; that they did 
 administer the rite of baptism to their converts; 
 and that they celebrated the communion of the 
 Lord's supper. And besides the general principles 
 of Christian faith and morality which they sedu- 
 lously set forth, they have recorded the most earnest 
 
OF THE APOSTOLIC CHURCH. 105 
 
 exhortations to avoid ' confusion' in their public 
 worship ; to do ' ail things decently and in order ;' 
 to ' let all things be done to edifying/ and not for 
 vain-glorious display; they inculcate the duty of 
 Christians ' assembling themselves together' for joint 
 worship ; they record distinctly the solemn sanction 
 given to a Christian community ; they inculcate due 
 reverence and obedience to those who ' bear rule' in 
 such a community, with censure of such as walk 
 1 disorderly' and ' cause divisions ;' and they dwell 
 earnestly on the care with which Christian Minis- 
 ters, both male and female, should be selected, and 
 on the zeal, and discretion, and blameless life re- 
 quired in them, and on their solemn obligation to 
 < exhort, rebuke, and admonish :' yet with all this, 
 they do not record even the number of distinct orders 
 of them, or the functions appropriated to each, or 
 the degree, and kind, and mode of control they 
 exercised in the churches."* 
 
 (7.) One other consideration may be added here, 
 which is conclusive as to the question whether 
 Timothy was the permanent prelatical bishop of 
 Ephesus. It is, that it is certain that he did not 
 remain permanently in that city. The only evi- 
 dence that he was ever there at all is the statement 
 in the Acts of the Apostles, (ch. xix. 22,) that he, 
 in connection with Erastus, had then " ministered" 
 
 * Kingdom of Christ Delineated, Essay II. $ 10. 
 
106 ORGANIZATION AND GOVERNMENT 
 
 unto Paul, and the statement in 1 Tim. i. 3, that 
 when Paul went into Macedonia, he left him there 
 for a temporary purpose. I now remark, that there 
 is the most conclusive proof that he did not long 
 remain there. He was with the apostle at Rome 
 during his first imprisonment, and united with him 
 in the letters to the Colossians, Philippians, and to 
 Philemon. Col. i. 1 ; PhiLi. 1; Philem. 1. He was 
 with him in Corinth when the Epistle to the Romans 
 was written. Rom. xvi. 21 ; comp. ch. xvi. 1, 23 ; 
 2 Tim. iv. 20. He had been recently imprisoned, 
 probably at Rome, when the Epistle to the Hebrews 
 was written. Heb«. xiii. 23. There is proof that he 
 was not at Ephesus when the Second Epistle to him 
 was written, for in ch. iv. 12, Paul informs him that 
 he "had sent Tychicus to Ephesus" — a kind of in- 
 formation which Paul would not have given if 
 Timothy had been there himself at the time j and 
 from the following verse it is evident that at the 
 time when this epistle was written, Timothy was 
 supposed to be at Troas : "The cloak which I 
 left at Troas, when thou comest, bring with thee/' 
 How little does all this look as if Timothy were the 
 permanent bishop of Ephesus ! A man who is 
 never mentioned as being there but for a temporary 
 purpose; who received no charge, even in a letter 
 addressed to him there, but such as might be given 
 to any minister of the gospel ; who is repeatedly 
 mentioned as being elsewhere united with Paul in 
 
OF THE APOSTOLIC CHURCH. 107 
 
 his toils and trials ; and of whom there is no inti- 
 mation that he ever did return, or ever would re- 
 turn, for any purpose whatever ! Such is the strong 
 case on which so much reliance is placed in sus- 
 taining the enormous fabric of Episcopacy in the 
 world ! 
 
 We may now take our leave of the case of Ti- 
 mothy. The case of Titus, the next in order, can 
 be despatched in fewer words. The argument in 
 defence of the claim respecting Titus does not vary 
 materially from that used in reference to Timothy. 
 The only point which requires a moment's examina- 
 tion, in addition to what has been said in the case 
 of Timothy, is the purpose for which he was left at 
 Crete. Titus i. 5 : " For this cause left I thee in 
 Crete, that thou shouldst set in order the things 
 that are wanting, and ordain elders in every city as 
 I have appointed thee." The claim of Episco- 
 palians here is, that this* indicates such a perse- 
 verance in the " distinction between elders and a 
 grade superior to them," as proves that it was 
 "to be a permanent arrangement." In other 
 words, Titus was to be a permanent bishop of Crete, 
 Buperior to the elders " in ministerial rights and 
 powers." This claim it is necessary for them to 
 establish from the New Testament. If there are 
 any intimations that it was not designed to be per- 
 manent, they will be fatal to the argument. We 
 affirm, then, in opposition to this claim, that the 
 
108 ORGANIZATION AND GOVERNMENT 
 
 case is fully met by the supposition that Titus, in 
 Crete, was an extraordinary officer, like Timothy 
 at Ephesus, appointed for a specific purpose. For, 
 (1.) The appointment itself looks as if this was the 
 design. Paul had himself commenced a work there, 
 which, from some cause, he was unable to complete. 
 That work he left Titus to finish. As it cannot be 
 pretended that Paul had any purpose of becoming 
 the permanent bishop of Crete, so it cannot be that 
 Titus's being left to complete what Paul had begun 
 is proof that he expected that Titus would be per- 
 manent bishop. An appointment to complete a 
 work which is begun by another, when the original 
 designer did not contemplate a permanent employ- 
 ment, cannot surely be adduced in proof of a per- 
 manent office. If I am employed to complete an 
 edifice which is commenced, it does not suppose 
 that I am to labour at it all my life; still less, that 
 I am to. have successors ^n the undertaking. This 
 passage, to most unbiassed minds, would imply that 
 Paul expected Titus, after having completed what 
 he had left him to do, to leave the island of Crete, 
 and accompany him in his travels. (2.) That this 
 was the fact — that he had no expectation that Titus 
 would be a permanent bishop of Crete, superior in 
 " ministerial rights and powers" — is perfectly appa- 
 rent from the direction in the same epistle, (ch. iii. 
 12 :) " When I shall send Artemas unto thee, oi 
 Tychicus, be diligent to come unto me at Nicopolis." 
 
OF THE APOSTOLIC CHURCH. 109 
 
 Here we find conclusive proof that the arrangement 
 respecting Titus in Crete was designed to be tempo- 
 rary. To suppose the contrary is to maintain a 
 position in the very face of the directions of the 
 apostle. Every thing in the case shows that he 
 v~as an extraordinary officer, appointed for a specific 
 purpose ; and that when that work was effected, 
 which the apostle supposed would be soon, he was 
 to resume his station as his travelling companion 
 and fellow-labourer. (3.) That this was the yeneral 
 character of Titus — that he was regarded by Paul 
 as his companion, and as a very valuable assistant 
 to him in his travels — is further apparent from 
 2 Cor. ii. 12, 13 ; vii. 6-13. In the former of these 
 passages he says, that he expected to meet him at 
 TroaSy and intimates that his presence and help 
 were very necessary for him: "When I came to 
 Troas to preach Christ's gospel, and a door was 
 opened unto me of the Lord, I had no rest in my 
 spirit, because I found not Titus my brother." In 
 the latter place, (2 Cor. vii. 6-13,) we find him the 
 companion of the apostle Paul in Philippi : " There- 
 fore we were comforted in your comfort : yea, and 
 exceedingly the more joyed we for the joy of Titus, 
 because his spirit was refreshed by you all." Again, 
 (2 Cor. xii. 18,) we find him employed on a special 
 embassy to the church in Corinth, in respect to the 
 collection for the poor saints at Jerusalem: "I de- 
 sired Titus," [that is, to go to them to receive the 
 
 10 
 
110 ORGANIZATION AND GOVERNMENT 
 
 collection for the poor saints at Jerusalem,] and 
 with him I sent a brother. Did Titus make a gain 
 of you?" Comp. Rom. xv. 26. And again, we 
 find him on a mission to Dalmatia, (2 Tim. iv. 10 :) 
 " Demas hath forsaken me, having loved this pre- 
 sent world, and is departed unto Thessalonica ; 
 Crescens to Galatia, Titus unto Dalmatia." As- 
 suredly, these various migrations and employments 
 do not appear as if he was designed by the apostle 
 to be the permanent prelatical bishop of Crete. 
 (4.) It is to be presumed that Titus regarded the 
 apostolic mandate to come to him at Nicopolis, 
 (Titus iii. 12 ;) that he left Crete in accordance 
 with Paul's request; and as there is no intimation 
 in the New Testament that he ever returned there, 
 and as indeed there is not the slightest proof any- 
 where that he permanently resided there, or that he 
 died there, we come to the conclusion that he was 
 employed for a temporary purpose, and that, having 
 accomplished it, he resumed his situation as the 
 companion of Paul. Comp. Gal. ii. 1. It must be 
 admitted, on all hands, that the Episcopalian can- 
 not prove the contrary. Since, moreover, our sup- 
 position meets all the circumstances of the case, 
 and we are able to show that this was the general 
 character of the labours of Titus, we may dismiss his 
 case also. 
 
 The last argument of Episcopalians to prove the 
 "apostolical succession" is derived from the epistles 
 
OF THE APOSTOLIC CHURCH. Ill 
 
 to the seven churches of Asia. Rev. ii. iii. This 
 argument is embodied in the following position : 
 "Each of those churches is addressed, not through 
 its clergy at large, but through its t angel/ or 
 chief officer; this alone is a very strong argument 
 against parity in favour of Episcopacy." "One 
 of those churches is Ephesus; and when we read 
 concerning its angel, 'thou hast tried them which 
 say they are apostles, and are not, and hast found 
 them liars/ do we require further evidence that 
 what Timothy, the chief officer there, was in the 
 year 65, in regard to the supreme right of disci- 
 pline over the clergy, the same was its chief officer 
 when this book was written, in 96?" The singular 
 number, it is added, is used emphatically in the 
 address to each of the angels, and "the individual 
 called 'the angel' is, in each case, identified with 
 his church, and his church with him." 
 
 The force of this argument can be founded only 
 on the supposition that the epistles to those churches 
 are addressed to an individual called "the angel of 
 the church," and that this individual could be no 
 other than a prelatical bishop. It is indispensable 
 that each of these points should be made out, or 
 the argument is worthless. It will not do to ar- 
 gue, because Timothy was once left by Paul in 
 Ephesus, in the year "65," that therefore there 
 was a "bishop" there in "96." We have seen 
 that Timothy did not long remain there; that he 
 
112 ORGANIZATION AND GOVERNMENT 
 
 was subsequently with the apostle Paul; and there 
 is not the slightest intimation in the New Testa- 
 ment that in that interval of thirty-one years a 
 " successor'' was appointed. Whence, then, is the 
 ground of the inference that thirty-one years after- 
 ward, thiu individual, addressed as "the angel of 
 the church," was the " successor" of Timothy? The 
 argument from the "angels" of the seven churches, 
 so strenuously urged and defended by Episcopalians, 
 involves also the following assumptions : — 
 
 (1.) That there was an inferior body of clergy- 
 men, called " clergy at large." t Assuming this 
 point, it would not be difficult to make out an argu- 
 ment from the address "to the angel." But this is 
 a point to be proved, not to be assumed. Where is 
 there found, in the New Testament, an intimation 
 of the existence of an order of "clergy at large" 
 in these churches? In the epistles themselves, 
 there is not the slightest hint of the existence of 
 any such personages distinct from " the angels." 
 Nay, the very style of address is strong presump- 
 tion that there were not any such inferior clergy- 
 men. The only mention which occurs is of the 
 angel and the church. We hear nothing of an in- 
 termediate order; nothing of any supremacy of 
 "the angel" over "the clergy at large;" not the 
 least intimation of any duty to be performed by the 
 supposed prelatical "angel," toward the inferior 
 presbyters. Why is all reference to them omitted, 
 
OP THE APOSTOLIC CHURCH. 113 
 
 if thej had any existence? Is it customary, in ad- 
 dressing " bishops" now, to omit all reference to 
 their duties over the inferior " clergy at large"? 
 This is a point of too much consequence to be left 
 unguarded; and accordingly the rights and duties 
 of the order which is regarded' as superior a in 
 ministerial rights and powers" are sedulously marked 
 out and inculcated. 
 
 (2.) It must be assumed, in this argument, that 
 there were in each of those cities more churches 
 than one; that there was a circle or confederation 
 of churches, which would answer to the modern 
 notion of a "diocese," over which "the clergy at 
 large," of inferior "ministerial rights and powers," 
 might exercise a modified jurisdiction. If this 
 is not assumed, the argument has no force ; since, if 
 there was but one church in each of those cities, 
 the "angel" was not a bishop in the Episcopal 
 sense, but a pastor in the ordinary acceptation of the 
 term. Now this is a point which, in an argument 
 like this, should not be assumed. It should be 
 proved, or at least rendered highly probable, from 
 the New Testament. But there is not the slightest 
 hint of any such divided and scattered diocesam 
 organization. In each instance, the church is ad- 
 dressed as one and undivided. "The angel of the 
 church," not the churches, "of Ephesus," Rev. ii. 1; 
 "The angel of the church in Smyrna," ii. 8; "the 
 angel of the church at Thyatira," ii .18; "the angeL 
 
 10* 
 
114 ORGANIZATION AND GOVERNMENT 
 
 of the church in Sardis," iii. 1, &c. In every in- 
 stance the address is the same. The point of inquiry 
 now is, whether in this address the Saviour meant 
 to intimate that there was a plurality of churches — 
 an ecclesiastical, diocesan organization ? This is a 
 point for Episcopalians to prove, not to assume. 
 The presumption is directly against the Episcopa- 
 lians. It is, that the apostles would not organize 
 separate churches in a single city; and that, if it 
 were done, they would be specified as the churches. 
 Accordingly, we learn that the apostle organized 
 "a church" at Corinth. 1 Cor. i. 1, 2. Thus, also, 
 at Antioch. Acts xiii. 1. Thus, also, at Laodicea. 
 Col. iv. 16. And in the address of Paul to the 
 elders at Miletus, respecting one of the very churches 
 under consideration, that at Ephesus, it is mentioned 
 not as the churches of Ephesus, but as the church. 
 Acts xx. 28 : "Feed the church of God, which he 
 hath purchased with his own blood." When Paul 
 addressed this same church in an epistle, it was 
 directed, not to the churches, but to the saints at 
 Ephesus. Eph. i. 1. But where there were distinct 
 churches organized, there is a specific mention of 
 the fact of the plurality; thus Acts xv. 41: " Paul 
 went through Syria and Cilicia, confirming (i.e. 
 strengthening, establishing) the churches;" Rom. 
 xvi. 4: "the churches of the Gentiles;" 1 Cor. xvi. 
 1 : "the churches of Galatia;" 1 Cor. xvi. 19: "the 
 churches of Asia;" 2 Cor. viii. 1 : "the churches in 
 
OF THE APOSTOLIC CHURCH. 115 
 
 Macedonia." See also, 2 Cor. viii. 19, 23; xi. 8; 
 Gal. i. 22; Rev. i. 4. Now, if it is neither proved 
 that there was a body of " clergy at large," nor that 
 there were separate churches in each of those cities, 
 I ask, what is the force of the argument from this 
 case? How does it bear on the point at issue? 
 What has it to do with the subject? 
 
 (3.) A third assumption, in supposing that this 
 argument is of any force, is, that a "successor" to 
 John himself had already been appointed at Ephe- 
 sus, and that he had actually taken his place. John 
 passed a large part of his long life there. It 
 was from Ephesus that he was banished to Patmos. 
 If there was a prelate at Ephesus, it is morally cer- 
 tain that John was himself the man Indeed, it is 
 inconceivable, almost, that any other should have 
 been raised to the episcopal "throne" in Ephesus, 
 while John was himself there, or should have the 
 right to the peculiar title of " the angel" of the 
 church. It is equally improbable that in the brief 
 interval between the banishment of the apostle and 
 the time of addressing those epistles to the churches 
 in the Book of Revelation, another person should 
 have been appointed to supersede the exiled apostle. 
 And it is equally improbable also that, if it had 
 been so, no special allusion should have been made 
 to this circumstance in the letter addressed to 
 the church at Ephesus. All thgse circumstances 
 are so remarkable as to render it morally certain 
 
116 ORGANIZATION AND GOVERNMENT 
 
 that no such individual as a "prelatical bishop," or 
 a "successor of the apostles/' was addressed under 
 the title of "the angel of the church." 
 
 In reference to the term " angel/' as used in the 
 Apocalypse, I have only to remark, further, that the 
 interpretation which makes it refer to a prelatical 
 bishop is so unnatural and forced, that many Epis- 
 copalians are compelled to abandon it. Thus Still- 
 ingfleet, than whom an abler man, and one whose 
 praise is higher in Episcopal churches, is not to be 
 found among the advocates of prelacy, says, of these 
 angels: " If many thiDgs in the epistles be directed 
 to the angels, but yet so as to concern the whole 
 body, then, of necessity, the angel must be taken as 
 a representative of the whole body; and then, why 
 may not the word angel be taken by way of repre- 
 sentation of the body itself, either of the whole 
 church, or, which is far more probable, of the con- 
 cessors, or order of presbyters, in that church ? We 
 see what miserable, unaccountable arguments those 
 are which are brought for any kind of government 
 from metaphorical or ambiguous expressions, or 
 names promiscuously used." Irenicum. 
 
 Archbishop Whately also abandons the common 
 views of Episcopalians on the subject; and the views 
 of Presbyterians, who regard it as applicable to the 
 pastor of a single church, are sustained by his high 
 authority. He says, "It seems plainly to have been 
 the general, if not the universal, practice of the 
 
OF THE APOSTOLIC CHURCH. 117 
 
 apostles, to appoint over each separate church a single 
 individual as a chief governor, under the title of 
 11 angel" (i. e. messenger or legate from the apostles) 
 or "bishop," t. e. superintendent or overseer. A 
 church and a diocese seem to have been for a con- 
 siderable time co-extensive and identical. And each 
 church or diocese, (and consequently each superin- 
 tendent,) though connected with the rest by the ties 
 of faith and hope and charity, seems to have been 
 (as has been already observed) perfects independ- 
 ent as far as regards any power of control."* 
 
 With one or two additional remarks, I shall dis- 
 miss this point. The first is, that it cannot be argued 
 from the term angel, given to those ministers, that 
 they were Episcopal bishops. That term, as is well 
 known, has no exclusive applicability to a prelate. 
 It is nowhere else applied to the ministers of reli- 
 gion; and its original signification, "a messenger," 
 or its usual application to celestial spirits, has no 
 special adaptedness to an Episcopal bishop. With- 
 out any invidiousness, it may be observed that pre- 
 lates have not usually evinced any such extraordinary 
 sanctity as to appropriate this title to themselves by 
 prescriptive right. The other remark is, that the 
 supposition that these angels were pastors of the 
 churches — presbyters on a parity with each other 
 and with all others — will fully meet every thing 
 
 * Kingdom of Christ Delineated, Essay II. § 20. 
 
118 ORGANIZATION AND GOVERNMENT 
 
 which is said of them in the book of Revelation : 
 for, (1) It is an appropriate appellation to designate 
 them — as messengers sent by God to communicate 
 his will to his people — as appointed to make known 
 his truth; (2) there is no reason to suppose that 
 there was more than one church in each of the cities 
 referred to, and it is indispensable for the friend 
 of prelacy to prove that there was, before he can 
 assume that this term was not used to designate a 
 pastor in the ordinary sense of that term; (3) it is 
 a term which would designate the respect in which 
 the office was to be held ; (4) it would impress upon 
 those to whom it was applied a solemn sense of their 
 responsibility; and (5) it would be more appro- 
 priately applied to the pastor of a single church 
 than to a prelatical bishop — to the tender, intimate, 
 endearing relation of a pastor with his people — to 
 the blending of sympathy, interest, and affection, 
 where he is with them continually, meets them each 
 week in the sanctuary, administers to them the 
 bread of life, goes into their abodes when they are 
 afflicted, and attends their kindred to the grave, — 
 than to the union subsisting between the people of 
 an extended diocese and a prelate — to the formal, 
 unfrequent, and, in many instances, stately and 
 pompous, visitations of a diocesan bishop — to the 
 cold and distant connection between a people scat- 
 tered into many churches, who are visited at inter- 
 vals of a year or more by one claiming "a superiority 
 
OF THE APOSTOLIC CHURCH. 119 
 
 in ministerial rights and powers/' robed in lawn, 
 and with the crosier and mitre, as emblematical of 
 office, state, and power, and one who must be a 
 stranger to the ten thousand tender ties of endear- 
 ment which bind the hearts of a pastor and his peo- 
 ple together. The appellation thus given to a pastor 
 of a church speaks the sentiments of our hearts, as 
 respects the union of a pastor and people. And 
 while I would not allow myself to speak with disre- 
 spect of the episcopal office, it cannot but be felt 
 that the language of the Saviour, addressed through 
 the mild and gentle John to the churches of Asia, 
 breathes far more of the endearing " identity" of 
 the pastoral relation, than it does of the compara- 
 tively cold and distant functions of one who, in all 
 other lands but this, has been invested with his 
 office by the imposing ceremony of enthroning, and 
 who has borne, less as badges of affection than of 
 authority, the crosier and the mitre. 
 
 As a proper conclusion, in regard to the claims 
 of " bishops" to a superiority of rank among the 
 clergy, it may be proper to state, in few words, what 
 is the meaning of the term as it is used in the New 
 Testament : 
 
 The word. Itzmjxotztj — episcope — whence the word 
 episcopal is derived, occurs but four times in the 
 New Testament. It is translated visitation in Luke 
 xix. 44, and in 1 Pet. ii. 12; bishopric, Acts i. 20; 
 and in this place, office of a bishop. The verb from 
 
120 ORGANIZATION AND GOVERNMENT 
 
 which it is derived (J.m<r/.ox£.io) occurs but twice. 
 In Heb. xii. 15, it is rendered looking diligently, 
 and in 1 Pet. v. 2, taking the oversight. The noun 
 rendered bishop occurs in Acts xx. 28; Phil. i. Ij 
 1 Tim. iii. 2; Titus i. 7; 1 Pet. ii. 25. The verb 
 means, properly, to look upon, behold, to inspect, 
 to look after, see to, take care of; and the noun de- 
 notes the office of overseeing, inspecting, or looking 
 to. It is used to denote the care of the sick, (Xeno. 
 (Eg. 15, 9; comp. Passow ;) and it is of so general 
 a character, that it may denote any office of over- 
 seeing or attending to. ' There is nothing in the 
 word itself which would limit it to any class or 
 grade of the ministry, and it is, in fact, applied to 
 nearly all the officers of the church in the New 
 Testament, and, indeed, to Christians who did not 
 sustain any office. Thus it is applied (a) to be- 
 lievers in general, directing them to "look dili- 
 gently, lest any one should fail of the grace of God," 
 Heb. xii. 15; (b) to the elders of the church at 
 Ephesus, "over the which the Holy Ghost hath 
 made you overseers," Acts xx. 28; (c) to the elders 
 or presbyters of the church, in 1 Pet. v. 2, "Feed 
 the flock of God, taking the oversight thereof;" (77) 
 to the officers of the church in Philippi, mentioned 
 in connection with deacons as the only officers of 
 the church there, — "to the saints at Philippi, with 
 the bishops and deacons/' Phil. i. 1; (e) to Judas, 
 the apostate, Acts i. 20; and (/) to the great Head 
 
OF THE APOSTOLIC CHURCH. 121 
 
 of the church, the Lord Jesus Christ, "the Shep- 
 herd and Bishop of your souls." 1 Pet. ii. 25. 
 From this use of the term, it follows : (1.) That the 
 word is never used to denote the peculiarity of the 
 apostolic office, or so as to have any special applica- 
 bility to the apostles. Indeed, the term bishop is 
 never applied to any of them in the New Testament; 
 nor is the word in any of its forms ever used with 
 reference to them, except in the single case of 
 Judas. Acts i. 20. (2.) It is never employed in 
 the New Testament to designate an order of men 
 superior to presbyters, regarded as having any other 
 functions than presbyters, or being in any sense 
 " successors" to the apostles. It is so used now by 
 the advocates of prelacy, but this is a use wholly 
 unknown to the New Testament. It is so unde- 
 niable that the name is never given in the New 
 Testament to those who are now called " bishops," 
 that even Episcopalians concede it. Thus, Dr. On- 
 derdonk (Tract on Episcopacy, p. 12) says, "All 
 that we read in the New Testament concerning 
 'bishops' is to be regarded as pertaining to the 
 'middle grade;' that is, to those who are now re- 
 garded as 'priests." This is not strictly correct, 
 as is clear from the remarks above respecting what 
 is called the "middle grade;" but it is strictly cor- 
 rect, so far as it affirms that it is never applied to 
 prelates. (3.) It is used in the New Testament to 
 denote ministers of the gospel who had the care or 
 
 11 
 
122 ORGANIZATION AND GOVERNMENT 
 
 oversight of churches, without any regard to grade 
 or rank. (4.) It has now, as used by Episcopalians, 
 a sense which is wholly unauthorized by the New 
 Testament, and which, indeed, is entirely at vari- 
 ance with the usage there. To apply the term to a 
 pretended superior order of clergy, as designating 
 their peculiar office, is wholly to depart from the 
 use of the word as it occurs in the Bible. (5.) As 
 it is never used in the Scriptures with reference to 
 prelates, it should be used with reference to the 
 pastor or other officers of the church j and to be a 
 pastor or overseer of the flock of Christ should be 
 regarded as being a scriptural bishop. 
 
 I have now considered all that Episcopalians rely 
 on from the Scriptures, in vindication of the exist- 
 ence of such an order of men as prelatical bishops. 
 It will be remembered that the burden of proof lies 
 on them. They advance a claim which is indispen- 
 sable to the existence of their ecclesiastical polity. 
 These are the arguments on which they rely. 
 Whether these arguments authorize the tone of as- 
 sumption which we not unfrequently hear; whether 
 they are such as to justify the advocates of prelacy 
 in the language which they sometimes use when 
 speaking of those out of the pale of their denomina- 
 tion, as left to "the uncovenanted mercies of God;" 
 whether they are such as to prompt, legitimately, to 
 a very frequent reference to "the primitive and 
 apostolic order" of the ministry, or to the modest 
 
OF THE APOSTOLIC CHURCH. 123 
 
 use of the term "the Church" with an exclusive 
 reference to themselves, — must now be left to the 
 judgment of my readers. 
 
 The point which I proposed to consider in regard 
 to the claims of their "bishop" I conceive to be 
 settled. If Episcopalians cannot make good their 
 pretensions in reference to this office, it follows, of 
 course, that the ministers of the gospel are on an 
 equality. The whole argument is concentrated in 
 this claim. We take our stand here. It is admit- 
 ted on all hands that there is somewhere in the 
 church a right to ordain. Episcopalians, with sin- 
 gular boldness — in not a few instances with pro- 
 fessed, and in all with real exclusiveness — maintain 
 that this power lies only in the bishop. They ad- 
 vance a claim to certain rights and powers; and if 
 that is not made out, the argument is at an end. 
 If, from the authority of the New Testament, they 
 cannot succeed in dividing the ministers of religion 
 into various ranks and orders, it follows that they 
 remain on an equality. 
 
 On this point, also, they are compelled, as we 
 conceive, to admit the whole of our argument. So 
 manifest is it that the sacred writers knew of no 
 such distinction; that they regarded all ministers of 
 the gospel as on a level; that they used the same 
 name in describing the functions of all; that they 
 addressed all as having the same episcopal or pas- 
 toral supervision, — that even Episcopalians, after no 
 
124 ORGANIZATION AND GOVERNMENT 
 
 small reluctance, are compelled at last to admit it. 
 They are driven to the conclusion that the term 
 hishop in the New Testament does not in a single 
 instance designate any such officer as now claims 
 exclusively that title. Thus, Dr. Onderdonk says 
 that "That name (bishop) is there (i. e. in the New 
 Testament) given to the middle order or presbyters ; 
 and ALL that we read in the New Testament con- 
 cerning 'lishojjs' (including of course the words 
 'overseers' and i oversight] which have the same 
 derivation) is to be regarded as pertaining to that 
 middle grade. It was after the apostolic age that 
 the name 'bishop' was taken from the second order, 
 and appropriated to the first." Tract, p. 12. This 
 admission is of inestimable value. So we believe, 
 and so we teach. We insist, therefore, that the 
 name bisliop should be restored to its primitive 
 standing. If men lay claim to a higher rank than 
 is properly expressed in the New Testament by this 
 word, we insist that they should assume the name 
 apostles. As they regard themselves as the " suc- 
 cessors" of the apostles, as they claim that Timo- 
 thy, Titus, Andronicus, and Junia were apostles, 
 why should not the name be retained ? The Chris- 
 tian community could then better appreciate the 
 force of their claims, and understand the nature of 
 the argument. I venture to say, that if the name 
 "apostles'' were assumed by those who claim to be 
 their successors, the Christian world would soon dis- 
 
OF THE APOSTOLIC CHURCH. 125 
 
 abuse itself of the belief of the scriptural authority 
 of any such class of men. "We admit that if "the 
 thing sought" were to be 'found in the Scriptures, 
 it would not be worth while to engage in a contro- 
 versy about the mere name. But we maintain that 
 the fact here conceded is strong presumptive proof 
 that "the thing sought" is not there. The name, 
 therefore, should be given up, for it is conceded by 
 Episcopalians that it does not anywhere in the 
 New Testament designate any such class of men as 
 are now clothed with the episcopal office. 
 
 I remark, further, that the thing itself is practi- 
 cally abandoned by Episcopalians themselves; and 
 an Episcopal ordination is, in fact, merely a Presby- 
 terian ordination j and it is this fact, and not the 
 fact that it is done by a prelate claiming to be the 
 "successor" of the apostles, which gives to such an 
 ordination all its validity, for even ordination is 
 never performed in the Episcopal Church by the 
 "bishop" alone. In the "Form and Manner of 
 Ordering Priests/' the following direction is given : 
 "The bishop with the priests [presbyters] present 
 shall lay their hands severally upon the head of 
 every one that receiveth the order of priesthood; 
 the receivers humbly kneeling, and the bishop say- 
 ing: Receive the Holy Ghost, for the office and 
 work of a priest in the church of God now com- 
 mitted unto thee by the imposition of our hands." 
 There is indeed among them a difference of opinion 
 
 11* 
 
126 ORGANIZATION AND GOVERNMENT 
 
 about the reason why this is done. One portion 
 regards the bishop as the only source of authority.* 
 Others suppose that the act of the presbyters ex- 
 presses the assent and confidence of the churches. 
 But, whichever opinion is maintained, it is, in fact, 
 a Presbyterian ordination. If not, it is an unmean- 
 ing and idle ceremony, and the presence of the 
 presbyters is mere pageantry and pomp. 
 
 Who can resist the impression, that if the New 
 Testament had been the only authority appealed to 
 in other times, Episcopacy would long since have 
 ceased to urge its claims, and have sunk away with 
 other unauthorized dynasties and dominations from 
 the notice of mankind? On the basis which has 
 been now examined, this vast superstructure — this 
 system which has heretofore spread over the entire 
 Christian world — this system which has always ad- 
 vanced most arrogant claims, has been reared. The 
 world, for ages, has been summoned to submit to 
 various modifications of the episcopal power. The 
 world, with the single exceptions of the Waldenses 
 and Albigenses, did for ages submit to its authority. 
 The prelatical domination rose on the ruins of the 
 liberties of cities, states, and nations, till the power 
 of the whole Christian world was concentrated in 
 the hands of one man — "the servant of the servants 
 of God!" The exercise of that power in his hands 
 
 * Hooker's Eccl. Pol., book vii. § 6. 
 
OF THE APOSTOLIC CHURCH. l27 
 
 is well known. Equally arrogant have been its 
 claims in other modifications. That power was felt 
 in the days when Puritan piety rose to bless man- 
 kind and to advance just notions of civil and reli- 
 gious liberty. Streams of blood have flowed, and 
 tears of anguish have been shed, and thousands of 
 holy men have been doomed to poverty, want, and 
 imprisonment, as the result of those claims to supre- 
 macy in the church of God. It may surprise those 
 who peruse these pages to learn that all the author- 
 ity from the Bible which could be adduced in 
 favour of these enormous claims has now been sub- 
 mitted to their observation. Who can repress 
 melancholy emotions at the thought that such power 
 has been claimed, and such domination exercised by 
 man, on so slender authority as this ! 
 
 It does not accord with the design which I had in 
 view in this argument to go into an examination of 
 the testimony from the Fathers ; nor into an inquiry 
 into the question : What light is thrown upon the 
 doctrine of the " apostolical succession" from the 
 history of the church? It is perfectly clear, how- 
 ever, that there are two points which it is incum- 
 bent for the advocate for such a "succession" to 
 establish. The first is, to demonstrate that, accord- 
 ing to the New Testament, such a " succession" 
 was designed. That point has been examined. 
 The other is, to adduce positive evidence that such 
 a succession has been in fact maintained. To esta- 
 
128 ORGANIZATION AND GOVERNMENT 
 
 blish the claim of prelacy, one of these points is as 
 essential as the other. Without departing, there- 
 fore, materially from the design which I had in 
 view, and in order to show how utterly untenable 
 the claims of prelates are to any such " succession" 
 from the apostles, I may here remark, that should 
 we admit all that Episcopalians claim on the Scrip- 
 ture argument, there is not the slightest proof, as a 
 matter of historical record, that the episcopal office 
 has been transmitted from prelate to prelate to the 
 present time, but that the pretended line has been 
 repeatedly broken. As satisfactory evidence, I ad- 
 duce the following indisputable facts : 
 
 "We are informed by many ancient historians, 
 and very expressly by Bede, in his famous Ecclesi- 
 astical History, 'That at the request of Oswald, 
 King of Northumberland, certain presbyters came 
 (in the seventh century) from Scotland into Eng- 
 land, and ordained bishops; that the abbot, and 
 other presbyters of the island of Hy, sent Aydan 
 for this express purpose, declaring him to be worthy 
 of the office of bishop, and that he ought to be sent 
 to instruct the unbelieving and the unlearned.' He 
 informs us, that 'those presbyters ordained him and 
 sent him to England on this errand; and that Finan, 
 sent from the same monastery in the same island, 
 succeeded him in the episcopal office, after having 
 been ordained by the Scottish presbyters.' " 
 
 Upon this testimony of Bede, Baxter remarks, 
 
OF THE APOSTOLIC CHURCH. 129 
 
 "You will find that the English had a succession 
 of bishops by the Scottish presbyter's ordination; 
 and there is no mention in Bede of any dislike 
 or scruple of the lawfulness of this course. The 
 learned Dr. Doddridge refers us to Bede and Jones 
 to substantiate the fact, that 'the ordination of Eng- 
 lish bishops cannot be traced up to the Church of 
 Home as its original; that in the year 668, the suc- 
 cessors of Austin, the monk, (who came over A. D. 
 596,) being almost extinct, by far the greater part 
 of the bishops were of Scottish ordination, by Ay- 
 dan and Finan, who came out of the Culdee monas- 
 tery of Columbanus, and were no more than 'presby- 
 ters? 
 
 "And is it verily so, that the episcopal blood was 
 thus early and extensively contaminated in Eng- 
 land? Is it verily so, that when the effects of pious 
 Austin's labours had become almost imperceptible, 
 the sinking church was revived again by sending 
 to Scotland for presbyters to come and ordain a mul- 
 titude of bishops? Then it is verily a fact, that 
 Presbyterian ordination is one of the sturdiest pillars 
 that support the vast fabric of the Church of Eng- 
 land. No matter if only ten bishops were thus 
 ordained, the contamination, (if it be one,) having 
 been imparted more than eleven hundred years a<jo, 
 has had a long time to diffuse itself, and doubtless 
 has diffused itself so extensively from bishop to 
 bishop, that not a single prelate in Great Britain 
 
130 ORGANIZATION AND GOVERNMENT 
 
 can prove that he has escaped the infection. For 
 what one of them can tell if he was not consecrated 
 by bishops, who were themselves consecrated by 
 bishops, and they by other bishops, to whom all the 
 ordaining power they ever had was transmitted 
 from the presbyters of Scotland ? But this is not 
 the whole of the evil. As no one bishop can trace 
 his episcopal pedigree farther back, perhaps, than 
 two or three centuries, so he cannot certainly know 
 that any presbyter on whose head he has imposed 
 hands has received from him any thing more than 
 Presbyterian ordination. Nor is this all the evil. 
 The Protestant Episcopal bishops and presbyters in 
 America are in the same plight; for all their author- 
 ity came from England. But as the English bish- 
 ops who gave it to them could not then, and cannot 
 now, certainly tell whence it came, so who knows 
 but all the Episcopal clergy in the United States of 
 America are originally indebted to the hands of 
 Elder Aydan and Elder Finan for all their minis- 
 terial powers ? I tremble for all Protestant Episco- 
 pal churches on both continents, if Presbyterian or- 
 dination be not valid and scriptural." 
 
 The point, also, that there may be a lawful ordi- 
 nation without a " bishop," is expressly conceded 
 by Hooker : 
 
 " Now whereas hereupon some do infer that no 
 ordination can stand but only such as is made by 
 bishops, which have had their ordination likewise 
 
OF THE APOSTOLIC CHURCH. 131 
 
 by other bishops before thein, till we come to the 
 very apostles cf Christ themselves; in which respect 
 it was demanded of Beza at Poissie, by what author- 
 ity he could administer the holy sacraments, &c. : 
 to this we answer, that there may be sometimes 
 very just and sufficient reason to allow ordination 
 made without a bishop." 
 
 To these considerations may now be added the 
 remarkable concession of Archbishop Whately, 
 showing the result to which an independent and 
 honest man, though sustaining the highest office in 
 the Episcopal Church, is constrained to come as the 
 result of a careful examination of the whole ques- 
 tion of the " apostolical succession :" 
 
 "Now, what is the degree of satisfactory assurance 
 that is thus afforded to the scrupulous consciences 
 of any members of an Episcopal church ? If a man 
 consider it as highly probable that the particular 
 minister at whose hands he receives the sacred ordi- 
 nances is really thus apostolically descended, this is 
 the very utmost point to which he can, with any 
 semblance of reason, attain : and the more he re- 
 flects and inquires, the more cause for hesitation he 
 will find. There is not a minister in all Christen- 
 dom who is able to trace up, with any approach to 
 certainty, his own spiritual pedigree. The sacra- 
 mental virtue (for such it is that is implied — 
 whether the term be used or not — in the principle 
 I have been speaking of) dependent on the imposi- 
 
132 ORGANIZATION AND GOVERNMENT 
 
 tion of hands, with a due observance of apostolical 
 usages, by a bishop, himself duly consecrated, after 
 having been in like manner baptized into the 
 church, and ordained deacon and priest — this sacra- 
 mental virtue, if a single link of the chain be faulty, 
 must, on the above principles, be utterly nullified 
 ever after in respect of all the links that hang on 
 that one. For if a bishop has not been duly conse- 
 crated, or had not been previously rightly ordained, 
 his ordinations are null ; and so are the ministra- 
 tions of those ordained by him, and their ordination 
 of others, (supposing any of the persons ordained 
 by him to attain to the episcopal office,) and so on, 
 without end. The poisonous taint of informality, 
 if it once creep in undetected, will spread the in- 
 fection of nullity to an indefinite and irremediable 
 extent. 
 
 " And who can undertake to pronounce that 
 during that long period usually designated the Dark 
 Ages no such taint ever was introduced ? Irregu- 
 larities could not have been wholly excluded with- 
 out a perpetual miracle ; and that no such miracu- 
 lous interference existed, we have even historical 
 prdof. Amid the numerous corruptions of doctrine 
 and of practice, and gross superstitions, that crept 
 in during those ages, we find recorded descriptions 
 not only of the profound ignorance and profligacy 
 of life of many of the clergy, but also of the grossest 
 irregularities in respect of discipline and form. We 
 
OF THE APOSTOLIC CHURCH. 133 
 
 read of bishops consecrated when mere children ; 
 of men officiating who barely knew their letters; 
 of prelates expelled and others put in their places 
 by violence j of illiterate and profligate laymen and 
 habitual drunkards admitted to holy orders; and, 
 in short, of the prevalence of every kind of disorder 
 and reckless disregard of the decency which the 
 apostle enjoins. It is inconceivable that any one, 
 even moderately acquainted with history, can feel a 
 certainty, or any approach to certainty, that amid 
 all this confusion and corruption, every requisite 
 form was, in every instance, strictly adhered to by 
 men, many of them openly profane and secular, un- 
 restrained by public opinion, through the gross 
 ignorance of the population among which they 
 lived ; and that no one duly consecrated or ordained 
 was admitted to sacred offices. 
 
 "EvqjQ in later and more civilized and enlightened 
 times, the probability of an irregularity, though very 
 greatly diminished, is yet diminished only, and not 
 absolutely destroyed. Even in the memory of per- 
 sons living, there existed a bishop concerning whom 
 there was so much mystery and uncertainty pre- 
 vailing as to when, where, and by whom he had 
 been ordained, that doubts existed in the mind of 
 many persons whether he had ever been ordained 
 at all. I do not say that there was good ground 
 for the suspicion j but I speak of the fact that it 
 did prevail, and that the circumstances of the case 
 
 12 
 
134 ORGANIZATION AND GOVERNMENT 
 
 were such as to make manifest the possibility of 
 such an irregularity occurring under such circum- 
 stances. 
 
 " Now, let any one proceed on the hypothesis 
 that there are, suppose, but a hundred links con- 
 necting any particular minister with the apostles ; 
 and let him even suppose that not above one-half 
 of this number pass through such periods as admit 
 of any possible irregularity ; and then, placing at the 
 lowest estimate the probability of defectiveness in re- 
 spect of each of the remaining fifty, taken separately, 
 let him consider what amount of probability will 
 result from the multiplying of the whole together.* 
 The ultimate consequence must be, that any one 
 who sincerely believes that his claim to the benefits 
 of the gospel covenant depends on his own minis- 
 ter's claim to the supposed sacramental virtue of 
 true ordination, and this, again, on perfect apos- 
 tolical succession, as above described, must be in- 
 volved — in proportion as he reads, and inquires, and 
 reflects, and reasons on the subject — in the most 
 distressing doubt and perplexity. 
 
 " It is no wonder, therefore, that the advocates 
 
 * Supposing it to be one hundred to one, in each separate 
 case, in favour of the legitimacy and regularity of the trans- 
 mission, and the links to amount to fifty, (or any other num- 
 ber,) the probability of the unbroken continuity of the whole 
 chain must be computed as ffo of ffo of T 9 g 9 ff , <fcc, to the end 
 of the whole fifty. 
 
OF THE APOSTOLIC CHURCH. 135 
 
 of this theory studiously disparage reasoning, de- 
 precate all exercise of the mind in reflection, decry 
 appeals to evidence, and lament that even the 
 power of reading should be imparted to the people. 
 It is not without cause that they dread and lament 
 ' an age of too much light,' and wish to involve re- 
 ligion in l a solemn and awful gloom.'* It is not 
 without cause that, having removed the Christian's 
 confidence from a rock to base it on sand, they 
 forbid all prying curiosity to examine their foun- 
 dation. 
 
 " The fallacy, indeed, by which, according to the 
 above principles, the Christian is taught to rest his 
 own personal hopes of salvation on the individual 
 claims to ' apostolical succession' of the particular 
 minister he is placed under, is one so gross, that 
 few are thoughtless enough to be deceived by it in 
 any case where religion is not concerned — where, in 
 short, a man has not been taught to make a virtue 
 of uninquiring, unthinking acquiescence. For the 
 fallacy consists in confounding together the un- 
 broken apostolical succession of a Christian ministry 
 generally, and the same succession in an unbroken 
 line of this or that individual minister. The exist- 
 ence of such an order of men as Christian minis- 
 ters, continuously from the time of the apostles to 
 this day, is perhaps as complete a moral certainty 
 
136 ORGANIZATION AND GOVERNMENT 
 
 as any historical fact can be ; because (indepen- 
 dently of the various incidental notices by histo- 
 rians of such a class of persons) it is plain that if, 
 at the present day, or a century ago, or ten centu- 
 ries ago, a number of men had appeared in the 
 world, professing (as our clergy do now) to hold a 
 recognised office in a Christian church, to which 
 they had been regularly appointed as successors to 
 others, whose predecessors, in like manner, had 
 held the same, and so on, from the times of the 
 apostles — if, I say, such a pretence had been put 
 forth by a set of men assuming an office which no 
 one had ever heard of before — it is plain that they 
 would at once have been refuted and exposed. 
 And as this will apply equally to each successive 
 generation of Christian ministers, till we come up 
 to the time when the institution was confessedly 
 new — that is, to the- time when Christian ministers 
 were appointed by the apostles, who professed them- 
 selves eye-witnesses of the resurrection — we have 
 (as Leslie* has remarked) a standing monument, in 
 the Christian ministry, of the fact of that event as 
 having been proclaimed immediately after the time 
 when it was said to have occurred. This, there- 
 fore, is fairly brought forward as an evidence of its 
 truth. 
 
 " But if each man's Christian hope is made to 
 
 * Short Method with Deists. 
 
OF THE APOSTOLIC CHURCH. 137 
 
 rest on his receiving the Christian ordinances at the 
 hands of a minister to whom the sacramental virtue 
 that gives efficacy to those ordinances has been 
 transmitted in unbroken succession from hand to 
 hand, every thing must depend on that particular 
 minister; and his claim is by no means established 
 from our merely establishing the uninterrupted 
 existence of such a class of men as Christian minis- 
 ters. ' You teach me/ a man might say, ' that my 
 salvation depends on the possession by you — the 
 particular pastor under whom I am placed — of a 
 certain qualification j and when I ask for the proof 
 that you possess it, you prove to me that it is pos- 
 sessed generally by a certain class of persons, of 
 whom you are one, and probably by a large majority 
 of them V How ridiculous it would be thought, if 
 a man laying claim to the throne of some country 
 should attempt to establish it, without producing 
 and proving his own pedigree, merely by showing 
 that that country had always been under hereditary 
 regal government!"* 
 
 The following decisive remarks of Whately are in 
 exact accordance with the conclusion to which we 
 have been led by this investigation : u Successors 
 in the apostolic office the apostles have none. As 
 witnesses of the resurrection, as dispensers of mira- 
 culous gifts, as inspired oracles of divine revela- 
 
 * Kingdom of Christ Delineated, Essay II. § 29. 
 12* 
 
138 ORGANIZATION AND GOVERNMENT 
 
 tion, they have NO SUCCESSORS. But as members, 
 as ministers, as governors of Christian communi- 
 ties, their successors are the regularly admitted 
 members, the lawfully ordained ministers, the regu- 
 lar and recognised governors of a regularly subsist- 
 ing CJiristian chuirh."* 
 
 Sect. 2. — The Rite of Confirmation. 
 The second claim in behalf of the "bishop" 
 which is advanced by Episcopalians is, that to him 
 appertains exclusively the office of administering 
 the rite of confirmation. " Episcopacy declares 
 that the Christian ministry was established in three 
 orders; called, ever since the apostolic age, bishops, 
 presbyters or elders, and deacons; of which the 
 highest only has the right to ordain and confirm." 
 Tract of Dr. Onderdonk, p. 11. Having examined 
 the question whether there is contemplated in the 
 New Testament the existence of an order of men of 
 " superior grade and rank," who should be regarded 
 as peculiarly the " successors" of the apostles, and 
 to whom was to be intrusted the power of ordina- 
 tion, or of transmitting the office of the ministry, 
 the next question is, whether, on the supposition 
 that there is to be such a body of men, the claim 
 which is set up in their behalf, that they have the 
 exclusive right to administer the rite of confirma- 
 
 * Kingdom of Christ Delineated, Essay II. $ 43. 
 
OF THE APOSTOLIC CHURCH. 139 
 
 tion, is well founded. The inquiry, as in the for- 
 mer instance, will be confined wholly to the New 
 Testament. 
 
 The first question, of course, relates to the nature 
 of this claim, or what is intended by it by Episco- 
 palians themselves. The nature of this rite is thus 
 stated : " It is a confirmation or ratification on the 
 part of those who receive it of their baptismal en- 
 gagements, and a confirmation or renewal by Al- 
 mighty God of all the privileges of their baptism.."* 
 " They [the bishops] are to confirm all who have 
 repented and been made disciples through the 
 washing of regeneration, (baptism,) by laying their 
 hands upon them, and invoking the aid of the Holy 
 Spirit, that they may continue Christ's faithful sol- 
 diers and servants to their lives' end, as St. Peter 
 and St. Paul did upon the disciples in Saniaria."f 
 " The word confirmation is applied to the religious 
 rite of laying on of hands, because the young per- 
 son then confirms and ratifies, in his own person, 
 the vows which had been made for him at baptism ; 
 and the bishop confirms and strengthens him in his 
 pious resolutions, by prayer and the imposition of 
 hands. The simple design of it is, that those who 
 
 * See Religious Tracts, No. 110, published by the Episcopal 
 Female Tract Society of Philadelphia, and " The Candidate 
 for Confirmation Instructed," by Bishop Hobart, p. 4. 
 
 f " Episcopal Bishops the Successors of the Apostles." 
 Sermon by Bishop McCoskry, p. 45. 
 
140 ORGANIZATION AND GOVERNMENT 
 
 have been devoted to God in infancy in the sacra- 
 ment of baptism, may, when they come to years of 
 discretion, take upon themselves the solemn engage- 
 ments which were made for them by their godfathers 
 and godmothers, by a public and direct acknow- 
 ledgment and confirmation of their baptismal cove- 
 nant with God, before the bishop and the whole 
 church j and that they may receive the benefit of 
 public prayer and episcopal benediction, with the 
 ancient and scriptural rite of laying on of hands, 
 in order that they may be so confirmed and 
 strengthened by the Holy Spirit, as to be enabled 
 to perform their vows and adorn their Christian 
 profession, and may be afterward admitted to the 
 Lord's table, as complete members of the visible 
 church/'* 
 
 In these accounts of the nature and design of this 
 rite, probably the great body of Episcopalians would 
 agree. If some who are called " high churchmen" 
 should attach a higher efficacy to it, and should 
 claim for it that it is necessarily, when properly ad- 
 ministered, connected with the gift of the Holy 
 Spirit, still it would be unfair to ascribe this belief 
 to all in the Episcopal Church, or even to represent 
 it as the common opinion. All persons have a 
 right to state their own belief, and it is illegitimate 
 
 * Address to Young Persons about to be Confirmed. By 
 Daniel Wilson, D.D., Bishop of Calcutta. Philadelphia, 1842. 
 Pp. 6, 7. 
 
OF THE APOSTOLIC CHURCH- 141 
 
 in an argument to attribute to them more than they 
 profess to hold. The account here given of the 
 nature and design of this rite, will be the one that 
 will be kept in view in the inquiry respecting its 
 scriptural authority. 
 
 It is claimed for this rite by all Episcopalians 
 that it is based on the authority of the Bible ; and 
 it is in this view only that it becomes a subject of 
 inquiry in this argument. Thus, Bishop Wilson 
 says : " This rite is derived from the practice of the 
 apostles. We are informed, that when the inha- 
 bitants of Samaria had been converted and bap- 
 tized, and had received the word of God, the 
 apostles St. Peter and St. John were sent to lay 
 their hands on these new converts, that they might 
 receive the Holy Ghost. Acts viii. 14-17. And 
 the disciples of Ephesus, after they had been bap- 
 tized in the name of Jesus, were confirmed by St. 
 Paul, who laid his hands upon them, and they re- 
 ceived the Holy Ghost. Acts xix. 1-7. It seems 
 evident that the apostle Paul alludes to the conti- 
 nuance of this rite, as an ordinary means of strength- 
 ening the faith of Christians, by joining it with 
 baptism, and describing both as among the first 
 principles of the oracles of God. Heb. v. 12 ; vi. 
 1, 2." Pp. 7, 8. "The rank which the 'laying 
 on of hands' holds in this verse, (Heb. vi. 1, 2,) 
 among 'the principles of the doctrine of Christ,' 
 proves that it refers to confirmation. Imposition 
 
142 ORGANIZATION AND GOVERNMENT 
 
 of hands was indeed employed in conveying the 
 ministerial authority; and by the same ceremony 
 the sick were healed and pious and holy men in- 
 voked blessings on the objects of their regard. 
 These acts cannot, however, be denoted by the lay- 
 ing on of hands to which the apostle refers ; which, 
 being stated as a ' principle of the doctrine of 
 Christ/ must refer to all Christians. But these 
 acts related not to all Christians : only to the mi- 
 nistry, who, by the laying on of hands, received 
 the ministerial authority ; to the sick, who, by this 
 rite, were healed ; or to the individuals on whom, by 
 this ceremony, pious men invoked blessings. These 
 acts, therefore, of the imposition of hands, could 
 not be ranked among the ' principles of the doc- 
 trines of Christ' in the same station with ' repent- 
 ance,' with ' faith/ with ' the resurrection of the 
 dead/ and with <a judgment to come.' We must, 
 therefore, refer this appellation to that rite which 
 universally prevailed in the primitive church, and 
 which is known in modern times by the name of 
 confirmation."* 
 
 These quotations settle the point — which, indeed, 
 there would he no hesitation in admitting — that, in 
 the estimation of Episcopalians, this rite rests on 
 the authority of the Scriptures. It is practised not 
 
 * Bishop Hobart, " The Candidate for Confirmation In- 
 structed," pp. 4-6. See also the Tract on Confirmation, pp. 5, 6, 
 and Hooker's Eccl. Pol.> vol. i. pp. 658-666. 
 
OF THE APOSTOLIC CHURCH. 143 
 
 as a mere matter of expediency, not as a ceremony 
 of human prudence, but as directed by the word of 
 God. It is claimed, also, that it is a rite not to be 
 performed by all the ministers of religion, but ex- 
 clusively by prelates as the successors of the apostles, 
 and as being one of the objects for which there is 
 continued in the church, from age to age, a rank of 
 clergy of superior " order." It is only with refer- 
 ence to this question that it is proposed now to 
 examine it. Were it a mere matter of human pru- 
 dence — a regulation which experience had shown to 
 be useful — a decent and solemn form of admission 
 into the church adopted by Episcopalians — no more 
 objection could lie against it than against any of the 
 forms adopted by other denominations in admitting 
 members to their communion. All churches have^ 
 found it desirable to prescribe some method by which 
 the profession of faith shall be indicated, or by 
 which candidates shall be admitted to their fellow- 
 ship; and, in itself considered, the method of ad- 
 mitting them by what is called "confirmation" — by 
 a public presentation before the church and congre- 
 gation — by reverent kneeling — and by the imposi- 
 tion of the hands of a pastor, and by prayer — would 
 be as solemn and appropriate as any other method, 
 and might be adopted without endangering either 
 the orthodoxy or the spirituality of any church. 
 But when the claim is set up to scriptural authority 
 in the case, the subject assumes quite another 
 
144 ORGANIZATION AND GOVERNMENT 
 
 aspect. Then it is taken out of the inquiries re- 
 lating to human prudence and expediency, and 
 placed on the basis of obligation. Then, if this 
 claim is substantiated, it is binding not only on 
 Episcopalians, but on all who profess to be Chris- 
 tians ; and then also the churches which do not 
 admit the regulation are guilty of renouncing one 
 of the rites appointed by the Redeemer, and the in- 
 dividuals who are connected with those churches 
 are excluded from one of the important means of 
 grace appointed by him to promote the spirituality 
 and the comfort of his people. For the vindication, 
 then, of those churches, and for the purpose of 
 showing that those who have been admitted to the 
 church without the imposition of the hands of a 
 "bishop/' are not guilty of violating the rules of 
 the great Head of the church, I propose to demon- 
 strate that this claim of scriptural authority for the 
 rite of confirmation is wholly unfounded. 
 
 Before proceeding to examine the authorities re- 
 lied on, it may be proper to remark that no argu- 
 ment can be derived from the use of the English 
 word "confirm" in the New Testament. It is said 
 of Paul and Barnabas that they went to " Lystra, 
 and to Iconium, and to Antioch, confirming — • 
 litLffTTipilovres — the souls of the disciples, and ex- 
 horting them to continue in the faith. " Acts xiv. 
 22. And again of Paul, that " he went through 
 Syria and Cilicia confirming — l-iarypi^wv — the 
 
OF THE APOSTOLIC CHURCH. 145 
 
 churches." Acts xv. 41. So of Judas and Silas it 
 is said, that " being prophets themselves," they 
 M exhorted the brethren with many words, and con- 
 firmed — hcsonjpgeut — them." Acts xv. 32. The 
 word here used occurs in no other places in the 
 New Testament than those just referred to, and 
 means, properly, to " set or place firmly upon, to let 
 lean upon." (Robinson's Lexicon.) The essential 
 idea in the word is that of strengthening or impart- 
 ing strength, confirming or upholding that which is 
 feeble, &c. The word as so used has no reference 
 to any particular rite of religion. Nothing is said 
 or intimated of the act of confirmation being done 
 by the imposition of hands, nor is there the slightest 
 reason to suppose that this was practised in the 
 cases referred to. All that the word fairly implies 
 is, that it was done by instruction, counsel, exhorta- 
 tion, and prayer. The truth was, that these were 
 young converts ; that they were surrounded by ene- 
 mies, and exposed to temptation ; that they had as 
 yet but a slight acquaintance with the gospel ; and 
 that it was therefore important that they should be 
 further instructed and established in the faith of 
 Christianity. There is not the slightest evidence 
 that they had not been admitted to all the privi- 
 leges of the church before, or that any ceremony 
 whatever was now performed in confirming or 
 strengthening them. Whatever may be adduced in 
 favour of this rite, these passages will not be claimed 
 
 13 
 
146 ORGANIZATION AND GOVERNMENT 
 
 in its defence by intelligent Episcopalians. But 
 these are all the passages in the New Testament, 
 where the English word " confirm" is used, where 
 it could possibly be supposed to have reference to 
 this rite; and these are never adduced by intelli- 
 gent Episcopalians as furnishing any support for it. 
 
 In examining the claim for the scriptural authority 
 for confirmation, and the question whether it should 
 be retained in the church as a religious rite, I sub- 
 mit the following remarks : — 
 
 (1.) In the New Testament, the act of laying on 
 of hands, appealed to in support of this claim, was 
 uniformly connected with imparting the miraculous 
 gifts of the Holy Spirit. That the apostles did lay 
 their hands on the disciples which they made, or on 
 young converts, is indisputable ; but the design was 
 specific, and is mentioned in each case. And yet 
 there are but two instances of the " laying on of 
 hands" on converts to the Christian faith referred 
 to in the New Testament, in both of which there 
 need be no possible danger of mistaking the object 
 and the effect, and in neither of them is the effect 
 stated which is claimed for the rite of " confirma- 
 tion." The first occurs in Acts viii. 14-17: "Now 
 when the apostles which were at Jerusalem heard 
 that Samaria had received the word of God, they 
 sent unto them Peter and John ; who, when they 
 were come down, prayed for them that they might 
 receive the Holy Ghost : for as yet he was fallen 
 
OF THE APOSTOLIC CHURCH. 147 
 
 upon none of them; only they were baptized in 
 the name of the Lord Jesus. Then they laid 
 their hands on them, and they received the Holy 
 Ghost." Now, the only material question in regard 
 to this passage as a proof-text for the rite of con-- 
 firmation is, whether it refers to " the ordinary grace 
 of the Holy Spirit which is necessary to enlighten 
 and aid Christians in the spiritual life," (Bishop 
 Hobart,) or whether it refers to the gifts of the 
 Holy Spirit which were manifested in some visible 
 or outward mode. If it refer to the former, it is a 
 legitimate proof-text to be used in defence of this 
 rite ; if to the latter, then it proves nothing to the 
 purpose, unless it be maintained that the Holy 
 Spirit is always miraculously imparted to those who 
 receive " confirmation" from the hand of the bishop. 
 That the imposition of the hands referred to was 
 accompanied with an imparting of the Holy Spirit 
 in a miraculous or public manner, is evident from 
 the narrative, (a) It is that which the language 
 used would naturally express. Thus, it is said, 
 " As yet he teas fallen upon none of them," — lan- 
 guage which naturally suggests the remarkable oc- 
 currences on the day of Pentecost, when the Holy 
 Spirit descended in a public and visible manner, 
 conferring the miraculous endowment of being able 
 to speak foreign languages. It is not such lan- 
 guage as would properly denote the ordinary in- 
 fluences of the Spirit in converting the soul, or that 
 
148 ORGANIZATION AND GOVERNMENT 
 
 tl ordinary grace which is necessary to enlighten 
 and aid Christians in the spiritual life." (6) That 
 it was accompanied with some remarkable power or 
 outward manifestation — something of the nature of 
 miracle, either enabling them to work miracles or 
 to speak with new tongues — is manifest from the 
 effect which it had on Simon Magus, who witnessed 
 it : " And when Simon saw that through laying on 
 of the apostles' hands the Holy Ghost was given, he 
 offered them money, saying, Give me also this power, 
 that on whomsoever I lay hands he may receive the 
 Holy Ghost." Verses 18, 19. Now, it is evident 
 that there must have been some visible manifesta- 
 tion, some outward power, which Simon supposed 
 would be of value to him in carrying on a system 
 of fraud and deception — something which he would 
 be willing to " purchase" if possible, as constituting 
 a valuable capital in exerting an influence over 
 men. Whatever this was, it must have been some- 
 thing besides the " ordinary grace which is neces- 
 sary to enlighten and aid Christians in the spiritual 
 life." It must have been more than is conferred 
 now in the rite of confirmation ; for what power or 
 influence is conferred now by the " apostolical 
 bishop" in this rite which a man who wished to 
 exert an influence over his fellow-men would de- 
 sire to purchase ? What would excite greater 
 wonder than for a man with the spirit and design 
 of Simon Magus — wishing to obtain some powerful 
 
OF THE APOSTOLIC CHURCH. 149 
 
 agency not possessed by others for the purpose of 
 fraud and imposture — to approach a prelate after 
 he had administered this rite to a company, of dis- 
 ciples " properly instructed," and deliberately pro- 
 pose to purchase this remarkable power? Would 
 such a prelate understand precisely what it was that 
 he desired to purchase? It need only be added, 
 on this passage, that whatever was conferred on the 
 disciples of Samaria, from any thing that appears in 
 the narrative, was conferred on them all. There is 
 no reason whatever to suppose, as Bishop Hobart 
 does, (p. 6,) that these remarkable endowments 
 were conferred on one part, and that on the other 
 the ordinary gifts of the Holy Spirit only were be- 
 stowed. Of any such distinction, the sacred writer 
 has not thought proper to give us any information ; 
 and that there was such a distinction should not be 
 assumed in an argument to defend the scriptural 
 authority of this rite. 
 
 The only other case appealed to in defence of this 
 rite is in Acts xix. 1—7, where the narrative is 
 equally clear and decisive. It is that of the dis- 
 ciples at Ephesus. When Paul came there, he 
 asked them whether they had received the Holy 
 Ghost ? They replied, " We have not so much as 
 heard whether there be any Holy Ghost." They 
 had been baptized, they said, "unto John's bap- 
 tism;" and after now being bajitized " in the name 
 of the Lord Jesus," it is added, " and when Paul 
 
 13* 
 
150 ORGANIZATION AND GOVERNMENT 
 
 had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Ghost 
 came on them j and they spake with tongues and 
 prophesied." Here it is expressly affirmed that 
 the miraculous endowment of speaking foreign lan- 
 guages was conferred on them, and evidently on 
 them all, for there is no distinction made among 
 them. There is no intimation whatever that it was 
 a rite designed merely to confirm them in " the 
 ordinary grace which is necessary to enlighten and 
 aid Christians in the spiritual life," or that it was 
 to be continued as an ordinance in the church. So 
 far as these cases go, they demonstrate merely the 
 fact that the Holy Ghost, in his miraculous in- 
 fluences, was conferred by the laying on of the 
 hands of the apostles, and by them only. 
 
 These are the only cases in the New Testament, 
 the only facts appealed to, to show that the "rite 
 of confirmation" is scriptural in its character and 
 authority, and is to be continued in the church. 
 There is no intimation whatever that it was a mere 
 rite of religion for establishing Christians in the be- 
 lief of the truth, or for admitting members to the 
 communion, or that there would be any special effi- 
 cacy or benefit in the imposition of the hands of the 
 " successors"' of the apostles. 
 
 Now, it is a matter of simple justice to demand 
 that, if these cases are appealed to, it should be just 
 as they occurred. It should be to prove, that by 
 the "laying on of the hands" of the "bishops," 
 
OF THE APOSTOLIC CHURCH. 151 
 
 there will be imparted some remarkable gift of the 
 Holy Ghost which can properly be spoken of as 
 "falling upon" those who receive it, and which is 
 so visible and manifest, that a bad man might deem 
 it desirable to " purchase" it, if he could, in order 
 to exert an influence over his fellow-men ; and that 
 there is, in fact, imparted, in each case, the "gift 
 of tongues" and the power of " prophesying." 
 These texts would be entirely pertinent and un- 
 answerable to prove those points ; but how do they 
 prove another and quite a foreign thing — a thing 
 that has no resemblance to this — that the "bishop" 
 has the right of laying on his hands to impart the 
 "ordinary grace which is necessary to enlighten 
 and aid Christians in the spiritual life" ? They 
 prove one thing only — that in certain cases the 
 laying on of the apostles' hands was accompanied 
 with the miraculous gift of the Holy Ghost. Is 
 this conferred by the laying on of the bishop's 
 hands? If so, the passages, as proof-texts, are in 
 point ; if not, why are they adduced ? Whatever 
 may be the force of other arguments in favour of 
 the rite of confirmation, it is respectfully insisted 
 on that these texts — referring to the only facts on 
 the subject in the New Testament — prove nothing. 
 (2.) There is no evidence that the passage so 
 often appealed to by Episcopalians in support of 
 confirmation in Heb. vi. 1, 2, has any reference to 
 that rite as now practised, or that it furnishes any 
 
152 ORGANIZATION AND GOVERNMENT 
 
 authority for it : " Therefore, leaving the principles 
 of the doctrine of Christ, let us go on unto perfec- 
 tion ; not laying again the foundation of repentance 
 from dead works, and of faith toward God, of the 
 doctrine of baptisms, and of laying on of hands, 
 and of the resurrection of the dead, and of eternal 
 judgment." This passage is often referred to, as 
 the quotations already made are, as if it were indis- 
 putable that it must refer to that rite of religion, 
 and as if it needed no further proof than a mere re- 
 ference to it in order to remove all doubts on the 
 subject. But a few considerations will show that 
 it cannot with propriety be adduced as a proof-text 
 to demonstrate that the rite of confirmation is to be 
 of perpetual observance in the church. First, the 
 laying on of hands was practised among the He- 
 brews, and by the apostles themselves, on a great 
 variety of occasions, and with no exclusive reference 
 to the rite of confirmation. It occurred in the fol- 
 lowing cases : when a blessing was imparted to 
 any one, (Gen. xlviii. 14, 18;) when prayer was 
 offered for one; and when sacrifice was offered, 
 accompanied with the confession of sin. In the 
 latter case, the hands were laid on the head of the 
 victim, and confession was made that he who had 
 sinned deserved punishment. Lev. xvi. 21; xxiv. 
 14; Num. viii. 12. It was also done on solemn 
 consecration to office, as in setting apart the high- 
 priest to his office. In the New Testament, the 
 
OF THE APOSTOLIC CHURCIT. 153 
 
 custom is referred to in the following cases : — 
 (a) The Redeemer laid his hands on children to bless 
 them, and on the sick when he healed them. Matt. 
 xix. 13; Mark v. 23; Matt. ix. 18. (b) The apos- 
 tles, in like manner, laid their hands on others in 
 healing the sick. Acts xxviii. 8. (c) In ordination 
 to office, 1 Tim. v. 22; Acts vi. 6; and (cl) In im- 
 parting the Holy Spirit, in the cases already re- 
 ferred to. Acts viii. 17, 19; xix. 6. Now, in not 
 one of these cases is the precise thing intended 
 which is denoted by the laying on of the hands of a 
 prelatical bishop in confirmation, as connected with 
 the "ordinary grace which is necessary to enlighten 
 and aid Christians in the spiritual life." That rite 
 corresponds neither with the act of a patriarch in 
 imparting a blessing to his children; nor to the 
 offering of a sacrifice; nor to the consecration of a 
 priest; nor to the act of Christ's blessing little chil- 
 dren; nor to the healing of the sick; nor to an 
 ordination to office; nor to the imparting of the 
 Holy Spirit in a miraculous manner. It is a new 
 idea, wholly unknown to any use of the phrase as 
 employed in the New Testament. By what author- 
 ity is this new idea attached to a scriptural phrase ? 
 and by what form of reasoning is it, then, urged that 
 this rite is of divine appointment, and is to be ob- 
 served in the churches as of divine obligation? 
 
 Further: if the phrase had been so used in the 
 New Testament, and there were any instances in 
 
154 ORGANIZATION AND GOVERNMENT 
 
 which it could be shown that it was employed as it 
 is now by Episcopalians, it is natural to ask, On what 
 principles of interpretation it is held that this must 
 be the manner in which it is used in Ileb. vi. 2? 
 The apostle is speaking of certain elementary truths 
 or principles of the Christian religion. In the enu- 
 meration he speaks of the doctrine of " baptisms, 
 and of the laying on of hands, and of the resurrec- 
 tion of the dead." He refers to these things as im- 
 portant to be held in regard to the faith and the 
 order of the Christian church. The doctrine of the 
 laying on of hands is an important and elementary 
 principle; a doctrine that is to be held. But why 
 shall we infer that it must refer to "confirmation"? 
 Why may it not refer to the laying on of hands in 
 healing the sick, or in ordination, or in the bestow- 
 ing of the miraculous endowments of the Holy 
 Spirit? Were not these important and well-under- 
 stood things, which it was desirable to maintain, and 
 which were conceded to be so important that it was 
 not necessary to dwell further upon them? Why, 
 of all the cases in which the laying on of hands 
 was used, is this selected as being indubitably what 
 the apostle intended in the case? 
 
 Again, if it be supposed that the order in which 
 these things are mentioned is such as to demand 
 that it shall be understood of some rite of religion 
 that immediately succeeded baptism, then I observe, 
 that it should be held just as it was. The apostles 
 
OF THE APOSTOLIC CHURCH. 155 
 
 did lay their hands on young converts after they 
 were baptized, and the Holy Ghost was imparted to 
 them. Acts viii. xix. But it was the miraculous 
 power of the Holy Ghost which was imparted; and 
 the passage before us should be used only to de- 
 monstrate that. That fact was of sufficient import- 
 ance for the apostle to mention it in this connection 
 as one of the great things connected with the Chris- 
 tian religion — a thing so well understood then, that 
 he did not think it important to dwell upon it. 
 
 It should be further added, that the Saviour ap- 
 pointed no such institution of his religion for per- 
 petual observance in the church. He instituted 
 baptism and the Lord's supper, and required them 
 to be observed at all times; but there is no intima- 
 tion that he designated any such rite as that of 
 " confirmation" to be observed in his church. This 
 consideration is important to show that he did not 
 design that this should be a permanent ordinance 
 of his religion. Since he so particularly specified 
 baptism and the supper, it is inconceivable that he 
 should have wholly omitted any reference to the 
 rite of " confirmation, " if he had intended that it 
 should be observed permanently in the churches. 
 
 The sum of all that is said on this passage is, 
 that if it is to be understood as referring to the im- 
 parting of the Holy Spirit by the imposition of hands 
 after baptism, it should be employed just as it was 
 — just in the sense in which it was then understood 
 
156 ORGANIZATION AND GOVERNMENT 
 
 The only instances in which it was used in such a 
 connection, were in imparting the Holy Spirit in a 
 miraculous manner. If Episcopal bishops claim 
 this now as the true doctrine, if they mean to be 
 understood as having the power of imparting the 
 Holy Spirit in a miraculous manner, then, and not 
 otherwise, the text in Heb. vi. 2, is pertinent proof. 
 But when they advance this claim, it will be easy 
 to test its validity. 
 
 These are all the texts of Scripture which are relied 
 on to demonstrate the scriptural authority of the rite 
 of " confirmation." Whether they demonstrate this, 
 may be left to the conclusion of any candid mind. 
 Let it be remembered, that the Saviour appointed no 
 such rite to be of perpetual observance in the church; 
 that though he instructed his apostles to "lay hands 
 on the sick," assuring them that they should "re- 
 cover," (Mark xvi. 18,) he gave no instructions to 
 them to "lay hands" on the newly-baptized to "con- 
 firm" them; and that in the only instances where 
 the subject is referred to in the New Testament, it 
 is with exclusive reference to the conferring of 
 miraculous gifts, and it will be easily seen with 
 what propriety the appeal is made to the New Tes- 
 tament, to show that to the "bishop" appertains 
 the authority to administer the rite of "confirma- 
 tion." 
 
 (3.) If the above be a fair interpretation of the 
 only texts in the Scriptures which are relied on in 
 
OF THE APOSTOLIC CHURCH. 157 
 
 support of the rite of "confirmation," then it is ob- 
 vious that there is great impropriety in appealing to 
 them with a view to giving a scriptural sanction 
 to this ceremony. It is among the means of giving 
 a wholly unscriptural prominency and importance 
 to the office of a "prelate," and of preserving the 
 opinion that he is of a rank elevated above the infe- 
 rior clergy. The use of those texts, and the habit 
 of appealing to them as authority, has the tendency, 
 if it is not designed to do it, to leave the impression, 
 that the "bishop" has the power, in some mysterious 
 way, and in a manner which no one of the "inferior 
 clergy" has, and which the ministers of no other 
 denomination are invested with, of imparting the 
 Holy Ghost. It is true, we may be told, that there 
 is no such claim as that the miraculous influences 
 of the Holy Ghost are imparted; or that the only 
 meaning is, that this is a method by which the 
 "ordinary influences of the Holy Spirit adapted to 
 enlighten and edify Christians are conferred;" or 
 that it is a mere ceremony or mode by which the 
 candidate himself "confirms" his purpose to be the 
 Lord's; but there will be at the same time an ap- 
 peal to Scripture in support of it, and only to texts 
 which speak of the conferring of extraordinary en- 
 dowments. If these texts relate to the matter, and 
 are, as they are adduced to be, proof-texts in sup- 
 port of the rite, then they carry along also the im- 
 pression that there must be still some unusual influ- 
 
 14 
 
158 ORGANIZATION AND GOVERNMENT 
 
 ences of the Holy Spirit conveyed through the hands 
 of the bishop. Such an effect is unavoidable on the 
 mass of minds; and it may be doubted whether the 
 prelate himself would be solicitous to avoid it. He 
 will be regarded as a man invested with functions 
 which appertain to no other man. He has a power 
 of conferring that which no other man can confer. 
 He stands between God and man, to be the medium 
 of conveying important influences which are in- 
 trusted to no other mortal. There will be supposed 
 to be influences of a valuable kind to be obtained 
 only by the laying on of his hands, and to attempt 
 to impart which would be an act of the highest 
 presumption in any one of the inferior clergy. 
 
 It cannot be doubted, therefore, that the right of 
 confirmation is one of the arrangements adapted to 
 give an unscriptural pre-eminence to the office of 
 the Episcopal bishop. It is fitted to keep up the 
 impression of a superior sanctity in the man who 
 holds this office, and to exalt the episcopate over the 
 body of the inferior clergy. Associate with an office 
 the idea that there are peculiar endowments to be 
 obtained only through that, and especially the idea 
 that the Holy Spirit, even in "the ordinary influ- 
 ences necessary to enlighten and aid Christians in 
 the spiritual life," is conveyed in this way, and 
 there is a degree of sanctity attached to the office in 
 the public estimation which can be secured by the 
 possession of no personal moral worth, and which 
 
OF THE APOSTOLIC CHURCH. 159 
 
 will soon be felt to be an equivalent for the want of 
 moral worth. The office becomes sacred, no matter 
 what the man is; the ministrations of that office 
 convey rich blessings to the soul, though the in- 
 cumbent may himself be wholly destitute of the 
 graces of the Holy Spirit. The tendency of the 
 doctrine, therefore, is to give a pre-eminence to the 
 office of the prelate; to sustain him in a usurpation 
 over the "inferior clergy;" to keep up the idea that 
 the Holy Ghost is conveyed to the soul by some ac- 
 tion of the diocesan, and independently of any piety 
 in him, or any personal religion on the part of the 
 recipient; and, therefo re, that they who are "con- 
 firmed" in this manner, and on whom the Holy 
 Spirit has thus been conferred, can be in no danger 
 in regard to their eternal salvation. It is a part of 
 the system of the Papacy, and is essentially papal 
 in its nature, and in ite whole tendency on the in- 
 dividual and on the church of Christ. 
 
 Apart from the entire want of all scriptural au- 
 thority in favour of the rite of "confirmation," there 
 are other considerations which go to demonstrate 
 that, as one of the methods of exalting the "bishop" 
 and of supporting prelacy, it is wholly a device of 
 human origin. It is an institution adapted, and 
 probably originally intended in the progress of cor- 
 ruption in the church, to humble the pastor and ex- 
 alt the prelate. It is a perpetual aggression on the 
 respect which is due to the pastor of a church, the 
 
160 ORGANIZATION AND GOVERNMENT 
 
 man who, under God, is instrumental in the conver- 
 sion of those who are to be "confirmed." If the 
 "rite" is to be administered at all, ejery considera- 
 tion of propriety and of justice demands that it 
 should be done by the pastor himself. Those who 
 are candidates for "confirmation" he has trained up 
 under his care. He has instructed and guided them 
 from childhood. If they are converted, he has been 
 the means of their conversion. He has imparted 
 to them the knowledge of salvation, and has been 
 the instrument in qualifying them to become mem- 
 bers of the church of Christ. In all this, there has 
 been no supposition of his incompetency to do all, 
 by the divine blessing, which was required to fit them 
 for the kingdom of heaven. But now a time ap- 
 proaches in which he is to be superseded. He is to 
 be set aside as disqualified for performing the duty 
 of admitting them to the church, and the work is 
 committed to the hands of a stranger — a prelatical 
 bishop. The man who was deemed qualified to 
 teach them from childhood, and to guide them, un- 
 der the Great Shepherd, beside the living waters of 
 salvation, and who is not disqualified to break unto 
 them the bread of life — the man bound to them by 
 the tender ties of the pastoral relation, and by all 
 the associations and intimacies resulting from such 
 a charge, is to be set aside, and is to give place — to 
 whom? To a man in relation to whom none of 
 these associations exist; a man whom they may 
 
OF THE APOSTOLIC CHURCH. 161 
 
 never have seen before, and whom they may never 
 see again; a man with no possible claim to take any 
 supervision over them, except the abstract claim of 
 office; and a man who, when the rite is performed, 
 is never to perform toward them any pastoral super- 
 vision whatever. Possibly, too — for such cases are 
 not uncommon — he may be a man far inferior in 
 moral worth, in spirituality of mind, in talent, age 
 eloquence, and learning, to the pastor himself; a 
 man of vitally different views on the subject of 
 spiritual Christianity from him • a man whose coming 
 is barely tolerated by the pastor, and that only in 
 virtue of his office. 
 
 But admitting that he has in all cases the highest 
 degree of personal respectability; that there centres 
 in him always all the excellencies which may endear 
 the most venerable bishop to the religious commu- 
 nity, — still it may be asked, what there is in the 
 character and teaching and lives of the great mass 
 of the Episcopal clergy and of other pastors which 
 renders them incapacitated for so simple an office as 
 that of invoking the blessing of G-od on those whom 
 they have been instrumental in converting? Why 
 should such men be held up to the community as 
 disqualified to perform a function which, if appro- 
 priate at all, properly belongs to them? Why 
 should it be announced that they are not qualified 
 to admit their own members to their own churches 
 in their own way? Why shall this work be re- 
 
 14* 
 
162 ORGANIZATION AND GOVERNMENT 
 
 served to be performed by a stranger? Why shall 
 the whole community be told periodically, that the 
 regular pastor of a people is disqualified for laying 
 his own hands on the youthful members of his 
 charge, and imploring for them the divine blessing? 
 Is this in accordance with the obvious spirit of the 
 New Testament ? And is it improper to ask here — 
 would it be uncourteous to put it to the conscience 
 and heart of the great body of the clergy in the 
 Episcopal Church — how they can bear to be periodi- 
 cally displaced from their station over their flocks, 
 and be required to yield to another the performance 
 of a duty — if it be a duty — which properly belongs 
 to them ? If there be an advantage in this arrange- 
 ment to them, it must consist in its tendency to 
 produce great humiliation of mind, and in keeping 
 before their eyes, and the eyes of their people, for 
 the purpose of preventing the growth of spiritual 
 pride, the idea that they are only of "the second or 
 inferior order" even in their own churches. 
 
 To the rite of "confirmation" as a mere mode of 
 admission to a church, or as a method of making a 
 profession of religion, there can be no reasonable 
 objections. Every denomination has a right to 
 adopt such methods of signifying a purpose to make 
 a profession of religion, not inconsistent with the 
 principles of the Bible, as shall be deemed best 
 adapted to edification. The method adopted in 
 "confirmation" might be used by a Presbyterian, or 
 
OF THE APOSTOLIC CHURCH. 163 
 
 a Methodist, or a Baptist, without violating any of 
 the principles which they entertain about the proper 
 methods of admission to the church of Christ. With 
 such a view, it may be left to be adopted or not, as 
 a sense of propriety may lead them to determine. 
 But when it is urged as a matter of scriptural au- 
 thority; when it is claimed that it should be confined 
 to a prelatical bishop; when texts are referred to 
 which can have no reference to any thing like 
 "confirmation" as now understood; when the effect 
 of appealing to such texts is to keep up the idea of 
 some superior sanctity in the "bishop," and of some 
 mysterious power of imparting the Holy Ghost; and 
 when the whole tendency is to debase and degrade 
 the pastoral office — to displace the pastor and repre- 
 sent him as disqualified from performing a simple 
 rite in relation to his own flock — to remove him to 
 make way for a stranger, — then the whole subject 
 assumes a different aspect. It makes an invasion on 
 the constitution of the Christian church, and be- 
 comes a part of that great usurpation which, under 
 the Roman hierarchy, asserted a domination of the 
 prelate over the whole "inferior clergy," and of the 
 priesthood over the whole world. Nothing can be 
 more flimsy and futile than an attempt to show, from 
 the New Testament, that a "bishop" has the exclu- 
 sive authority for administering the rite of confirma- 
 tion; and perhaps there is no device in the hier- 
 archy better fitted to foster a sense of superiority in 
 
164 ORGANIZATION AND GOVERNMENT 
 
 " ministerial rank and dignity," and to nourish the 
 worst feelings of ambition in the human heart, than 
 the consciousness of possessing this power to dis- 
 place the pastors from their office periodically from 
 an extended circle of churches, and to make an an- 
 nual journey where every step is a practical procla- 
 mation of their superior "rank," and where every 
 church becomes a memento of this domination. 
 
 Sect. 3. — The Claims of the Bishop to the Right of 
 Supervision and Discipline. 
 
 These points might be examined separately, but 
 as the same principle applies to both, it will be 
 more convenient to consider them in connection. 
 The claim that the bishop has the right of super- 
 vision, and of administering discipline over the 
 churches of a diocese, is one that 'is essential to 
 Episcopacy. It is a claim which asserts not only 
 that the general care of the churches within a given 
 district devolves on the "bishop," but that neither 
 the individual church nor the pastor of the church 
 has the right to administer discipline on the mem- 
 bers. It asserts that this power is placed in the 
 hands of one man, who is comparatively a stranger, 
 and who alone has the right of determining the 
 amount of punishment that is to be inflicted on the 
 offending members of a particular church. The 
 authority which is urged for this mighty power is, 
 that the apostles, in virtue of their office, thus in- 
 
OF THE APOSTOLIC CHURCH. 165 
 
 fiicted discipline; and that to the prelate, as being 
 a "successor" of the apostles, this power belongs, 
 therefore, as a matter of course. I have examined 
 the claim of the prelate to be regarded as the "suc- 
 cessor" of the apostles, and here the argument 
 might be left; for if prelates are in no proper sense 
 the "successors" of the apostles, then it will follow 
 that even if the apostles did exercise discipline, the 
 bishops have no claim to the prerogatives of disci- 
 pline in the churches. But, in order wholly to dis- 
 prove this asserted right, I shall proceed to con- 
 sider the question, whether the apostles themselves 
 claimed the power of administering discipline, and 
 were,* therefore, superior to the presbyters. The 
 inquiry will be pursued with reference to the ques- 
 tion, whether they administered discipline in virtue 
 of their office, and if they did, whether the adminis- 
 tration of discipline was confined to them. If it 
 was not, but was exercised either by the presbyters 
 or the churches, then the claim of the "bishop" is 
 invalid. 
 
 The argument, that the apostles inflicted discipline 
 on the churches, is thus stated by Dr. Onderdonk, 
 Tract, p. 12 : "In 1 Cor. iv. 19-21; v. 3-5; 2 Cor. 
 ii. 6; vii. 12; x. 8; xiii. 2, 10; and 1 Tim. i. 20, 
 are recorded inflictions and remissions of discipline 
 performed by an apostle, or threatenings on his part, 
 although there must have been elders in Corinth, 
 and certainly were in Ephesus." 
 
166 ORGANIZATION AND GOVERNMENT 
 
 The two cases referred to are those of Corinth 
 and of Ephesus. They will be examined separately, 
 as they are the only cases referred to in the New 
 Testament. The purpose for which these cases are 
 adduced by Episcopalians is, to show that the apos- 
 tles were superior to presbyters in power and rights, 
 and the alleged proof is, that they administered dis- 
 cipline. To bear on the case, therefore, the pas- 
 sages must prove not only that they exercised 
 discipline, but (1) that they did it as apostles, or 
 in virtue of their apostolic office; (2) that they did 
 it in churches where there were presbyters; and 
 (3) that neither the churches nor presbyters ever 
 administered discipline themselves. Now in regard 
 to these passages referred to for proof, the following 
 general remarks may be made: (1.) There were 
 certainly, in all, fourteen apostles; and if we may 
 credit Episcopalians, and reckon Timothy, and Bar- 
 nabas, and Silvanus, and Apollos, aud Andronicus, 
 and Junia, and Titus, and perhaps half a dozen 
 others, there were somewhat more than a score in- 
 vested with this office; yet it is remarkable that 
 the only cases of discipline referred to, as going to 
 prove the superiority of the whole college of apostles, 
 are those in which the apostle Paul only was con- 
 cerned. (2.) There are accounts in the New Tes- 
 tament of perhaps some hundreds of churches ; and 
 yet, we meet with no instance of the kind of disci- 
 pline relied on, except in the single churches of 
 
OF THE APOSTOLIC CHURCH. 167 
 
 Corinth and Ephesus. It is incredible that there 
 should have been no cases of discipline except in 
 those churches. But if there were, the presump- 
 tion is, that they were settled without the interven- 
 tion of an apostle. (3.) These very cases, as will 
 presently be shown, occurred in churches where 
 Titus and Timothy were present, — both regarded by 
 Episcopalians as "apostles" and " bishops," — and 
 thus were acts of manifest disrespect for the author- 
 ity of those prelates. And if the fact that the 
 discipline was administered where there were pres- 
 byters proves that the apostle Paul was superior to 
 them, the same fact proves that he was superior 
 likewise to Timothy and Titus. The course of the 
 argument, then, from this would be, that Paul was 
 disposed to assume the whole power into his own 
 hands, and to set aside the claims alike of bishops 
 and presbyters. 
 
 The two cases alleged as proof that the apostles 
 only had the power of administering discipline are 
 those at Corinth and Ephesus. Paul wrote fourteen 
 epistles to eight churches. In all these epistles, 
 and in all the numerous churches of which he had 
 the charge, (2 Cor. xi. 28, "the care of all the 
 churches,") these are the only instances in which 
 he was called, so far as appears, to exercise disci- 
 pline. We now inquire, Whether he did it for the 
 purpose of showing that the apostles only had this 
 power ? 
 
168 ORGANIZATION AND GOVERNMENT 
 
 The first case alleged is that at Corinth. The 
 argument in regard to this church is thus stated hy 
 Dr. Onderdonk, in his " Answer," pp. 103, 104 : 
 " There must have been elders in Corinth when the 
 epistles "were written to them. We prove this by 
 the language of Paul : 'As a wise master-builder I 
 have laid the foundation, and another buildeth 
 thereon/ We prove it by the language, hyper- 
 bolical, indeed, in the number, but decisive o£ the 
 fact : ' Though ye have ten thousand instructors in 
 Christ.' We prove it by the language in reference 
 to the right of the clergy to be maintained by theii 
 flocks : ' If others be partakers of this power over 
 you, are not we rather V We prove it by the fact 
 that the ' Lord's supper' was celebrated in that 
 church, which required an elder at least. We 
 prove it by the language resj>ecting some of the 
 Corinthian teachers : ' Are they mi7iisters of 
 Christ .... I am more/ 
 
 "Yet without noticing these elders in the matter, 
 so far as the epistles show, though they doubtless 
 were noticed and consulted as much as courtesy 
 and their pastoral standing made proper — without 
 putting the matter into their hands, or even passing 
 it through their hands, Paul threatens, inflicts, and 
 remits discipline among the people of their charge. 
 This is a ' ministerial' act ; and Paul's doing it 
 himself, instead of committing it to the elders, 
 shows that he, an apostle, was superior to them in 
 
OF THE APOSTOLIC CHUECH. 169 
 
 ministerial powers and rights. The conclusion is 
 unavoidable if the fact be sustained. Let us, then, 
 look to the fact — our readers, we trust, will accom- 
 pany us patiently. 
 
 " ' But / will come to you shortly, if the Lord 
 will, and will know not the speech of them that are 
 puffed up, but the power. For the kingdom of God 
 is not in word, but in power. What will ye ? Shall 
 / come to you with a rod, or in love, and in the 
 spirit of meekness V 1 Cor. iv. 19-21. 
 
 " Here is ' power' and a ' rod' to be exercised 
 under Good's ' kingdom' or sovereignty, and by one 
 man, an apostle, if those who were ' puffed up' did 
 not humble themselves. Here is church discipline 
 threatened, not by or through the elders, but by 
 an apostle individually, and with the rod in his 
 hands. 
 
 " i For /verily, as absent in body, but present in 
 spirit, have judged (in the margin determined} 
 already, as though I were present, concerning him 
 that hath so done this deed. In the name of our 
 Lord Jesus Christ, when ye are gathered together, 
 and my spirit, with the power of our Lord Jesus 
 Christ, to deliver such a one unto Satan for the 
 destruction of the flesh, that the spirit may be saved 
 in the day of the Lord Jesus.' 1 Cor. v. 3-5. 
 
 " Here is an act of church discipline nothing less 
 than excommunication ; and who inflicts it ? The 
 elders at Corinth? By no means. Paul does it. 
 
 15 
 
170 ORGANIZATION AND GOVERNMENT 
 
 The apostle ' judges' and determines to ' deliver to 
 Satan' the unworthy Christian — and to do it when 
 that church and ' his spirit' were assembled to- 
 gether, himself being in that sense present when 
 his sentence was executed. Who read his sentence 
 in the assembly we are not informed ; probably one 
 of the elders. Who ejected the man personally, if 
 that mode of executing the sentence was added to 
 the reading of it, we are not told. It is enough 
 that the 'judgment,' the decision, the authority for 
 the discipline, was that of an apostle alone, and 
 evinced his superiority, in ministerial functions, to 
 the elders of that church. The excommunication 
 led, of course, to the exclusion of the man from the 
 friendship and kind offices of the brethren ; and 
 this is called his ' punishment inflicted of many/ in 
 the passage we are next to quote. 
 
 , " ' Sufficient to such a man is this punishment, 
 which was inflicted of many. To whom ye forgive 
 any thing, /forgive also; for if /forgave any thing, 
 to whom / forgave it, for your sakes forgave I it in 
 the person 0/ Christ.' 2 Cor. ii. 6, 10. 
 
 " Here is a remission of discipline, not by the 
 elders, but by an apostle; he pronounces the punish- 
 ment to be ' sufficient.' The brethren forgive the 
 scandal of the man's conduct, he having become 
 penitent ; and Paul forgives him, by removing the 
 sentence. They forgave as men and fellow-Chris- 
 tians — he forgave ' in the person of Christ.' 
 
OF THE APOSTOLIC CHURCH. 171 
 
 " With such illustrations of an apostle's power to 
 threaten discipline, to inflict discipline, and to remit 
 discipline, we shall understand the force of the other 
 passages in the epistles to the Corinthians. 
 
 " ' Wherefore, though I wrote unto you, I did it 
 not for his cause that had done the wrong, nor for 
 his cause that suffered wrong, but that our core for 
 you in the sight of God might appear unto you.' 
 2 Gor. vii. 12. ' But though I should boast some- 
 what more of our authority, (which the Lord hath 
 given us for edification, and not for your destruc- 
 tion,) I should not be ashamed.' 2 Cor. x. 8. 'I 
 told you before, and foretell you, as if I were pre- 
 sent the second time ; and being absent, now I 
 write to them which heretofore have sinned, and to 
 all other, that if I come again / will not spare. 
 Therefore I write these things being absent, lest 
 being present /should use sharpness, according to 
 the power which the Lord hath given me to edifica- 
 tion, and not to destruction.' 2 Cor. xiii. 2, 10." 
 
 This is the ichole of the argument from the care 
 in the church at Corinth. This argument I pro- 
 ceed now to examine, and in reply would observe : 
 That there were elders, teachers, ministers, instruc- 
 tors in Corinth, is placed beyond a question by the 
 nature of the case. This fact I do not intend to 
 call in question. 
 
 Further, if there were elders there, there wi:s 
 also, according to Episcopalians, an " apostle," a 
 
172 ORGANIZATION AND GOVERNMENT 
 
 prelatical bishop, there — to wit, Timothy. That 
 Timothy was there at the time referred to, is shown 
 by a quotation from the epistle itself, relating to 
 this very time, and in immediate connection with 
 the case of discipline. 1 Cor. iv. 17 : " For this 
 cause [that is, on account of your divided and con- 
 tending state] have I sent unto you Timotheus, 
 who is my beloved son and faithful in the Lord, 
 who shall bring you into remembrance of my ways 
 which be in Christ, as I teach everywhere in every 
 church." Now, as it will not be pretended by 
 Episcopalians that Timothy was not an " apostle" 
 and a prelate, and as it is undeniable that he was 
 at that time at Corinth, the argument will as well 
 apply to set aside his right to administer discipline 
 in the case, as that of the elders. Borrowing, then, 
 the words of Dr. Onderdonk, I would say : " Yet 
 without noticing" this apostle " in the matter, so 
 far as the epistles show — though" he was " doubt- 
 less noticed and consulted, as much as courtesy and" 
 his apostolical " standing made proper — without 
 putting the matter into" his "hands, or even pass- 
 ing it through" his " hands — Paul threatens, in- 
 flicts, and remits discipline. This is a ministerial 
 act. And Paul's doing it himself, instead of com- 
 mitting it to" Timothy, "shows that he, an apos- 
 tle, was superior to" him " in ministerial power 
 and rights." Now, no Episcopalian will fail to be 
 at once deeply impressed with the fallacy of this 
 
OF HIE ATOSTOLIC CHURCH. 173 
 
 reasoning in regard to Timothy. And yet, it is 
 manifestly just as pertinent and forcible in his case 
 as it is in regard to the elders of Corinth. It can- 
 not be pretended that a difference existed, because 
 the "elders" were permanently located there, and 
 Timothy not : for the argument relied on is. that 
 the apostles were superior a* apostles, and then 
 it made no difference on this point whether they 
 were at Corinth, or at Crete, or at Antioch ; they 
 were invested with the apostolic office everywhere. 
 The conclusion which I derive from this instance, 
 and from the fact which has now been stated, is, 
 that there was some peculiarity in the case at 
 rinth, which rendered the ordinary exercise of dis- 
 cipline by presbyters difficult ; which operated 
 equally against any interference by Timothy ; and 
 which called particularly for the interposition of the 
 founder of the church, and of an inspired apostle — 
 of one clothed with authority to inflict a heavy 
 judgment, here denominated 'delivering unto Satan 
 for the destruction of the flesh." | 1 Cor. v. 5.) — a 
 power which could be exercised bv none then in 
 Corinth. The next inquiry is. whether there are 
 any reasons for this opinion ' The following appear 
 to be entirely satisfactory : — 
 
 (1.) Paul had established that church. 'Acts xviii. 
 L— 11,) and his interference in cases of discipline 
 would be regarded as peculiarly proper. There 
 would be a natural and obvious deference to the 
 
 15* 
 
174 ORGANIZATION AND GOVERNMENT 
 
 founder of the church, which would render such an 
 interposition in the highest degree appropriate. 
 This view is confirmed by the fact that he puts his 
 authority in this very case on the deference which 
 was due to him as their spiritual father : " For 
 though ye have ten thousand instructors in Christ, 
 yet have ye not many fathers ; for in Christ 
 Jesus / have begotten you through the gospel. " 
 1 Cor. iv. 15. 
 
 (2.) The circumstances of the church at Corinth 
 were such, evidently, as to render the ordinary 
 exercise of discipline by their own elders, without 
 counsel from abroad and the judgment of one who 
 would be respected, impossible. They were rent 
 into parties ; were engaged in violent contention ; 
 and the authority, therefore, of one portion of the 
 "teachers" and "instructors" would be disregarded 
 by the other. Thus, no harmonious sentence could 
 be agreed upon, and no judgment of a party could 
 restore peace. An attempt to exercise discipline 
 would only enkindle party animosity, and produce 
 strife. See chap. i. 11-17. So great, evidently, 
 was the contention, and so hopeless the task of 
 allaying it by any ordinary means, that even Ti- 
 mothy, whom Paul had sent for the express purpose 
 of bringing them into remembrance of his ways, 
 (1 Cor. iv. 17,) could have no hope, by his own in- 
 terference, of allaying it. It was natural, there- 
 fore, that it should be referred to the founder of the 
 
OF THE APOSTOLIC CHURCH. 175 
 
 church, and to one who had the power of punishing 
 th>e offender. 
 
 (3.) It is material to remark, that this was not an 
 ordinary case of discipline. It was one which re- 
 quired the severest exercise of authority, and in a 
 form which was lodged only with those intrusted 
 with the power of inflicting diseases, or, as it is 
 termed, " of delivering to Satan for the destruction 
 of the flesh/' 1 Cor. v. 5. Such cases would inevi- 
 tably devolve upon the apostles, as clothed with 
 miraculous power ; and such, beyond all contro- 
 versy, was this instance. It therefore proves nothing 
 about the ordinary mode of administering disci- 
 pline. This offence had reached such a degree of 
 enormity — it had been suffered to remain so long, 
 and had become so aggravated — that it was neces- 
 sary to interpose in this awful manner, and to de- 
 cide it. Yet, 
 
 (4.) The apostle supposes that they ought to have 
 exercised the usual discipline themselves. This is 
 evident from a comparison of the following pas- 
 sages : 1 Cor. v. 9, 10, 11, 12, with v. 2. In these 
 verses it is supposed that they did themselves 
 usually exercise discipline. Paul (ver. 9) gave 
 them the general direction not to keep company 
 with fornicators; that is, to exercise discipline on 
 those who did. In ver. 11, he asks them — in a 
 manner showing that the affirmative answer to the 
 question expressed their usual practice — whether 
 
176 ORGANIZATION AND GOVERNMENT 
 
 they did not "judge those that were within ?" that ' 
 is, whether they did not ordinarily exercise disci- 
 pline in the church ? And in ver. 2, he supposes 
 that it ought to have been done in this very case; 
 and as it had not been done by them, and the affair 
 had assumed special enormity, he exercised the 
 miraculous power intrusted to him, by inflicting on 
 the offender a grievous disease. Ver. 4, 5; comp. 
 1 Cor. xi. 30. 
 
 (5.) This case of discipline in the church was, 
 after all, in fact, administered by the church itself, 
 and not by the apostle Paul. This is conclusive 
 from verses 3-5 : " For I verily, as absent in body, 
 but present in spirit, have judged already, as though 
 I were present, concerning him that hath so done 
 this deed; in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, 
 when ye are gathered together, and my spirit, with 
 the power of our Lord Jesus Christ, to deliver such 
 a one unto Satan." They were to be assembled 
 for the purpose of administering discipline, and the 
 act was in reality to be administered by the church. 
 The apostle did not assume the authority to do it 
 independently of the church, or without their con- 
 currence ; and though the offence was so great and 
 glaring that there was no doubt as to the propriety 
 and the necessity of administering the discipline, 
 yet even Paul would not do it, though in a church 
 founded by himself, in a way which ^ would invade 
 their own proper prerogatives. It is to be remem- 
 
OF THE APOSTOLIC CHURCH. 177 
 
 bered, too, that this was a case where bodily pains 
 were to be inflicted by miraculous agency, for the 
 offender was to be delivered " unto Satan for the 
 destruction of the flesh;" and that even in this case 
 the apostle would not visit a member of the church 
 with this punishment without the concurrence of 
 the church itself. Even Paul, an apostle, and the 
 spiritual father of the church, did not claim the 
 authority to remove an offender except through their 
 agency. The church was to take up the case, to act 
 on it, to pass the sentence, to excommunicate the 
 man. And again, when the sentence was to be re- 
 mitted, and the offender was to be restored, it was 
 to be by the church itself. Even an apostle did 
 not assume the prerogative of saying that the 
 offender should -he reinstated in the church; he did 
 not by his own authority restore him to his former 
 good standing : he placed himself before the church 
 as a pleader, and asked them to do it : " Sufficient 
 to such a man is this punishment, which was in- 
 flicted of many, [not of one, as the apostle, but by 
 the collective church.] So that contrariwise ye 
 OUGHT rather to forgive him, and comfort him, lest 
 perhaps such a one should be swallowed up with 
 overmuch sorrow. Wherefore I beseech you that 
 ye would confirm your love toward him. For to 
 this end also did I write, that I might know the 
 proof of you, whether ye be obedient in all things." 
 2 Cor. iii. 6-9. Here the church is consulted at 
 
178 ORGANIZATION AND GOVERNMENT 
 
 every step, and without its action nothing is done. 
 In judging in the case, in excluding the member, 
 and again in admitting him to the communion, the 
 church acts throughout. The apostle does nothing 
 himself. I would respectfully ask whether this is 
 the method of administering discipline by those 
 who claim to be the " successors" of the apostles in 
 the " Protestant Episcopal Church" ? When disci- 
 pline is to be administered, is it the practice for the 
 " bishop" to make a representation of it to the 
 " church" in which the offence was committed, and 
 to ask, or even to enjoin, the church to "gather to- 
 gether with his spirit," and to deliver the offender 
 to the just measure of punishment? And again, 
 when he judges that the "punishment inflicted of 
 many" is " sufficient," does he present himself at 
 the door of the assembled church, and "beseech" 
 them to receive the offending member again ? I 
 apprehend that in this respect there has been an 
 entire departure from the "apostolic" rule and 
 example. The matter of fact is, that in all in- 
 stances of discipline in the Episcopal Church, the 
 bishop is the ultimate arbiter, and if a case is 
 brought before him, he has the sole right of de- 
 cision, and neither church nor pastor, nor both, 
 can set his verdict aside. 
 
 (6.) It is evident that other churches did, in 
 ordinary cases, exercise discipline without the in- 
 tervention of an apostle. Thus ; the church in 
 
OF THE APOSTOLIC CHURCH. 179 
 
 Thessalonica — where Episcopacy, with all its zeal, 
 has never been able even to conjecture that there 
 was a diocesan bishop — was directed to exercise 
 discipline in any instance where the command of 
 the inspired apostle was not obeyed : " And if any 
 man obey not our word by this epistle, note that 
 man, and have no company with him, that he may 
 be ashamed." 2 Thess. iii. 14. 
 
 (7.) The circumstances of the early churches 
 were such as to make the apostolic intervention 
 proper, and even indispensable, without supposing 
 that it was to be a permanent arrangement. These 
 churches were ignorant and feeble. They had had 
 little opportunity of learning the nature of Chris- 
 tianity. In most cases, their founders were with 
 them but a few weeks, and then left them under 
 the care of elders ordained from among themselves. 
 (Comp. Acts xiii. xiv., et passim.) Those elders 
 would be poorly qualified to discharge the functions 
 of their office, for they would be but little elevated, 
 in character and learning, above the mass of the 
 people. The churches must have been imperfectly 
 organized, unaccustomed to rigid discipline, ex- 
 posed to many temptations, easily drawn into sin, 
 and subject to great agitation and excitement. 
 Even many subjects in morals and religion, which 
 may now be considered as settled, would appear to 
 them open for debate, and parties, as at Corinth, 
 would easily be formed. Comp. Acts xiv. xv. ) 
 
180 ORGANIZATION AND GOVERNMENT 
 
 Rom. xiv. ; 1 Cor. viii. In these circumstances, 
 how natural was it for these churches to loo*k for 
 direction to the inspired men who had founded 
 them ; and how natural that such persons should 
 interpose and settle important and difficult cases of 
 discipline. In view of these obvious considerations, 
 are we to suppose that the fact that the apostle Paul 
 in two cases — and two such cases only are recorded — 
 directed an extraordinary act of discipline, is to be 
 regarded as proof that this power appertained only 
 to the apostolic office, and was to be a permanent 
 arrangement in the church ? It is rather a matter 
 of wonder that but two cases of apostolic inter- 
 ference are mentioned during the long and active 
 life of Paul ) and this is evidence of great weight 
 that the churches were expected to exercise disci- 
 pline, and actually did so, on their own members. 
 
 These views are confirmed by what is known to 
 take place in organizing churches in heathen coun- 
 tries at the present day. In a conversation with 
 me, the Rev. Mr. Winslow, one of the American 
 missionaries then stationed at Ceylon, incidentally 
 remarked that the missionaries were obliged to re- 
 tain the exercise of discipline in their own hands ; 
 and that, although the mission had been established 
 more than fifteen years, yet it had never been in- 
 trusted to the native converts. He further observed 
 that the missionaries had been endeavouring to find 
 persons to whom they could intrust the discipline 
 
OF THE APOSTOLIC CHURCH. 181 
 
 of the church, as elders, but that as yet they had 
 not found one. The native converts were still so 
 ignorant of the laws of Christianity, they had so 
 little influence in the church, they were so partial 
 to each other, even when in fault, that thus far dis- 
 cipline — though somewhat frequent acts were neces- 
 sary — was retained in the hands of the missionaries. 
 Substantially the same thing must have occurred in 
 the early churches in Asia Minor, in Syria, and 
 Greece. Will Episcopalians infer that, because 
 modern missionaries have found it necessary to re- 
 tain the power of administering discipline in their 
 own hands, therefore they are diocesan bishops, 
 and that they do not contemplate that the churches 
 under their care shall be other than prelatical ? If 
 not, the argument in the case of the church in 
 Corinth should be allowed to have no weight. 
 
 I have now done with this instance of discipline. 
 I have shown that all the circumstances of the case 
 can be accounted for without any such conclusion 
 as that to which Episcopalians are desirous of con- 
 ducting it. I turn, therefore, to the other case of 
 discipline referred to — that in the church at Ephesus. 
 
 The case is thus stated in 1 Tim. i. 20 : " Of 
 whom is Hymeneus and Alexander ; whom I have 
 delivered unto Satan, that they may learn not to 
 blaspheme." The argument of Episcopalians is 
 stated by Dr. Onderdonk in the following words : — 
 
 " There i certainly were' elders in Ephesus when 
 16 
 
182 ORGANIZATION AND GOVERNMENT 
 
 Paul wrote the first epistle to Timothy. We prove 
 this fact from the language : ' That thou mightest 
 charge some that they teach no other doctrine.' 
 Teachers, then, there were in that church, public 
 teachers, authorized teachers, and such are not the 
 ruling elders or deacons of parity, nor (except under 
 the bishop's license) the deacons of Episcopacy; 
 therefore both these parties, the only ones con- 
 cerned with the Tract, must agree that they ' cer- 
 tainly' were elders or presbyters. We prove it by 
 the apostle's condemnation of Hymeneus and Alex- 
 ander, for ' making shipwreck concerning faith,' 
 i. e. making shipwreck in teaching the faith, teach- 
 ing it publicly and with authority; and these 
 teachers were elders, for the reasons just given. 
 We prove it also from the fact that there were 
 elders at Ephesus when Paul said to them, in Acts 
 xx. : ' Grievous wolves shall enter in among you, 
 also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking 
 perverse things ;' Paul thus declaring that the false 
 teaching at Ephesus would be by elders, and would 
 ocour afterward, it not having occurred as yet. That 
 the false teaching would be by elders, seems de- 
 cisive in favour of the assertion that the false teach- 
 ing there was by elders, as we have just maintained; 
 that the false teaching was yet to occur, when there 
 were already elders in Ephesus addressed by Paul, 
 in Acts xx., is proof that that church had its elders 
 when this evil indoctrination had occurred, which 
 
OF THE APOSTOLIC CHURCH. 183 
 
 was the case when Paul first wrote to Timothy, as 
 our extracts from that epistle show. This latter 
 argument we consider final : the epistle enumerates, 
 as errors then existing there, ' fables, endless genea- 
 logies, swerving from charity and faith to vain 
 jangling, questions and strifes of words, perverse 
 disputings of men of corrupt minds and destitute 
 of the truth, profane and vain babblings, and op- 
 positions of science falsely so called ;' pwff^w?, per- 
 haps gnosticism, as Hammond argues. This was 
 the state of things at Ephesus when Paul wrote the 
 epistle. But when he addressed the ' elders,' in 
 Acts xx., he spoke of nothing of the sort as having 
 existed, or as existing then, but only as to exist at 
 a future time. If, then, there were elders there 
 before these mischiefs appeared, there ' certainly 
 were* when they were afterward developed — i. e. 
 when Paul wrote the first epistle to Timothy. 
 
 "Well, then, is the discipline of the church at 
 Ephesus intrusted to these elders ? Nothing like it. 
 As in the case of the Corinthians, that ' power was 
 given by the Lord' to an apostle, and only an apostle 
 exercised it. It is the apostle who inflicts the dis- 
 cipline ) the elders do not appear in the matter. 
 And discipline is a ministerial function, and excom- 
 munication its highest exercise." (Answer, p. 13.) 
 
 In reply to this argument, I make the following 
 observations : — 
 
 (1.) It occurs in a charge to Timothy — that 
 
184 ORGANIZATION AND GOVERNMENT 
 
 Timothy, who, on the supposition of Episcopalians, 
 was an apostle co-ordinate with Paul himself; Timo- 
 thy, the prelate of Ephesus. If Timothy was an 
 apostle, and a diocesan bishop, and if the exercise 
 of discipline pertained to an apostle and bishop, 
 why did Paul take the matter into his own hands? 
 Why did he not refer it to Timothy, and repose 
 sufficient confidence in him to believe that he was 
 competent to fulfil this part of his episcopal office? 
 Would it now be regarded as courteous for the 
 " bishop" of the diocese of Ohio to interpose and 
 inflict an act of discipline on some Hymeneus or 
 Alexander of the diocese of Pennsylvania? And 
 would there be as cordial submission of the bishop 
 of the diocese of Pennsylvania as there was of the 
 bishop of the diocese of Ephesus? If Timothy 
 was at Ephesus, and if the case of discipline oc- 
 curred at the time which Dr. Onderdonk supposes, 
 this case appears very much as if Paul regarded 
 Timothy as neither an apostle nor a prelate. 
 
 (2.) If the exercise of the authority in this case 
 of discipline by Paul proves that the presbyters at 
 Ephesus had no right to administer discipline, for 
 the same reason it proves that Timothy had not that 
 right. By the supposition of Episcopalians, Timo- 
 thy was there, as well as the presbyters. The as- 
 sumption of the authority by Paul as much proves 
 that it did not belong to Timothy as that it did not 
 belong to the presbyters. 
 
OF THE APOSTOLIC CHURCH. 185 
 
 (3.) This was a case similar to that which oc- 
 curred at Corinth. It was an act of discipline 
 which supposed the infliction of the judgment of 
 God by a miraculous agency: "Whom I have de- 
 livered unto Satan, that they may learn not to blas- 
 pheme." Compare this account with the record of 
 the case in Corinth, (1 Cor. v. 5,) and it is evident 
 that this was not an ordinary act of discipline, 
 but was such as implied the direct infliction of 
 punishment by the Almighty. That such inflic- 
 tions were intrusted to the hands of the apostles, I 
 admit; and that Paul, not Timothy, inflicted this, 
 proves that the latter was neither an apostle nor a 
 prelate. 
 
 (4.) It is supposed by Episcopalians that this 
 occurred at Ephesus, and while Timothy was there. 
 But what evidence is there of this? It is neither 
 affirmed that the transaction was at Ephesus, nor 
 that Timothy was present. The argument of Episco- 
 palians proceeds on the assumption that Timothy 
 was bishop there when the epistle was written, and 
 that the case of discipline occurred there. The 
 only possible pretence of proof of this would be the 
 subscription at the end of the second epistle. But 
 that subscription has no authority whatever; and it 
 is not to be assumed, but proved, that Timothy was 
 there in the capacity of a prelate, or there at all, 
 when this epistle was written to him. The demon- 
 stration, that a bishop only exercised discipline, it 
 
 16* 
 
186 ORGANIZATION AND GOVERNMENT 
 
 must be admitted, rests on slender grounds, if this 
 be all. 
 
 (5.) But if this case did occur at Ephesus, what 
 evidence is there that it occurred at the time that 
 Episcopalians suppose ? The account in the Epistle 
 to Timothy by no means fixes the time of the trans- 
 action. "Whom I have delivered (napiSiDxa) unto 
 Satan." It was already done; and the presumption 
 is, that it was done when Paul was himself present 
 with them. It is morally certain that it was not an 
 act of discipline then to be performed. 
 
 My readers have now the whole case before them. 
 Episcopacy affirms that prelates only have the power 
 of administering discipline. It affirms that the 
 churches are prohibited from exercising it on their 
 own members; that those appointed to preach the 
 gospel, to administer the sacraments, and to be pas- 
 tors of the flock, — and who may therefore be sup- 
 posed to understand the cases of discipline and best 
 qualified to administer it, — have no right to exercise 
 this act of government over their own members, but 
 that this exclusive prerogative belongs to a stranger, 
 and a foreigner — a prelatical bishop — whom the 
 churches seldom see, and who must be, in a great 
 degree, unacquainted with their peculiar wants and 
 character. All power of discipline in an entire dio- 
 cese of some hundreds of churches is to be taken 
 away from the churches themselves, and from the 
 pastors, and committed to a solitary, independent 
 
OF THE APOSTOLIC CHURCH. 187 
 
 man, who, from the nature of the circumstances, 
 can have little acquaintance with the case, and pos- 
 sess few of the qualifications requisite for the intelli- 
 gent performance of this duty. And does the 
 reader ask, What is the authority for this assump- 
 tion of power? Why are the churches and their 
 pastors disrobed of this office, and reduced to the 
 condition of humble dependants at the feet of the 
 prelate? Let him, in astonishment, learn. It is 
 not because there is any command to this effect in 
 the New Testament; it is not because there is any 
 declaration implying that it would be so; it is not by 
 any affirmation that it ever was so. This is the 
 reason, and this is all : — The apostle Paul, in two 
 cases, and in both instances over the heads of pres- 
 byters, (and over the head of " Bishop'' Timothy, 
 too,) delivered men "to Satan for the destruction 
 of the flesh, that they might learn not to blas- 
 pheme;" and therefore, Episcopal bishops only 
 have power to administer discipline in the Christian 
 church; and therefore, all the acts of discipline 
 exercised by Presbyterians, Methodists, Baptists, 
 and Congregationalists are null and void. The 
 disposal of such antecedents and consequents may 
 be safely left to all who hold that " no argument is 
 worth taking into the account that has not a clear 
 and palpable bearing on the naked topic — the scrip- 
 tural evidence of Episcopacy." Tract, p. 3. 
 
 But I have not done with this subject. I shall 
 
188 ORGANIZATION AND GOVERNMENT 
 
 yet show, (ch. iv. § 2, 2,) not only, that there is no 
 evidence that the apostles exclusively exercised 
 discipline, but that there is positive proof that all 
 the acts of discipline were in fact exercised by the 
 presbyters and the churches. 
 
 I have now examined the essential point in Epis- 
 copacy; for, if the claims which are arrogated for 
 prelatical bishops are unfounded, the system, as a 
 system, is destroyed. I have examined the solitary 
 passage urged directly in its favour, "the apostles 
 and elders," "the apostles, and elders, and bre- 
 thren;" and the claims set up in favour of their 
 exclusive right to administer discipline and to 
 administer the rite of confirmation. I have shown, 
 if I mistake not, that none of the passages of the 
 New Testament relied on furnish support for the 
 stupendous claims set up in favour of the prelate. 
 If they do not, then, by the uniform admission of 
 Episcopalians, and by the special concession of Dr. 
 Onderdouk, there is no authority for Episcopacy in 
 the Scriptures, and it must be regarded as wholly 
 an arrangement of human origin. "If we cannot," 
 says Dr. Onderdonk, (Tract, p. 11,) "authenticate 
 the claims of the episcopal office," [the office of the 
 prelate,] "we will surrender those of our deacons, 
 and let all power he confined to the one office of pres- 
 byters." It is submitted to the reader whether we 
 are not now prepared to avail ourselves of this con- 
 cession, and to draw the conclusion that " the claims 
 
OF THE APOSTOLIC CHURCH. 189 
 
 of the episcopal office" are not made out, and that 
 the ministers oi the gospel should be regarded as 
 equal in grade and honour. If so, the controversy 
 should be considered as at an end. 
 
 CHAPTER IV. 
 
 THE CONSTITUTION OP THE CHURCH AS ESTAB- 
 LISHED BY THE SAVIOUR AND THE APOSTLES. 
 
 Having thus examined all the scriptural argu- 
 ments which are adduced by Episcopalians in fa- 
 vour of the peculiar organization of their church, 
 the argument might be left here, for, if the positions 
 which have been taken are correct, the principal ob- 
 ject contemplated is accomplished. If there is no 
 scriptural authority for prelacy; none for an apos- 
 tolical succession; none for confirmation; none for 
 the right which the " bishop" claims for administer- 
 ing discipline, — then it follows that there is nothing 
 in the system which makes it binding on the churches 
 of the Redeemer, and that the whole arrangement 
 of the Episcopacy is one of human origin. 
 
 But it is often objected by Episcopalians, that all 
 the efforts of those who doubt the claims of the 
 " Episcopate" are employed to demolish that system 
 without proposing any substitute in its place; and 
 that, while so much zeal is evinced to prove that 
 
190 ORGANIZATION AND GOVERNMENT 
 
 their claims are not founded on the authority of 
 Scripture, nothing is done to show what was the 
 plan on which the church in the New Testament 
 was organized. It is proposed, therefore, to collect 
 and arrange the scattered notices on this point in 
 the New Testament, and to inquire whether it was 
 the design of the Saviour to prescribe any form 
 of church government which should be universally 
 binding on his church. The first point will relate 
 to the officers referred to in the New Testament; 
 the second, to the actual organization and govern- 
 ment of the churches. 
 
 Sect. 1. — The Officers of the Church. 
 
 The officers referred to in the New Testament, 
 in the organization of the church, may be divided 
 into two great classes. 1. Those which were in- 
 tended to be temporary; and, 2. Those which are so 
 mentioned as to show that they were designed to be 
 permanent. 
 
 I. Those which were designed to be temporary. 
 
 Under this class are to be ranked, 
 
 (1.) The apostles, properly so called, who were 
 appointed by the Saviour to be his companions, to 
 be witnesses of what he taught, and to be wit- 
 nesses of his resurrection. This has been demon- 
 strated in ch. ii. This office, from its nature, was 
 temporary, and was confined to those who had been 
 
OF THE APOSTOLIC CHURCH. 191 
 
 with him during his public ministry, and whom he 
 had specially called for this purpose, with Matthias, 
 who was chosen to fill the vacated place of Judas, 
 (Acts i.,) and Paul, who was called to the special 
 work of the apostleship among the Gentiles, and 
 permitted to see the Saviour in a miraculous manner 
 after his ascension, in order that he might have the 
 appropriate qualification of an apostle. 1 Cor. ix. 
 This office was one in which, from the nature of the 
 case, there could be no succession, unless the " suc- 
 cession' ' was kept up by a miraculous manifestation 
 of the Saviour to each one in the "succession," as 
 in the case of the apostle Paul, to qualify him to be 
 a " witness" that the Kedeemer was risen from the 
 dead. In reference to this point, I may briefly sum 
 up all that has been shown to be contained in the 
 New Testament. The case stands thus: (a.) There 
 is no command in the New Testament to the apos- 
 tles to transmit to others the peculiarity of the apos- 
 tolic office. If the peculiarity of the office was to 
 be transmitted, it was required that such a command 
 should be given. But it has not been pretended 
 that any such command has been discovered. 
 (6.) There is no affirmation that it would be thus 
 transmitted. No one has been able to find an 
 affirmative on that point. And we may ask here 
 whether it is credible that the apostles were bish- 
 ops of a superior order, and that it was designed 
 that all the church should be subject to an order of 
 
192 ORGANIZATION AND GOVERNMENT 
 
 men " superior in ministerial rank and power," de- 
 riving their authority from the apostles, and yet 
 not the slightest command thus to transmit it, and 
 not the slightest hint that it would be done ? (c) It 
 was imjyossible that the peculiarity of the apostolic 
 office should be transmitted. I have shown, not by 
 assumptions, but by a large array of passages of 
 Scripture, what that peculiarity was : to bear wit- 
 ness to the great events which went to prove that 
 Jesus was the Messiah, and that he rose from the 
 dead. The peculiarity of that office, as specified by 
 Jesus Christ, by the chosen apostles, by Paul, and 
 by the whole college, could not be transmitted ; 
 for no prelate is, or can be, a witness, in the sense 
 and for the purpose for which they were originally 
 designated, unless he can make the affirmation which 
 Paul did in proof that he was an apostle : " Am I not 
 an apostle ? Have I not seen Jesus Christ our Lord? 
 1 Cor. ix. 1. (rf) I have examined the case of Ti- 
 mothy, of Titus, of Barnabas, and of the " angels" 
 of the churches — the slender basis on which, in the 
 absence of direct command to continue the succession, 
 and direct affirmation that it would be continued, 
 the whole fabric of Episcopacy has been reared. 
 
 The conclusion to which we have come is, that, 
 while this was a most important and wise arrange- 
 ment in the organization of the church, there is not 
 the slightest evidence that the Redeemer intended 
 that it should be perpetual ; that it is impossible to 
 
OF THE APOSTOLIC CHURCH. 193 
 
 make out the fact of such a "succession;" and con- 
 sequently that the whole claim that the " bishop" 
 is the " successor" of the apostles 1 is a usurpation 
 of authority in the church. The organization of the 
 Christian church is complete without any such 
 " succession" — or such officers — as really as it is 
 without the "order" of "deaconesses," and with- 
 out the "order" of the "seventy disciples." 
 
 (2.) There were special ministers sent out for a 
 temporary purpose by the Lord Jesus himself: 
 " After these things the Lord appointed other se- 
 venty also, and sent them two and two before his 
 face into every city and place, whither he himself 
 would come." Luke x. 1. These persons were 
 (a) evidently appointed for a different purpose from 
 the apostles. The apostles, as has been shown, 
 were to be with him, to hear his instructions, to be 
 witnesses of his miracles, his sufferings, his death, 
 and his resurrection, and then to go and proclaim 
 those things to the world; and, having done this, 
 the apostolic office was to cease. The object of the 
 appointment of the " seventy" is expressed, and we 
 have no right to go beyond that in interpreting their 
 commission. They were to " go two and two into 
 every city and place, whither he himself would come" 
 This was the extent of their commission. It was to 
 proclaim the coming of Jesus of Nazareth, and pre- 
 pare the way for his personal preaching there, evi- 
 dently by calling the minds of the people to his claims, 
 
 17 
 
194 ORGANIZATION AND GOVERNMENT 
 
 to the. remarkable character of his preaching, to his 
 power in working miracles, and to the evidence that 
 he was the Messiah. There is no commission to go 
 out of Judea, as the Saviour evidently did not design 
 himself to go out of Judea; and there is no com- 
 mission to the appointment as a permanent office. 
 (b) They were appointed to a temporary office. This 
 appears from the nature of the commission, and from 
 the fact that there is no reference in the New Testa- 
 ment to any persons who claimed to be the "suc- 
 cessors" of the "seventy." There is no record of 
 their number having been filled up when one of them 
 died, nor is there any intimation whatever of the 
 permanency of their office. We never hear them 
 alluded to as having a fixed office in the church; nor 
 in the appointment of any class of ministers is there 
 any intimation that they were to succeed the " se- 
 venty" disciples. In the accounts of the churches 
 which were organized by the apostles there is no 
 allusion to them, nor does it appear to have ever 
 occurred that any reference was to be had to them 
 in the organization of a church. 
 
 If this be so, — and that it is, no one acquainted 
 with the New Testament will deny, — then the ap- 
 pointment of the " seventy disciples" should not be 
 urged as an argument to prove that the ministry was 
 established in " three orders of bishops, priests, and 
 deacons." Between the appointment of the seventy, 
 as the record is made in Luke, and the office of a 
 
OF THE APOSTOLIC CHURCH. 105 
 
 "priest" in the Episcopal Church, there is no re- 
 semblance whatever. There is no evidence, as has 
 been remarked, that it was to be permanent ; there is 
 no intimation that they were to be subject to the 
 " bishops" — the apostles; or that they might not 
 ordain, or might not administer the rite of confirma- 
 tion, or that they might not administer discipline, or 
 that they might not take the oversight of a " diocese." 
 All this is language unknown to the New Testa- 
 ment; and the simple and obvious account of the 
 appointment of the " seventy" is, that they were em- 
 ployed by the Saviour to prepare tl?e way for his per- 
 sonal ministry in the places where he proposed to go. 
 (3.) There were in the apostolic church, also, 
 "prophets" who, unless they were classed under 
 the denomination of " teachers," were designed only 
 to be temporary in the duration of their office. Acts 
 xiii. 1 : " There were in the church at Antioch cer- 
 tain prophets and teachers;" xv. 32 : "And Judas 
 and Silas being prophets also themselves." 1 Cor. 
 xii. 28 : " God hath set some in the church — se- 
 condarily — prophets" Ver. 29 : " Are 2l\\ prophets?" 
 Eph. iv. 11 : "And he gave some prophets." 1 Cor. 
 xiv. 3 : " He that prophesieth speaketh unto men 
 to edification, and exhortation, and comfort." Ver. 5 : 
 " I would that ye all spake with tongues, but rather 
 that ye prophesied ; for greater is he that prophesieth 
 than he that speaketh with tongues." Ver. 22 : 
 " Tongues are for a sign, not to them that believe, 
 
196 ORGANIZATION AND GOVERNMENT 
 
 but to them that believe not; but prophecy serveth 
 not for them that believe not, but for them that be- 
 lieve." Ver. 29: "Let the prophets speak two or 
 three, and let the others judge."' There is some 
 evidence that the persons here referred to were under 
 the direct inspiration of the Holy Ghost, and that 
 they were therefore appointed in an extraordinary 
 manner in the circumstances in which the church 
 was placed when newly founded, and when it needed 
 special guidance and direction. There is no evi- 
 dence whatever that the office of " prophet" was in- 
 tended to be permanent. 
 
 (4.) Under this denomination of officers that were 
 not designed to be permanent, may be ranked also 
 the office of deaconess. Rom. xvi. 1 : " I commend 
 unto you Phebe, our sister, which is a servant — 
 dtdxovov — of the church which is at Cenchrea." 
 Comp. 1 Tim. v. 3, 9-11; Titus ii. 3, 4. Deaconesses 
 appear to have been commonly aged widows, sus- 
 taining a fair reputation, and qualified to guide and 
 instruct those who were young and inexperienced. 
 The " apostolical constitutions" say : " Ordain a 
 deaconess who is faithful and holy, for the minis- 
 tries toward the women." Book iii. Pliny, in his 
 celebrated letter to Trajan, says, when speaking of 
 the efforts which he made to obtain information re- 
 specting the opinions and practices of Christians : 
 '* I deemed it necessary to put two maid-servants, 
 who are called ministrse, [deacon esses,~\ to the tor- 
 
01' THE APOSTOLIC CHURCH. 197 
 
 ture, in order to ascertain what is truth." The rea- 
 son for their appointment in the early churches of 
 the Gentiles was probably the fact, that in the East, 
 females are kept secluded from men, and are not per- 
 mitted to mingle freely in society, as is the case in 
 the "Western nations. It became necessary, therefore, 
 to appoint aged and experienced females to instruct 
 the young of their sex, to visit the sick, and to distri- 
 bute to them the alms of the church. From the na- 
 ture of the case, however, the necessity of this office 
 would not exist in those countries where these customs 
 did not prevail ; and there is no reason to suppose 
 that it was designed to be permanent in the church.* 
 
 II. Permanent officers mentioned in the organiza- 
 tion of the church in the New Testament. These 
 officers are : 
 
 (1.) Those designated by various terms, denoting 
 that they were set apart or appointed to preach the 
 gospel, to impart instruction, and to take the over- 
 
 * It may be a question, however, whether it would not be 
 well to revive this order in the church. There is a large cla?a 
 of females in most churches, especially in cities, who cannot, in 
 any proper sense and to any suitable degree, be under the 
 supervision of a pastor. They are those who have bad little 
 early training in religion, who are not connected with pious 
 families, many of whom are employed as domestics, and who 
 peculiarly need instruction in the doctrines and duties of reli- 
 gion. Some of them are too old to be in Sabbath-schools, and 
 many of them could not be well collected in Bible classes ; but 
 they could with great propriety be placed under the care of 
 more aged and experienced females in the church, whose spe- 
 cial duty it should be to visit them, to counsel them, to instruct 
 them, and to aid them in the divine life. 
 
 17* 
 
198 ORGANIZATION AND GOVERNMENT 
 
 sight of the flock. This class of persons is men- 
 tioned under different appellations — as preachers, 
 bishops, pastors, teachers, evangelists; but all of 
 them in such a connection and form, that it is evident 
 that the arrangement was intended to be permanent, 
 
 (a) The office of preacher was designed to be per- 
 manent, for the Saviour gave direction to his apostles 
 to " go into all the world and preach the gospel to 
 every creature," assuring them that he would be 
 " with them alway, even unto the end of the world.'' 
 Matt, xxviii. 19, 20. Comp. Rom. x. 14, 15; 2 Tim. 
 iv. 2. That the office was designed to be permanent, 
 is made certain from the instruction which Paul gives 
 to Timothy : " And the things which thou hast heard 
 of me among many witnesses, the same commit thou 
 to faithful men, who shall be able to teach others 
 also." 2 Tim. ii. 2. 
 
 (6) The office of bishop, or overseer of the flock, 
 in the true scriptural sense — as a pastor of a parti- 
 cular church — was designed to be permanent also. 
 " The name ' bishop/ which now designates the 
 highest grade in the ministry," says Dr. Onderdonk, 
 (Tract, p. 12,) " is not appropriated to that office in 
 Scripture. That name is given to the middle office 
 or presbyters ; and ALL that we read in the New Tes- 
 tament concerning ' bishops' is to be regarded as ap- 
 pertaining to that middle grade. It was after the 
 apostolic age that the name ' bishop' was taken from 
 the second order and appropriated to the first." The 
 
OP THE APOSTOLIC CHURCH. 199 
 
 »ffice of "bishop," as it was used in the "apostolic 
 age," — denoting an "overseer," — is designed to be 
 permanent in the church. This is evident from the 
 fact that instructions were given which implied this : 
 " If a man desireth the office of a bishop, he desireth 
 a good work. A bishop, then, must be blameless, 
 the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good be- 
 haviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach, not given 
 to wine." 1 Tim. iii. 1-7; Titus i. 7-9; Acts xx. 
 28; Phil. i. 1. The appointment of bishops in the 
 churches by the apostles, and the instructions to 
 Timothy in regard to their qualifications, prove that 
 it was understood that the arrangement was to be 
 permanent. No such instructions are given in re- 
 gard to the qualifications of "apostles," or of pre- 
 lates, as the " successors of the apostles," or of those 
 who were to succeed the '' seventy disciples," or of 
 those who were to succeed the "prophets." Those 
 things were, therefore, of a temporary character; 
 this was a fixed arrangement. 
 
 (f) The office of pastor — another name for the 
 office of " bishop" — was designed to be permanent, 
 for the same reason that instructions are given which 
 imply this, and that the office is mentioned in such 
 a connection as to show that this was designed : 
 "And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; 
 and some, evangelists ; and some, jmstors and 
 teachers; for the perfecting of the saints, for the 
 work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body 
 
200 ORGANIZATION AND GOVERNMENT 
 
 of Christ : till we all come in the unity of the faith 
 and of the knowledge of the Son of God unto a per 
 feet man." Eph. iv. 11, 12. This passage proves 
 that some at least of these offices were to be perma- 
 nent in the church. That it was designed that the 
 pastoral office should be one of them, is apparent 
 from the fact that the word is applied to the office 
 in such a way as to show that it was a permanent 
 arrangement. The word " pastor," indeed, in the 
 sense in which it is used in Eph. iv. 11, does not 
 elsewhere occur in the New Testament, nor have 
 our translators rendered the same word pastor else- 
 where. It occurs often in the sense of shepherd, 
 and is uniformly elsewhere so rendered. Matt. ix. 
 36; xxv. 32; xxvi. 31; Mark vi. 34; xiv. 27; Luke 
 ii. 8, 15, 18, 20; John x. 2, 11, 12, 14, 16; Heb. 
 xiii. 20; 1 Pet. ii. 25. But the verb (irotfia&at) is 
 so used as to denote that the office was to be of a 
 permanent character. John xxi. 16 : " He saith to 
 him, Feed — iroipuuve — my sheep." This was indeed 
 addressed to Peter; but that he understood it as 
 contemplating a permanent arrangement in the 
 church, is apparent from his own instructions given 
 to the elders of the church : " The elders which are 
 among you I exhort, who am also an elder, feed — 
 xotjidvaTe — the flock of God which is among you, 
 taking the oversight thereof [exercising the office 
 of a bishop — 1-iax.o-ouvTsq] — not by constraint, but 
 willingly." 1 Pet. v. 1, 2. Comp. 1 Cor. ix. 7. 
 
OF THE APOSTOLIC CHURCH. 201 
 
 («?) The office of teacher was designed to be per- 
 manent. Eph. iv. 11 : " He gave some teachers. 11 
 "And God hath set some in the church — thirdly, 
 teachers.' 1 1 Cor. xii. 28; Gal. vi. 6: " Let him 
 that is taught in the word communicate to him that 
 teacheth in all good things/' Rom. xii. 7 : " Or he 
 that teacheth on teaching." Comp. Acts xiii. 1 ; 
 ICor. xii. 29; 2 Pet. ii. 1. 
 
 (e) The office of an evangelist, or of a publisher 
 of the gospel, was designed to be permanent in the 
 church. Eph. iv. 11 : "He gave some era^e//s^." 
 2 Tim. iv. 5 : " But watch thou in all things, do the 
 work of an evangelist." Comp. Acts xxi. 8. 
 
 All these offices relate to the preaching of the 
 gospel, and to the proper care and oversight of the 
 church, and might evidently be united in the same 
 person. There is no incompatibility in the offices 
 themselves which would prevent this, aDd there is 
 every reason to suppose that they were thus united. 
 Nay, there is positive evidence that in the case of 
 Timothy and of some of the apostles they were thus 
 uuited. They are not incompatible now ; and there 
 is the same evidence that they were intended to be 
 permanent that there is that the church itself was 
 designed to be permanent. 
 
 (2.) There were riders, or ruling elders, in the 
 church, who are so mentioned as to make it probable 
 that it was designed that there should be in every 
 church such officers to direct and govern its affairs 
 
202 ORGANIZATION AND GOVERNMENT 
 
 That the permanent officers already referred to were 
 authorized to exercise government over the church, 
 in addition to the duty of preaching, of pastoral 
 supervision, and of teaching, is evident from many 
 places in the New Testament, as well as by the 
 names by which they are designated ; but there is 
 also evidence that there was, in some churches at 
 least, a distinct class of men to whom the govern- 
 ment of the church was especially confided. In 
 cases where a church was established where there 
 had been a synagogue, it seems most probable that 
 the apostles would make use of the existing organiza- 
 tion in its government, and engraft the Christian 
 church on that religious community which they 
 found already in existence. On this point, the fol- 
 lowing remarks of Archbishop Whately seem so 
 well founded, that they must commend themselves 
 to every one as founded in truth : — 
 
 " It appears highly probable — I might say mo- 
 rally certain — that wherever a Jewish synagogue 
 existed that was brought — the whole or the chief 
 part of it — to embrace the gospel, the apostles did 
 not there so much, form a Christian church (or con- 
 gregation ; ecclesia) as make an existing congre- 
 gation Christian; by introducing the Christian sacra- 
 ments and worship, and establishing whatever regu- 
 lations were requisite for the newly-adopted faith; 
 leaving the machinery (if I may so speak) of govern- 
 ment unchanged ; the l rulers of synagogues/ elders, 
 
OF THE APOSTOLIC CHURCH. 203 
 
 and other officers (whether spiritual or ecclesiastical, 
 or both) being already provided in the existing in- 
 stitutions. And it is likely that several of the earliest 
 Christian churches did originate in this way ; that 
 is, that they were converted synagogues, which he- 
 came Christian churches as soon as the members, or 
 the main part of the members, acknowledged Jesus 
 as the Messiah. 
 
 " The attempt to effect this conversion of a Jewish 
 synagogue into a Christian church seems always to 
 have been made, in the first instance, in every place 
 where there was an opening for it. Even after the 
 call of the idolatrous Gentiles, it appears plainly to 
 have been the practice of the apostles Paul and 
 Barnabas, when they came to any city in which 
 there was a synagogue, to go thither first and deliver 
 their sacred message to the Jews and * devout (or 
 proselyte) Gentiles/ according to their own ex- 
 pression, (Acts xiii. 16,) to the 'men of Israel and 
 those that feared God/ adding, that 'it was neces- 
 sary that the word of God should first be preached 
 to them.' 
 
 " And when they found a church in any of those 
 cities in which (and such were, probably, a very 
 large majority)' there was no Jewish synagogue 
 that received the gospel, it is likely that they would 
 still conform, in a great measure, to the same 
 model.''* 
 
 * Kingdom of Christ Delineated, Essay II. g 9. 
 
204 ORGANIZATION AND GOVERNMENT 
 
 But there is also express mention in the New Tes- 
 tament of permanent officers appointed to rule the 
 church, as distinct from the teachers and pastors. 
 1 Cor. xii. 28: "And God hath set some in the 
 church, first, apostles; secondarily, prophets; thirdly, 
 teachers; after that, miracles;" that is, those who 
 had the power of working miracles; "then gifts of 
 healing," or those who had the power of healing the 
 sick; "helps, governments, diversities of tongues." 
 The idea here is, undoubtedly, that there were those 
 who were appointed in the church to the business 
 of ruling — as there were for prophesying, or for 
 teaching, or for healing the sick. Whether it refers 
 to a distinct class of men who were set apart to this 
 work, and who were to be a permanent " order" in 
 the church, cannot, from this passage, be determined 
 with certainty, and is not now material. All that is 
 necessary to be observed is, that there were those 
 who were distinct from the " apostles," and the 
 " prophets," and the " teachers," whose office it was 
 to administer the government of the church. The 
 same thing is apparent from 1 Tim. v. 17 : " Let the 
 elders that rule well be counted worthy of double 
 honour, especially they who labour in the word and 
 doctrine." The plain meaning of tnis passage is, that 
 while there were " elders" who laboured in " the 
 word and doctrine," that is, in preaching, there were 
 also those who did not labour in "word and doctrine," 
 but who yet were appointed to " rule" in the church. 
 
OF THE APOSTOLIC CTITJRCH. 205 
 
 (3.) There were in the church, as it was organized 
 by the apostles, those who administered the office of 
 deacons ; and this office is so mentioned as to make 
 it evident that it was designed to be permanent. Acts 
 vi. 1-6. The office, as there designated, was to take 
 the charge of the poor, and to administer to them 
 the alms of the church. This office is subsequently 
 referred to in such a way as to show that it was not 
 designed to be a temporary appointment. Thus, the 
 church of Philippi was organized with such a class 
 of officers, and that class remained at the time when 
 the apostle addressed them from Rome : " Paul and 
 Timotheus, the servants of Jesus Christ, to the saints 
 in Christ Jesus, which are at Philippi, with the bishops 
 and deaco?is." Phil. i. 1. So in 1 Tim. iii. 8-10, the 
 qualifications of "deacons" are so mentioned as to 
 show that this was to be a permanent office in the 
 church : " Likewise must the deacons be grave, not 
 double-tongued, not given to much wine, not greedy 
 of filthy lucre, holding the mystery of the faith in a 
 pure conscience. And let these also be first proved, 
 then let them use the office of a deacon, being found 
 blameless." " Let the deacons be the husbands of one 
 wife, ruling their children and their own houses well. 
 For they that use the office of a deacon well, purchase 
 to themselves a good degree, and great boldness in 
 the faith which is in Christ Jesus." Verses 12, 13. 
 
 It is to be remembered that, in the epistles to Ti- 
 mothy and Titus, the apostle was addressing those 
 
 18 
 
206 ORGANIZATION AND GOVERNMENT 
 
 who were ministers of the gospel, and who were 
 especially and expressly intrusted with the organizing 
 of churches, and the appointment of officers over 
 them, (1 Tim. i. 3, 4; Titus i. 5;) and it will contri- 
 bute to illustrate what has been said about the per- 
 manent offices of the church, to remark that in these 
 epistles there are no instructions given about appoint- 
 ing any to be the " successors of the apostles" or to 
 the apostolic office j none in regard to the appoint- 
 ment of those who should succeed the " seventy dis- 
 ciples j" none in reference to the institution of " pro- 
 phets;" and none in reference to the appointment 
 of " deaconesses ;" unless 1 Tim. v. 3, 9-11, and 
 Titus ii. 3, 4, should be regarded as such. This 
 circumstance is an additional consideration to show 
 that those were not designed to be permanent offices 
 in the church, but that they were temporary in their 
 nature. It is scarcely conceivable that in formal 
 letters to two ministers of religion, occupied mainly 
 with instructions respecting the officers and the 
 government of the church, there should have been 
 such an omission if those offices had been designed 
 to be of a permanent character. 
 
 (4.) There is evidence in the New Testament 
 that it was intended that there should be a perma- 
 nent relation between a minister of the gospel and 
 a particular church j or that the pastoral relation 
 should exist. The evidence of this is found in the 
 following considerations : — 
 
 (a) The name pastor, already adverted to, which 
 
OF THE APOSTOLIC CHURCH. 207 
 
 naturally implies the existence of the correlative 
 pastoral charge — as the name " shepherd" naturally 
 implies that there is a flock. 
 
 (b) The duty enjoined on the churches to provide 
 for the wants of the ministers of religion, also, na- 
 turally implies the existence of this relation. It 
 could scarcely be inculcated as a duty to support the 
 ministry in general, or those to whom they sustained 
 no special relation; and the duty is, in fact, enjoined 
 on them to support those who laboured especially for 
 their benefit. Gal. vi. 6: " Let him that is taught 
 in the word communicate [impart] unto him that 
 teacheth in all good things." 1 Cor. ix. 7 : " Who 
 goeth a warfare any time at his own charges ? who 
 planteth a vineyard, and eateth not of the fruit 
 thereof? or who feedeth a flock, and eateth not of 
 the milk of the flock?" Ver. 11: " If we have 
 sown unto you spiritual things, is it a great thing if 
 we shall reap your carnal things ?" Ver. 14 : " Even 
 so hath the Lord ordained, that they which preach 
 the gospel should live of the gospel." 
 
 (c) Such permanent officers or pastors were ap- 
 pointed in the church at Ephesus. In the discourse 
 of the apostle Paul to the " elders" of the church 
 there, when assembled at Miletus, he addresses them 
 as appointed to watch and guard and govern the 
 church, evidently with the understanding that they 
 had been appointed to their oflice as a permanent 
 relation between them and the church there. " Take 
 heed, therefore, unto yourselves, and to all the flock, 
 
208 ORGANIZATION AND GOVERNMENT 
 
 over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you over- 
 seers, to feed the church of God which he hath pur- 
 chased with his own blood. For I know this, that 
 after my departure shall grievous wolves enter in 
 among you, not sparing the flock." Acts xx. 28, 29. 
 
 (d) The church at Philippi was likewise organ- 
 ized with those who are addressed as sustaining a 
 permanent relation to the church. " Paul and Timo- 
 theus — to the saints in Christ Jesus which are at 
 Philippi, with the BISHOPS (gov I-lgxotzok; — comp. 
 the account of the " elders" of Ephesus, Acts xx. 
 28, "over which the Holy Ghost hath made you 
 bishops" — l-MTzu-oos,^ and deacons." Phii. i. 1. The 
 office of " bishop," or pastor, therefore, in the churches 
 at Philippi and Ephesus, was a permanent office. 
 
 (e) The same thing evidently existed in the 
 churches in Crete. Thus Paul says to Titus, " For 
 this cause left I thee in Crete, that thou shouldst 
 set in order the things that are wanting, and ordain 
 elders in every city, as I had appointed thee." Tit. 
 i. 5. This relation, therefore, was to be constituted 
 in every city where there was a church, and as this 
 instruction was given to one who was himself a 
 minister of religion, and who was set apart for the 
 purpose of aiding in the organization of Christian 
 churches, it follows that this was designed to be a 
 permanent relation. 
 
 It is clear, therefore, that it was contemplated that 
 there should be permanent officers in the church, 
 and it is not difficult to determine what they were; 
 
OF THE APOSTOLIC CHURCH. 209 
 
 nor to ascertain from the New Testament what offi- 
 cer? were appointed only for a temporary purpose. 
 
 Sect. 2. — The actual organization and government 
 of the church, as described in the New Testament. 
 
 If the above views are correct, then but one in- 
 quiry now remains. It is, in what way was the 
 government and discipline of the church actually 
 administered? Who appointed and ordained to the 
 office of the ministry? Who administered disci- 
 pline? Was this done solely by the " prelate" ? 
 Was ordination performed by him alone ? Had he 
 alone the right to admit members to the church, 
 and to exclude them from it ? — The positions which 
 have been already taken on this subject will be 
 strengthened by a brief view of the actual state- 
 ments in the Xew Testament. I observe, then, 
 
 1. That presbyters had the right of ordaining. 
 
 If this can be made out, then it will be an addi- 
 tional consideration to show that the main point 
 claimed for the superiority of bishops is unfounded. 
 I proceed now, therefore, to show that there is 
 positive proof that presbyters did ordain. I have 
 shown, in the course of the argument, that they 
 exercised the office of discipline — one of the things 
 claimed peculiarly for bishops ; and I now proceed 
 to prove, that the office of ordaining was one which 
 was intrusted to them, and which they exercised. 
 If this point is demonstrated, then it will follow still 
 
 18* 
 
210 ORGANIZATION AND GOVERNMENT 
 
 further, that the peculiarity of the office of the apos- 
 tles was not that they ordained, and that the clergy 
 of the New Testament are not divided into " three 
 orders," but are equal in ministerial rank and power. 
 The argument is indeed complete without this; for, 
 unless Episcopalians can show, by positive proof, 
 the claims of their prelates to the right of ordination 
 and discipline, the parity of the clergy follows as a 
 matter of course. 
 
 I am a Presbyterian. But my argument does 
 not require that I should go largely into a defence 
 of the form of church government which I regard 
 as most in accordance with the principles of the 
 New Testament. The leading object of this " In- 
 quiry" is to disprove Episcopacy ; and the conclu- 
 sion which will be reached on this point is one in 
 which all who are not Episcopalians will coincide. 
 All Protestant denominations, with the single excep- 
 tion of the comparatively small sect of Episcopa- 
 lians, are agreed in maintaining the doctrine of the 
 parity of the clergy, and the maintenance of this is 
 the essential feature in which they differ from the 
 advocates of Prleacy. If the claims of Episcopacy 
 in regard to the "three grades" are disproved, it 
 follows that the clergy are on an equality. If it is 
 shown that the doctrine of the New Testament is 
 that presbyters are to ordain, it is a sufficient dis- 
 posal of the " feeble claims of lay-ordination," and 
 of all other claims. It will follow, that a valid ordi- 
 nation is that which is performed in accordance 
 
OF THE APOSTOLIC CHURCH. 211 
 
 with the direction that presbyters should ordain. It 
 will follow also, as has been remarked, that Epis- 
 copal ordination is valid, not because it is performed 
 by a prelate, but because it is in fact a mere Pres- 
 byterian performance. See pp. 123-126. 
 
 In proof of the point now before us, therefore, I 
 adduce 1 Tim. iv. 14: "Neglect not the gift that is 
 in thee, which was given thee by prophecy, with 
 the laying on of the hands of the presbytery." 
 This passage, which, to the common sense of man- 
 kind, affirms the very thing under discussion, it is 
 evidently material for Episcopalians to dispose of, or 
 their claim to exclusive rights and privileges are 
 forever destroyed. I shall, therefore, examine the 
 passage, and then notice the objections to its obvious 
 and common-sense interpretation, alleged by Epis- 
 copalians. 
 
 I observe then, (1.) That the translation is fairly 
 made. Much learned criticism has been exhausted, 
 to very little purpose, by Episcopalians, to show 
 that a difference exists between " with" (jierd) in 
 this place, and " by" (did) in 2 Tim. i. 6. It has 
 been said, " that such a distinction may justly be 
 regarded as intimating, that the virtue of the or- 
 daining act flowed from Paul, while the presbytery, 
 or the rest of that body, if he were included in it, 
 expressed only consent." Tract, p. 22. But it has 
 never been shown, nor can it be, that the preposition 
 "with" does not fairly express the force of the ori- 
 ginal. The same observation may be applied to 
 
212 ORGANIZATION AND GOVERNMENT 
 
 the word " presbytery/' (jrpsffjSoriptov^) It denotes 
 properly an assembly or council of elders, or pres- 
 byters — Versammliuuj od. Rath der Aelteren. Pas- 
 sow. In Luke xxii. 6G, it is applied to the body 
 of elders which composed the Sanhedrim, or Great 
 Council of the Jews, and is translated " the elders of 
 the people :" to rtpzaftuTipur; too kaob. See also, Acts 
 xxii. 5: "the estate of the elders." The word oc- 
 curs nowhere else in the New Testament, except 
 in the passage under consideration. Dr. Onderdonk 
 has endeavoured to show, that it means " the office 
 to which Timothy was ordained, not the persons 
 who ordained him ; so that the passage would read, 
 'with the laying on of hands to confer the presby- 
 terate,' or presbytership, or the clerical office;" and 
 appeals to the authority of Grotius and Calvin, in 
 the case. Tract, pp. 19, 20. In regard to this in- 
 terpretation, I observe, (a) That if this be correct, 
 then it follows, that Timothy was not an apostle, 
 but an elder, — he was ordained to the office of the 
 presbyterate, or the eldership. Timothy, then, is 
 to be laid out of the college of apostles, and reduced 
 to the humble office of a presbyter. When prelacy 
 is to be established by showing that the office of 
 apostles was transmitted, Timothy is an apostle; 
 when it is necessary to make another use of this 
 same man, it appears that he was ordained to the 
 presbyterate, and he becomes an humble presbyter, — 
 a " nose of wax" of great convenience to the argu- 
 ment of Episcopacy. But, (b) If the word " pres- 
 
OF THE APOSTOLIC CHURCH. 213 
 
 bytery" (TzpEafturipwv) here means \he presbyterate, 
 and not the persons, then it doubtless means the 
 same in the two other places where it occurs. In 
 Luke xxii. 66, then, we receive the information that 
 "the presbyterate," "the presbytership," or "the 
 clerical office" of the people, that is, the body by 
 which the people conferred " the presbyterate," 
 came together with the scribes. In Acts xxii. 5, 
 we are informed, that the "presbyterate," or "the 
 clerical office," would bear witness with the high- 
 priest to the life of Paul. Such absurdities show the 
 propriety of adhering, in interpretation, to the ob- 
 vious and usual meaning of the words, (c) The 
 word is fixed in its meaning, in the usage of the 
 church. Suicer (Thesaurus) says, it denotes " an 
 assembly, congregation, and college of presbyters 
 in the Christian church." In all the instances which 
 he quotes from Theodoret, (on 1 Tim. iv. 14,) from 
 Chrysostom, (Homil. xiii. on this epistle,) from 
 Theophylact, (in loc.) and from Ignatius, (Epis. 
 to Antioch, and to the Trallians,) there is not the 
 slightest evidence that it is ever used to denote the 
 office, instead of the persons, of the presbytery. 
 (d) As the opinion of Grotius is referred to by Dr. 
 Onderdonk, I will quote here a passage from his 
 commentary on this place. " The custom was, that 
 the presbyters who were present placed their hands 
 on the head of the candidate, at the same time with 
 the presiding officer of their body," cum coetus sui 
 principe. " Where the apostles, or their assistants, 
 
214 ORGANIZATION AND GOVERNMENT 
 
 were not present, ordination took place by the pre- 
 siding officer (Praesidem) of their body, with the 
 concurrence of the presbytery," — consentiente pres- 
 byter io. It is particularly surprising that the autho- 
 rity of Calvin should have been adduced as sanc- 
 tioning that interpretation which refers the word 
 presbytery to office, and not to persons. His words 
 are, " They who interpret presbytery, here, as a 
 collective noun, denoting the college of presbyters, 
 are, in my judgment, right." My first argument, then, 
 is, that the word " presbytery," denoting the persons 
 who composed the body, or college of elders, is the 
 proper, obvious, and established sense of the passage. 
 (2.) It is evident, from this passage, that whoever 
 else might have been engaged in this transaction, a 
 material part of it belonged to the presbytery or elder- 
 ship concerned. " Neglect not the gift that is in thee, 
 which was given thee by prophecy ; WITH THE LAY- 
 ING ON OF THE HANDS OF THE PRESBYTERY." Here 
 
 it is evident, that the presbytery bore a material part 
 in the transaction. Paul says, that the gift which was 
 in Timothy was given him hyprojihecy, with the lay- 
 ing on of the hands of the presbytery. That is, that 
 some prophecies relating to Timothy (comp. 1 Tim. 
 i. 18, " according to the prophecies which went be- 
 fore in thee") had designated him as a proper person 
 for the ministry, or that it had been predicted that 
 he would be employed in the ministry; but the 
 prophecy did not invest him with the office — did not 
 confer the gift. That was done — that formal ap- 
 
OP THE APOSTOLIC CHURCH. 215 
 
 pointment fulfilling the prophecy — by the imposition 
 of the hands of the presbytery. It was necessary 
 that that act of the presbytery should thus concur 
 with the prophecy, or Timothy would have remained 
 a layman. The presbyters laid their hands on him, 
 and he thus received his office. As the prophecy 
 made no part of his ordination, it follows that he 
 was ordained by the presbytery. 
 
 (3.) The statement here is just such a one as 
 would be given now in a Presbyterian ordination ; it 
 is not one which would be made in an Episcopal ordi- 
 nation. A Presbyterian would choose these very words 
 to give an account of an ordination in his church; 
 an Episcopalian would not. The former speaks of 
 ordination by a presbytery ; the latter, of ordination 
 by a bishop. The former can use the account of the 
 apostle Paul, here, as applicable to ordination, with- 
 out explanations, comments, new versions, or criti- 
 cisms; the latter cannot. The passage speaks to 
 the common understanding of men, in favour of 
 Presbyterian ordination — of the action of a presby- 
 tery in the case ; it never speaks the language of 
 Episcopacy, even after all the torture to which it 
 may be subjected by Episcopal criticism. The pas- 
 sage is one, too, which is not like that which speaks 
 of the " apostles and elders," "the apostles, and 
 elders, and brethren/ ' the only direct passage on which 
 Episcopacy relies, and which has no perceptible con- 
 nection with the case; but it is one which speaks on 
 the very subject — which relates to the exact trans- 
 
216 ORGANIZATION AND GOVERNMENT 
 
 action, and which makes a positive affirmation of the 
 very thing in debate. 
 
 (4.) The supposition that this was not a presby- 
 terial transaction renders the passage unmeaning. 
 Here was present a body of men called a presby- 
 tery. We ask Episcopalians, why they were there ? 
 The answer which they give is, not for the purpose 
 of ordination, but for " concurrence/' Paul, the 
 prelate, say they, is the sole ordainer. We see Timo- 
 thy kneeling before the presbytery. We see them 
 solemnly impose their hands on him. We ask, Why 
 is this? "Not for the purpose of ordination," the 
 Episcopalian replies, " but for concurrence. Paul is 
 the ordainer." But we ask, further, Had they no 
 share in the ordination ? "None at all." Had they 
 no participation in conferring the gift designated by 
 prophecy? "None at all." Why, then, are they 
 present ? Why do they lay their hands on him ? For 
 "concurrence" — for form, for nothing! It was 
 empty pageantry, in which they were mistaken when 
 supposing that their act had any thing to do in con- 
 ferring the gift ; for their presence really meant no- 
 thing, and the whole transaction could as well have 
 been performed without as with them. 
 
 (5.) If this ordination was the joint act of the 
 presbytery, we have here a complete Scriptural ac- 
 count of a Presbyterian ordination. It becomes 
 then, a very material question, how Episcopalians 
 dispose of this passage of Scripture. Their difficul- 
 ties and embarrassments in relation to it will still 
 
OF THE APOSTOLIC CHURCH. 217 
 
 further confirm the obvious interpretation which 
 Presbyterians suggest and hold. These difficulties and 
 embarrassments are thus exhibited by Dr. Onderdonk : 
 He first doubts whether this transaction was an 
 ordination. Tract, pp. 18, 19. To this I answer, 
 (1.) That, if it were not, then there is no account 
 that Timothy was ever ordained- (2.) That there is 
 no specific work mentioned in the history of the 
 apostles to which Timothy was designated, unless 
 it was ordination ; (3.) That it is the obvious and fair 
 meaning of the passage; (4.) That, if this does not 
 refer to ordination, it would be easy to apply the 
 same denial to all the passages which speak of the 
 " imposition of hands," and to show that there was 
 no such thing as ordination to the ministry, in any 
 case; (5.) That it accords with the common usage 
 of the terms — " imposition of hands" — £i:!.0£(jt<; zwv 
 %£tpaJv — in the New Testament. The phrase occurs 
 but four times: — Acts viii. 18; 1 Tim. iv. 14; 
 2 Tim. i. 6; Heb. vi. 2. In all these places, it 
 evidently denotes conferring some gift, office, or 
 favour, described by the act. In 2 Tim. i. 6, it de- 
 notes, by the acknowledgment of all Episcopalians, 
 ordination to the ministry. Why should it not 
 here? (6.) If, as Dr. Onderdonk supposes, it refers 
 to " an inspired designation of one already in the 
 ministry to a particular field of duty," (Tract, p. 
 19,) then, (a) I ask, why we have no other mention 
 of this transaction ? (6) How is it to be accounted 
 
 19 
 
218 ORGANIZATION AND GOVERNMENT 
 
 for, that Paul, while here evidently referring Timo- 
 thy to the duties and responsibilities of the minis- 
 terial office in general, should not refer to his ordi- 
 nation, but to a designation to a particular field of 
 labour ? His argument to Timothy, on such a sup- 
 position, would be this: "Your office of a minister 
 of the gospel is one that is exceedingly important. 
 A bishop must be blameless, vigilant, sober, of good 
 behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach, not 
 given to wine, etc. (Chap, iii.) In order to impress 
 this more deeply on you, I refer you — not to the 
 solemnity of your ordination-vows — but, I solemnly 
 remind you of an inspired separation of one already 
 in the ministry to a particular field of duty." I 
 need only observe here, that this is not a mode of 
 argument which looks like Prul. But, 
 
 Secondly. Dr. Onderdonk supposes that this 
 was not* a Presbyterian ordination. Tract, pp. 19- 
 21. His first supposition is, that the word " pres- 
 bytery" does not mean the persons, but the office, 
 p. 19. This has been already noticed. He next 
 -supposes (pp. 20, 21,) that if " the presbytery" here 
 means not the office given to Timothy, but a body 
 of elders, it cannot be shown "of whom this or- 
 daining presbytery was composed," p. 21. And 
 he then proceeds to state, that there are "seven 
 modes" in which this "presbytery" might be com- 
 posed. It might be made up of "ruling elders;" or, 
 it might be composed of the "grade called pres- 
 byters;" or, as Peter and John called themselves 
 
OP THE APOSTOLIC CHURCH. 219 
 
 "elders/' might be made up of "apostles;" or, 
 " there may have been ruling elders and presbyters; 
 or, presbyters and one or more apostles ; or, ruling 
 elders and one or more of the apostles; or, ( ruling 
 elders, and presbyters, and apostles," p. 21. Now, 
 as Dr. Onderdonk has not informed us which of 
 these modes he prefers, we are left merely to con- 
 jecture. We may remark on these suppositions, 
 (1.) That they are mere suppositions. There is not 
 the shadow of proof to support them. The word 
 " presbytery" — -pzafib-lpiov — does not appear to be 
 such a difficult word of interpretation, as to make it 
 necessary to envelop it in so much mist in order to 
 understand it. The argument here is such as a man 
 always employs when he is pressed by difficulties 
 which he cannot meet, and when he throws himself 
 into a labyrinth, in the hope, that amidst its nume- 
 rous passages, he may escape detection, and evade 
 pursuit. (2.) If this " body of elders" was made 
 up of " ruling elders," or, u of the grade called 
 presbyters," then the argument of Episcopacy is 
 overthrown. Here is an instance, on either supposi- 
 tion, of Presbyterian ordination, which is fatal to 
 the claims that bishops only ordain. Or, if it be 
 supposed that this was not an ordination, but " an 
 inspired separation of one already in the ministry to 
 a particular field of duty," it is an act equally fatal 
 to the claim of prelates to the general " superintend- 
 ence" of the church; since it is manifest that these 
 11 elders" took upon themselves the functions of this 
 
220 ORGANIZATION AND GOVERNMENT 
 
 office, and designated " the bishop of Ephesus" to 
 his field of labour. Such a transaction would 
 scarcely meet with Episcopal approbation in the 
 nineteenth century. 
 
 But in regard to the other supposition, that a part 
 or all the " presbytery" was composed of apostles, I 
 remark, (1.) That it is a gratuitous supposition. 
 There is not an instance in which the term " pres- 
 bytery/' or " body of elders," is applied in the New 
 Testament to the collective body of the apostles. 
 (2.) On the supposition that the " presbytery" was 
 composed entirely of apostles, then how does it 
 happen that, in 2 Tim. i. 6, Paul appropriates to 
 himself a power which belonged to every one of 
 them in as full right as to him ? How came they 
 to surrender that power into the hands of an indi- 
 vidual ? Was it the character of Paul thus to as- 
 sume authority which did not belong to him ? We 
 have seen, already, how, on the supposition of the 
 Episcopalian, he superseded " Bishop" Timothy in 
 the exercise of discipline, in Corinth, and in his own 
 "diocese" at Ephesus; we have now an instance in 
 which he claims all the virtue of the ordaining act 
 where his fellow-apostles must have been equally 
 concerned. 
 
 But if & part only of this " presbytery" was com- 
 posed of apostles, and the remainder presbyters 
 either ruling elders, or " the second grade," I would 
 make the following inquiries : — Was Timothy or- 
 dained as a prelate ? So the Episcopalians with one 
 
OF THE APOSTOLIC CHURCH. 221 
 
 voice declare — prelate of Ephesus. Then it follows, 
 that Timothy, a prelate, was set apart to his work 
 by the imposition of the hands of elders. What 
 was then his prelatical character ? Does the water 
 in the cistern rise higher than the fountain ? If lay- 
 men were concerned, Timothy was a layman still; 
 if presbyters, Timothy was a presbyter still. And 
 thus all the power of prelates, from him of Rome 
 downward, has come through the hands of humble 
 presbyters — just as all non-Episcopalians believe, 
 and just as history affirms. Or was he ordained as 
 a presbyter? Then his Episcopal character, so far 
 as it depends on his ordination, is swept away; and 
 thus we have not a solitary instance of the conse- 
 cration of a prelate in all the New Testament. 
 
 "Which of these suppositions Episcopalians would 
 be disposed to receive as the true one, is not known. 
 All of them cannot be true ; and whichever is pre- 
 ferred is equally fatal to the argument, and involves 
 a refutation of the claims of prelacy. 
 
 The only other reply with which Episcopalians 
 meet the argument for Presbyterian ordination from 
 this passage, is the supposition that the virtue of the 
 ordaining act was derived from the apostle Paul. 
 The passage on which they rest the argument for 
 this is 2 Timi. 6, "That thou stir up the gift of 
 God which is in thee, by the putting on of MY 
 hands." On this passage I observe, (1.) Paul does 
 not deny that other hands were also imposed oa 
 
 19* 
 
222 ORGANIZATION AND GOVERNMENT 
 
 Timothy, nor that his authority was derived also 
 from others in conjunction with himself. (2.) That 
 by the supposition of Episcopalians, as well as Pres- 
 byterians, other hands were, in fact, imposed on him. 
 (3.) It was perfectly natural for Paul, in conse- 
 quence of the relation which Timothy sustained to 
 him as his adopted son, (1 Tim. i. 2 ;) as being se- 
 lected by him for the ministry, (Acts xvi. 3;) and, 
 as being his companion in his travels, to remind 
 him, near the close of his own life, (2 Tim. iv. 6,) 
 that he had been solemnly set apart to the work by 
 himself — to bring his own agency into full view — in 
 order to stimulate and encourage him. That Paul 
 had a part in the act of the ordination is admitted ; 
 that others also had apart — the " presbytery" — has 
 been proved. (4.) The expression which is here 
 used is just such as the aged Presbyterian minister 
 would now use, if directing a farewell letter to a son 
 in the ministry. He would remind him, as Paul 
 does in this epistle, (2 Tim. iv. 6,) that he was-about 
 to leave the ministry and the world ; and if he wished 
 to impress his mind in a peculiarly tender manner, 
 he would remind him also, that he took part in his 
 ordination ; that under his own hands he had been 
 designated to the work of the ministry; and he 
 would endeavour to deepen his conviction of the im- 
 portance and magnitude of the work, by the reflection 
 that he had been solemnly set apart to it by & father. 
 Yet who would infer from this, that the aged Pres- 
 byterian would wish to be regarded as & prelate? 
 
OF THE APOSTOLIC CHURCH. 223 
 
 I have now considered all the objections that have 
 been made to the obvious interpretation of this pas- 
 sage, and it may now be submitted to any candid 
 mind as a full and unqualified statement of an in- 
 stance of Presbyterian ordination. Whichever of 
 the half-dozen suppositions — assuming a hue, cha- 
 meleon-like, from the nature of the argument to be 
 refuted — that Episcopalians are compelled to ap- 
 ply to the passage is adopted, we have seen that 
 they involve them in all the difficulties of an un- 
 natural interpretation, and conduct us, by a more 
 circuitous route, only to the plain and common-sense 
 exposition of the passage, as decisive in favour of 
 Presbyterian ordination. 
 
 It has thus been shown that there was one Pres- 
 byterian ordination, in the case of Timothy, and this 
 should be allowed to settle the question. As there 
 is no other undisputed case of ordination referred to 
 in the New Testament, and as we may presume that 
 on an occasion of the kind here referred to, every 
 thing essential to a valid ordination would be ob- 
 served, it demonstrates that presbyters had and have 
 the right to ordain. 
 
 2. The churches were intrusted with the right of 
 admin iste ring disc ipline. 
 
 It has been shown at length, in the examination 
 of the claims of the " bishop" to administer disci- 
 pline, and to exercise supervision, (ch. iii. § 3,) that 
 this claim is not sustained by the authority of the 
 New Testament. In further confirmation of these 
 
224 ORGANIZATION AND GOVERNMENT 
 
 views, and to show the nature of the organization 
 of the Christian church, I shall now show, that the 
 churches were intrusted with this right, and were 
 required to exercise it themselves. In support of 
 this, I adduce the following passages of Scripture : — 
 
 Acts xx. 17, 18, 28 : " From Miletus Paul sent 
 to Ephesus, and called for the presbyters (tow? 
 n p e a ft 'uri pouq) of the church; and when they were 
 come to him, he said unto them, Take heed unto 
 yourselves, and to all the flock over which the Holy 
 Ghost hath made you bishops, (j.izt.<jz.6-ouq,) to feed 
 (7toc/xat>£tv) the church of God." It would be easy 
 to show, that the word translated feed includes the 
 whole duty which a shepherd exercises over his 
 flock, including all that is needful in the super- 
 vision, government, and defence of those under his 
 care. Proof of this may be found in the following 
 passages of the New Testament, where the word oc- 
 curs in the sense of ruling or governing, including, 
 of course, the exercise of discipline; for how can 
 there be government, unless there is authority for 
 punishing offenders? Matt. ii. 6; John xxi. 16; 
 1 Pet. v. 2; Rev. ii. 27. ("And he shall rule them 
 (xoiiiavlt aorobq) with a rod of iron j" an expression 
 which will be allowed to imply the exercise of dis- 
 cipline ; Rev. xii. 5 j xix. 15 ; comp. Ps. ii. 9 j xxiii. 1 ; 
 xxvii. 12; xlvii. 13.) The Iliad of Homer may be 
 consulted, passim, for this use of the word ; see par- 
 ticularly I. 263; 11.85. 
 
 1 Pet. v. 2, 3 : " The presbyters (npEGpuzlpoui) 
 
OF THE APOSTOLIC CHURCH. 225 
 
 who are among you I exhort, who am also a pres- 
 byter. Feed (notftdvare) the flock of God which 
 is among you, taking the oversight {iTtHrxoTzduvzeq, 
 discharging the duty of bishops) thereof, not by 
 constraint, but willingly/ ' Here the very work 
 which is claimed for prelates is enjoined on presby- 
 ters, and the very name which Episcopal bishops 
 assume is given to presbyters, and Peter ranks him- 
 self as on a level with them in the office of exer- 
 cising discipline, or in the government of the church. 
 It is perfectly obvious, that the presbyters at Ephe- 
 sus, and the presbyters whom Peter addressed, were 
 intrusted with the pastoral care to the fullest extent, 
 for they were required to engage in all the work re- 
 quisite in instructing, directing, and governing the 
 flock. And it is as obvious that they were intrusted 
 with a power and an authority in this business with 
 which presbyters are not intrusted by the canons of 
 the Episcopal Church. It is respectfully asked, 
 whether the bishop of Pennsylvania or New Jersey 
 would now take 1 Pet. v. 2, 3, for a text, and ad- 
 dress the " priests," or " second order of clergy/' 
 in these words, without considerable qualification : — 
 "The presbyters who are among you I exhort, 
 who am also a PRESBYTER. Feed {Tzoi;xdvars) the 
 flock of God, discharging the duty of bishops over 
 it, (^7T£<rzo-o6ivr£?,) not by constraint, neither as being 
 LORDS over God's heritage." 
 
 Heb. xiii. 7 : " Remember them which have the 
 rule over you : rd>v yyoutilvuiv u/jlwv, YOUR RULERS." 
 
226 ORGANIZATION AND GOVERNMENT 
 
 Verse 17 : " Obey them that have the rule over you." 
 UelOeffOs ToZg yyoufiiuotq 6/j.wv. That bishops are here 
 referred to, no one will pretend. Yet the office of 
 ruling certainly implies that kind of government 
 which is concerned in the administration of discipline. 
 
 1 Thess. v. 12 : " We beseech you, brethren, to 
 know them which labour among you, and are over 
 you in the Lord." xai 7tpo'iffTa/xivou<; u/iibv £v xupiw. 
 1 Tim. v. 17 : " Let the presbyters that rule well 
 (izpoeaTWTsq) be counted worthy of double honour." 
 There can be no question that these passages are ap- 
 plied to presbyters. We come, then, to the conclusion, 
 that the terms which properly denote government 
 and discipline, and on which alone any claim for the 
 exercise of authority can be founded — the terms ex- 
 pressive of governing, of feeding, of ruling, of taking 
 the oversight — are all applied to presbyters; that 
 the churches are required to submit to them in the 
 exercise of that office ; and that the very term de- 
 noting Episcopal jurisdiction is applied to them also. 
 We ask for a solitary passage which directs apostles 
 or prelates to administer discipline; and the case of 
 discipline, therefore, may be left to the common 
 sense of those who read the New Testament, and who 
 believe that presbyters had any duties to perform. 
 
 But further : The churches were authorized to ad- 
 minister discipline in connection with the presiding 
 officers j and such an account is given of this matter 
 as to lead to the inevitable conclusion that the 
 churches were always consulted, and that discipline 
 
OF THE APOSTOLIC CHURCH. 227 
 
 was never administered by an independent foreign 
 minister, such as an Episcopal bishop is. The case 
 of the church of Corinth, the one on which Episco- 
 palians most rely, has already been considered, and 
 it has been proved that even there the apostle Paul 
 did not assume the authority of excluding a member* 
 without the concurrence and action of the church. 
 Of a similar character is the following direction given 
 to the church at Thessalonica : "And if any man obey 
 not our word by this epistle, note that man, and have 
 no company with him, that he may be ashamed. " 
 2 Thess. iii. 14. In this case the church was directed 
 to administer discipline itself, if there was a member 
 in it who was disobedient to the inspired command 
 of the apostle. The direction is not, to observe him, 
 and to report him to the apostle or " bishop," but to 
 proceed themselves to the act of discipline, and so to 
 exclude him as to have no company with him. And 
 of the same nature is the direction of the Saviour 
 himself, in the solemn command which lays the 
 foundation for the only authority for administering 
 discipline at all in the churches : " Moreover, if thy 
 brother shall trespass against thee, go and tell him 
 his fault between thee and him alone ; if he shall 
 hear thee, thou hast gained thy brother. But if he 
 will not hear thee, then take with thee one or two 
 more, that in the mouth of two or three witnesses 
 every word may be established. x\nd if he shall 
 neglect to hear them, tell it unto the church ; but if 
 he neglect to hear the church 7 let him be unto thee 
 
228 ORGANIZATION AND GOVERNMENT 
 
 as a heathen man and a publican.' ' Matt, xviii. 
 15-17. In regard to this passage, it may be ob- 
 served, (1.) That it is to be presumed that the Sa- 
 viour designed to embody the principles of discipline 
 here so that they might be applied in all ages of the 
 world, and so that this, in all circumstances, would 
 be an adequate direction. There is not anywhere in 
 the New Testament a more formal direction given on 
 the subject of discipline, and it can hardly be pre- 
 sumed that, on such an occasion, the Saviour would 
 have omitted what he designed should be an essen- 
 tial and a permanent principle. (2.) The apostles 
 had been chosen and ordained before that direction 
 was given, (Matt, x.,) and if he had designed that 
 they alone should have the power of administering 
 discipline, it is unaccountable that there is no inti- 
 mation whatever that so important a function was 
 conferred on them. The direction, " Tell it to the 
 church," (efrre ry ixxXrjffia,') is not one which would 
 be understood as referring to the apostles, as being, 
 in fact, " the church." It is a direction which would 
 naturally be understood as referring to the assembly 
 of the faithful. (3.) Equally unaccountable is it 
 that no reference is made to the "successors" of the 
 apostles, as having the power to administer disci- 
 pline, and that this should be left to be a standing 
 subject of mistake in all ages of the world. Even 
 now, to the apprehension of the great body of plain 
 Christians, this direction cannot possibly be made to 
 mean that when an offence is committed, the brother 
 
OF THE APOSTOLIC CHURCH. 229 
 
 who is injured must tell it to " the bishop" as the 
 "successor of the apostles," and that if the offender 
 will not hear him, he is to be regarded asa " heathen 
 man and a publican." (4.) This direction of the 
 Saviour is not complied with in Episcopal churches, 
 nor under their arrangement is it possible that it 
 should be. The " bishop," intrusted with the ad- 
 ministration of discipline, is not " the church," nor 
 does " the church" ever have an opportunity of de- 
 ciding on the case as the Saviour contemplated. 
 The whole authority to administer discipline is 
 claimed by the "bishop" by divine right, as one of 
 the prerogatives of his office; and u the church" is ex- 
 cluded from all participation in saying, either collec- 
 tively or by representatives, whether the offender 
 shall or shall not be regarded "as a heathen man and 
 a publican." The church has no option in the case. 
 The authority thus claimed by the bishop is a part 
 of a system of usurpations on the prerogatives con- 
 ferred by the Saviour on others. "We have seen that 
 he has usurped the prerogative of being regarded as 
 the peculiar " successor" of the apostles j that he has 
 usurped the exclusive power of ordaining — thus de- 
 priving presbyters of a right conferred on them in 
 the New Testament ; that he has usurped the right 
 of "confirmation" — if it should exist at all in the 
 church — thus practically declaring that the pastor is 
 disqualified from admitting his own members to the 
 communion, and claiming that there is some heavenly 
 
 20 
 
230 ORGANIZATION AND GOVERNMENT 
 
 influence imparted through his hands which can be 
 conferred by no other minister of religion ; and we 
 now see that this system of usurpation is completed 
 by depriving the church and the eldership wholly 
 of the right of administering discipline over an 
 offending member, thus claiming that the whole of 
 this tremendous power should be lodged in his hands. 
 The standing, the influence, the character of each 
 one of the thousands of a " diocese" is thus lodged 
 ultimately in the hands of one man — a man who is 
 a stranger ; who is bound to them by none of the 
 tender ties of the pastoral relation ; and who has the 
 sole power to decide the case without appeal. Now, 
 we may ask, where any thing like this is to be found 
 in the New Testament? Did the Saviour contemplate 
 that the voice of the church should never be heard 
 in the discipline of its own members ? On what basis 
 is it that this power is claimed, thus depriving the 
 churches of rights and prerogatives indubitably con- 
 ferred on them by their Great Head ? It is a part 
 of a great system of usurpation which began when 
 ambition began in the church j which has been fos- 
 tered to give authority to the- higher " orders" of 
 the priesthood ; and which finds its appropriate place 
 only in the corruptions of the papacy. 
 
 Sect. 3. — The 'primitive churches were organized 
 without aprela te, and loitho u t "three orders of clergy. ' ' 
 
 In support of this, I shall adduce the case of one 
 church at least that was not organized on the prin- 
 
OF THE APOSTOLIC CHURCH. 231 
 
 ciples of Episcopalians, with three orders of clergy. 
 I refer to the church at Philippi : "Paul and Ti- 
 mothy, servants of Jesus Christ, to all the saints in 
 Christ Jesus, who are at Philippi, with the bishops 
 and deacons," — o'jv l-w/.o-ois /.at dtazovocq. In re- 
 gard to this church, I make the following observa- 
 tions : — (1.) It was organized by the apostle Paul 
 himself, in connection with Silas, and was, there- 
 fore, on the " truly primitive and apostolic" plan. 
 Acts xvi. (2.) It was in the centre of a large ter- 
 ritory, the capital of Macedonia, and not likely to be 
 placed in subjection to a diocesan of another region. 
 (3.) It was surrounded by other churches ; as we 
 have express mention of the church at Thessalonica, 
 and the preaching of the gospel at Berea. Acts xvii. 
 (4.) There is mention made of but two orders of 
 men. What the deacons were, we know from the 
 appointment in Acts v. 1-6. They were desig- 
 nated, not to preach, but to take care of the poor 
 members of the church, and to distribute the alms 
 of the saints. As we have there, in the original 
 appointment of the office, the express and extended 
 mention of its functions, we are to infer that the 
 design was the same at Philippi. The other class, 
 therefore — the " bishops" — constitute the preaching 
 order, or the clergy — those to whom were committed 
 the preaching of the word, the administration of the 
 sacraments, and the discipline of the church. Now, 
 either these bishops were prelates, or they were che 
 pastors, the presbyters of the church If Episco 
 
232 ORGANIZATION AND GOVERNMENT 
 
 palians choose to say, that they were prelates, then 
 it follows, (a) that there was a plurality of such pre- 
 lates in the same diocese, the same city, and the same 
 church j which is contrary to the fundamental idea 
 of Episcopacy. It follows, also, (&) that there was 
 entirely wanting, in this church, the " second order" 
 of clergy; that an Episcopal church was organized, 
 defective in one of the essential grades, with an ap- 
 pointment of a body of prelates without presbyters j 
 that is, an order of " superior" men, designated to 
 exercise jurisdiction over "priests" who had no ex- 
 istence. If it be said that the " presbyters," or 
 " second order," might have been there though Paul 
 did not expressly name them, then we are presented 
 with the remarkable fact, that he specifies the dea- 
 cons, an inferior order, and expresses to them his 
 Christian salutations; that he salutes also the 
 "saints" — or the private members of the church — 
 and yet entirely disregards those who had the 
 special pastoral charge of the church. Paul thus 
 becomes a model of incivility. In the epistles to 
 Timothy, he gives him directions about every thing 
 else, but no counsel about his brother " prelates;" in 
 the epistles to the churches, he salutes their prelates 
 and their deacons, but becomes utterly regardless of 
 the "second order of clergy," the immediate pastors 
 of the churches. 
 
 But if our Episcopal brethren prefer to say that 
 the "bishops" here mean not prelates, but presby- 
 ters, we, so far, shall agree with them ; and then it 
 
OF THE APOSTOLIC CHURCH. 233 
 
 follows, (a) That here is an undeniable instance of 
 a church, or rather of a group of churches, large 
 enough to satisfy the reasonable desire of any dio- 
 cesan bishop for extended jurisdiction, organized 
 without prelate or bishop. None is mentioned; and 
 there are but two orders of men, to whom the care 
 of the " saints at Philippi" is intrusted, (b) If there 
 was a prelate there, then we ask, why Paul did not 
 refer to him with affectionate salutations ? Why does 
 he refer to "the second and third orders of clergy," 
 without the slightest reference to the man who was 
 " superior to them in ministerial rank and power" ? 
 Was Paul jealous of the prelate? Or have we here 
 another instance of indecorum and incivility ? (c) If 
 they had had a prelate, and the see was then vacant, 
 why is there no reference to this fact ? Why no con- 
 dolence at their loss ? Why no prayer that God 
 would send them a man to enter into the vacant 
 diocese? (<7) Episcopalians have sometimes felt the 
 pressure of these difficulties to be so great, that they 
 have supposed the bishop was absent when this 
 epistle was addressed to the church at Philippi, and 
 that this was the reason why he was not remem- 
 bered in the salutation. Of this solution, I observe 
 only, that it is mere assumption. But, even granting 
 this assumption, it is an inquiry of not very easy 
 solution, why Paul did not make some reference to 
 this fact, and ask their prayers for the absent pre- 
 late. One can scarcely help being forcibly remind- 
 
 20* 
 
234 ORGANIZATION AND GOVERNMENT 
 
 ed, by the ineffectual efforts of Episcopalians to find 
 a prelate at Philippi, of a remarkable transaction 
 mentioned in 1 Kings xviii. 27, 28: "Either he 
 is talking ; or he is pursuing ; or he is in a jour- 
 ney ; or peradventure he sleepeth, and must be 
 awaked/' It is scarcely necessary to remark, that 
 if a single church is proved to have been organized 
 without the " three orders of clergy," the parity of 
 the ministry is made out by apostolic appointment, 
 and the Episcopal argument is at an end. 
 
 I may add, that this view of the organization of 
 the church in Philippi is confirmed by an examina- 
 tion of the organization of the church in its imme- 
 diate neighbourhood, in Thessalonica. In the two 
 epistles which Paul directed to that church, there is 
 not the slightest reference to any prelatical bishop; 
 there is no mention of " three orders of clergy;" 
 there is no hint that the church was organized on 
 that plan. But one order of ministers is mentioned, 
 evidently as entitled to the same degree of respect, 
 and as on an entire equality. They were clearly of 
 the same rank, and engaged in discharging the 
 functions of the same office. " And we beseech you, 
 brethren, to know them which labour among you, 
 and are over you in the Lord, and admonish you ; 
 and to esteem them very highly in love, for their 
 work's sake." 1 Thess.' v. 12, 13. Will the advo- 
 cates of Episcopacy be kind enough to inform us 
 why there is no mention of the prelate, whether 
 present or absent? 
 
OF THE APOSTOLIC CHURCH. 235 
 
 We are here prepared to estimate the force of 
 the undeniable fact, that there is no distinction of 
 grade or rank in the names which are given to the 
 ministers of the gospel in the New Testament. It 
 is admitted by Episcopalians themselves, that the 
 names bishop, presbyter, etc., in the Bible, do not 
 denote those ranks of church-officers to which they 
 are now applied, but are given indiscriminately to 
 all. On this point, we have the authority of Dr. 
 Onderdonk. " The name ' bishop/ " says he, "which 
 now designates the highest grade of the ministry, is 
 not appropriated to this office in Scripture. That 
 name is given to the middle order, or presbyters; 
 
 and ALL. THAT WE READ IN THE NEW TESTAMENT 
 
 concerning 'bishops/ (including, of course, the 
 words ' overseers' and ' oversight/ which have the 
 same derivation,) is to be regarded as pertain- 
 ing to this middle grade." Tract, p. 12. 
 " Another irregularity of the same kind occurs in 
 regard to the word 'elder.' It is sometimes used 
 for a minister, or clergyman of any grade, higher, 
 middle, or lower; but it more strictly signifies a 
 presbyter." Tract, p. 14. 
 
 In accordance with this fact, which is as re- 
 markable as it is true, we have seen that Peter 
 applies to himself the name presbyter, and put him- 
 self on a level with other presbyters. " The pres- 
 byters which are among you, I exhort," (not I com- 
 mand, or enjoin, as a prelate would do,) "who am 
 also a presbyter." 1 Pet. v. 1. And in the very 
 
236 ORGANIZATION AND GOVERNMENT 
 
 next verse he exhorts them (the elders, or presby- 
 ters) to '.' feed the flock of God, taking the over- 
 sight," (i-HTzo-ouvzeg, exercising the office of bishop,) 
 " not by constraint." 
 
 Now let these conceded facts be borne in mind. 
 The term presbyter is applied by the apostle Peter 
 to himself, and " all that we read of in the New 
 Testament concerning l bishops,' is applied to the 
 middle grade." The apostles address each other, 
 and their brethren, by no words or names that indi- 
 cate superior rank, grade, or authority. This fact 
 can be accounted for only on the supposition that 
 they regarded themselves, as ministers, as on a level. 
 If they meant to teach that one class was superior 
 in rank and power to others, they would not have 
 used terms always confounding such distinctions, 
 and always proceeding on the supposition that they 
 were on an equality. It will not be pretended that 
 they could not employ terms which would have 
 marked the various grades. For if the term " bi- 
 shop" can now do it, it could have done it then; if 
 the term presbyter can now be used to denote " the 
 middle grade," it could then have been so used. It 
 is clear, also, that if such had been their intention, 
 they would have thus employed those terms. That 
 the sacred writers were capable of using language 
 definitely, Episcopalians will not doubt. Why, then, 
 if they were capable, did they choose not to do it ? 
 Are prelates now ever as vague and indefinite in 
 
OF THE APOSTOLIC CHURCH. 237 
 
 their use of the terms "bishop" and "presbyters," 
 as were the apostles? 
 
 It is remarkable, also, that the mode of using these 
 terms in the New Testament is precisely in accord- 
 ance with the usage in Presbyterian and Congrega- 
 tional churches. They speak indiscriminately of 
 their ministers, just as the sacred writers did, as 
 " bishops," as " pastors," as "presbyters" or " elders," 
 as " teachers," as " evangelists." They regard their 
 ministers as on an equality. Did not the sacred 
 writers do the same ? 
 
 It is as remarkable, that the mode of using these 
 terms in the Episcopal churches is NOT that which 
 occurs in the Bible. And it is as certain, that, were 
 they thus to use those terms, it would at once con- 
 found their orders and ranks, and reduce their mi- 
 nisters to equality. Do we ever see any approxima- 
 tion in their addresses, and in their canons, in this 
 respect, to the language and style of the New Testa- 
 ment ? Do we ever hear those of the "second order" 
 — or priests — mentioned as bishops ? Do we ever 
 hear the term presbyter or elder applied to their 
 bishops ? Would it not confound all the arrange- 
 ments in the Episcopal Church, if the terms were 
 thus indiscriminately applied? And yet, it is to be 
 presumed that the terms used in the New Testament 
 to designate any office may be used still. It cannot 
 be improper to call things by their true names, and 
 to apply to all ranks and orders of men the terms 
 which are applied to them by the Spirit of inspira- 
 
238 ORGANIZATION AND GOVERNMENT 
 
 tion. And as the indiscriminate use of these terms 
 is carefully avoided by the customs and canons of 
 the Episcopal Church; as there seems to have been 
 a presentiment in the formation of those canons that 
 such indiscriminate use would reduce the fabric to 
 simple "parity" of the clergy; and as these terms 
 cannot be so used without reducing these "ranks and 
 orders" to a scriptural equality, we come to the 
 conclusion, that the apostles meant to teach that the 
 ministers of the New Testament are equal in mi- 
 nisterial rights and powers. 
 
 Sect. 4. — Conclusion. 
 
 I have now gone through this entire subject. I 
 have examined, I trust, in a candid manner — I am 
 sure with the kindest feelings toward my Episcopal 
 brethren — every argument which they have to ad- 
 duce from the Bible in favour of the claims of their 
 bishops. Those arguments have been disposed of, 
 step by step. These are all the arguments which 
 Episcopacy has to urge from the Bible. There is 
 nothing that remains. The subject is exhausted. 
 Episcopacy rests here; and it is incumbent on Epis- 
 copacy to show, not to affirm, that our interpretation 
 of those passages is not sustained by sound princi- 
 ples of exegesis. 
 
 The burden of proof still lies on them. They 
 assumed it, and on them it rests. They affirm that 
 enormous powers are lodged in the hands of the pre- 
 late — every thing pertaining to ordination, to confir- 
 
OF THE APOSTOLIC CHURCH. 239 
 
 mation, to discipline, to the superintendence of the 
 Christian church. They claim powers for the " bi- 
 shop" which would degrade every presbyter in the 
 world j which would reduce him to the condition of a 
 subordinate officer, and which would strip him of the 
 right of transmitting; his own office, and of adminis- 
 tering discipline among his own flock. They arro- 
 gate powers which go to deprive all other presbyters, 
 except Episcopal presbyters, of any right to officiate 
 in the church of God; rendering their ordination in- 
 valid, their administrations void, and their exercise of 
 the functions of their office a daring and impious in- 
 vasion of the rights of the priesthood, and a violation 
 of the law of Christ. The foundation for these sweep- 
 ing, and certainly not very modest, claims, I have 
 examined with all freedom. The argument for pre- 
 lacy may be summed up in a word. It consists in the 
 text — the solitary text — " the apostles and elders," 
 " the apostles, and elders, and brethren," joined to 
 a circuitous train of reasoning, remote from common 
 apprehension, and too abstruse for the guidance of 
 the mass of men. Step by step, I have followed the 
 defenders of this system in their circuits; argument 
 after argument I have endeavoured patiently to 
 displace; and at the conclusion, I may ask any person 
 of plain common sense to place his finger on that 
 portion of the book of God which is favourable to 
 prelacy. 
 
 This argument for the authority of prelates hav- 
 ing been met and disproved, I have produced an 
 
240 ORGANIZATION AND GOVERNMENT 
 
 instance of express Presbyterian ordination, in the 
 case of Timothy. Two churches we have fouad 
 which were organized without prelates. We are 
 thus, by another train of argument, conducted to 
 the same result — that prelates are unknown in the 
 New Testament. And, to make the argument per- 
 fectly conclusive, it has been shown that the same 
 titles are applied indiscriminately to all. 
 
 This argument may be summed up in still fewer 
 words. The Episcopal claims are not made out; 
 and, of course, the clergy of the New Testament 
 are equal. The Episcopalian has failed to show 
 that there were different grades ; and it follows that 
 there must be parity. 
 
 In conducting this argument, I have endeavoured 
 to show that the claims of Episcopalians are un- 
 founded, and at the same time that there were ar- 
 rangements in regard to the constitution, govern- 
 ment, and officers of the church, which were de- 
 signed to be permanent. The general principles of 
 church organization were laid down as binding. The 
 details were not prescribed ; they were left, like the 
 subject of civil government, to be modified by cir- 
 cumstances from age to age. The gospel was to be 
 preached in all lands and in all times; the church 
 was to be located under different forms of civil go- 
 vernment, and among people of different habits and 
 customs; the organization of the Christian commu- 
 nity was to be such as would be consistent and pro- 
 per under a civil government of the monarchical, 
 
OF THE APOSTOLIC CHURCH. 241 
 
 the aristocratic, or the republican form. Those re- 
 gulations in detail which would be fitted to the cus- 
 toms of the Oriental world, might be little adapted 
 to habits which might exist toward the setting sun ; 
 and rites, and customs, and modes of worship and 
 of discipline which would have been appropriate to 
 the times when the apostles lived, might be ill- 
 adapted to some future age of the world. The same 
 great principles of truth and worship might receive 
 new influence and power under some modified form 
 in a future age; and the external arrangements of 
 the church might be left, as the subject of human 
 government is, somewhat to the developments of 
 time and experience. Truth is always the same. 
 The doctrines of religion were not, indeed, suscep- 
 tible of being modified — for truth is always the 
 same. But the details of worship, and order, and 
 discipline in the church did not require or admit of 
 the same explicitness which were requisite in regard 
 to the doctrines of the Trinity and the atonement. 
 
 The following remarks of Archbishop Whately 
 on this subject seem to me to be so weighty and 
 important, as to demand the profound attention of 
 all who would understand the constitution of the 
 Christian church : — 
 
 "Among the important facts which we can col- 
 lect and fully ascertain from the sacred historians, 
 scanty and irregular and imperfect as are their re- 
 cords of particulars, one of the most important is 
 
 21 
 
242 ORGANIZATION AND GOVERNMENT 
 
 that very scantiness and incompleteness in the de- 
 tail — that absence of any full and systematic de- 
 scription of the formation and regulation of Chris- 
 tian communities that has been just noticed. For 
 we may plainly infer, from this very circumstance, 
 the design of the Holy Spirit, that those details, 
 concerning which no precise directions, accompanied 
 with strict injunctions, are to be found in Scripture, 
 were meant to be left to the regulation of each 
 church, in each age and country. On any point in 
 which it was designed that all Christians should be, 
 everywhere and at all times, bound as strictly as 
 the Jews were to the Levitical law, we may fairly 
 conclude they would have received directions no 
 less precise, and descriptions no less minute, than 
 had been afforded to the Jews. 
 
 " It has often occurred to my mind that the gene- 
 rality of even studious readers are apt, for want of 
 sufficient reflection, to fail of drawing such im- 
 portant inferences as they often might, from the 
 omissions occurring in any work they are perusing; 
 from its not containing su*h and such things rela- 
 tive to the subject treated of. There are many 
 cases in which the non-insertion of some particulars 
 which, under other circumstances, we might have 
 calculated on meeting with in a certain book, will 
 be hardly less instructive than the things we do 
 meet with. 
 
 "And this is much more especially the case 
 
OF THE APOSTOLIC CHURCH. 243 
 
 when we are studying works which we believe to 
 have been composed under divine guidance. For, 
 in the case of mere human compositions, one may 
 conceive an author to have left out some important 
 circumstances, either through error of judgment or 
 inadvertency, or from having written merely for the 
 use of a particular class of readers in his own time 
 and country, without any thought of what might be 
 necessary information for persons at a distance and 
 in after-ages j but we cannot, of course, attribute to 
 any such causes omissions in the inspired writers. 
 On no supposition whatever can we account for the 
 omission, by all of them, of many points which 
 they do omit, and of their scanty and slight men- 
 tion of others, except by considering them as with- 
 held by the express design and will (whether com- 
 municated to each of them or not) of their heavenly 
 Master, restraining them from committing to writing 
 many things which naturally, some or other of them 
 at least, would not have failed so to record. 
 
 "No such thing is to be found in our Scriptures 
 as a catechism, or regular Elementary Introduction 
 to the Christian religion ; nor do they furnish us 
 with any thing of the nature of a systematic creed, 
 set of articles, Confession of Faith, or by whatever 
 other name one may designate a regular, complete 
 compendium of Christian doctrines; nor, again, do 
 they supply us with a liturgy for ordinary public 
 worship, or with forms for administering the sacra- 
 
244 ORGANIZATION AND GOVERNMENT 
 
 inents, or for conferring holy orders; nor do they 
 even give any precise directions as to these and 
 other ecclesiastical matters — any thing that at all 
 corresponds to the rubric, or set of canons."* 
 
 I here close this inquiry into the organization and 
 government of the apostolic church. As there is 
 nothing in the Bible which Episcopacy can add, the 
 whole subject here should be allowed to rest. The 
 entire scriptural argument is exhausted ; and here 
 the inquiry ends. In conclusion, I may remark, 
 that I speak, I believe, the language of the great 
 body of those who are not Episcopalians — and the 
 language expresses the convictions of my intellect 
 and the feelings of my heart — when I say, that we 
 have no unkind emotions toward those who believe 
 that Episcopacy is founded on the word of God, and 
 is the form of church government best adapted to 
 promote the cause of the Redeemer of the world. 
 We do not forget the former services which the 
 Episcopal church rendered to the cause of truth and 
 of the world's redemption. We remember the bright 
 and ever-living lights which her clergy and her 
 illustrious laymen have in other times enkindled in 
 the darkness of this world's history, and which con- 
 tinue to pour their pure and steady lustre on the 
 literature, the laws, and the customs of Christian 
 
 * Kingdom of Christ Delineated, Essay II. g 8. 
 
OF THE APOSTOLIC CHURCH. 245 
 
 nations; and we trust the day will never come when 
 the bosoms of Christians in any denomination will 
 cease to beat with emotions of lofty thanksgiving to 
 the God of grace that he raised up such gifted and 
 holy men, to meet the corruptions of the papacy, 
 and to breast the wickedness of the world. 
 
 We have no unkind emotions toward any branch 
 of the true church of God. We strive to cherish 
 feelings of affectionate regard for them all, and to 
 render praise to the common Father of Christians, 
 for any efforts which are made to advance the in- 
 telligence, the purity, and the salvation of mankind. 
 In our views of the nature of mind and of freedom, 
 we can have no uncharitable emotions toward any 
 denomination of true Christians. " There are di- 
 versities of organizations, but the same Spirit." We 
 have no expectation that all men, in this world, will 
 think alike ; and we regard it as a wise arrangement 
 that the church of God is thus organized into dif- 
 ferent sections and departments, under the banner 
 of the common Captain of their salvation. It pro- 
 motes inquiry; it prevents complacency in mere 
 forms and ceremonies; it produces healthy and 
 vigorous emulation j it affords opportunities for all 
 classes of men to arrange themselves according to 
 their preferences and their habits of thought; and 
 
 it is not unfavourable to that kindness of feelinc 
 
 o 
 
 which the Christian can cherish, and should cherish, 
 
 when he utters in the sanctuary the article of his 
 
 21* 
 
246 ORGANIZATION AND GOVERNMENT 
 
 faith, " I believe in the holy catholic church, the 
 communion of saints." The attachment of a sol- 
 dier to a particular company or squadron need not 
 diminish his respect for other divisions of the armies 
 of his country, or extinguish his love for her liberty. 
 His being joined to a company of infantry need not 
 make him feel that cavalry is useless, or involve him 
 in a controversy with the artillery. 
 
 We ask only that Episcopacy should not assume 
 arrogant claims j that she should be willing to take 
 her place among other denominations of Christians, 
 entitled, like them, to all the tender and sympathetic 
 affections of the Christian brotherhood, and willing 
 that they should walk in the liberty wherewith 
 Christ has made his people free. We ask, that 
 while we cheerfully concede this, she also should 
 concede to all those who " love the Lord Jesus 
 Christ in sincerity," the right to be accredited as 
 being true churches of the Lord Jesus, and as hav- 
 ing a valid ministry and valid ordinances.* We 
 
 * This right is conceded in form by the author of the 
 "Tract" so often noticed in this argument — Dr. Onderdonk. 
 "An apparently formidable, yet extraneous difficulty," says 
 he, "often raised, is, that Episcopal claims unchurch all non- 
 Episcopal denominations. By the present writer this consequence 
 is not allowed." P. 6. But is it ever conceded in any other 
 way, or ever acted on ? Is there any recognition of the minis- 
 ters of other denominations as having a right to preach the 
 gospel? Is there any introduction of them to the pulpits of 
 Episcopal churches ? Would such an introduction by any of 
 the "inferior clergy" be tolerated or connived at by the dio- 
 cesan bishop? To ask these questions is to answer them. But 
 another question may be asked here : it is, How can many of 
 
OF THE APOSTOLIC CHURCH. 247 
 
 shall have no contest with our Episcopal brethren 
 for loving the church of their choice, and the church 
 in which they seek to prepare themselves for heaven. 
 We shall not utter the language of unkindness for 
 their reverencing the ministerial office in which the 
 spirits of Cranmer and Leighton were prepared for 
 their eternal rest. Content that other denomina- 
 tions should enjoy like freedom, when they do not 
 arrogate to themselves unholy claims, and attempt 
 to "lord it over" other parts of "God's heritage," 
 we shall pray for their success, as for that of all 
 other Christians, and rejoice in their advancement. 
 But the moment they cross this line — the moment 
 they make any advances which resemble those of 
 the papacy — the moment they set up the claim of 
 being the only " primitive and apostolical church" — 
 and the moment they speak of the " invalid minis- 
 try" and the "invalid ordinances" of other churches, 
 and regard them as " left to the uncovenanted mer- 
 cies of God" — that moment the language of argu- 
 ment and of Christian rebuke should be heard from 
 every other denomination. There are minds which 
 can investigate the Bible as well as the advocates 
 for Episcopacy ; there are pens which can compete 
 
 the clergy of the Episcopal Church be satisfied with occupying 
 such a position in regard to their ministerial brethren of other 
 denominations, as to have the fair interpretation of their con- 
 duct to be that they regard them as wholly unauthorized to 
 preach the gospel? Do they really believe this? If they do 
 not, does not Christian candour, fairness, independence, and 
 justice, require them in act and word to avow it? 
 
248 ORGANIZATION AND GOVERNMENT 
 
 with any found in the Episcopal Church; and there 
 are men who will not be slow to rebuke the first 
 appearance of arrogance and of lordly assumption, 
 and who will remind them that the time has gone by 
 when an appeal to the infallible church will answer 
 in this controversy. Arrogant assumptions do not 
 suit the present state of intelligence in this land, or 
 the genius of our institutions. While the Episcopal 
 Church shall seek, by kind and gentle means, to 
 widen its influence, like the flowing of a river, or 
 like the dews of heaven, we shall hail its advances : 
 when she departs from this course, and utters the 
 language of authority and denunciation, — when she 
 endeavours to prostrate other churches, as with the 
 sweepings of the mountain torrent, — she will be re- 
 minded, by a voice uttered from all the institutions 
 of these times, that Episcopacy has had its reign of 
 authority in the dark ages and at the Vatican; and 
 that the very genius of Protestantism is, that one 
 church is not to utter the language of arrogance over 
 another, and that not authority or denunciation, 
 but SCRIPTURAL EXPOSITION, is to determine which 
 is in accordance with the book of God. 
 
 We have no war to wage with Episcopacy. We 
 know, we deeply feel, that much may be said in 
 favour of it, apart from the claim which has been 
 set up for its authority from the New Testament. 
 Its past history, in some respects, makes us weep; 
 in others, it is the source of sincere rejoicing and 
 
OF THE APOSTOLIC CHURCH. 249 
 
 praise. We cannot forget, indeed, its assumptions 
 of power, or hide from our eyes the days of the 
 papacy, when it clothed in sackcloth the Christian 
 world. We cannot forget the days in its history, 
 when, even as a part of the Protestant religion, it 
 brought " a numb and chill stupidity of soul, an in- 
 active blindness of mind, upon the people, by its 
 leaden doctrine;" we cannot forget "the frozen 
 captivity" of the church, " in the bondage of pre- 
 lates;"* nor can we remove from our remembrance 
 the sufferings of the Puritans, and the bloody scenes 
 in Scotland. But we do not charge this on the 
 Episcopacy of our times. We do not believe that 
 it is essential to its existence. With more grateful 
 feelings we recall other events of its history. We 
 associate it with the brightest and happiest days of 
 religion, and liberty, and literature, and law. We 
 remember that it was under the Episcopacy that the 
 church in England took its firm stand against the 
 papacy; and that this was its form when Zion rose 
 to light and splendour from the dark night of ages. 
 We remember the name of Cranmer — Cranmer, 
 first, in many respects, among the reformers ; that 
 it was by his steady hand that, under God, the real 
 church of the Saviour was conducted through the 
 agitating and distressing times of Henry the Eighth. 
 We remember that Grod gave this distinguished pre- 
 
 * Milton. 
 
250 ORGANIZATION AND GOVERNMENT 
 
 late access to the heart of one of the most capri- 
 cious, cruel, inexorable, blood-thirsty, and licentious 
 monarchs that has disgraced the world; and that 
 for the sake of Cranmer and his church, he con- 
 ducted Henry as "by a hook in the nose," and 
 made him faithful to the Archbishop of Canterbury 
 when faithful to none else; so that, perhaps, the 
 only redeeming trait in the character of Henry is 
 his fidelity to this first British prelate under the 
 reformation.* The world will not soon forget the 
 names of Latimer and Ridley, and Rogers and 
 Bradford ; names associated in the feelings of Chris- 
 tians with the long list of ancient confessors " of 
 whom the world was not worthy," and who did 
 honour to their nature and to mankind by sealing 
 their attachment to the Son of God in the flames. 
 Nor can we forget that we owe to the Episcopal 
 Church that which fills our mind with gratitude and 
 praise, when we look for examples of consecrated 
 talent, elegant literature, and humble piety. While 
 men honour elevated Christian feeling — while they 
 revere sound learning — while they render tribute to 
 
 * It may be proper here to remark, that Cranmer by no 
 means entertained the modern views of the scriptural authority 
 of bishops. He maintained "that the appointment to spiritual 
 offices belongs indifferently to bishops, to princes, or to the 
 people, according to the pressure of existing circumstances. 
 He affirmed the original identity of bishops cutd presbyters ; 
 and contended that nothing more than mere election or ap- 
 pointment is essential to the sacerdotal office, without conse- 
 cration or any other solemnity." Le Bas' Life of Cranmer, 
 vol. i. p. 197. 
 
OF THE APOSTOLIC CHURCH. 251 
 
 clear and profound reasoning — they will not forget 
 the names of Barrow and Taylor, of Tillotson, 
 Hooker, and Butler; and when they think of 
 humble, pure, sweet, heavenly piety, their minds 
 will recur instinctively to the name of Leighton. 
 Such names do honour to the world. When we 
 think of them, we have it not in our hearts to utter 
 one word against a church which has thus done ho- 
 nour to our race and to our common Christianity. 
 
 Such we wish Episcopacy still to be. There are 
 minds and hearts, we doubt not, which will find 
 more edification in the forms of worship in that 
 church than in any other. To all who hold essen- 
 tial truth, we bid God-speed j and for all such we 
 lift our humble supplications to the God of all mercy, 
 that he will make them the means of spreading the 
 gospel around the globe. We have never doubted 
 that many of the purest flames of devotion which 
 rise from the earth ascend from the altars of the 
 Episcopal Church, and that many of the purest 
 spirits which the earth contains minister at those 
 altars, or breathe forth their prayers and praises 
 in language consecrated by the use of piety for 
 centuries. 
 
 We have but one wish in regard to Episcopacy. 
 We wish her not to assume arrogant claims. We 
 wish her not to utter the language of denunciation. 
 We wish her to fall in with the spirit of the age. 
 Our desire is that she may become throughout — 
 
252 THE APOSTOLIC CHURCH. 
 
 what we would fain hope she is increasingly be- 
 coming — the warm, devoted friend of revivals and 
 of missionary operations. She is consolidated ; well- 
 marshalled; under an efficient system of laws; and 
 pre-eminently fitted for powerful action in the field 
 of Christian warfare. We desire to see her, — with 
 her dense, solid organization ; with her unity of 
 movement ; with her power of maintaining the posi- 
 tion which she takes; and with her eminent ability 
 to advance the cause of sacred learning and the 
 love of order and of law, — accompanying other 
 churches in the conquests of redemption in an 
 alienated world; and whatever positions may be 
 assigned to other denominations, we will cherish 
 the hope that the Episcopal Church is destined yet 
 to consecrate her wealth and power to the work of 
 makiug a perpetual aggression on the territories of 
 sin and of death. 
 
 THE END. 
 
 STJKRBOTTPED BT L. JOHXSOS * CO. 
 PHILADELPHIA. 
 
Princeton Theological Seminary-Speer Library 
 
 1 1012 01021 6895