Full text of "End of prelacy : or, A treatise on ministerial parity and the non-efficacy of sacramental grace, versus the Romanism of the prelatical dogma of an unbroken succession and its cognate, sacramentarianis, papal tractarian and high and low church ..."

See other formats

Part of tho
t ADQISON ALIiXANDEU LIBI^ABY
vhich was presented by

MeSSKS. R. L. and a. ST0ABT.

X^^3

fV<.sv>, Division

Sh('f/\ Section.....

3-^

■t

(!)

^-♦e?

BV 665 .S49 1852
Shimsall, R. C.
End of prelacy

*.=s*--*r-'

/ f

■k_

EECOMMENDATIONS.

.,m the Rev. W. W. Phillips, D.D., Pastor of the First Presbyterian Church, Fifth Avenue.
The work of Mr. Shimeall on Episcopacy, has been prepared with much labor, and
evinces both learning and research. It is designed to counteract in the present day, the
strong tendency in the human mind to substitute for Christ — as grounds of hope and
confidence towards God — the enjoyment of ecclesiastical relations and church privileges,
and the observance of religious forms and ceremonies, and at the same time to give the
fundamental doctrine of justification by faith, its appropriate and prominent place in our
Christian system. Notwithstanding the prejudice which exists in the minds of some
against everything in the form of religious controversy, and against all persons who en-
gage in it, we trust that those who feel interested in this important subject, will not ob-
iect to a full, fair, and candid discussion of it. The command to contend earnestly for
the faith once delivered to the saints is still binding. If the statements of Mr. S. are
correct and agreeable to truth, they should be received as such; if they are not, let them
be refuted and proved to be false. I regard them as worthy of the impartial perusal and
prayerful consideration of all who receive the word" of God as the only rule of religious
faith and practice. W. W. PHILLIPS.

From the Rev. G. Spring, D.D., Pastor of the Brick Presbyterian Church.
I HAVE not been able to give that attention to the work of the Rev. Mr. Shimeall,
which justifies me in expressing that approbation of the entire argument, which I cheer-
fully express in relation to the portions which I have carefully perused. The author ha^
spared no pains to render his volume a standard work on the Episcopal Controvers)'.
The whole work is elaborate, and parts of it present the subject in a light somewhat
novel, and certainly seasonable. It is well worthy of publication and patronage.

GARDINER SPRING.
Brick Church Chapel, June 2, 1851.

From the Rev. N. I. Marselus, D.I>., Pastor of the Reformed Dutch Church, in Bleecker Street
"A Treatise on Episcopacy, &c. By the Rev. R. C. Shimeall." Such is the
title of a book, about to be published, the manuscript of which has been put into my
hands, by the author. And, after a careful and minute examination of the same, I have
no hesitancy in adding my testimony to its value, in connection with the favorable ex-
pressions given above. It must be apparent to all, who have, for a few years paat,
watched the movements of the Roman hierarchy, and the evident tendency to apostatize in
the same direction, by a large ecclesiastical denomination, both in America and England,
that a work of this description is loudly called for, at the present day. Mr. Shimeall baa
done full justice to the subject he has undertaken to discuss. The analytic form in
which the whole work is moulded, the deep research in Church History which charac-
terizes it, and the intimate acquaintance with the whole controversy on Prelacy, which
appears throughout the entire discussion, cannot fail to interest every reader, and carry
conviction to the minds of the doubtful and wavering. The arguments employed are
clear and conclusive ; the illustrations, apt and definite ; and the inferences, natural and
decisive. And the work itself, in the estimation of the undersigned, might be ver/
usefully and profitably adopted, as a text book, in all our Anti-Prelatical Theological Semi-
naries. I hope its circulation may be commensurate with its merits.

N. I. MARSELUS.
New York, July 9, 1851.

From the Rev. Joh;» N. M'Lkod. D.D., Pastor of the First Reformed Pre';';ytenan Church, Now Tork,
and Professor of Theology in the Seminary oJT the Reformed Presbyterian Church.

I HAVE read such portions of the manuscript of Rev. Mr. Shimeall as the time it

remained in my hands has allowed, and trust he will be encouraged to give it to the

public. I find several things in his incidental expositions of Scripture, and in his view»

of particular points of interest, to which I may not be prepared to subscribe j and yet

A 1

RECOMM ENDATIONS.

taking the work as a whole, I regard it as a learned, faithful and convincing argument
for important truth, and in opposition 1o insidious and dangerous error.

As a demonstration of the unscrii)tinal character of Prelacy in all its forms, it is in
my opinion, as seasonahie. as it is satisfactory. Should it be given to the world through
the press, it may serve, with the hles.^ing of (iod, as a timoous warning to some who
are in danger of being attracted Irom the plainer and purer Christianity, to the forms,
ceremonies, and mysteries that distinguish one of its main corruptions. He who leaves
religious connections where evangelical truth and order, and a spiritual worship prevail,
and puts him,=elf under the guidance of prelatical teachers, is on the track to Rome. So
the work of Mr. S. assures us, and he hlows the trumpet of warning with an honest
boldness, and with no uncertain sound.

JOHN N. M'LEOD.

New York, June 26, 1851.

FVom the Rev. George B. Cueever, D.D., Pastor of tlie Church of the Puritans, Union Square, New

York.

I HAVE examined the manuscript work of Rev. Mr. Siiimeall concerning the preten-
sions of Episcopacy, and have admired the thoroughness and research of the discussion.
I wish very muchthatit may be printed. It clearly exposes the arrogant assumptions, and
errors long defended, of the prelatical system, as also the bigotry and unrighteousness of
spirit involved in them, and manifested in their support ; and at the same time it develops
great principles, and sets forth important truth. 1 hope it will be given to the public.

GEORGE B. CHEEVER.

New York, May 14, 1851.

From the Rev. John M. Kkebs, D.D., Pastor of the Rutgers Street Presbyterian Church.

I HAVE read the entire manuscript of Mr. Shimeall's work, entitled the "Romanism
of Low Churchism." It exhibits great labor and research ; and the Table of Contents
and the Indexes of Texts and Subjects, will show with what minuteness the whole
question of Prelacy has been examined. The clear method, the fullness of investiga-
tion, the array of authorities, the application of facts and the force of the argument,
render this work a Thesaurus. To my mind it is a complete exposure of the prelatical
doctrine of Apostolical Succession, and of the worthlessness of its claim even on its own
principles. But the most important feature of this work, and its value to the anti-pre-
latical churches, is found in the exposition of the practical tendencies of the prelatical
system, and in the tracing of the whole to the fons et origo malorum, in the more modest
and plausible positions of "Evangelical Low-Churchism." The historical rise of Epis-
copacy in the expediency of the system, viewed in connection with thedaims of the evangel-
ical party, at the present time, present matter for serious reflection to those who are dis-
posed to look with favor on Low-Churchism, or what is usually calleil surli. I hope the
work will be published. JOHN M. KREBS.

January 27, 1851.

From the Rev. I. S. Spencer, D.D., Pastor of the Second Presbyterian Church, Brooklyn, L. I.

I HAVE examined, with some carefulness, the manuscript copy of the Rev. Mr. Shime-
ALu's "Treatise on Episcopacy." The Treatise manifests much research, a respectable
scholarship, and an independent mind. Not having leisure to peruse the whole of it, I
am unprepared to express an opinion on all the particular points of which it treats;
but so far as I have read it, I believe its doctrines and its argumentations to be just.
The subject itself is of much moment, and I think the publication timely.

ICHABOD S. SPENCER.

Brooklyn, May 20, 1851.

From the Rev. S. H. Cox, D.D., Pastor of the First Presbyterian Churcli, Brooklyn, L. I.
The MSS. of the forthcoming work of the Rev. R. C. Shimeall, I have seen, and
read, though without time for a full perusal, several of them, with a view of the scope
and intendment of the entire treatise ; and, as such, I think it evinces great research and
assiduity, with some experimental means for seventeen years of knowing the system,
which few of the unfettered and Protestant Ministers of Christ, could possess. The
theme is important in a high degree, since the unchurching and exclusive assumptions of
prelacy, are only one of the veritable schisms organic that are also signs of antichrist.

RECOMMENDATIONS.

Much as I respect, on other accounts alone, some, or, even many of this affinity, on this
and the other side of the Atlantic, and much as I regret to differ from them, in appear-
ance or reality, as scholars and as gentlemen, as neighbors and cis friends, I intend to go
to the judgment-seat of Christ, testifying against the sectarian enormities, too long con-
cealed, and too much passively endured, that belong to their sectarian pile, " from turret
to foundation-stone ;" since the individual who lovetfi or maketk a lie in the Church of
God, is not the one whom I desire to imitate at ail. See Rev. 21 : 27, 22 : 15.

SAMUEL H. COX.
Brooklyn, N. Y. May 5, 1851.

From tlie Rev. Geo. Peck, D.D., Editor oii'he Jldvocate andjounial of the Methodist Episcopal Church.

I HAVE examined, with as much care as my regular official duties would allow, a
MS. work on '• Ministerial Parity," " Prelacy," and kindred topics, by the Rev. R. C.
SuiME.\LL, and am happy to say that I consider it a work of high merit. The author
thoroughly understands his theme, and has presented the results of his investigations in
a form which, if published, will greatly serve the interests of truth, and consequently
do much good. I have not been able to read the whole work consecutively, and conse-
quently, cannot say that there are no particular views in it which I should not approve,
but of the spirit of the work and the ability with which it is executed, I have sufficient-
ly acquainted myself to form an intelligent opinion. I most heartily wish the author
success in his enterprise. GEO. PECK.

New York, 200 Mulbery Street, August 7, 1851.

From the Rev. John Dowlins, D.D., Pastor of the Broadway Baptist Church, and author of the His-
tory of Romanism, &.C.

I HAVE examined, with as much care as other engagements would permit, the MS. of
the forthcoming work of the Rev. R. C. Siiimeall on the " Prelatico-Episcopal Contro-
versy." The result of such examination has been, in my own mind, that Mr. Shimeali's
work will prove to be a learned, reliable, and complete Treatise upon this subject. The
author is a Paedobaptist, and as might be expected, an expression occasionally escapes
from his pen, at which a member of my own denomination would demur. This fact,
however, does not, in my judgment, invalidate the claims of his work to be regarded,
as I doubt not it will be regarded, as a standard work by all who with myself, occupy
the ground '" of the Bible in opposition to Tradition as the only rule of Faith," and of
" Ministerial Parity, in opposition to the arrogant and exclusive claims of Episcopacy."
The author most skillfully dissects the different '" chains" of unbroken apostolical suc-
cession, that have been constructed— /orgcrf, I was about to say — by the Rev. A. B. Cha-
pin, and other prelatical apostolical successionists, scatters to the winds their baseless as-
sumptions, and shows to a demonstration, that their exclusive theories are hampered
with difficulties, inconsistencies, and contradictions, absolutely insurmountable, and fatal
to their whole system. I shall be most happy to learn that the work of Mr. Shimeall
obtains that extensive circulation to which its merits entitle it.

JOHN BOWLING.

From the Rev. James M. Macdonald, M.A., Pastorofthe Fifteenth Street Presbyterian Church, New

Yorlv.

New York, May 12, 1851.

Rev. and Dear Sir : — I have read considerable portions of your work (in manuscript)
on Episcopacy, and have been much impressed with its signal ability. I earnestly hope
that it will be given to the public, through the press, with as little delay as possible.

That portion of it which relates to the question of apostolical succession, appears to
me 1o be unanswerable. At all events, I should like to see some advocate of such a
succession attempt an answer. You have met Episcopalians on their own chosen
ground, and shown it to be untenable. Yours, respectfully,

JAMES M. MACDONALD.

The Rev. Mr. Shimeall.

~^'

END OF PRELACY:

INCLUDING A DEMONSTRATION OF THE

ROMANISM

OF THE SYSTEM, SO CALLED, OF

EVANGELICAL LOW-CHURCHISM.

END OF PRELACY:

OR, A TREATISE ON

MINISTERIAL PARITY AND THE NON-EPPICACY OP SACRAMENTAL GRACE;

THE ROMANISM

OF THE PRELATICAL DOGMA OF AN UNBROKEN SUCCESSION,

AND ITS COGNATE, SACRAMENTARIANISM, 4

PAPAL, TRACTARIAN AND HIGH AND LO¥-CHURCH,

IN THREE PAETS:

PART I.— ON THE RULE OF FAITH.

PART II.— ON MINISTERIAL PARITY, TESTED BY SCRIPTURE.

PART III.— ON MINISTERIAL PARITY, versus PRELACY.

" Be ye not called Rabbi — call no man your Father — all ye are brethren." — Jesus Cheist.
" A little leaven leaveneth the whole lump. Purge out therefore the old leaven.'' — Paul.
"The Battle of the Reformation is again to be fought." — Rev. Wm. Meade, Bishop of Virginia.

BY EEV. E. C. SHIMEALL,

FOE SEVt!<TEEN TEARS A PRESBYTER OF THE PROTESTANT EPISCOPAL CHUPCH ;

NOW A MEMBER OF THE PRESBYTERY OF NEW YORK ;

AND AUTHOR OF THE ILLUMINATED CHART OF SACRED HISTORY, CHRONOLOGY, GEOGRAPHY, AND GENEALOGY;
A COMPLETE ECCLESIASTICAL CHART, FROM THE EARLIEST RECORDS ; SACRED CHRONOLOGY, HISTORIC
AHD PROPHETIC ; SACRED HISTORY IW QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS ; A TREATISE ON PRAYCH, ETC., ETC

NEW YOEK:

CHARLES SCRIBNER, 145 NASSAU STREET.
1852.

Entered according to Act of Congress, in the year 1852, by

REV. U. C. SHIMEALL,

In th» Clerk's Office of tlie District Court of the United States for the Southern District of New

York.

8. W. BENKDICT,

BTK.nEOTTPEK *ND TuiNTER,

16 Sprua slrtH. N. Y.

DEDICATION.

TO THE

PKESBYTER-BISHOPS, RUXING-ELDERS, AND DEACONS,

OF ALL THE REFORMED PROTESTANT ANTI-PRELATICAL CHURCHES

OF CHRIST " SCATTERED ABROAD,"

TOGETHER WITH "THE WHOLE MULTITUDE" OR "CHURCH:"

TO THE

ANGLICAN HIERARCHY OP

ARCHBISHOPS, BISHOPS, CANONS, PREBENDS, DEANS, ARCHDEACONS,

DEACONS, ETC. ;

THE ANGLO-AMERICAN HIERARCHY,

THE RIGHT REV. THE BISHOPS, THE REV. THE CLERGY, AND

THE LAITY OF "THE PROTESTANT EPISCOPAL CHURCH;"

AND

TO HIS HOLINESS, PIUS IX. OF ROME,
TO HIS CLERGY OF CARDINALS, ARCH-BISHOPS, BISHOPS, ETC.,

AND TO HIS FLOCK, CALLED "THE FAITHFUL:"

THE FOLLOWING TREATISE
IS MOST RESPECTFULLY DEDICATED,

BY THEIR HUMBLE SERVANT,

THE AUTHOR.

New York, Feb., 1853.

Extracted from the Protestant Churckman, Oct. 18, 1851.

BEWARE OF FALSE DOCTRINE.

Unsound faitli will never be tlie motlier of really sound practice ; and in
these latter days, departxires from the faith abound. See, then, that your
loins be girt about with truth, and be very jealous of receiving any thing
which cannot be proved by the Bible. Think not that folse doctrine will
meet you face to face, saying, " I am false doctrine, and I want to come into
your heart." Satan does not go to work in that way. He dresses up false
doctrme like Jezebel — he paints her face and tires her head, and tries to
make her like truth. Think not that those who preach error will never
preach any thing that is true. Error would do little harm if that was the
case. No ! error will come before you mingled with much that is sound
and scriptural. The sermon will he all right excepting a feiv sentences. The
book mil be all good excei^t a few 'pages. And this is the chief danger of
religious error in those times, — it is like the subtle poisons of days gone by,
— ^it works so deceitfully that it throws men off their guard. Brethren, take
care. Remember that even Satan himself is transfonncd into an angel of
light. — Living or Dead, by Rev. Kyle.

CONTENTS.

Page

Dedication, . . . . . vii

To THE Reader, ...... xxvii

INTRODUCTION.— pp. 15-52.

Evangelical Protestantism. — Romanism. — A new contest inevitable. — A difference. —
Low Churchism compared with the so-called Low Church Theory, as doctrinally
and practically developed, etc.

PART I.

OlSr THE EULE OF FAITH.

THE SCRIPTURES ALONE, VerSUS SCRIPTURE AND TRADITION.

pp. 53-88.

An authoritative standard indispensable. — The Bible alone, such. — Involves the neces- '
sity of private interpretation. — This Theory the Palladium of Protestantism. —
Tradilionists. — " Holy Scripture and Ancient Authors."— Tradition. — Conflicting
Schemes of. — If authoritative, it must be co-ordinate with Scripture. — Otherwise
we have a divided authority. — The question at issue purely one of authority. —
Protestant view. — The Scriptures infallible. — Interpreters not. — Prelatical view. —
Involves the theory of Infallibility of the Interpreter of — Proof, drawn from the
application of their theory to the question, Do the Scriptures of the New Te-sta-
ment clearly reveal a complete scheme of Church order, etc. — Protestants affirm. —
Prelatists deny. — ^Their Theory stated.— Fallacy of — Argued, either Scripture
alone is supreme, or, on the Prelatical Scheme, Tradition must be equal with and
independent of it.— Put to the test of Inspiration and Miracles.— The Primitive. —
The alleged Medieval and Modern. — Examination of the last two, as a question of
historic fact. PP- r)4-64

Tradition. — Two kinds of. Apostolical and Ecclesiastical, or Catholic. — 1st: Jpnstolical
Tradition. — Definition of. — Texts examined. — (1.) No evidence in Scripture, of an
Apostolical Creed. — (2.) Nor in the writings of the Apostolical Fathers. — 2d:
EfrhsiaHicul, or Catholic Tradition — Definition of — Romish claims. — Do. Tracta-
lians.— Do., " Book of Common Prayer."— Proof, that they are substantially identi-
cal.— ^Test of genuine and spurious Tradition : " Quod iihiqne, quod semper, quod ab
omnibus creditum est ?'' — Etpiully advocated by all classes of Traditiouists, Roman-

Vlll CONTENTS.

ists, Tradariaiis, and High and Low Churchmen. — Fallacy of, proved from the fol-
lowing arguments : — 1. Asa test, this rule is inapplicable — 2. Unsatisfactory — '.i.
Superlluous — 1. It is Judaic in in its character and tendency — S. The Early Fath-
ers disclaim that authority in bt^half of their Writings, which Traditionists alhrm.
— Concluding remarks. pp. G5-75

Additional Arguments in sujjport of the right of private interpretation, against the
claims of infallibility involved in the theory of Tradition. — 1st: God has given us a
law or standard, an internal principle, conscience, as our guide, etc. — 2d : Common
consent. — Piactically admitted by Romanists. — Illustration of the sophistry of
" the Vicious Circle," the Pope is infallible, for the Bible asserts it, and the Bible is
inspired, for the Pope asserts it. — Examination of the question, Which was prior,
the Bible, or the Church? Bishop Purcell of Cincinnati. — (1.) Proof, that the
Church of Rome is totally destitute of an authentic copy of the Bible. — (2.) Proof,
that she is equally destitute of an authorized commentary of the Bible. — (3.) Falla-
cy of the gjleged dependence of Protestants on Romanists for the collection and
preservation of the canonical Scriptures. — (4.) Examination of the Tridentine can-
on, that Scripture must be interpreted according to " the unanimous consent of the
Fathers. — Conclusion. — Consequences of the theory of Traditionists. — The Bible,
its own interpreter, its own witness, its own juds^e. pp. 75-88

PART 11.

.AUNISTERIAL PARITY, TESTED BY SCRIPTURE.

CHAPTEE 1.

8CKIPTUUAL VIEW OF THE ORIGIN, NATURE, ORDT2RS, AND POWERS OF
THE CHRISTIAN MINISTRY.

SECTION I. — pp. 89-95.

Introductory Remarks. — Plan of the Argument inductive. — A visible ministry a concomi-
tant of the visible Church state, Patriarchal, Jewish, and Christian. — Opening His-
tory of the New Testament exhibits its last transition state. — Its distinguishing
characteristic. Justification by Faith, through grace, in opposition to the law of
Works. — Process of ingathering. — The Church invisible and visible. — Thelaiter, the
basis of its external unity. — A baptized body. — Subjects, infants and adults. — The
Lord's Supper the bond of visible union and communion.

SECTION 11.^ — ^pp. 95-97.

The Christian Ministry. — Differs from the Jewish in its form, its spirit, and its end. —
Diverted from its original divinely-appointed intent. — Paul's description of; — Scrip-
tural account of the Origin, Nature, Orders, and Powers or Functions of. as insti-
tuted by Christ and his Apostles. — Chillingwortli. the Homilies, and Bishop Taylor
quoted.

CONTENTS. IX

SECTION ni. — pp. 98-102.

The Origin of the New Testament ministry. — Instances of ministerial appointments —
1st : By Christ personally — 2(1 : By the Holy Ghost — 3d : By the Apostles — 4th :
By the Apostles with others — 5th : By others than the Apostles — 6th : Of those
respecting whose appointments no allusion is made, either as to the source or mode
of — 7th : Those appointed by special Providence — Total number, sixty.

SECTION IV. — pp. 102-105.

The nature of their powers or "gifts." — This inferred, 1st: From their moral qualities of
heart and of life. — 2d : Must have a Divine call. — 3d : Intellectual qualifications. — 4th:
Must be of sound doctrine. — -5th : Excluded self-adulation, jealousy, and a love of " the
pre-eminence." — 6th : The duty enjoined, to forsake such as are unholy in life, or
who " handle the word of God deceitfully."

SECTION V. — pp. 105-114.

Ministerial Orders. How many were there ? — Process of reduction and classification. — 1 st
By their titles. — Of the above sixty, forty bore no titles ecclesiastical — those with
titles (twenty in all) , the number reduced to eight. — These compared with Eph.
4 : 11. — The present divinely-appointed ministry must correspond with those of
the above which were designed to constitute the ordinary and permanent orders of
said ministry for all time. — Further reduction of the remaining New Testament
appointments to this standard. — Process. — Classification according to their powers
or functions, in connection with their titles. — Eph. 4:11, harmonized with 1 Cor.
12 : 28. — Their powers. — Varied, both in degree and duration. — The first apostles,
superior. — Seven marks of, etc.

SECTION VI. — pp. 115-123.

The Equality of " the Twelve Apostles.'' — The claim of Primacy and Supremacy in
behalf of Peter, considered. — Fallacy of. — Arguments. 1st. In their Commission,
Christ addressed all alike. — 2d. His name, l.st: Its change from Simon to Cephas.
—YIerp<>s.—2(l: Exposition of Matt. 16 : 18, 19, "On this rock," etc.— 3d: Do. of
the latter clause, " the keys," etc. — 4th : Do. of John 21 : 15-17, " Feed my sheep,"
etc. — 5th: Review of Peter's official acts. — (1.) The Convocation of Jerusalem.
Acts 8 : 14-27. — (2.) His accusation and defense, Acts 12 : 1-18. — (3.) Dispute
about Circumcision, Acts 15 : 1-21. — (4.) Do. between Paul and Peter, Gal. 2:
11-14. — (5.) Peter styles himself, not the apostle, but an apostle, etc.

SECTION VII. — pp. 124-133.

The Number of the Apostles. — Proof that there were "Twelve" only. — Argued, 1st,
from the Declared Perpetual Relation of " the Twelve" to Christ. Luke 22 :

CONTENTS.

28-30. — 2d. From the Name, AiriaroXoi — examination of the Titles vpcaPvrtpo^;
£T(V/c.jT(if, Ji<i/f()i'05, noifii'ii', <!i(!uo-»aXof, itpo^ftTii, ayyiKiii. — (1.) The Name n»r(!(TriiXoj al-
leged in behalf of some to whom it is never given — Andronicus and Junia, Apol-
los, Silas or Silvanus, Titus, Timothy, the Seven Apocalyptic Angels. — (2.) Those
to whom the name is given, who were not of " the Twelve." — Proof that it is ap-
plied to them in a different sense. Barnabas, Epaphroditus, the two brethren who
accompanied Titus to Corinth, Matthias and Paul.

SECTION vin.— pp. 133-137.

Proof, that Paul filled the vacancy created by the fall and death of Judas — Acts 1 : 26,
reconciled with the above — Objections answered — 1st : That it impugns the inspi-
ration of the Sacred Narrative as furnished by Luke — 2d : That Peter being in-
spired, could not err — 3d : That Peter must have received explicit directions from
Christ — ^Ith : The Election of Matthias was decided by lot — 5th : That the num-
ber " twelve" is applied to the Apostles both before and after the Vocation of Paul.
— Direct proofs of Paul's claims over those of Matthias. — 1st : Peter's agency in
the above transaction was premature — And hence, 2d : Unauthorized — 3d : Psalm
109 : 8, inapplicable to this case — 4th: No evidence that it was dictated by the
Holy Ghost. — No direct evidence that the Apostles themselves claimed the right to
fill said vacancy. — Conclusion.

SECTION IX. — pp. 138-141.

Recapitulation of the reduced ministerial N. T. appointments, according to, first^ their
titles ; and second^ their functions and titles. — Result : The whole number reduced
to four orders — namely, Apostles, Prophets, Evangelists, and Pastors or Teachers. —
Proof, that neither of these orders, in respect to their original primitive endow-
ments, was designed to be perpetuated in the Church. — The argument applied, • 1st,
to " the twelve apostles of the Lamb ;" 2d, to the other three orders. — Their (that
is, the apostles's) primitive functions not transmissible, though their names, in part,
are retained.

CHAPTER II.

ORDINATION.

SECTION I.— pp. 142-147.

Two extremes respecting it. — As a ceremonial action, it involves " the laying on of
hands." — Was applied to various uses. — This Ceremonial Action defined. — Is com-

, mon to every Dispensation — 1st : The Patriarchal Age — Instances of its use — 2d :
The Jewish Dispensation — Do. — 3d : The Christian Dispensation — Do. as em-
ployed, (1) by Chuist. Proof, that the action, as employed by Him, involved no
inherent virtue of His human hand. — (2.) By the Apostles. They disclaimed a//

CONTENTS. . XI

inherent virtue in the act itself. — Instances of its use by them, First, in healing the
sick ; Second, in the bestowment of Spiritual Gifts ; Third, in the setting apart of
a person to any work or office, special or ordinary. — These two, entirely separate
and distinct acts, and regarded entirely different ends. — Proof, that the bestowment
of spiritual gifts was exclusively the work of the Apostles, and constituted, pre-em-
inently, the " seaV of their Apostleship.

SECTION II. — pp. 147-151.

Proof, that, in setting apart to office, others beside the Apostles laid on hands. — Instances
of the recorded ordinations by both — First, by the Apostles ; The seven deacons,
Acts 6 : 1-8 — Second, by the prophets and teachers of Antioch ; Saul and Barnabas,
Acts 13 : 1-3 — Third, Timothy circumcised by Paul, Acts 16 : 1-3 — also, the con-
ferment on him by Paul, of " the gift of God," 2 Tim. 1 : 6, 1— Fourth, Timothy's
ordination by "the presbytery" of Ephesus, 1 Tim. 4 : 14. — Proof that, as these
acts occurred at different times, places, and occasions, they could not have been
identical. — Inference, Paul not connected with his ordination by " the presbytery."

SECTION in. — pp. 151-155.

Proof that the official functions of Timothy, and of " the Presbytery," were not iden-
tical.— Timothy and Titus, itinerating Evangelists, and, as such, their functions
were special and extraordinary, and therefore temporary. — Remarks respecting the
last two orders : Prophets, and Pastors or Teachers, enumerated in Eph. 4:11.

SECTION IV. — ^pp. 156-158.

Of Elders, Ruling Elders, and Deacons. — Proof, from Paul's directions to Timothy and Ti-
tus respecting them, that they were to constitute the bou.ndary-line which divides
the extraordinary and temporary ministry of the Church, from that which was in-
tended for its ordinary and permanent use, to the end of time, as drawn, First, from
the directions given them — Second, from the personal qualifications specified. — To
be inducted into office by the laying on of hands. — The standard model ministry of
the Church, two orders only.

SECTION V. — pp. 159-168.

Proof, that the dual orders of Presbyter-Bishop and Deacon were to constitute the ordi-
nary aiid permanent ministry of the Church, as derived. First, from the inteichange-
able use of the names Elder, Troiulivrtpag, and Bishop, -I'trvoTrof, to denote the same
office — Second, from the two classes of functions, those of teaching, preaching, and
governing, and those of ruling only, common to "' the presbytery." — Passages quoted
in illustration. — Remarks. — Mode of appointment, that of popular election, or elec-
tion by the Church. — Import of the term, x£'po™>""i^' • — Paul's instructions to Timo-
thy.— Tills office in the Church of Christ shown 1o be most reasonable in itself. —

XU CONTENTS.

Advantages of. — Further proof of the dual orders of Presbyter and Deacons, as drawn,
1st, from the answer to the objection urged against the mixed nature of the func-
tions of the eldership, etc. — 2d, from the Pauline address to the Church at Phiiippi.
— Scriptural account of the office of Deacon.

SECTION VI. — ^pp. 168-170.

Recapitulation of the argument, etc. — Conclusion.

PART III.

MINISTERIAL PARITY, VERSUS PRELACY.

CHAPTEE I.

THE PREDICTED TRIAL AND APOSTASY OF THE CHURCH, UNDER
THE CHRISTIAN DISPENSATION.

SECTION I. — pp. 171-178.

Introduction. The characteristics of the New Testament Ministry, as exhibited in
Part II. of this Treatise, shown to have been eminently simple and fraternal. — This
Ministry to be the center-point of a further trial of the Church's integrity to Christ
the Head. — Her defection the subject of prophecy. — The basis of that defection, the
tendency of all orders of creaturehood, angelic and human, to self-deification. — Its
mode of development in the Church, a love of " the pre-eminence." — Its progress,
gradual. — Its fruit, the Papacy.

CHAPTER 11.

EXAMINATION OF THE PKELATICAL DOGMA — EOlsnsn, TEACTAEIAN, AND
HIGH AND LOW CHUECH OF AN ALLEGED UNINTEEEUPTED SUCCES-
SION FKOM THE APOSTLES, BY SEMINAL DEEIVATION.

SECTION I. — pp. 179-183.

Preliminary remarks. — Prelacy. — Its diversified forms. — Substantially the same. — Con-
sidered as a question of fact.— Four stand- points regarding it, as landmarks in the
discussions which follow.— Protean character of the Prelatico-Episcopal theory.— If
true, must be shown— 1st: To be derived directly from Christ himself— 2d : Must
exercise all the functions Apostolical, especially that of conferring the '• gift of the
Holy Ghosl'-- 3d: Must prove that they were appointed to complete what the
Apostles left in an unfinished state.

SECTION n. — pp. 184-188.

The only modes of escape from the above hypotheses— 1st: Positive evidence that
Christ delegated to others the authority to propagate said succession— 2d : Also of

CONTENTS. XI H

the persons by whom and on whom, and the time when and the place where, said
apostolic office and functions were conferred. — The system defined. — Exami-
nation of the alleged evidence in support of — namely, " holy Scripture and ancient
authors." I. "Holy Scripture" — prelatical arguments from — (1.) " Lo, I am
with you alway," etc. — ;2.) "As my Father hath sent me," etc. — (3.) "No man
taketh this honor," etc. — Bishop McCoskrey on. — Remarks on. — Necessity of
exhibiting the system as it is. — Proof that, cardinal to said system is its perpetual
priestly and sacerdotal character with vicarial functions.

SECTION ni. — pp. 189-195.

Examination of the alleged evidence, as derived from the typical character and conse-
quent analogy of the Christian ministry to the Aaronic priesthood. — Definition of
the theory. — Quotations from its four classes of advocates : — I. The Romish the-
ory : — II. The Tractarian theory : — III. The High Church theory ; Bishop McCos-
krey : — IV. The Low Church theory ; Bishop Griswold. — The Book of Common
Prayer. — Episcopacy as founded in expediency. — Fallacy of. — Proof, that in its most
diluted form, it is invested with vicarial powers. — It is Judaism with a Christian
name. — Is identical with the High Church, Tractarian, and Romish theories of. —
Consequences: contentions, strife, divisions. — Dilemma of the Low Church party. —
Must place their system on the platform of expediency alone, or admit its priestly
character. — Mode of their attempt to escape from. — The reader admonished. — Trac-
tarians, etc. the most consistent.

SECTION IV. — pp. 195-202.

Arguments demonstrative of the fallacy of the alleged typical analogy of the Christian
ministry to the Aaronic priesthood — 1st : The two compared — 2d : Christ himself
the only antitype of the Levitical priesthood and sacrifices — 3d : No resemblance
between the orders of the two — The test applied — (1.) to the Anglican episcopacy
— (2.) to the Romish. — 4th : Further proof, derived from the absolute perfection of
the antitypal sacrifice of Christ — 5th : No evidence of the transfer by Christ to
others, of His priestly office and functions. — Conclusion. — The Romish and Trac-
tarian theories the most consistent. — Unfortunate dilemma of Low Churchmen.

CHAPTER III.

OF THE j^XLEGED POWERS OF THE PKELATIOAL PRIESTHOOD.

SECTION I. — pp. 203-209.

The apostolical powers, if continued, must be exercised whole and entire. — Division of
their functions by prelatists into e.xtraordinary and ordinary. — Bishops Taylor,
Griswold, and Mcllvaine on.— Design of. — Fallacy of — Dr. Barrow and Cardinal

XIV CONTENTS.

Bdlarmine on. — Prelatical dilemma. — Though they deny the continuance of the ex-
traonliuary functions apostolic, yet claim to exercise the highestof their miraculous
powers, namely, that of conferring " the gift of the Holy Ghost." — Proofs, quota-
tions from — 1st: The Romanists— 2d : Tractarians — ;Jd: High Church; Bishop
Jeremy Taylor — 4th : Low Cliurch ; Book of Common Prayer, (Ordinal of Or-
dination.)— Discretionary form of. — Remarks on. — Bishop Mcllvaine. — Policy of
the above scheme.

SECTION n. — pp. 210-213.

The same subject continued. — On the extent of the alleged powers apostolical, as
claimed in behalf of their successors. — Preliminaries. — Substratum of the prelatico-
episcopal theory. — Principle involved, namely, Prelacy, as essential to the being of
the Church. — Argument for, not the name, but the ads, etc. — Bishops Griswold and
Mcllvaine. — Essential to the support of — Fallacy of. — The name, apostle, retained
by Bishop Mcllvaine. — Equivocal and contradictory use of, by prelatists. — Bishops
Mcllvaine and H. U. Onderdonk compared. — How used in the time of Ignatius.

SECTION ni. — p]3. 214-219.

The subject continued. — Extent of the alleged prelatical functions. — Their incongnious
and discordant views of. — The subject applied — 1st : To the nature, character, and
powers of " the twelve" — Alleged Headship of Christ transferred to them — Bishops
Griswold and McCoskrey — Absurdity of — 2d : Its transfer by the Apostles to others
— Bishops Griswold and McCoskrey — Whole and entire. — Contradicted by the dis-
tinction made by them between the extraordinary and ordinary functions apostolic.
— Continuance of miraculous powers in the line of prelatical bishops, positively
affirmed by Maurice. — Made to depend, however, on their faithfulness. — By others,
denied. — Quotations from " Tracts for the Times," Bishop Mcllvaine. — Rev. Mr.
Melville. — Taken together, the system is complete.

SECTION ly. — pp. 220-226.

Aggregate powers of the prelatico-episcopal priesthood, as advocated b)', 1st, The Ro-
manists — (1.) Of the priesthood generally. — (2.) Of the popedom in particular. —
(o.) Immaculate. — (6.) Infallible. — (c.) Their spiritual powers. — (^d.) Their tem-
poral powers. — (e.) Their supremacy, absolute and universal. — (3 ) The Romish,
" the mother and mistress of all churches." — Means employed for her extension
and support. — 2d. Protestant prelatists, Anglican and American. — (1.) Of the
ministry as a Christian priesthood. — (2.) Of their official powers. — Bishops Gris-
wold and McCoskrey. See p. 191. — (a.) Immaculate. — (6.) Infallible.— (c.)
Their spiritual powers. — Absolution. — Mediation. — Dr. Dodwell. — Bishops Gris-
wold and Mcllvaine. — Inference.

CONTENTS. XV

SECTION V. — ^pp. 227-231.

Episcopo-priestly arrogance, exclusiveness, etc., in regard, 1st. To the ministry. — Re-
marks on. — Protestant Prelatists. — Dodvvell. — Bishops Griswold and McCoskrey. —
Book of Common Prayer and Rev. S. H. Tyng. D.D.— 2d. The Church, Anglican
and American, identical. — Rev. Mr. Palmer, Bishop Hobart, Fowler's Catechism,
and Bishops Brownell and Griswold.— :0f the Episcopal theory of the Church. —
(1.) Spiritual. — (2.) Ecclesiastico-political. — Anglican. — Herunion with the State. —
Henry VIII. declared the supreme head of, in Spirituals and Temporals. — Absolute
and unlimited. — Continued under Edward VI. — Restored under Elizabeth. — Re-
mains in force to this day.

SECTION VI. — pp. 231-240.

Hence the surrender, by the Anglican Church, of her independence to the Civil Magis-
trate.— Henry VIII. the fountain of the English Apostolical Succession. — See the
King's commission to Cranmer. — Renewed under Edward VI. — The American
Episcopal Church at the period of the Revolution. — Bishop Seabury, of Connec-
ticut.— Derivation of American Episcopacy. — Obstacles. — How removed. — Ap-
proximations, in spirit and in form, of the Ecclesiastico-political character of the
American to the Anglican Hierarchy. — Her unprotestantizing tendencies. — The
British Critic— The New York Diocesan Conventions of 1839 and 1843.— Rev.
S. H. Tyng, D.D. — Objections. — These are but individual opinions, etc.— Reply. —
Hobartian sentiment of Charity towards Anti-Episcopalians. — Fallacy of. — Six
inferences from the above. — Conclusion.

CHAPTEE IV.

OF THE PEELATICO-EPISCOPAL THEORY OP OEDESTATION, AS THE ONLY
ALLEGED DIVINELY- APPOINTED MODE OF PERPETUATING THE APOS-
TOLICAL SUCCESSION.

SECTION I. — pp. 241-245.

Recapitulation of the preceding two additional points of inquiry. — Ordination, or
"the laying on of hands" by Christ, his apostles and their successors, alleged to be
the only channel of perpetuating a valid ministry and ordinances, through " the
gift of the Holy Ghost." — Quotations from Romanists, the Anglican and American
Ordinal, Bishop Taylor, Dr. Hook, and Bishops Beveridge, Hobart, Griswold, and
Mcllvaine. — Remarks on Ordination in Part II. of this Treatise. — Fallacy of the
above theory. — Three inferences. — Prelatical and Anti-Prelatical theories com-
pared.— Proof that the Prelatical theory is borrowed from Rome, etc.

SECTION II. — pp. 245-250.

Direct examination of the alleged fact, regarding an unbroken apostolical succession
from "the twelve" down to this day. — 1. The Romish system. — 2. The Tracta-

XVI CONTENTS,

rian or Puseyite system. — 3. The High Church system. — 4. The so-called
Evangelical Low Church system. — 5. The Book of Common Prayer. — Summary
. of the above. — Preliminary. — Three consecrators indispensable to impart validity
to each consecutive link in the alleged chain. — Canons, on. — (1.) Requires Episco-
pal baptism. — (2.) Ordination as deacon and priest. — (3.) Imposition of hands by
three bishops. — Apostolical Canons. — Du Pin and Bishop Griswold. — The process
of prelatical ordination illustrated. — All who are not so ordained, denounced as
"gross impostors." — Bishop McCoskrey.

SECTION III. — ^pp. 251-252.

Prelacy, as claiming to be the antitype of the Aaronic orders, must hold its analogy to
the mode of its transmission and perpetuity. — The two modes compared. — Queiy.
Did Christ impose his hands on the twelve? — Proof that he did not. — Import of
the term KaOi'-Trr)^!. — Archbishop Potter on. — Ab.surdity of the prelatical hypo-
thesis.

SECTION IV. — pp. 253-261.

The question of genealogy, as involved in the theory of prelacy. — The term defined. —
Applied, 1. To Christ. — 2. To the Jewish commonwealth. — 3. To the Levitical
priesthood. — Illustrations of the exactness of their tabular views. — High prelatical
claims of, in support of the alleged succession. — Preliminaries to a further exami-
nation of — The law of analogy requires a correspondence between the Christian
ministry and its alleged Aaronic " model" in the articles of, 1st. Their respective
vocations. — 2d. Their limits or spheres of operation. — 3d. Prelatical dilemma. —
The Christian Church built, not on apostleSj etc., but on priests. — 4th. Another. —
Twelve foundation .stones. — Twelve chains. — Proof, that such an analogous genea-
logical succession formed no part of the apostles's mission. — Inference.

SECTION V. — ^pp. 261-268.

Direct examination of the prelatical theory of succession as an alleged fact. — Involves
the process of a procreating power. — Absurdity of. — Illustrated in the case of Paul"
and Judas Iscariot. — Anti-prelatical theory of the succession. — Archbishop
Whately on. — The two theories compared. — The high pretensions of prelacy. —
Tremendous consequences pending the issue. — Must be subjected to the severest
test. — Requisites for. — I. Authentic documents — None to be found. — II. An au-
thentic '• Register" or catalogue — None ever produced. — III. A triple agency in
welding each successive link — The pretense preposterous. — IV. Such procreating
power has no archetype in nature — Hence designated by Paul, " endless gene-
alogies," (1 Tim. 1 : 4.)

CONTENTS. Xvii

SECTION VI. — pp. 269-274.

Scriptural examination of the above theory. — " The Twelve Apostles." — These, if equil,
must each have a separate chain. — Denied by Prelatists. — Yet cannot agree as to
whom the honor of starting the chain belongs. — Creed of Pius IV. — Dr. Hook. —
Rev. A. B. Chapin.— St. Peter.— St. Paul— St. John.— St. James, etc. — Starting of
the chain as an alleged fact. — Dr. Stone. — Mode of, by " laying on of hands." — The
first links. — Bishops McCoskrey and Mcllvaine. — Positive evidence indispensable. —
Tested by its application, ^st, to Matthias. — Fallacy of. — 2d, to Barnabas. — Bishop
Mcllvaine versus the Evangelist Luke.

SECTION VII. — ^pp. 274-279.

Same subject continued. — 3. Timothy. — Dr. Stone. — Bishop Griswold. — Positively af-
firms his consecration by "several" apostles, namely, the Ephesian presbytery. — Ar-
gument in support of. — Fallacy of. — The apostolicity of the Ephesian presbytery
denied by Bishop Hobart. — His interpretation of Met, and Aia. — Fallacy of. — The
question fundamental in these premises is, Was Paul personally identified with the
Ephesian presbytery in Timothy's ordination ? — Proof that he was not.— Conclu-
sion.— A choice between two absurdities. — 4. Titus. — Remarks on.

SECTION vni. — 280-283.

Of diocesan Episcopacy. — Timothy,. Titus, and the seven apocalyptic " angels" alleged
to have been diocesan bishops. — Fallacy of, in regard to Timothy and Titus. —
Angels of the seven Churches. — Dr. Henry More, Joseph Mede, Dr. Fulke, and
Bishop Stillingfleet on — Additional proof of the fallacy of — Examination and refu-
tation of Bishop McCoskrey's use of Christ's commendation of the Ephesian
" angel," for having '' tried them which say they are apostles, and are not," etc. —
Conclusion.

CHAPTER Y.

OF THE ROMISH LINE OF THE ALLEGED UNBROKEN SUCCESSION.

SECTION I. — pj). 284-288.

This theory involves the establishment, by Christ, of a chair of primacy and supre-
macy in the Christian Church. — Romanists affirm, Protestants deny. — The points
involved stated. — Bellarmine and Boniface VHI. quoted. — Fallacy of their assump-
tions proved, first from Scripture. — First, no evidence that Christ founded any
such primacy, etc. — Remarks on the name Pope. — Second, dilemma of the
Romish hypothesis as shown from three rivals to Peter as the first alleged primate
namely, James, Paul and John.

XVm CONTENTS.

SECTION II. — pp. 288-292.

Fallacy of the Romish theory of the Succession, as derived from the nature of traditional
evidence. — Proof, that Peter never visited Rome. — Acts 15 quoted. — Examination
of traditionary fragaients. — Eusebius, Papias, Dionysias of Corinth, Caius, Irenaeus.
— His statements regarding Polycarp invalidated. — The Latin translation of his works
not reliable. — He does not affirm that Peter was Bishop of Rome. — Further proof
from Paul's Epistle to the Romans. — Romanists not agreed as to Peter's primacy at
Rome. — Direct proof from Scripture.

SECTION III. — pp. 292-296.

The Romish dogma of an unbroken succession subjected to the test of " ancient authors "
or Tradition. — Preliminary. — It is a question of genealogy. — One absent link
breaks the chain. — The pretense, a grand and stupendous deception. — Arguments
continued, demonstrative of its fallacy. — Fifth. The Romish argument for, as
based on the alleged preservation of the Scriptures by that Church. — Sixth. Rom-
ish schisms. — Seventh. Absence of uniformity in the pontifical elections.

SECTION rv. — pp. 297-302.

The subject continued — Eighth: Fallacy of the above dogma, as drawn from the
moral character of the Popedom. — Barronius, Mich, de Chemaugis, Prideaux, Dr.
Whitby, the Emperor Maximilian, etc. — Ninth : Romish concessions of breaks
in this alleged chain. — Barronius, Bishop Purcell, of Cincinnati, Ohio. — Terrific pre-
latical dilemma. — The attempt to escape from, by Protestant prelatists, under the
plea that they are not dependent on Rome for their succession. — Subsequent notice
of. — Bishop Purcell's mode of escape. — Fallacy of. — Tenth : Evident absurdity of
the above dogma — Makes the uninspired Linus the primate over the inspired apos-
tle John. — Eleventh: Closing argument. — Palpable defects of the best authenti-
cated lists of the alleged succession. — The prelatical hypothesis of, absolutely ex-
cludes the idea of an intervening break, as to time, in perpetuating the chain. —
The Romish biographer Plautina on. — Bishop Purcell. — The " Register" reliable,
only in proportion to the uniformity and agreement of the chroniclers.

SECTION V. — pp. 302-306.

The records of early antiquity. — Our Canon on. — Eusebius. — His testimony defective. —
The reader admonished. — Endless confusion of the chronicles of the first links. —
1st, Peter. — Flaccius Illyricus, Zanchius, Archbishop Cranmer, Dr Cave. — Peter's
successor. — Variations in the Roman Pontifical Index. — Plautina, Tertullian, Rufinas,
Epiphaneous, contradicted by Iren^us, Eusebius, Jerome, and Augustine. — While
Bishop Pearson, and Dr. Comber differ from them. — Cabussate, Prideaux, Howell,
etc. — Papal authorities, etc. — Eight specimens o! the first five links, ciUled from
Eusebius and others.— Challenge to Prelatists to harmonize any two of them.

CONTENTS. XIX

SECTION VI. — pp. 306-323.

Five catalogues of the Popes of Rome. — Eusebius, Chapin, Watson, Anonymous, and
Gavin. — The prelatical theory of succession excludes any break in the chain. — Re-
view of the above catalogues. — Variations both in names and the number of. — Disa-
greement between Chapin and Canon II. — His omission to notice the schisms in. —
Omits Pope Joan (a woman) , the 10.5th in Gavin's list.— Failure of the " Re-
cord" at the very point where all should be explicit and complete — Illustrated.—
First recorded instance of a consecration by three bishops, a.d. 585.

CHAPTER VI.

THE ANGLICAJT LINE OF THE ALLEGED UNBROKEN SUCCESSION.

SECTION I. — ^pp. 324-332.

Episcopacy, as founded in expediency alone. — Recognized the perfect equality of Bish-
ops and Presbyters. — Was adopted as an ecclesiastical arrangement only. — Jerome
on. — An unwarrantable innovation of the New Testament ministry. — Jerome. —
Originated the distinction in ecclesiastical titles. — Amalarius, Theodoret, Bingham,
etc. — A mere human device. — Formed the germ of Prelacy and the Papacy. —
Prelatical denial of primitive parity. — Answer. — Jerome. — Bingham. — Diocesan
Episcopacy. — Archbishop Whately on. — Ministerial parity affirmed by Bishop
Mcllvaine to be unknown to the Chui'ch till the sixteenth century. — Answer. —
Proof of its New Testament origin and primitive prevalence. — Was adopted by
the first Anglican Reformers. — Principles on which it may be adopted or re-

^ tained. — Appeal to those who are really Low Church.

SECTION II. — 332-335.

The alleged Anglican Succession. — Aspect, etc., of England at the time of Henry

VIII.
Review of Rev. A. B. Chapin's work on " The Organization of the Primitive

Church," etc.
Proposes to trace the English Succession in several different ways. — Remarks

SECTION III. — pp. 335-338.

The subject continued. — Mr. Chapin's sources of instruction. — Tradition. — His testimony
regarding them. — Benedictine monks, etc. — The " Gallia Christiana." — A mistake
of Mr. C. — His singular mode of tracing the apostolical succession. — ^Alleges the
English succession to come from Ephesus, etc. — Claims Augustine as the first Saxon
Bishop, and the first Archbishop of Canterbury. — Design of this theory, to avoid its
derivation from Rome. — Two difficulties for Mr. C. — First: With those prelatists
who admit said succession from Rome. — Second: With himself — (l.) His authorities
in support of his new line. — (2.) His error regarding Poiycarp's alleged consecra-
tion by the apostle John. — Eusebius, Gallia Christiana, Bcde, Barronius. — Their
statements irreconcilable with authentic data. — Dr. Cook, Bishop Pearson, Bishop
Purcell, etc. — Tabular view, etc.

XX CONTENTS.

SECTION IV. — pp. 338-343,

The subject continued. — ^The English succession from Aijgustine to the present Arch-
bishop of Canterbury. — Cardinal Pole. — The English succession from Paul. —
Bishop McCoskrey. — His authorities, etc.— Bishop Stillingfleet, Rev. H. Carey,
Mr. E. Churton, etc. — A bird's-eye view of the relation of old Britain to Rome,
about A.D. 595. — Favorable to the establishment of a universal spiritual empire. —
Gregory I. — John, Bishop of Constantinople — Augustine's mission to Kent, En-
gland.— Romi.sh. — His authority over the Anglican Bishops. — Proof, that England
was not independent of Rome at this time. — Dilemma of Mr. C. — Double dilemma
of Bishop McCoskrey and Mr. C. regarding the old British and the Anglo-English
bishops.

SECTION V. — pj). 344-350.

Proof positive, that, in the time of Augustine, and for nearly one hundred years after,

no ecclesiastical connection existed between the former and the latter bishops. — Mr.

E. Churton, Bede, etc. —
This, the most important point of the Historico-Prelatical Controversy. — Involves the

necessity to show,
I. — How the succession through Canterbury is derived from the '• Old British Church."

— ilr. C. here compared with himself — '-The Culdees."' — Mr. E. Churton. — Bede.

— Aidan. — His ordination Prcsbylerial. — Inference fatal to Mr. C.'s theory. —
II. — Must demonstrate the total exemption of the English Church from all subjection to,

or connection with, the See of Rome. — " The Old British Bishops" subdued to the

obedience of Rome, a.d. 668. — Persecution of. — Bede charges it on Augustine. —

Lauded by Mr. E. Churton.

SECTION VI. — pp. 350-355.

Distinction between the British Church and the JInglo- English, admitted by Mr. C.
His disingenuousness. and glaring sophistry. — Effect of. — Mr. C. further com-
pared with himself in regard to Augustine. — Fallacy of the plea of his
" very providential" (alias) Protestant (!) ordination, by the Archbishops of
Aries and of Lyons. — Gregory's repl;- to Augustine's seventh of the nine questions
proposed to him. — Legate of Leo I. at the Council of Chalcedon, a.u. 455. — Decree
of the Emperor .Justinian III.— Not annulled between a.d.410 and 590. — Romanism
of Augustine. — Mr. Turner and Archdeacon Mason on.— Mr. C.'s admission, that
•the Anglo-Saxons were converted by Augustine. — 10,000 baptized in one day.—
The present Cathedral of Canterbury identical with that erected for Augustine by
his first royal convert, Ethelbert, King of Kent. — Hence the Romish origin and
descent of the English line of archbishops.— Proved from Mr. C.'s own book. —
Vide his Catalogue of the Succession, divided into four parts ; for which, see next
Section.

CONTENTS. XXI

SECTION VII. — pp. 355-364.

THE SUBJECT CONTINUED THE SUCCESSION,

From St. John to Augustine. — 2. From Augustine to Cranmer. — Explanation of the
nature and use "of " THE PALL." — Coeval with the time of Augustine, and re-
tained by the archbishops of Canterbury to this day ! — Fallacy of tlie plea of the
independence of the Anglo-English Church. — Loss of the independence of " the
Old British Church" after a. d. 731. — Bede. — Evidence of the disingenuousness of
Mr. C— Proof that instead of only ONE, there are THIRTY-SIX Archbishops
of Canterbury and York between AUGUSTINE and CRANMER, who received
their PALLS from POPISH hands !— What then becomes of the English succes-
sion, if these share the same fate with Cardinal POLE ? — Extraordinary evolution
of Mr. C. — Failing in his attempts to dodge old Rome by way of Ephesus, Old
Britain, Scotland, Ireland, etc., in order to place the validity of the English suc-
cession beyond the reach of controversy, he assures the reader that that succession
can be traced back to the Apostles St. John and St. Paul, not only, but also to St.
PETER, the first bishop of the ROMISH SEE.

SECTION vni. — pp. 365-370.

THE ENGLISH SUCCESSIOK, FROM THE PERIOD OF THB REFORMATION UNDER
THE REIGN OF HENRY VIII.

The subject continued. — 3. The English succession from Cranmer to John Moore. —
Tabular view. — Another attempt of Mr. Chapin to dodge the Romish line. — Jeru-
salem, through James. — Proof that James was not the bishop of. — Patriarchate of
St. Davids from. — Do., of Llandaff from Gall. — Fallacy of. — Mr. C. in error in
regard to his alleged union of the old British bishops with Augustine in preaching
to the English. — Three inferences. — Fallacy of the alleged independence of the
English Church proved by Mr. C.'s own statements. — Her claim thereto a bor-
rowed glory.

CHAPTER VII.

THE TRUE CHARACTER OF THE ENGLISH CHURCH VIEWED IN THE ASPECT
OF HER ORIGIN, AND OF HER ACTS AS " THE PROTESTANT CHURCH OF
ENGLAND AS BY LAW ESTABLISHED." HER PROSPECTS, ETC.

SECTION I. — ^pp. 371-375.

Proof, that the Anglo-English Church, between Augustine and Henry VIII., was not'
independent of Rome. — The old British bishops, the only protesters against the
usurpations of Augustine. — Loegria. — The Cymri. — Conversion of the former by
Augustine. — Formed the basis of the Anglo-English Hierarchy. — A solemn pro-
test against Mr. C.'s alleged independence of the Anglican Church and Succession,
of that of the Romish See.
C

xxii CONTENTS.

SECTION II. — ^pp. 3 7 5-3 79.

Proof of the schismatical character of the English Reformation under Henry VIII.,
Edward VI., and Elizabeth. — Difference between the cardinal principles of the
English and of the Continental Reformations, as to their practical results, etc. —
The Continent the seat of the Protestant Reformation — Ciande, Bishop of Turin,
A. D. 831-840. — The Waldenses. — (See also Appendix.) — Persecution of. — Popes. —
Alexander III., Lucius II., Clement III., Celestine III., Innocent 111., Honorius
III., Gregory IX., Innocent IV., Alexander IV., a. d. 1159-1199. — Count Raymond
of Toulouse, A. D. 1208. — About 70,000 massacred. — Reformation still spreads. —
Present Waldenses in the valleys of Piedmont — John Milicz, a. d. 1360-13C7. —
Huss, A. D. 1400. — Waldenses in England. — Jerome of Prague, do., a. d. 1402. —
Wickliffe, the English Reformer. — Romanism again dominant till a. d. 1521. —
Heruy VIII. assumes the supremacy.

SECTION III. — pp. 379-381.

THE LUTHERAN REFORMATION, A.D. 1517.

Founded on the two great Protestant principles named above. — Spreads with great ra-
pidity.— Results. — His coadjutors, Melancthon, Zwingle, Bullinger, Carlstadt,
QEcolampadius, Erasmus, Bucer, P. Martyr, and the renowned Calvin.

SECTION IV. — pp. 382-392.

THE ANGLO-ENGLISH REFORMATION.

Proof that it was commenced and conducted on principles cardinally different from that
on the Continent. — Essentially Romish and Antichristian. — Never repudiated by
that Church. — HENRY VIII. a Laic, yet constituted Supreme Head, Spiritual and
Temporal, of that Church, by Convocation and by Parliament. — Result. — Two
Supreme Heads and two Catholic Churches. — Both claiming to be founded in
"the Right OF Prescription." — Romanists have the vantage ground. — English
Church guilty of Rapacity and Schism. — Examination of this claim, " the Right
of Prescription," by the English Church, as involving the doctrine of " The
Divine Right of Kings." — 1st, By the Scriptures of the Old Testament ; 2d, do.
New Testament.— The Laico-Royal Head of the Anglican Church, the FOUN-
TAIN of the ENGLISH and AMERICAN SUCCESSIONS.— Proof that the
assumption of the SUPREMACY by Henry VIII., and the reconstruction of the
English Church under him and his successors, are in their character antichristian. —
Proof of the rapacity of Henry in seizing upon, and his successors in retaining, the
Monastic Possessions. — Use of, to bribe the aristocracy to support the " Church
and State" alliance. — This irreconcilable with the Church's declared " prescrip-
tive rights."— Two alternatives.— Proof that the ANGLICAN CHURCH is AN
ENTIRELY NEW CHURCH.— Created by acts of Parliament— Its title.—
" The Protestant Church of England, as by LAW established," not by Christ and
his Apostles. — King's coronation oath. — Preface to Ordination, etc., in the Anglican
and American Liturgies. — Conclusion.

CONTENTS. XXUl

CHAPTEE VIII.

THE ANGLO-ENGLISH REFORMATION, AFTER THE DEATH OF HENRY VIII.,
A.D. 1547, UNDER EDWARD VI., MARY, AND ELIZABETH.

SECTION I. — pp. 393-400.

Under Henry VIII. nothing Protestant worthy the name. — I., Edward VI. — Ruling
motive of the Guardians of, (the king being now but ten years of age) in promot-
ing the Reformation, the security of the monastic estates now in their possession. —
A reformation achieved, not, as is alleged, " by the common consent of the people ;"
not by the conversion of Romanists to the Protestant faith, but by the compulsory
Acts of Parliament. — Protestant principles subordinate. — " The Book of Common
Prayer" under Henry and Edward. — Its near identity with the Romish Mass Book.
— Judgment of the Papists on. — Statements of the " Commissioners" under Edward
and Elizabeth. — Also, the Romish author of Horae Bibliae. — LordChatham, etc. —
Proof of the above. — Parliamentary Acts, — 1 : a.d. 1531, which abrogated the papal
supremacy, etc. ; 2 : 27ih year of Henry, a.d. 1535, and 31st ditto, a.d. 1539, confis-
cating the monastic estates ; 3: 27th Henry VIII., chap. 20, and 2d and 3d Ed-
ward VI., chap. 13, compelling the payment of lay tithes; 4: 1st Edward VI.,
chap. 1, A.D. 1547, coercing the people, Romish and Dissenters, into the sheep-fold ;
5 : 1st Edward VI. chap. 1, a.d. 1547, and 2d Edward VI., coercing the adoption
and use of the Prayer-Book, etc. — High pretensions of '• the Protestant Church of
England," etc. — The only true Church, etc. — The Prayer-Book composed by aid of
the Holy Ghost, and for " the honor of God" ! Surely, then, Parliament could
never turn its back upon such a Church and Prayer-Book !

SECTION II. — pp. 400-403.

II. — Mary, a Romanist. — Conduct of Parliament on her accession. — Renounce the
Protestant Church and Prayer-Book, acknowledge themselves schismatics, and
pledge their return to the bosom of Holy Mother, on condition of their being
permitted to retain the monastic estates. (See their petition to the queen. Appen-
dix — .) — The pope grants absolution. — Popery again restored. — But Arch-
bishop Cranmer, the most distinguished of the English reformers. — Held in high
repute as such. — Our duty. — His true character. — His end.

SECTION III. — pp. 403-406.

XXIV CONTENTS.

2, restored the Prayer-Book, designed more especially for the benefit of Ronnanists
enforced by the severest penalties. — Another Act, 35th Elizabeth, chap. 1, en-
titled, " An Act to retain the Queen's subjects in their due obedience," etc., de-
signed for the benefit of Dissenters. — Enforced by the gentle penalties of banish-
ment for life, and death ! — These horrid enactments refmained in full force until
the time of James II., and for attempting to mitigate which, he lost to himself and
his posterity for ever, the British throne ! — Partially modified under William and
Mary. — Less rigidly enforced now. — Conclusion. — Present aspect of " the Protestant
Church of England as by Law Established."

CHAPTER IX.

THE ALLEGED SUCCESSION OF THE AMERICAN EPISCOPAL CHUECII.

SECTION I. — pp. 407, 408.

Reference to the proofs of its derivation from the Ecclesiastico-political lay supremacy,
spiritual and temporal, of the Anglo-English crown. — Four conditions, as the only
methods of escape therefrom, and of the refutation of the charge of its Romish
origin, etc.

CHAPTER X.

OF THE FRATERNAL CHARACTER OR PERFECT EQUALITY OF THE
OFFICE AND FUNCTIONS OF ELDERS OR PRESBYTERS, AND
BISHOPS.

SECTION I. — ^i^p. 409-412.

Importance of a further exhibit of the subject of this Chapter, in contrast with the pre-
latical theory. — Proofs of the parity or perfect equality of the ordinary ministry of
divine appointment, as derived, 1st : From the- interchangeable use of the titles.
Elder and Bishop. — 2d : From the declarations of prelatists themselves. — Also
from the writings of the purest ages of antiquity. — The terms Ordo, Gradus, Offici-
um, defined. — Circumstances which originated a diversity in ecclesiastical func-
tions,— Elfric, Ambrose, etc.

SECTION II. — pp. 412-418.

Extracts from the Fathers. — Clem. Romanus, Ignatius, Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Tertul
lian, Origen, Cyprian, Firmilian, Ambrose, Chrysostom, Jerome.

SECTION III. — pp. 418-420.

Subiect continued. IV. The same corroborated by the testimony of all the Christian

Churches in the world. — The African, Greek, Western or Roman, Lutheran, Ger-
man Reformed, French, Waldensian, Scotch, and Dissenting.

CONTENTS. •aacv

SECTION IV. — pp. 420-422.

Subject continued. — ^V. Additional testimony from the greatest divines of modern
times, since the period of the Continental and Anglican Reformations. — Wickiiffe,
Erasmus, Cranmer, Calvin, Beza, Melancthon, Blondell, M. Flaccius lUyricus,
Claude, Bochart, Grotius, Vitringei, Mosheim, Suicer, Schleusner, Archbishop
Usher, etc.

SECTION V. — pp. 423-430.

Subject continued. — VI. Testimony of the greatest divines of modern times, since the
Continental and Anglican Reformations. — Do. of the Anglican Reformers them-
selves.— Sanctioned by royal authority. — Bishop Burnet. — Rev. A. B. Chapin's
attempt to escape therefrom. — Failure of. — Conclusion.

CHAPTER XI.

ON THE CATHOLIC CHUKCH OF CHRIST.

SECTION I. — pp. 431-440.

Introductory. — The prelatical theory, " nulla ecclcsia sine episcopo^ — ^Marks or notes by
which the Church Catholic is to be known : namely, Apostolicity, Catholicitj'',
Unity, Sanctity, Discipline. — Prelatists not agreed eis to what constitutes these notes,
' their differences varying from four to four hundred. — Valentia, Druido, Sanders,
Pisteria, Bellarmine, Bossius, etc. — So also in regard to authorities. — Canus, Bannes,
Suares, Duvall, Conink, Arriaga, Usamburtius, Gillius, Amicus, Rhodius, etc., of the
Romanists. — Palmer, Field, Bishop Jeremy Taylor, Dr. Sherlock, Dr. Freeman,
Dr. Payne, the Homilies, etc., of the Protestants. — The two notes, Apostolicity and
Catholicity, applied to the Roman, and the Anglican and American Episcopal
Churches.

SECTION II. — ^pp. 440-454.

Subject continued. — The three " notes," namely. Unity, Sanctity, and Discipline, ap-
plied to the Roman, the Anglican, and the American Episcopal Churches. — Fal-
lacy of. — On the last note, Ellesby's caution, Bingham's Origines Ecclesiastica and
Bishop Burgess, of Maine, compared with Dr. Aydelott and Dr. F. L. Hawks, etc.

SECTION in. — pp. 454-468.

Conclusion. — "The Holy Catholic Church" — How known? Where found? Scrip-
turally defined. — Line of designation between the True and the False Church.^
Adopted by Luther.— The Continental Reformers.— The XlXth of the XXXIX

XXVI CONTENTS.

Articles of the Church of England. — Cranmer, Hooker, Bishops Sanderson and Cosin,
" Statement of the Distinctive Principles of the Protestant Episcopal Society for
the Promotion of Evangelical Knowledge," Bishops Meade, Mcllvaine, Lee, Bur-
gess, etc.. Dr. Stone, etc., etc. — Incongruity of their statements with the admitted
theory of Prelacy, etc. — Application of the above marks or notes of "' the Holy
Catholic Church," to the Anti-Prelatical theory of — I. Aposlolicity — In the sense of
an Unbroken Succession — Not, however, in a Genealogical line of Persons, but
of the perpetuity of the Apostolic Doctrine^ etc. — Irenaeus, Tertullian, Cyprian, Gre-
gory Nazian., Ambrose, etc., on. — II. Catholicity. — Preliminaries. — Novatians —
Waddington on. — Donatists — Waddington on. — Pauliceans — Gibbon on. — Waldenses.
— Reinerius Sacchoon. — Inference. — III. Unity. — The Harmony in Doctrine, Polity
etc., of Anti-Peelatists, contrasted with the discordant systems of Prelacy. —
IV. Sanctity. — See Standards of all Evangelical Churches. — V. Discipline. — See
Standards of all Evangelical Churches.

APPENDICES.

APPENDIX A. — ^pp. 469-477.

Antichristianism, as scripturally viewed in the aspect of its rise, forms of development
character and results.

APPENDIX B. — ^pp. 478-483.

On the charge brought by Prelatists against Calvin, that he preferred Episcopal Ordiria ■
tion, and sought after it, but could not obtain it, etc.

APPENDIX .c. — ^pp. 483-487.

On the title " Elders" — a distinction in their respective functions.

APPENDIX D. — ^pp. 487-488.

Waldenses.

APPENDIX E. — pp. 488-492.

Pope Joan.

APPENDIX F. — pp. 492-496.

The Petition of the Protestant Parliament of England on the death of Edward VI. to
Queen Mary, for the reconciliation of the Kingdom to the See of Rome ; and the
counter petition of the same Parliament to Elizabeth, on the death of Mary, for the
restoration of Protestantism.

TO THE READER/-

Another controversial treatise on the long-litigated question of Ministe-
rial Parity and Prelacy !

Even so. But, paradoxical as it may seem, my only design in preparing
and offering this work to the Christian pubhc is, the contribution of a
humble endeavor, in reliance upon the blessing of God, to restore the
Church of Christ, so long torn piece-meal by religious faction, to that
" UNITY OF THE FAITH AND THE BOND OF PEACE," for whicli Christ prayed
and the apostles labored.* The entire frame-work of the treatise, however
roughl}'^ hewn the materials, claims to be erected on the hypothesis of the
utter futility of all attempts to wipe out the deep stain of schism — so long
the sin and the reproach of the Church — till Protestant controvertists,
through the influence of " the Spirit of truth'" " working in them mighti-
ly,"^ are made " willing"* to exchange mere sectarian predilections for a re-
turn to a scriptural and primitive catholicity.

Nor can the Church of Christ, if she would, evade participation in the
questions involved in these discussions. Surely, nothing but that spirit of
time-serving expediency which results from false notions of Christian chari-
ty, can betray any who " hold the Head"* in the articles of the " one Lord,
one faith, and one baptism"^ of the New Testament, whether of the clergy
or laity, into indifference and opposition to, a candid and faithful exhibit of
the claims to our belief and adoption, of one of the above named systems,
in preference to the other. In this connection the writer, in the words of
one " whose praise is in all the churches" — Rev. Dr. Dickinson — would
express it as his conviction that, " if there be any ground for surprise, it is
because Presbyterians so seldom obtrude the claims of their church on

(1) Compare Eph. 4 : 4, 13, with John, chap. 17, and 1 Cor. 3 and 12. (2) 1 John 4 : 6. (3) Col. 1 :
29. (4) Psalm 110 : 3. (5) Col. 2 : 19. (6) Eph. 4 : 6.

♦ The following address is designed to sustain a relation to the Treatise, analogous to
that of a vestibule to an edifice. The reader will find it to his advantage, as it will be
but an act of justice to the writer, to pass through it, on his way to that.

XXVlll TO THE READER.

public attention."* This has been to me, a " ground of surprise." As
that writer sa3's, from " their accustomed silence" — in the advocacy of their
claims against the advocates of prelacy — " it has been supposed that they
themselves regard their ecclesiastical polity as not scripturally defensible."!
1 know this to be so. And, that Episcopalians, " the validity of whose
ordinances she admits,"J taking advantage of this her silence and truly
Catholic concession, as he says, " have endeavored to drain her ministry,
and draw from hor communion. "§ I am not therefore surprised that, with
these facts before him, this reverend gentleman should have arrived at the
conclusion that " perhaps she" — the Presbyterian Church — " has erred on
the score of liberality."! I think so. And as he also says, " The Church
of Christ is necessarily antagonistic (these italics are ours) to all the errors
and vices of the world ;" " and also to intimate distinctly that whenever it
is necessary, we may enter the list of controversy, and rebuke the arrogance
of those worshipers of Sect who sometimes overween, and in their moments
of hallucination, exclaim, The temple of the Lord, the temple of the Lord,
are WE,^''^ etc : I think, that that necessity now exists. The time, in my
view, has long since gone by, when it is sufficient to commit fundamental
truth to the guardianship of mere conservatism. How, I ask, can this be
a " contending earnestly for the faith once delivered to the saints," against
the insidious blandishments and the vigilant, unremitting, and hostile attacks
of insidious " error, heresy, and schism" ? No. If the Christian Church
is " necessarily antagonistic," Christianity, in the true Protestant evangelical
sense, is necessarily aygrossive. And, Christian charity cannot fail to de-
generate into a criminal supineness to essential truth, when, from a fear of
giving offense, it is seen bowing obsequiously at the shrine of popular error.
Such forget that, " if Satan," the rebel leader of antichristianism, " is trans-
formed into an angel of light, therefore it is no great thing if his ministers
(transforming themselves into the apostles of Christ,) also be trans-
formed as the ministers of righteousness."'

I speak then as unto wise men when I express it as my opinion that, in
this day — if at any period included in the Pauline prediction regarding the
" perilous times"" of the Church — in this day it is true, " that men will not
«:'ndure sound doctrine, but after their own lusts shall they heap to them-
selves teacheis, having itching ears."' In proof of this, I have but to ad-
vert to the fact, that nothing is more perilous to one's reputation or hopes,

(1) 2 Cor. 11 : 13-15. ('3) 2 Tim. 3 i 1. (3) 2 Tim. 4 : 3.
* " The Church of Christ. A Discourse by Rev. Richard W. Dickinson, D.D., New
York : Charles Scribner. 18.51." p. 21. A copy of this very able and well-timed Dis-
course should be in the hands of every Presbyterian family in the Church.

t lb., p. 21. t lb., p. 3.3. § lb., p. 33. || lb., p. 33. 1[ lb., p. 30.

TO THE READfiB. XXIX

than to insinuate that, in order to " deceive, if it be possible, the very-
elect,"' error, heresy, and schism may, not only, but must, so nearly resem-
ble truthy as scarcely to be discernible from it. I think it may in truth be
said that we have already reached the point where error, how soul-ruin-
ous soever in its tendency, if it be but deeply imbedded beneath a fair
show outwardly of great zeal for Protestant evangelic truth, it is denounced
as worse than sacrilegious, and as an outrage against all the laws of Chris-
tian charity, to assail it. ' Why not let other denominations alone ? This
controversy tends but to separate very friends,' etc. Tliese and the like
sentiments are the weapons with which an artful ^se2(c?o-Pr6testant evangel-
ism seeks to cajole the " watchmen" on the ramparts of Zion into a timid
and inglorious silence. Its language is, ' only keep still — continue your
wisely begun poUcy not to "obtrude the claims of the Church," Presbyte-
rian, " on public attention," and, in a few years, if we fail to bring your
fathers into the pale of the one Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, we
shall have their children. Yes. Our Protestant name, coupled with our
evangelical preaching, writing, etc., and our imposing architectural and
liturgical appliances, together with the connections, social, matrimonial, and
commercial, already formed and continually forming between us and them,
furnish the everyday evidence that they are rapidly approximating nearer
and nearer towards us.'

Whether this representation will meet with less of sympathy than of
incredulity, I know not. The picture I have here drawn, in its aspect
towards Presbyterianism, may be deemed overwrought. All I ask is, let
not a consciousness of present denominational strength in the department
of letters, numbers, and resources, when compared Avith others, spurn it as
visionary. While I rejoice to believe that Presbyterianism throughout
Christendom, blessed with the presence of " the Lord God and his
Spirit," and actuated by a holy zeal for the truth and the salvation of souls,
has nothing to fear, but every thing to hope ; I would not forget that the
name of her antagonistic agents is " Legion," and that, together, they
comprehend at least eleven-twelfths of all who bear the Christian name.
Nor would I above all forget, that while she has been, and is now, to some
extent at least, engaged in a warfare against the strongholds of Romanism
proper, as also some of the higher forms of development of Prelacy bear-
ing the Protestant name, yet that she has, so to speak, entirely overlooked
another, and that the very form in which, in ray view, she has the most to
fear — I mean, Prelacy as put forth under its so-called Loio Church Evan-
gelical guise. In this form it is, I contend, so far stripped of its repulsive
features, as admii^ably to adapt it to all the purposes of successful proselyt-

(1) Matt. 24 : U.

XXX TO THE READER.

ism — in other words, " to drain tlie ministry, and draw from the commu-
nion" of " other denominations," May I not then hope for the indulgence
of all concerned, if I employ my pen — as I claim in the providence of
God to have been appointed — in giving at least the well-meant admonition,
" he that thinketh he standeth, let him take heed lest he fall ?"' " Let not
bim that putteth on his armor, boast as he that putteth it off."* " The
race is not to tlie swift, nor the battle to the strong."' " When we shall
say, peace, peace, lo, sudden destruction cometh."* In conclusion on this
subject I have only further to add, that during the last two years, having
bad more ample opportunity to witness the influence of prelacy in its
above-named diluted form on the minds of those " outside" the pale of
" the Church," I have looked with the deepest concern on its tendency to
neutralize the attachments of many to the faith of the Church of their fore-
fathers. To all such, then, I say, " Am I become your enemy, because I
tell you the truth ?"

While, then, it will be well for the self-confident among Presbyterians to
compare Geneva as she is with Geneva as she was ; as a check to the ar-
rogant triumphs of Protestant prelatists, Tractarian, Hobartian, and the
so-called Low Church, over her downfall, I Avould remind them of their de-
parture, since the time of Archbishop Laud — a period of near two hundred
years — -from the only true platform, Episcopal, of " The Church of En-
gland as by Law Established" under the auspices of the first Anglican
Reformers.

The reader, doubtless, will be not a little startled at this announcement.
The time, however, has arrived when some one must speak out on this sub-
ject. The facts here alluded to are matters of historic record. I have
spoken of tlie deep stain of schism, so long the sin and reproach of the
Church of Christ. On this subject I need not say that the history of
schism and heresy is coeval with the history of the Christian Church, and,
as of the period from the apostles's time down to the Reformation, so, from
that time to the present. And the measure of responsibility of those who,
in every period and in whatever w^ay, have originated them, is the magni-
tude of the sin involved — that of dividing and rending the Church of
Christ, which is " His body,"' and by which " the name of God and his
doctrine are blasphemed."* Nor let any who is implicated in these pre-
mises lay " the flattering unction to his soul," as though the fact of the
divine purpose that " there must he heresies among you," nullified the re-
sponsibility of which I here speak. The existence of schisms and heresies
in the Church, are the divinely-ordained tests of the integrity of " the
faithful in Christ Jesus" all of whom are called, not to war, but " to

(1) 1 Cor. 10 : 12. (2) 1 Kings 20 : 11. (3) Eccl. 9 : 11. (4) 1 ThosR. 5 : 3. (o) Eph. 1 : C3.
(0) 1 Tim. 6:1.

TO THE READER. XXXI

peace.'" It is " that they which are approved may be made inanifest
among you."'

And who are these ? A point this, in comparison with which every other
sinks into absolute insignificance. In the contest for truth which now
presses upon the Church, every other must finally merge into this. What
Christian mind, I ask, does not revolt at the thought of being chargeable,
at the Great Day, with .the sins of schism and heresy ? And yet — in ad-
dition to what I have already said on this subject — taking into the ac-
count those various branches bearing the Christian name and claiming to
constitute the Catholic Church of Christ on the one hand ; and the always
commendable disposition to yield obedience to the law of Christian charity
toward all on the other ; the danger is, that even such minds, from their
eagerness to escape implication in these premises in regard to themselves
and also as a shield to others, may be seduced into that spirit of indiffer-
ence to the subject, as a whole, as to involve them in the meshes of some fatal
error. Our design in the following pages is to show, that, involved in the
questions at issue between the advocates of Parity and Prelacy, are prin-
ciples which are fundamental to truth, and that the one system or the
other must be "false."

Let me explain. Scripturally, the import of the terra schism (from the
Gr. axiofxa) signifies rvpture, or division. Heresy (from the Gr. a'igeaig),
a choice, in the sense of " an arbitrary adoption, in matters of faith, of opi-
nions at variance with the doctrines delivered by Christ and his apostles."*
And, though not an invariable result, yet, generally, the former, Schism, is
the parent of the latter. Heresy. Hence, says St. Jerome, " There is no
schism which does not tend to generate some heresy. "I Twin foes to the
truth and the peace of the Church, they together constitute the evil
genii whence have sprung all those " wars and fightings"* which, from the
period of the Corinthian schisms in apostolic times to the present day,
have disturbed the peace of the Church, secured to heresy a predominancy
over truth, and drenched the earth with Christian blood !

And all this, despite the Pauline disquisition concerning spiritual gifts
and their harmonious exercise as illustrated by the diversified yet united
action of the *' many members of the one body" human, furnished bj'^ the
Holy Spirit to the Church expressly to teach that, " whether we be Jews
or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free," as " bj/ one Spirit we are all
baptized into one body," so, — in accordance with the lesson taught in the

(1) 1 Cor. 7 : 15. (2) 1st Cor. 12 : 19. (3) James 3 : 1.
* Thecphilus Anglicana, etc., by Christopher Wordsworth, D.D., London, 1843, p. 29.
t S. Hieron. in Tit. c. 3.

XXXU TO THE HEADER.

beautifully appropriate figure, as above, — " there should be no schism ia
the body.'"

To return then to our previous statement, that heresy, though not in-
variably, yet is generally, the legitimate offspring of schism ; it follows, in
logical sequence, that there is a correspondence between the heresy, doc-
tiinally, and the nature of the schism whence it springs.

Now, both the schisms in the Corinthian Church (Isl Cor., chapters 3
and 12) regarded external things — the fellowship or communion, and the
ministry of the Church, and especially in regard to the latter — the minis-
try— it consisted in the " having men's persons in admiration. "° " One
said, I am of Paul ; and another, I am of Apollos,'" etc. The prompti-
tude and earnestness of the apostle in his attempt to arrest the progress of
this schism, is an evidence of his prophetic foresight of the heresy which
he knew, from its very nature, it was calculated to engender, to wit : that
of setting up claims of superiority, in functions and dignity, in behalf of
one over the other. To strike, therefore, at the root of this incipient
evil — a love of " the pre-eminence" — the apostle says of them, " Who
then is Paul, and who is ApoUos, but ministers by whom ye believed, even
as the Lord gave to every man ? I have planted, Apollos watered, but
God gave the increase ;" to which he adds, " he that planteth and he that
watereth, are one." Sufficient this, one would suppose, to have forever
arrested the threatening evil.

But, as already remarked, the ecclesiastical records of the past, dating
even from apostolic times, evidence a reckless disregard on the part of by
fer the larger portion of nominal Christendom, to take heed to the lessons
of instruction, admonition, and solemn warning on this subject, with which
the New Testament abounds. In addition to the above, and long before
the death of the last apostle, John, both the schism and its offspring,
heresy, appeared in the Church, in the person of Diotrephes. Of him,
says that apostle, first, " he loveth to have the 'pre-eminence."*^ Now,
wlierefore this ? For, even admitting (which we do not) that the apostles
were to have successors, and that Diotrephes was one of them, Christ, in
his address to " the twelve," had said, " all ye are brethren," a declaration
sufficiently adverse to the idea of any " pre-eminence" or piimacy of one
'among them over the other. But that he was a presbyter only of the
church to which the apostle John directed this epistle, may be gathered
from the contrast between them as contained in the words, " Wherefore, if
I come, I will remember his deeds which he doeth,"^ etc., words clearly
implying the superior authority of John as an apostle, over this dis-
ci) 1 Cor. 12 : 25. (2) Jude, v. 16. (3) I Cor. 3 : 4. (4) 3 John, v. 9. (5) 3 John, v. 10.

TO THE HEADER. XXXlll

turber of the Church's peace. Not that this admitted superiority of Jolin
over him conflicts with the principle of parity for which we contend. That
can only be made to appear by showing that both the apostolate and pres-
byterate were to be continued in the Church as the ordinary and perma-
nent ministry thereof, a work which, it is the design of these pages to
demonstrate, never has been and never can be done. None deny that,
at least during the New Testament age, the elders, 7rp£(7/3f repoi, of the
Church, of which this Diotrephes was one, whatever were their functions,
stood on the platform of equality. Clearly, then, Diotrephes's assumption
of " the pre-einineiKe" was schismatical, a sin, as we have said, against the
externals of the Church. But, second. The apostle adds, " he receiveth us
not.'" The Apostle John, etc., cast out of the Church by Diotrephes!
On what grounds ? None other can be assigned than the assumption of
powers or functions ministerial, transcending those of the excommunicated !
Hence the heresy of Diotrephes, doctrinally.

It follows that, in w^hatever ecclesiastical systems* this principle is
found, it is germain to the arrogant, exclusive, denunciatory, unchurching,
or in other words, schismatical and heretical system of which that of
Diotrephes is the New Testament type. Yes. Like him, actuated by a
love of " the pre-eminence," it not only " casts out of the Church" those
who refuse unconditional submission to its dogmas, but " with malicious
words prates" against those who claim, at least, credentials equally valid
as the called and sent of the Lord. In a word, it is an assumed Chris-
tianized priesthood of " divers orders" with alleged sacerdotal powers by
divine right, as the only valid dispensers of grace through the sacraments,
" shutting up the kingdom of heaven" against those who, disclaiming such
vicarial powers, are content to stand upon what they claim to constitute the
scriptural and piimitive platform of equality or parity, in the fraternal
relation of " brethren," " earthly vessels," " ministers," by whom sinners
" believe," and saints are " edified," " that the excellency of the power
may be of God and not of them."*

Now the former of these systems is what we call Prelacy. The latter,
Parity. The difference, in a doctrinal aspect, is that of the ministration of
the law, and that of the Spirit.^ The one is the religion of sense or of

(1) 2 Cor. 4 : 7. (2) 2 Cor. 3.
* I say, systems. For while, under certain circumstances, schism, as I have remarked,
may exist separate from heresy (as in the instance recorded 1 Cor. chap. 3), yet, when
it partakes of the character of that narrated in 1 Cor. chap. 12, resulting, as did that, in
the exclusion of others, clerics and laics, from the kingdom of Christ, it inevitably in-
volves heresy, if that he heresy, which consists in arrogating powers or functions by
divine right, which do not belong to it. This double sin, I repeat, under such circum-
stances, cannot be separated.

XXxiv TO THE HEADER.

nuture, because it is adapted to the requirements of the natural man, and
leads to the observance of and to trust in, the efficacy of mere ceremonial
observances.' The other is the religion of faith.* The one gendereth to
bondat/e.* The other proffers and secures to the believer that " liberty
wherewith Christ makes him free.*

In the light then of the instructions aflforded by the conduct of the
schismatical and heretical Diotrephes, we must beg to differ from, at least,
the prelatical interpretation of the following passage from Jerome, if not,
indeed, from that eminent Father himself. "Schism," says he, "is a se-
paration [axt^ei; scindit) from the Church in the nature of an Episcopalis
dissensio ;* from which prelatists argue that, " there being in that age"
(namely, the IVth and Vth centuries) "no Christian congregation apart
from, cr independent of, a bishop,"f that is, in the sense of " Nulla ecclesia
sine Ujjiscopo"^" without a bisliop there is no church" — therefore, schism
consists in a denial of the authority of, and a refusal of submission to,
such a bishop or episcopate. By such an act of separation from the
bishop, the ministry and sacraments of such become invalid, and, lemain-
ing in that state of schism, they are not a church.

But, that the above passage from Jerome will not warrant this prelatical
interpretation of it, I submit, is evident from the fact that that Father de-
clares, in the most explicit terras, that " the apostle speaks of bishops in-
differently as being the same as presbyters." That, " with the ancients,"
(that is, from the lid to the IVth centuries) " presbyters were tlic same
as bishops." That " before the devil incited men to make divisions in re-
ligion, and one was led to say, ' lam of Paul, and I of Apollos,' churches
were governed by the common council of presbyters." But, that " after-
wards— a usage gradually took place that the chief care should devolve
upon one. Therefore," says he, " as the presbyters know that it is by the
custom of the Church (Ecclesiee. Consuetudine) that they are to be subject
to him who is placed over them ; so let the bishops know that they are
above presbyters rather by custom than by divine appointment, and that
the Church ought to be ruled in common, "f etc.

Jerome, then, and the early fathers before him, make the Episcopal
regimen to have sprung up in the Church after the apostolic age, (and it
matters not whether the interval of the change from the New Testament

(1) Rom. 2 : 25-29. (2) Rom. 5 : 1. (3) Gal, 4 : 24. (4) Gal. 5 : 1.

* S. Hieron. in Tit. c. 3.

t Theoph. Anglicanus, etc., p. 29. For quotations more at large from Jerome, and also
those fathers who preceded hinn, see chap. X., sec. 2, 3, 4 and 5 of this Treatise.

. THE REAju^-..

platform was sixty or even forty years*) and place it on the ground, not of
divine right, but of custom only, while they recognize in the broadest sense
not only, but advocate the Preshyterial platform of the perfect equality of
bishops and presbyters by divine right.

Hence, the diflference between prelatists and Jerome regarding " the
nature" of schism. They make it point against prelacy as though founded
in divine right. He, as erected on the platform of " the custom of the
Church," or expediency only.

The writer, in opposition to both the above theories, is compelled to
throw himself back upon the New Testament and early post -?i\)Oiio\\c
ground of simple parity, and contends that schism consists in contra societas^
contra disciplinam, and contra caritatem, or opposition to the divinely con-
stituted order, discipline, and communion of the Church. While the line
of separation from the Church thus constituted, is contra dogmata, contra
fidem, and contra veritatem,\ or opposition to the teaching, faith, and
truth of the Gospel, as set forth by Christ and his apostles.

Having, in the sequel of this Treatise, furnished the reader with what I
deem a sufficiently extensive view of the different phases of the prelatical the-
ory, Romish, Tractarian and Hobartian or High Church, it is unnecessary in
this place to discuss the alleged distinction between Episcopacy as essential to
the "being" and Episcopacy as essential to the " perfection," of "the
Church," as advocated by the so-called Low Church party. I deem it as
worse than a waste of time and words to preach, and write, and talk about
the alleged Christian priesthood of " divers orders," as to whether it is of
the "essence" or of the "order" of the Church, so long as the advocates
of both theories claim to place them equally on the ground of a prescrip-
tive or divine right. That both theories cannot occupy that ground, is un-
deniable. As, in the course of human progress, the past history and pre-
sent commotions which are " shaking the nations" of " the earth," demon-
strate the folly of " mixed governments ;" in other words, " that there are
no governments on God's earth possible but democracies or absolute gov-
ernments ;"J so, on the other hand, of the strangely simultaneous shakings
of " the heavens" ecclesiastical. These demonstrate, that as there is no
" via media" between the prelatical theory as advocated by the Low Church
party, and that of the Romanist, Tractarian, etc., except in the more modified

* See our reply to Bishop Mcllvaine on this subject, Chap. VI., .330-333. Blondell
and Dalleus affirm that it transpired in the third century. See Chap. X., sec. 4, of this
Treatise.

t Theophilus Anglicana, etc., by Christopher Wordsworth, D.D., London, 1842, p. 29.

\ Speech of Gen. Shields, of Illinois, on the Kossuth resolution in the Senate of the
United States, as reported in the N. Y. Sun of December 16, 18-51.

XXXVl TO THE READER.

form of its development ; so, there is no " via media" between it and that
of Parity.

And yet, judging from the constantly reiterated concessions of a7i<i-prelat-
ists on this subject, the opinion has widely obtained, that while the difference
between the so called Low Church theory of prelacy and that of its higher
forms of development is absolutely antijjodal, it is but the shadow of a
shade which distinguishes it from that of parity. If, however, the testi-
mony of one of the most distinguished leaders of that party may be taken
as authority, anti-prelatists may now, without breach of charity, shift their
ground. The Rev. S. H. Tyng, D.D., in a sermon on " A Plea for
Union," etc., speaking of what they " suffer, from the multiplied Protes-
tant denominations around them, who renounce, and not unfrequently revile,
their Episcopacy," says : " There was a time" when these " afl'ected to
distinguish in their warfare upon our Church between different classes of
our clergy ; assuming that some were less attached to the principles which
they opposed, and excepting them therefore, from the controversy which
they were waging with these." But, says he, "Let God be praised, —
that in the points at issue between us and them, there is but little variety of
judgment, and no readiness of concession, among any of our ministers," etc.*

Indeed. How then comes it to pass, that at no period since the Anglican
Reformation, have more strenuous efforts been put forth than at the present
time, to produce the impression of the extremely " moderate, comprehen-
sive, and charitable views " of the " Church of England " and of her
American daughter, towards the Reformed Continental and more modern
non-Episcopal Churches ? The following may serve as specimens : — First,
the recent letter of the present Archbishop of Canterbuiy (Sumner), in
reply to a complaint of the Jesuitical Gawthorn, against the Bishop of
London, under the pretext of great offense for his having spoken in dispar-
agement of " the orders of the foreign Protestant ministers who had lately
visited " England. It is as follows :f

" [private.]
"Sir,— You are far too severe in your censure of the Bishop of London,
though I wish that his Lordship had explained himself more fully. But in his
original letter to Lord Chohnondeloy, he expressly stated that they could not by
law minister in our churches, but that every endeavor would be made to provide
places where they might celebrate divine worship according to their own form.
/ hardly imagine that there are two Bishops on the bench, or one clergyman in

* " A Plea for Union, a Sermon, by Stephen H. Tyng,D.D.," p. 16. This " Sermon" was
preached before the Special Convention of the Protestant Episcopal Church in the State
of Pennsylvania, in St. Andrew's Church, Philadelphia, Sept. 6th, 1844, on the occasion
of the election of a new bishop, for which office the author of the sermon was a pro-
minent candidate.

t From the Protestant Churchman of October 11, 1851.

TO THE READER. XXXVU

fifUii throughout our Church, who would deny the validity of the orders of these
clergy solely on account of their wanting the impoxition of Episcopal hands;
and I am sure that you have misunderstood tlie import of the letter which occa-
sioned your addressing me, if you suppose that it implied any such sentiment in
the writer's mind.

"I remain, sir, your obedient and humble servant, J. B. Cantuar.

"VV. Francis, Esq."*

It would be entirely aside from my present purpose, to exhibit even a
tithe of what has been written on the subject-matter of this church-renown-
ed letter. Should there remain, however, a lingering doubt in any mind as
to the import of that part of it which I have put in italics, that doubt will
be removed (at least so one would very reasonably suppose) by a work re-
cently put forth under the title following : — " True Churchmanship Vindi-
cated, or the Protestant Episcopal Church not Exclusive ; by the Rev.
Mason Gallagher, Rector of Trinity Church, Covington, Kentucky. 1851."
At the close of the volume, the author gives the following summary, as the
result of the arguments adduced in support of the " position " assumed in
his title page. He claims to have proved,

1. That the compilers of the Articles intended that they should comprehend
Christians of all persuasions.

2. That public acts were passed, recognizing the Church character of non-
episcopal communions.

3. That ministers not episcopally ordained held livings in the Church of En-
gland for more than one hundred years after the Reformation.

4. That the Ordinal cannot be exclusive in its meaning, as such was not the
view of its framers.

5. That all the eminent Archbishops of Canterbury, with but two exceptions,
were of the same opinion — as were also the great body of the standard divines of
the Church of England, f

One writer, in speaking of it, says :

" The object of this work is to show by extracts from the writings of over one
hundred of the leading divines and laymen of the Episcopal Churches in England
and the United States, from the Reformation downwards, that the doctrine of
the Invalidity of non-Episcopal orders has been rejected by the great body of
standard Episcopal writers. It is also shown that the exclusive view was intro-
duced into the English Church by Archbishop Laud.'" J

And the Protestant Churchman, in its Review of the work, thus en-
dorses it :

" This work is a seasonable one for the times, and exposes with ability and
good temper the uUraisra which characterizes some within our communion and
which is at variance with the views held by the great mass of the most learned
and pious divines of the Church of England, and of the venerable men who
revised the American Prayer-Book and were the instruments of giving to the

* His whole name is " William Francis Rees Gawthorn."
t "True Churchmanship Vindicated, etc.," p. 107.
X Prolestaiit Churchman, November 8th, 1851.
1

iXXVlll TO THE READER.

Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States the frame-work of its out-
ward organization."*

Now then, we respectfully ask in the first place — Is the Rev. Dr. Tyng
prepared to endorse this exhibit as a vindication of " True Churchmanship "?
If not, what becomes of his declaration as above, that " there is but little
variety of judgment, and no readiness of concession, among any of our
ministers ?" Surely, taking the above concessions as they stand in the ex-
tracts here given, and what more could ?i07i-Episcopalians demand ?

But there is another conclusion at which Mr. Gallagher arrives, and
which, from its important bearing on the whole question at issue between
Prelatists and Presbyterians, demands a passing remark. It is this :

"And lastly, that the history of the exclusive theory proves it to be oi foreign
importation^ a novelty of an insidious and dangerous nature."!

Now, what is the meaning here ? He tells us, " that the exclusive
divine right of Episcopacy was first maintained by Laud, on taking his de-
gree at Oxford, in 1604. "| But does he mean to say that Laud imported
it from Rome ? Himself shall answer — " History," he .says, " lays it at
the door of the Presbyterian Church of Geneva."^ What is his proof in
support of this assertion ? " Beza," the successor of Calvin, says he, " like
a true High Churchman," held that his was "the only and genuine govern-
ment of the Church, which Christ had instituted, the apostles observed,
and which all churches were bound to restore." That his form was
"essential and divine," while other forms were "human and unlawful," and
that " purity of doctrine could scarcely be had to any purpose without the
Presbyterian discipline,'" etc.||

Well, and were the divines of the Presbyterian Church of Geneva the
first to advocate this system ? Did they stand alone, as the advocates of
ministerial parity, or that bishops and presbyters were, by divine right, one
and the same order and possessed of the same functions ? We refer the
reader to Part II. of this Treatise — Ministerial Parity tested by Scripturig, — in
proof of the ajMStolic origin of the above theory. Also to Part III., Chap.
X., Sections II., III., and IV., for the evidence as derived from the early
fathers of the first four centuries ; to the testimony of all the Christian
Churches in the world ; together with that of the greatest divines since the
period of the continental reformation, that this was the primitive regimen
of the Church. We also refer him to Part III., Chapter VI., Sec. I., for
an historical account of the rise of Episcopacy, and the circumstances

* Protestant Churchman, June 28, 1851.

t "True Churchmanship Vindicated," p. 107.

t lb., p. 95. h lb., p. 85. II lb , pp. 93, 94.

TO THE READER. XXXIX

which led to it, together with the fact that, according to the testimony of
Jerome and the fatli,ers who preceded him, that system was adopted on
the ground of expediency only, and that it fully recognized the perfect
equalitij of Bishops and Presbyters by divine right.

I now advance a step farther, and affirm that, on this very platform, was
erected the Episcopacy of " the reformed Church of England, as by law
established," under the auspices of the first English reformers, Cranmer and
his coadjutors, and that it so continued down to the time of Laud, a.d.
1604 ; a period of over one hundred years ! Indeed, unless I greatly err,
this can be made to appear from Mr. G.'s own account of the source of the
introduction of this " unchanging theory " into the English Church. For
example, he says : " We have thus far traced the history of the unchurch-
ing dogma. First asserted by the Romish Church ; introduced among
Protestants at Geneva ; from thence imported by the English Puritans ; and
fro7n them borrowed and amplified by Archbishop Laud."* And yet, this
same author quotes from Prynne the following : " Says Prynne in his life
of Laud, p. 2 — ' In July, 1604, he proceeded Bachelor of Divinity ; hi?
suppositions were taken verbatim out of Bellarmine, and he then maintained
there could be no church without diocesan bishops,' " etc.f Now then,
unless that reverend gentleman can show that the theory of ministerial
parity, as held by the " Protestants at Geneva " and by the " English
Puritans," is identical with that of " diocesan bishops," how, I respectful]}'-
ask him, can he reconcile the above statements ? To argue that, because
the Romish Church admits the equality of Bishops and Presbyters; there-
fore, the Presbyterianism of the " Protestants of Geneva," etc., is derived
from that Church, if not a petitio principii,^ is at least an ignorantia
elenchi.^ For, though it is granted that that Church does admit the
equality of functions in certain of her orders, yet that equality respects, not
her " diocesan bishops," but her presbyters and chor-episcopi or village
bishops, an order quite distinct from the former. And again, that equality
— a point of special importance in this matter — not as founded in divine
right, but "by the command of the canows. "|| I repeat therefore, that
Laud's introduction into the English Church of " the exclusive divine right
of episcopacy" was derived, not from the Presbyterianism of Geneva, etc.,
but from the alleged divine right of the Prelacy of Rome.

Finallj', as to the "public acts" referred to by Mr. Gallagher, and
which he and the advocates of Prelacy (since the time of Laud)

* " True Churchmanship Vindicated, etc.," pp. 97. 98. f lb. p. 95.

X Or, a begging the question. (j Or, a mistake of the question, etc.

II Council of Hispana in Spain, in Cen. 7, Chap. 7, (quoted by Powell, Apostolical
Succession, p. 85.)

Xl TO THE READER.

generally, have thought it to the interest of tlioir cause to throw under the
table, the reader will find them inserted at large in the following Treatise,
Chap. X., Sec. V. Therein he will find the most explicit avowal of the
scriptural and piiraitive doctrine of ministerial parity, for which I contend.
FoUowino- it also is the evidence in proof of the continuance, in the Enijlish
Church formularies, etc., of this same principle of ministerial parity for more
than one hundred years; together wit;h a refutation of the pretext of the
Rev. A. B. Chapin, who, though he admits the fact that by the above
" public acts," the English Church did adopt the PresbT/terial form of the
ministry, yet, alleging that this " was the opinion " of Cranmer and his
associates " as Romanists, not as Reformers," etc., affirms that " the chain
of authorities by which the Reformers of the English Church are to be
proved Presbyterian, ends seven years before the compilation of the Book
of Common Prayer," that is, in a.d. 1543.

One word more, however, in reference to Mr. Gallagher and his book.
The first English Reformers, as we have shown, having thrown themselves
back upon the scriptural and primitive platform of ministerial parity instead
of the Romish theory of prelacy, furnishes the only hypothesis on which
that reverend gentleman could have presented his readers with such an
array of testimony — " over one hundred of the leading divines and laymen
of the Episcopal Churches of England and the United States " — in proof of
the five conclusions as above, at which he has arrived. But, his edifice,
true and imposing as it appears, is without a foundation to support it. If,
as he says, " public acts were passed, recocrnizing the church character of
non-Episcopal communions," surely he will not pretend that it was on the
ground of English Church Episcopacy by divine rir/ht : for he tells us that
" Laud was the first " to introduce that " exclusive theory " into the
Church. We ask then, why did he not furnish his readers with a copy of
the above " public acts ?" Why suppress the very acts indispensable to
the consistent support of his whole theory, not only, but equally indispensa-
ble as a source of information to those in his own communion, whom he
professedly seeks, on the one hand to save, and on the other to rescue from,
the impending and already widely-diffused evils of, the exclusive theory of
Prelacy ? Was it because he knew he could not otherwise enjoy a thrust
at "the Presbyterian Church of Geneva?" It is true also that Beza (a.d.
1566) did write as he states — but wherefore? On the ground that " the
English Church as by law established " differed with him as to the divine
right of Presbyterianism ? No. But simply on the ground that he objected
to its alliance with Episcopacy, and that from the fear that that form of
government, as it once had, so it might again, generate a system, in (hat
church, of Romish Prelacy. As in other respects, so in this, he wished the

TO THE READER. xH

reformation in that Church to attain as high a degree of perfection as that
wiiicii had marked its progress on the continent — nothing more. But, as
in the time of Peter Martyr and Bucer (a.d. 1552), who, as the assistants
of Cranmer in the revision of the Second Liturgy of Edward VI., were dis-
satisfied with the governing policy of the English Reformers, namely, that,
in order to " win upon the Papists, and to draw^ them into their cliurch com-
munion, to verge as little as they could from the Romish forms before in
use," and which led them to transfer " every thing " which they deemed
" sound and valuable in the Romish missal and breviary, without scruple, to
the English communion service and tlie Common Prayer ;"'^ so, with
Beza, in regard to the principle which led to the adoption and continuance
in that Church, of the system of Prelacy, to wit : that of its being more in
unison with the genius of monarchy. f

While, then, it is true, " that Laud was the first" to foist into the En-
glish Church the so-called exclusive divine right of " Diocesan Bishops ;"
it is equally true, that he obtained his theory, not as Mi-. Gallagher affirms,
from " the Presbyterian Church of Geneva," but from Rome through Bcl-
larmine. And, while it is true, that the first English Reformers derived
their system of ministerial parity from the foreign churches of Germany,
Holland, Switzerland, and France, (though they joined with it, as a matter
of expediency, the episcopacy of the primitive jyos^apostolic age,) and
hence, according to Mr. Gallagher's own showing, were the first " English
Puritans ;" it is equally true that, had the Bancrofts and Whitgifts, etc., of
Beza's time, together Avith the Cranmers, etc., of that of Peter Martyr and
Bucer, but yielded the points so earnestly urged by them as necessary to
the perfection of the Protestant Anglican Reformation, how different, under
God, had been the result ? But, those leading spirits of the Anglican
Church, as I contend, having, in the first place, cringed to a time-serving
expediency by the adoption of Prelacy as " being more in unison with the
genius of monarchy ;" and in the second place, with a view " to win the
papists and to draw them into their church communion," to " verge as little
as possible from the Romish forms before in use" when engaged in the
compilation of their prayer-book ; their recognition, notwithstanding, of the
Presbyterian system of the ministry, and the truly evangelical character of the
XXXIX Articles : taking human nature at what it is, and who can say that
he is disappointed that, from the attempted amalgamation of elements so
uncongenial, the former should ultimately have gained the ascendency over
the latter?

And, so we find it. By the gradually insidious ascendency of the Ro-

* Coleman's Apostolical and Primitive Church, p. 441.

t " History of England." by Macaulay. Vol. I., pp. 39, 41.

Xlii TO THE READER.

mish opns operatum leaven originally incorporated into the several offices
of the English Liturgy over the evangelism of the XXXIX Articles : the
crisis at length having ariived, and, with the prelatical system in form al-
ready furnished to his hand, Archbishop Laud, — availing himself of the
position assumed in those days, that the most effectual way of meeting one
system of the ministry claiming to be founded in Divine right, namely, the
Presbyterian, was by setting up similar claims in behalf of another — intro-
duced into the English Church, a.d. 1604, " the exclusive Divine right of
episcopacy."

With the above facts therefore before us, I now affirm, that the boun-
dary LINE which at this time divides the Church of Christ, commences
just at the point where the Primitive and Anglican system of Prelacy as
founded in exjyediency alone was displaced, to make way for its claims as
based upon the higher ground of Divine right. Between these two theo-
ries t)f Episcopacy, I have said, there is no " via media." The fonner sys-
tem involves, and recognizes, all the elements essential to the Presbyterial
platform, and may, not only, but does, in one instance at least,* exist in har-
monious alliance with it. On the other hand, the theory of Prelacy as
claimed to be founded in divine right, necessarily excludes the other, and
denounces it as unscriptural, unauthorized, and hence, invalid and void. I
have already ventured to allude to the misapprehension of anti-prelatical
writers on this subject. To them therefore, and to all who are really Low
Church, — and whose "heart's desire and prayer to God" for Zion is,
" peace be within thy walls, and prosperity within thy palaces," — I now
appeal, Avhether there is any other criterion by which to determine in what
that theory consists, than that of the theology and practice of the English
Church between the times of Cranmer and Laud. Subsequently to that
period, the fruitless efforts made after the Restoration, at a comprehension of
dissenters by the House of Bishops, and the growing ascendency of the ex-
clusive prelatical theory from the ultra views of the non-jurors who favored
the claims of James II., a Romanist, the two sections of the Church took
the names of High and Low Church. f

But the question is, was the Low Churchism of the above named interval
between Cranmer and Laud, the same as that which has since passed under
that name ? Mr. Giillagher's entire book is written to prove that it is not.
And what better evidence have we in point, than the following from tlie
pen of one of its most distinguished champions ? The Rev. Dr. Tyng, in
his advocacy of Prelacy as " a scriptural ministry, and of their derived
right thereto, through an appointed succession from the apostles," having
stated, that " this resulting position of necessary separation from many

* The ^lethodist Episcopal Church.

t See "True Churchmanship Vindicated," p. 103.

TO THE READER. xliii

Chrisiians whom we highly esteem, is much to be regretted ;" yet, " peace,"
" precious and desirable as it is," in respect to " the multiplied denominations
around us ;" " we cannot," he says, " make shipwreck of faith and a good
conscience to obtain it."* Aye. And this, though the declaration occurs
in a sermon entitled, " A Plea for Union "/

Requesting the reader to put his thumb on the fact that, with prelatists,
according to Dr. Tyng, the obtaining " peace" with those outside the pale of
the Church would be at no less a sacrifice on their part than that of making
" shipwreck of faith and a good conscience," I come now to ask, which of
the two above named systems — Parity or Prelacy, is justly chargeable
with the sins of schism and heresy ? In reply, I affirm — and challenge
refutation — that until it can be made to appear, by the united authority
of Scripture, and the historical records of the English Church since the
time of Edward VI., first, that what we have stated regarding the recogni-
tion of the Presbyterial form of the ministry by Divine right ; and second,
that the same principle was incorporated in her standards, and continued in
practical operation for more than one hundred years, is untrue — a Presby-
terian fabrication : the declaration of the Rev. Dr. Tyng, that " it is not"
they — the Prelatists — " who have sought it," that is, the existing division
between the two bodies. Episcopal and non-Episcopal, " nor can the blame
of it rest upon them," to the contrary notwithstanding ; Presbyterians, I
submit, may justly claim exemption from the solemn and momentous charge
of schism and heresy in these premises. In other words, I mean to say,
that Prelacy, as introduced into the English Church by Archbishop Laud,
A.D. 1604, was an act of schism and heresy against that church in particu-
lar, and against the divine right of parity as the center of true evangelical
protestantism, in general.

It only remains for me to remark on this subject, that from the discovery
(after a special and thorough re-examination of the system of Prelacy, etc.,
during a period of some seven years last past,) of the above with other
facts, leading me to the conviction that the Prelatico-Romanistic leaven was
not merely incidental to, but that it was incorporated with, and so formed
a part of, the entire system ; and also, that there was no prospect, from
the adoption by the Church Episcopal, Anglican and American, of all the
essential elements of the prelatical system as first introduced by Laud,
that she either would or could,f return to the original, and which I affirm

* " A Plea for Union. A Sermon," etc., pp. 16, 17.

t As tc a revision of the Prayer-Book, should such a thing be, the prospect is, that it
would be made to assimilate more nearly to Tractarianism. But, the " Protestant Church-
man," as the accredited organ of the so-called Low Church party, satisfied with the

xliv TO THE READER.

to be, THE ONLY TRUE SYSTEM OF Low Church Episcopacy, I felt it my
duty to secede from her communion.

I repeat. The Romanistic leaven, not merely incidental to the system of
Episcopacy, either Anglican or American. And, that I am doing no injust-
ice to the system, so-called, of Evangelical Low-Churchism, when I affirm
■its Romeward tendency on the ground here named, I quote the following
concession of a correspondent of the Protestant Churchman, of January
3, 1852, under the cognomen of G. C. He is discussing the question —
" Is there a peculiar tendency in High Churchraanship to Romanism ?"
And having answered in the affirmative, he proceeds to say :

" That there is some tendency or liability to Romanism, even in our true and
legitimate Church system, just as it was left organized by the Reformers, we
have aU-eady admitted — and we have admitted that our danger of Romanism is
greater than that of other denominations, whose erroneous tendencies are goner-
ally of another sort. But the tendency to Romanism which we admit in our
system, is just the liability of Low Churchmen to become High Churchmen!
and of course, in conceding this to ' a party outside of the Church,' we only
affirm the position of a peculiar tendency in High Churchism to Romanism."'

We have only to add in this place, that the reader will find ample evi-
dence on this subject, as exhibited of the practical developments of the so-
called Low-Church theory, in the " Introduction" to this Treatise.

To conclude. It may with safety be said, as already remarked, that at
no period since the time of Laud, has there been such a deep and earnest
spirit of inquiry on the subjects discussed in these pages, as at present.
And, what is no less hopeful than true, that spirit is pervading the masses
of the Episcopal Church. The appearance, successively, of Dr. Aydelott's
work on " The Present Condition and Future Prospects of the Protestant

Prayer-Book as it is, would seem, from the following extract (Feb. 25, 18.51), to
scout the idea of any revision whatever.

"The Calendar says: — 'The English Churchman states that there is strong reason
to believe that an attempt will be made to alter the Prayer-Book of the Church of En-
gland, by means of a Royal Commission. ' A Royal Visitation ! We are not aware
that any such visitation has taken place since the time of the Tudors, when the Star
Chamber and Hiy;h Commission Court were in vogue. If successful, it will be the last
Ro3'al Commission; the next will be Republican.' This is remarkable language to
come from such a quarter, and shows how deeply our English brethren feel on the sub-
ject.'

'• It is certainly very remarkable languap;e, and shows how much depends upon the
side from which you look at a question. The only approach England has ever made to
•Republicanism' was in the days of the Commonwealth; and it is certainly rather odd
to hear the Lauds of the present day preach about 'Star Chambers,' and 'High Com-
mission Courts ' It is grateful and refreshing to moderate people to find occasionally
how near extremes are to each other; and it would truly be an instructive spectacle,
worthy to be pondered by all violent party men, to see the modern Lands standing on
the ground of the old Puritans. As to altering the Prayer-Book, we believe it to be a
mere cry, got up for a purpose, or the creature of Puseyite imagination."

TO THE READER. xlv

Episcopal Clnirch in tlie United States," published in 1844;* of a series
of articles under the head of " The True Churchman," by the Right Rev.
William Meade, Bishop of Virginia, published in the Protestant Church-
man of June, 1851 ; of Dr. Butler's " Old Truths and New Errors," pub-
lished in 1851 ; the Rev. Mr. Gallagher's more recent work on " True
Churchmanship Vindicated ;" and the extraordinary " Private Letter" of
the present Archbishop of Canterbury, etc. : together with the extraordi-
nary diversities which mark the theories respectively of these different
writers ; and the extraordinary attempts and failures to reconcile them,
though all avov\*edly of the same Low Church stamp, have doubtless con-
tributed to produce this state of things in that body. Hence the ap-
pearance, within a short space, of repeated calls for works both in peiiodi-
cal and book form, to meet this emergency. Take the following as
specimens.

" To the Editors of the Protestant Churchman :

" Gentlemen, — ^It would be a most desirable thing if we could have in our
Church an able Review, which would reflect the true sentiments of the Church in
the United States. The Church Review assumes to itself that ambitious title ;
but this is about all. So far from grappling with the errors of the day, which
it professes to do — it may grapple with them, but will never destroy them. . .

In the controversy with Rome, we like to find plain-spoken men.

These, after all, are the men upon whom any dependence can be placed in time
of danger. And, though your paper does not claim to be ' The Churchman,' or
' The Church Review,' it is what it claims to be — ' The Protestant Churchman'
— openly protesting against the errors of Rome, whether found within her pre-
cincts or within the borders of our own Church. 'f Zau.

Query. — Why then call for another " able Review "?
We add to the above, the following —

For the Protestant Churchman.
"A Work Wanted, — Mr. Editor: — I have recently often sought for some
brief and comprehensive work, adapted to the exigencies of the times, which
shall answer concisely, forcibly, and on evangelical grounds, the question —
' Why am I an Episcopalian V Of course I do not seek for a reply in that theo-
ry which trusts every thing to baptismal regeneration, eucharistic grace, and an
Episcopal succession ; but it appears as though the question might be answered
in a satisfactory manner, and so charitably, as neither to imchi'istianize nor of-
fend other denominations — claiming fur our organization the advantages of apos-
tolical precedent, and therefore commending itself to the affection of believers
— while such an organization is not held to be ahsolutehj essential to constitute a

Christian Church We have an abundance of volumes, large

and small, upon the other theory of the Church ; and though the ideas above im-
perfectly suggested are found sparsim in many works, is there not wanted at this
time a brief treatise upon the marks of our Church, according to the views of
evangelical men 1 If you can suggest a work which answers the above question
in this manner, you will confer a great favor upon some of your readers by men-
tioning it in your columns. Yours truly, E. C. M."J

* The author of this work has since seceded from the Episcopal Church, and un'ted
with the Presbyterian

t The "Protestant Churchman," May 21, 1801. X H^j Oct. 18, 1851.

xlvi TO THE READER.

To the above the learned editor replies:

" [Such a book as our correspondent asks for is a desideratum. We wish that
some one of the many friends of the EvangcHcal Knowledge Society would de-
vote talent and energy to the preparation of this manual. Our correspondent
will find Dr. Butlers work a valuaule help in the mean time — ' The livuk of Com"
mon Prayer inierjrreted by its History.^ E. P. C.]"

And, the Protestant Churchman* which has just come to hand as I am
finishing this article, copies the following from an exchange paper :

From the Western Episcopalian.
"Episcopalian Exclusiveness. — A correspondent of the Western Episcopalian
holds that no custom of the clergy of our Church so much retai-ds her progress,
and destroys her prosperity, as the one by which ministers of other denomina-
tions are excluded from our pulpits. He remarks : ' I cannot see how it is pos-
sible to defend this practice without the position, that ours is the only true
Church, and that we alone have a regularly authorized ministry.' "

Now, this is fairly bringing the matter to a point. This " correspondent"
really seems to have before his mind's eye, our view regarding the enor-
mous sins of " error, heresy, and schism," from which, every Sabbath day,
in answer to the prayer in the Litany, he responds, " Good Lord deliver
us "! And who can doubt that this is the outgoing of a truly Catholic and
benevolent impulse, such as the Spirit of truth and grace alone can pro-
duce ! But, the learned editor of the above journal, anxious to quiet his
apprehensions, after telling him that " Our Church nowhere denies the
validity of other evangelical churches, or their ministry," etc., proceeds to
argue that other churches — as the Presbyterian, Methodist, etc., adopt a
course equally exclusive with themselves, only with this small difference,
that, in an exchange of pulpits between a Presbyterian and a Methodist, for
example, they " concede nothing, or compromise nothing." Whereas, our
admitting either to our pulpits, would " directly conflict with a leading pe-
culiarity.'' An Episcopal clergyman in that case, would " so far slight or
compromise his leading peculiarity of ordination, that to insist on the re-
ordination of the same preacher, if he should seek aftei-wards to enter our
ministry, would be charged upon us as an inconsistency." And yet, the
Episcopal Church "nowhere denies the validity of other evangelical
churches, or their ministers "!

A periodical, however, is now called for, wdiich shall " reflect the true
sentiments of the Church in the United States." And " a work" is wanted,
which, while it claims for the prelatical "organization the advantages of
apostolical precedent," must yet show that " such an organization is not
held to be absolutely indispensable to constitute a Christian Church ;" in
other words, it must treat the subject of " the marks of the Church, ac-

* lb., Dec. 27, 1851.

TO THE READER. xlvii

cording to the views of Evangelical men," in a " manner so satisfactory
and so charitably, as neither to unchristianize nor offend other denomina-
tions" !

As well, I contend, might a call be made to harmonize the systems ad-
vocated in the Zend-avesta of Zoroaster, the Koran of Mohamed, and the
Bible of the Christian, so as to accord with the views of Evangelical men,
either in or out of, the Episcopal Church. And now, before any who may
choose to dissent from this affirmation pronounces it either extravagant,
ilUberal, or unjust, I beg of him a suspension of judgment, till the " talent
and energy" of " some one of the many friends of the EvangeUcal Knowl-
edge Society," shall bring his " talent and energy" to bear, in " the pre-
paration of this" loudly called-for " manual."

No, I repeat. The only door of hope left for the restoration of the
Episcopal Church to " the unity of the faith and the bond of peace" for
which Christ prayed and the apostles labored, is :

1. The eradication from her escutcheon of the deep stain of schism
against the external order of the Church of Christ, by a return to those
principles of church orgaai'.ation — namely. Ministerial Parity, and the doc-
trines of the XXXIX Articles as interpreted according to their natural or
grammatical sense — as originally adopted by the first English reformers,
and of which the Rev. Mr. Gallagher's five conclusions (see page xxxvii)
are a true and valid summary. Then,

2. Such a revision of her liturgy as will expunge from all the offices
thereof (and especially that of the office for the public baptism of infants),
those parts of the Romanistic leaven as, at their first compilation, were in-
corporated therein, " from the Romish forms before in use."

The advantages of such a reform — on the supposition of their retaining
the Episcopal form of government and a liturgical form of w^orship, (both
of which are taken for granted,) and which would be but the restoration to
their Church, as I have said, of the only true system of Low Churchism — •
would be, that, having purged the ministerial regimen of their communion
from the old Romish leaven of an obnoxious ^we?tc?o-apostolicity as alleged
to be founded in divine right on the one hand ; and the offices of their
liturgy of the dangerous, because soul-destroying 02ms ojyeratum of the
sacraments on the other ; the renewal of those bonds of holy union be-
tween themselves and " the multiplied denominations around them," which,
as we have seen, existed between " the English Church Episcopal as by
law established" and the " foreign churches" for more than one hundred
years from the time of its first organization. We should then hear no
more from Low Churchmen about " confficts with a leading peculiarity,"

xlviii TO THE READER.

in tlie event of an admission to tlieir pulpits of a Piesbytorian or a Me-
thodist.

In the liglit, then, of these facts and arguments, I think I may claim at
the hand of all concerned, exemption from the imputation of hostility
either to Low Churchmen or Low Churchism. What I oppose, and labor
in this Aolume to expose, is that system which, more especiall}' since the
time of James IL, claiming to be " called by that name," has nevertheless
departed from the original platform. Nor, even under that guise, do I
object to any thing that is entitled to the appellation of Evangelical Pro-
testantism. For, whether "some preach Chiist of envy, strife and conten-
tion," in so far as " Christ is preached, I therein do rejoice, yea, and will
rejoice."' As I have said of the Low Churchism of the English Cliurch
between the interval of Cranmer and Laud, that it luas not -perfect (llie
Presbyterianism of its ministry and the Evangelism of the XXXIX
Articles being the best portions of it) ; so much less that system wliich has
since prevailed. Having exchanged the theory of Episcopacy, as based on
the platform of expediency only, for the system of Episcopacy by divine
right, with it, as may be seen in the Latroduction to this Treatise, i\w Evan-
gelism of that interval, as believed and taught by the clergy of the En-
glish Church "even to a man," has been made to "walk the plank."
Hence, while many within the pale of that Church, both of the clergy and
the laity, by an adroit concealment on the part of its advocates of what
constituted the original elements of Low Churchism, have, through " un-
avoidable ignorance and involuntary error" been betrayed into its support
under its assumed Evangelico-Protestant guise, the sympathies of those
" outside" of that pale, have been also enlisted in its behalf.

Nor are these the only consequences resulting from the position assumed
by this theory oi pseudo Low Churchism. It has, I contend, originated all
the strifes, animosities, contentions, and divisions which either have or do
now, prevail in that body. It is the charge of inconsistency as preferred
by the advocates of Higli Churchism against their Low Church brethren,
which is now rending the Episcopal Church in both hemispheres. I re-
peat then. The only antidote left them for the eradication of existing evils
is, a return of the whole Church Episcopal to the original platform of her
Anglican mother. Doubtless, Puseyite and Hobartian Churchmen will

smile at this suggestion. The so-called Low Church party will I

know not what Nor is it essential. Sure I am, however, that

while High Churchmen, whatever they may choose to say of my facts and

(1) Philipp. 1 : 1.VW.

TO THE READER, xlix

reasonings against the higher forms of development of the prelatical sys-
tem, will pass in my favor a vote of thanks for my exposure of the incon-
aistcncics and false position among them of the so-called Low Church party.
Equally sure am I that all within that pale, who are truly Evangelical and
Protestant, will thank me for having drawn the curtain and reveahno- to
them in what consists the elements of true Low-Churciiism.

And, as to " the multiplied denominations" non-Episcopal, while they
will have been furnished with what I, at least, deem in these times, guards
and checks indispensable to a right direction of those benevolent and chari-
table feelings for which they are so distinguished, and which have been so
much abused, they will, under God, be preserved from the seduclious pow-
er of that " little leaven" which, though presented under the captivating
guise of an Evangelico-Protestant name, when once it enters the head and
the heart, — unless indeed sovereign grace prevent — will not fail to " leaven
the whole lump." For, of all the " pervents" from the Episcopal Church
to the Romish communion, clerical or lay, I believe it cannot be shown that
there is one, the starting point of whose downward career was not com-
menced with the theory, so-called, of Evangelical Low-Churchisra.

It will also follow as a consequence — unless I greatly err — that, in their
future attacks of the Roman schism and heresy, anti-prelatists will have to
combat more especially with the beast in his lamb-like attire, than under
his less disguised form. Let them continue the good-begun work of
assault against " the antichrist " as viewed from his seat of power and great
authority on the seven hills of the eternal city, wherever found. But let
them not forget his antichristian guise tinder a Protestant name. Here, I '^

contend, lies the Church's greatest danger. They must dig down till they
reach the root of the deadly upas, if they would destroy its trunk, branches,
foliage and fruit.

But, I must close. The reader will overlook those occasional repetitions,
unavoidable in a work like this.

The Table of Contents will furnish him with a complete analysis of the
entire body of facts and arguments.

In the preparation of the work, I have endeavored, so far as I could, to
be guided by the following rule of composition, namely: — '' If you would
write to any purpose, you must be perfectly free from without in the first
place, and yet more free from within. Give yourself the natural rein ;
think on no pattern, no patron, no paper, no press, no public ; think on
nothing, but follow your impulses. Give yourself as you are, what you are,
and how you see it. Every man sees with his own eyes, or does not see at

1 TO THE READER.

all. This is incontrovertibly true. Bring out what you have. If you have
nothing, be an honest beggar rather than a respiictable thief."

That " grace, mercy, and peace " may be yours ever, is the prayer of

THE AUTHOR.
New York, Feb. 1852.

END OF PRELACY.

INTROBUCTION.

Evangelical Protestantism — Romanism — A new Contest inevitable — A difference —
Low-Churchism compared with the so-called Low-Church Theory, as doctrinally
and practically developed, &c.

The following Treatise claims to be the product of a Special
Providence. It is designed for the people.

Its object is Truth. The names of living authors — a circum-
stance which may incur the frowns of the fastidious — are of fre-
quent occurrence in these pages. Beyond a due regard to the
distinction between personal character, which I hold to be sacredly
one's o^vn, and what I deem to be the false system herein exposed,
I have no apology to offer for the liberty here taken. On this
subject. Bishop Burnet says, " Whatever moderation or charity we
owe to men's persons, we owe none at all to their errors, and to
that frame of mind wdiich is built upon and supported by them."
And, if we regard scriptural precedents as established by Christ
and his Apostles, we shall find that persons and their errors are
not unseldom united. Indeed, those who, imder all circumstances,
" attempt to combat errors abstractedly and independently of the
persons who hold them, resemble the army of Mithridates, who
lost the day by mistakingly aiming their arrows, not at the per-
sons, but at the shadows of the Roman soldiers."

With these remarks premised, I observe ; did the points at
issue between anti-prelatists and their opponents relate simply to
matters of expediency, in the adoption of one form in preference to
another, among the prevailing religious external organizations of
the day, the following pages had not been written. And yet, such

is the view in which they have come to be regarded, especially by
the laity of those bodies prelatically denominated " the illegitimate
brood of dissent."* In the current nomenclature of the day among
them, the whole subject, so to speak, is made to resolve itself into
a mere quarrel among the clergy as to who are office-bearers, and
who of them is " the greatest in the Kingdom of God." Thence
resulting, is that spirit of indifference to these things, which, under
the plea of an aversion to controversy, and the like, cannot, at
least in my judgment, prove other than most perilous to those
very principles, professedly held by them as dearer than life
itself.

To account for this state of things, a priori^ and to furnish the
anti-prelatical churches of Christ "scattered abroad" with such a
word of admonition and warning as the present emergency seems
to demand ; and, to present before all, the theory of Prelacy, doc-
triually and practically, as it is, constitute the design of this
Treatise.

To proceed. With much that is commendable and encouraging
in the existing piety and orthodoxy of the Church of Christ, it is
undeniable that " the signs of the times " in the ecclesiastical hea-
vens of both hemispheres, portend that "the battle of the Ref-
ormation IS AGAIN TO BE FOUGHT."f That battle, commenced
under the ausjjices of the humble monk of Erfurt, Luther, owed
its origin, under God, to the revivified elements of a primitive
Christianity, as antagonistic to an almost universal Church apos-
tasy. The result, as matured and perfected by other hands —
Zwingle, Melancthon, Calvin, etc. — formed the basis of a generic
Protestantism for the Churches of Christ throughout Christendom.
In its light, and blest with its immunities, myria,ds have rejoiced,
millions of whom have stamped their estimate of the value of the
principles it inculcates, with their blood ! If we except that of the
tragical scenes of Calvary and its stupendous results, the Conti-
nental Reformation was the grandest moral revolution that has
since transpired.

But, since the achievement of that victory in behalf of the
church and people of God over the tyranny and superstitions of
Papal Rome, more than three and a quartcf centuries have elapsed.

* a speaker in the Gen. Conv. of the P. E. Church, Cincinnati, 0. 1850.
t Bishop Meade's Conv. Address, 1851. Prot. Churchman, June 2Jst, 1851.

The Eeformed Cliurclies all over Christendom, for the most part, ^
and for a long period, have not only been exempt from persecu-*^
tion, but have been wafted along upon- the current of great exter-
nal prosperity, circumstances, I appeal, always perilous to her
groTV'th in grace and steadfastness in the faith. Nothing invidious
is intended towards any * who profess and call themselves Chris-
tians,' when I affirm, that the present plethoric state of Protestant
Christendom indicates the stealthy encroachments of that " spirit
of slumber "(1) which, so far as indulged, exposes them to the
same " strong delusions " of the same arch-enemy and in the same
way, as that by and through which was effected the almost total
subversion, for fifteen centuries, of the primitive faith and order of
the Gospel. And such, I contend, is the existing extent of these
encroachments, as loudly to call upon all who acknowledge " the
Head," Christ, and who "hold the truth in love," to prepare them-
selves for the approaching contest. Longer escape from this con-
test is impossible. The hand of God is in it. The hand of ,God
will control and guide it to a rightful issue.

And this conflict, I submit, respects principles cardinal to the
salvation of the soul. As at the Reformation, so now. Then, the
battle was waged between the revivified elements of a primitive
Christianity, and an almost universal anti-Christian apostasy. In
other words, it was a contest between Protestantism and Roman-
ism. Now again, by the insidious workings of the old Bomish
leaven^ the faith and order of the original reformation principles are
invaded. And, compared with the simple and Avell-defined ele-
ments of the original contest, the present is one profoundly complex.
This will appear, not only from the nature of the subjects involved,
but especially from the kind of evidence on which the Romish
theory is alleged to rest ; the reasonings on which its advocates
rely for its support ; and, though last, not least, its Protean form.

First, then, let us compare the two systems — the Protestant and
the Romish.

I. Protestantism. — This System affirms that the ordinances of
the Gospel, inasmuch as ihej follow faith, are the divinely-appointed
means of grace and help)S to faith thus conferred, and hence, that
faith is the only medium of spiritual renewal, and of the union of
the soul to Christ. Also that, as this " faith cometh by AeanVi^,'*

(1) Rom. 11 : 8.

God Las instituted in his Church, in addition to and entirely inde-
pendent of, the extraordinary and temporary College Apostolic, a
permanent order of PiiESBYTEii-BisnoPS ; as a ministry which ever
has been, and ever will be, perpetuated in the Church; not, how-
ever, by seminal or genealogical descent, but by virtue of their
TROVIDENTIAL designation thereto through the call of the Holy
Spirit, the voice of the Church, and ordination by "the laying on of
the hands of the presbytery." (1 Tim. 4, : 14.)

II. EoMANiSM, on the other hand, may be defined to consist of
a system of Sacramental Ceremonialism, as involving the doctrine
of the inherent grace of external rites and ceremonies — baptism, the
eucharist, confirmation, absolution, &c. — as administered by and
through an alleged spiritual hierarchy, or a Christianized sacer-
dotal priesthood of "divers orders," in unbroken continuity by
consecration and ordination, as serninally or genealogically derived
from Christ and his Apostles in the line of Episcopal Bishops ;
and, that such a system of sacramental grace, dispensed at the
hands of such a priesthood, are the indispensable conditions of salva-
tion: and hence, that any ministry, not derived from and not
belonging to said spiritual priestly hierarchy, being invalid, their
ministrations are invalid and of no avail.

The two systems thus defined, it cannot be other than " evident
unto all men," that the Prelatico-Ej^iscopal controversy is not a
mere war of words. So far from it, as we have said, it involves
principles, cardinal to the salvation of the Soul. Every
question connected with it, rightly considered, will be found to
hinge upon that mighty struggle for the mastery, — a struggle
coeval with the very birth of Christianity, — between the religion
of Se-nse and of Reason ; — the religion of the carnal mind and
heart; — and that of the spiritual man, as predicated of the discov-
ery of his lost condition by nature and of his recovery by grace
through yat^A, as revealed in '•'•Holy Scripturer Eomanism as a sys-
tem of sacramental ceremonialiwi, is but the superstructure, of which
the alleged spiritual priestly hierarchy is the foundation. In
the relation of cause and eifcct, this priesthood, as claiming to
be founded in prescriptive, that is, divine rigid, is the root of the
tree of which the Sacramental theory and its concomitants, are the
fruit. It is the heart whence flows the blood of life and vigor to
the body — the CnrRcn, — its sacraments, rites, &c. It hence fol-

lows that, however diversified its modes of development, whether
put forth under the symbolism of Judaism, or baptised by a Chris-
tian and a Protestant name ; and again, this latter phase, however
divided and subdivided into various sectaries : when subjected to
the test of " Holy Scripture and ancient authors " (as it is the de-
sign of this Treatise to demonstrate), will be found resolvable into
the same original Elements^ namely, a reliance upon the efficacy
OF saokamental ceremonialism, as dispensed by a priesthood.

On the other hand, Protestantism, when subjected to the same
test, by whatever denominational distinction it may be known,
must range under the opposite class of principles, namely : a re-
jection, WHOLE and entire, OF ALL RELIANCE UPON AN ALLEGED
SPtRITUAL PRIESTLY HIERARCHY, AND THE EFFICACY OF SACRAMENT-
AL GRACE AS CLAIMED TO BE DISPENSED BY THEM ; and mUSt plaCG

the sinner's hope of salvation on the broad ground of his JUST-
IFICATION BY FAITH ALONE, in and through the merits of
a crucified Kedeemer. In other words, Romanism, doctrinally, is
naught but the primitive heresy of Justification " by the deeds of
the law " in symbolic form. The reader cannot fail to observe the
striking analogy between it and the Judaizing corrupters of " the
faith delivered to the saints " in the Apostle's times, who taught
that, "except a man be circumcised after the manner of Moses,"
and ^'■Tceepthe ?aw," he ^'•cannot he saved.^\l) Protestantism, its
opposite, stands identified with the Pauline teachings, that, as "in
Christ Jesus neither circumcision availeth anything, nor uncircum-
cision, but a new creature," through the power of " faith which
worketh by love ;"(2) it follows, " that a man is justified by fixith,

and not by works of THE LAW."(3)

Ergo. These two systems are absolutely antipodal. The cardinal
principles of each are totally irreconcilable. There is no assign-
able principle of affinity or of fraternization between them.
Komanisra, as it ever has, so it ever will remain, " a stone of
stumbling, and a rock of offense" to the great principles of our
Protestant faith. And, as with Israel of old, who failed to " attain
to the law of righteousness, because they sortght it not by faith, but,
as it were, by the deeds of the law ;" so is it, and so it ever will be
with every form, HOWEVER DISGUISED, of the system of priestly
sacram^ntarianism, — a system, we add, erected, first, on its alleged

0) Acts 15 : 1,5. (-2) Oal. 6 : 15; 5:6j (3)2:16.

analogy to the Lcvitical priesthood and ritualism as its type;
and, second, on the declared express command and authority of
Christ and his Apostles,

Undeniably, therefore, in whatever " standards," or by whatever
sect or party ranging under those standards, the system of a
prelatico-spiritual priestly hierarchy is claimed as indispensable to
impart validity to the ministry and to the sacraments of the Church ;
in other words, which affirms that such a priesthood is " essen-
tial" either to the " existence!'^ or to the ^^ perfection^'' of a Church
on the grounds here laid down ; however they may labor to dis-
guise such system by the engraftment of other fruit on the branches
of the tree of which it is the EOOT, there is no escaping the
sequence, that they are, generically, Koman ! It is an unnatural
alliance ! It must be followed either by the complete absorption
of the exotio scion by, or its assimilation to, the parent stock, or
else by its excision or secession I

The question then presents itself: Is there any form of the
prelatico-episcopal theory cognizable to us, bearing the marks of
this false guise? If so, under what form of its development does
it appear ? Before furnishing a reply to the above, we must not
overlook the fact of the high claims of the Prelatical theory,
viewed as a whole, to its possession of the double attributes of
Catholicity and Unity.

But, besides the distinction of the aggregate body Catholic
into the Eomish and the Anglican and American Protestant Epis-
copal Churches, there is no fact more indubitable than that of a
coincidence between the divisions of both bodies into various sects.
To say nothing of the glaring absurdity of their application of
the " note'' unity ^ as an infallible criterion of true Catholicity,
the Greek and Eoman Churches, each in turn anathematizing the
other, while both denounce and excommunicate the Anglican and
American branches ; and these again exscinding from their pale
both the Greek and Roman as guilty of damnable heresy and
schism ; in addition to the fact that the Romish Chukch, on the
article of what constitutes the " notes" by which she is to be
known from all others, varies them from ybur to one hundred ; that
her communion has been rent by frequent schisms; that her
writers concede numerous breaks in the chain of her alleged un-;
broken succession ; that in the election of her popes she has seven

different modes ; tliat on tlie subject of her supremacy there are
four different parties ; that on the article of that infallibility on
which she alleges to build her faith, four classes of opinions have
obtained ; and, finally, that, within her pale there are numerous
sects, of which the principal are the Dominicans, Franciscans,
Jacobites, Jansenists, Iconolatrse, &c. : so, on the other hand, the
Protestant Episcopal Church, Anglican and American, though
claiming to range under the same banner ; holding communion
with the same Holy Catholic Church Apostolic, and having the
same standard, liturgy and ceremonials ; yet, we aifirm, that there
is no body on earth more completely rent into sects and parties
than it.

These sects are, the Tractarian or Puseyite ; the Hobartian or
High Church ; the so-called Evangelical Low Church ; and the
real Low Church.

Now, in regard to these sects, the question is, in what consists
the difference, theologically^ between them ? In respect to the first
two, it were a waste of time and paper to detain the reader to ad-
duce the proof of the Romanizing tendencies of their respective
theories. In the warfare which has been waged among themselves,
the soKjalled Evangelical Low Church sect, anxious to ward off
the charge of a tendency to Komanism of the prelatico-episcopal
scheme as advocated by them, have saved their anti-prelatical
neighbors the labor of this work. But the question returns upon
us : Is it true that their theory is exempt from the charge of a
Romanizing tendency ? So far from it, fearless of successful refu-
tation, we* affirm, that the Low Church phase of the prelatical
scheme is the only prop of support to the entire fabric. Take away that^
and the whole superstructure at once falls to the ground. In other
words, we mean to say, that were it not for the theory, so-called,
of EVANGELICAL LOW-CHURCHISM, the System of Pro-
testant Episcopacy, both Anglican and American, would soon

BE numbered among THE THINGS THAT WERE.

We are fully aware of the responsibility of such an assumption.
Nothing less than the deepest convictions of duty to the Church
of Christ will justify it. Surely the prejudices of some, and the
scorn, and obloquy, and opposition, certain to follow on the part

* The reader will please hereafter to indulge us in the interchangeable use — as a
matter of acconnmodation — of the singular and plural pronouns. (See 1 Thess. 2 : IS.)

of others, might, in charity, we think, be thought sufficient to
deter one from assuming such responsibiUty on any other ground.
Then, too, we may have looked at this subject with a jaundiced
eye. If so, God forbid that it should also have been with ' malice
aforethought,' In this matter, we have " a good conscience" to-
ward God and man. The work of removing the gangrene which
may be thought to have obscured or deranged our optics, is free
and open to all.

We repeat then : It is not the ecclesiastico-sacerdotal system of
sacramental ceremonialism in its Papistical, Tractarian, and Ho-
bartian or High Church aspects alone that we have to combat.
Under these, its grosser forms of development, there is but little
danger to be apprehended of its influence upon non-episcopal
minds. Even with the epithet " Protestant" stamped upon
their escutcheon, their obvious Eomanistic cast repels, rather than
attracts, such. No. It requires the appended epithet "Evan-
gelical," to that of Protestant, to effect this. With deference,
however, we ask : Does it necessarily follow that the prelatico-
episcopal theory has a less Romeward tendency from the mere cir-
cumstance of such an alliance ? Yea, more, — may not its seduc-
tive power be increased just in proportion to the concealment of
its Eomanistic virus under that garb ? Error and heresy, all his-
tory demonstrates, is insidious in its approach, gradual in its pro-
gress, and, unless the grace of God ' prevent, certain in its end.
Let us not think " that false doctrine will meet us face to face,
saying, " I am false doctrine, and I want to come into your heart."
Satan does not go to work in that • way. He dresses up false doc-
trine like Jezebel ; he paints her face and tires her head, and tries
to make her like truth. Think not that those who preach error
will never preach anything that is true. Error would do but little
harm if that was the case. No ! Error will come before you
mingled with much that is sound and scriptural. Tlie sermon
will he all right, except a few sentences. The hook will he all good,
except a few pages. And this is the chief danger of religious error
in these times, — it is like the subtle poisons of days gone by ; it
works so deceitfully that it throws men oif their guard. Beeth-
EEN, TAKE CAKE. " llemcnibcr that even Satan himself is trans-
formed into an angel of light."*

* Living or Dead, by Krjle.

A true portrait this, as we honestly believe, of the nature, char-
acter and tendency of that phase of the prelatical system, so
called, of Ev^angelical Low Churchism. These claim to possess
" a scriptural Christianity," and that they are really Protestant
and evangelical. Their pulpits and presses literally groan under
the weight of their ex-cathedra anathemas against their Tractarian
and Hobartian brethren who are ecclesiastically " bone of their bone
and flesh of their flesh," on the ground of the " arrogant assump-
tion of spiritual and priestly power" which their systems in-
volve ; " calling and considering bishops to be apostles^ succes-
sors to the office of the Apostles, standing in the place of
the Apostles, and inheriting all their powers except those
which are personal and miraculous. In this fact," says a recent
writer, " is to be found the origin and reason for those extravagant
claims of exclusive government and jJ^'iestly j^oiuer and grace^^ which
they affirm to be vested "w hishopd^'''' and which he declares to be
"absolutely blasphemous!"* And, surely, no " real Protestant"
will ask for an argument in proof that such a system strikes at the
very heart; that it aims to tear up by the root the principle of
justification hy faith alone as the ground of the sinner's acceptance
with God. In other words, that it is "absolutely blasphemous."

On the other hand, in order to heighten the alleged contrast of
their theory of Prelacy to "the absolutely blasphemous systems of
their brethren as above, they fail not to introduce it to our notice
by reminding us of the wisdom in which it is founded, and the
charity^ liberality, and tolera.nce with which it is exercised. Take
the following, in illustration of the mode under which they
habitually present their theory in the aspect :

1. — Of Catholic Communion. Thus Bishop Burgess of Maine — •

" One more great principle by which the ministers and members of our
Church must be marked, is their acknowledgment and appreciation of the com-
munion Avhich binds together the believers of all times, of all lands, and of both
states of being. Few words- have been more perverted than the name ' Catho-
licity;' nml never has it been more perverted than when it has been made to desig-
nate exdusiveness. The great idea which it should convey is, that as God has
made of one blood all nations to dwell on the face of the earth, and we are
all his off>pring, so he will have all men to be saved, and to come to the knowl-
edge of the truth : that Christ died for all ; that he has redeemed his people
Dut of every kindred and tongue and people and nation ; that they are one in
him, many members in one body, by one Spirit, and having one Lord, one faith,

* " Old Truths and New Errors,"' by the Rev. Dr. Butler. (Prot. Churchman, Aug
3,1850. ' ^

one baptism, one God and Father. All Christians believe that all Christians
have such fellowship ; but it may be erroneously beheld, on one side as a mat-
ter of mere organic connection, or on the other as a matter of mere individual
feeling. These must be combined : a catholic feeling embraces all who love the
Lord Jesus Christy and the catholic organism embraces all who have been bap-
tized into Christ; and both are hostile to a narrow, miserable spirit of sectarian
contentiony

2. — Strong language this. Not more so, however, than that
employed by the same class of -writers in their exhibit of the
theological and ecclesiastical differences, which exist between
themselves and their awfi-prelaticai neighbors. The impression
thence arising is, that it is but ' a paper wall ' — the mere ' shadow
of a shade,^ of difference, that separates them. Thus Bishop Smith
of Kentuck}^, in a recent publication on the " Position of Epis-
copahans in relation to Christians of other names," says : —

" Partially separated as we are, if we really fully understood one another, how
delightful our intercourse might be. Almost perfectly agreed in the great doc-
trines essential to the glory of God and the salvation of men ; still more nearly
agreed as to all the exercises, struggles, and conflicts which signalize the true
life, the inner life of the really converted child of God, and which ought to
form the main staple of our personal intercourse ; and more perfectly agreed
still in the word of God to be read, the sacred hymns to be sung, and the sub-
stance of the prayers to be offered together to our common Redeemer and
Lord ; how profitable, how delightful might be the interviews of the clergy with
each other in their stxidies, and of truly Christian people with their fellow-
Christians of other names, in their families, and by their f resides ; if all would
agree to dismiss, at such times, from their thoughts the points upon which they
differ, and to allow none to be introduced but those in wnich they agree, or can
differ in love. A slight diversity imparts a certain spice to such intercourse.
Who has not felt his soul refreshed by a conversation based, or a supplication
breathed, upon idea-s and in forms of expression a little different from those long
stereotyped and in familiar use 1 Who has not felt, whilst giving hospitality to
a truly pious clergyman of a denomination different from his own, that he has
been '■entertaining an angel unawares''? Oh! when will the day come when
cases of this kind will be as general, as the exceptions are now rare ^"*

3. — The same holds true of their denial, as a sequence of their
alleged theory, of what is technically termed " the unchurching
dogma " of the other schools. Thus, Dr. Stone, in his exposition
of the Preface to the Ordinal, namely : " It is evident unto all
men," etc.,f remarks on the words " this," " the," " Christ's," etc.,
as follows :

* Prot. Churchman, Sept. 14, 18-50.

■f " It is evident unto all men, diligently reading holy Scripture and ancient authors,
that from the Apostles' time there have been these Orders of Ministers in Christ's
Church, — Bishops, Priests, and Deacons. Which offices were evermore had in such
reverend estimation, that no man might presume to execute any of them, except he were
first called, tried, examined, and known to have such qualities as are requisite for the
same ; and also by public prayer with imposition of hands, were approved and admitted

" Had the word been ' the,' instead of ' this,' or ' Christ^s^ in-
stead of ' this,' it would have made a vast diJfference of meaning.
It would have made our Ordinal declare what our Church herself
has never declared, and what, I repeat, till she loses her Protest-
antism, she cannot be made, by her high authority, to declare,
that, without an episcopacy^ there can be no such thing as a min-
istry in the Church of Christ."*

So Dr. Butler, in his " Old Truths and New Errors," etc.—" We
have shown that while our Church has stated, in general terms,
what conditions are necessary to constitute Christian societies true
churches, she has not so defined what shall be considered a fulfill-
ment of these conditions for other churches^ as to enable us to go
through Christendom and dogmatically determine which so-called
churches are triLe, and which are/a?se."f

And so, finally, " The Protestant Episcopal Society for the Pro-
motion of Evangelical Knowledge," in a recent "Statement of
^ir digtinotive principles :"

" That Episcopacy is essential to the being of a Church, so that under no
circumstances of exigency, can a Church exist without it ; and that, therefore,
all societies not in connection with a Bishop episcopally consecrated, are no part
of the Catholic Church ; their ordinances being invalid, and their members with
no hope of salvation, save in what are called ' the uncovenanted mercies of
God ;' we do not hold and shall not teach. Where the fundamental truths of
Christianity are held, Christ Jesus loved in sincerity, and the fruits of the Spirit
plainly manifested ; though we may lament a want of completeness in the min-
istry, and pray and labor that the defect may be supplied, yet, we neither dare
nor desire to say of such, that they are not of ' the blessed company of all
faithful people ;' ' members of the mystical body of Christ,' which is His
Church," &c4

Similar extracts to those here given might be furnished to any
extent. It is, however, unnecessary to multiply them. The prac-
tical tendency and actual results of this exhibit of the Constitution
of the Church Episcopal, is what now concerns us. We remark,
then — how natural, how reasonable, to infer, in the light of such
statements, that there is a radical difference between their

thereunto by lavd"ul authority. And therefore, to the intent that these Orders may be
continued, and reverently used and esteemed in this Church, no man shall be accounted
or taken to be a lawful Bishop, Priest, or Deacon, in this Church, or suffered to execute
any of the said functions, except he be called, tried, examined, and admitted thereunto
according to the form hereafter following, or hath had Episcopal Consecration or Ordi-
nation.''

* The Church Universal, p. 132.

t The Prot. Churchman^ Aug. 3, 1850.

J The Frot. Churchman, Sept. 21, 1850.

theory of Prelacy and those of the Uohartian and Tractarian
schools. Uence it is, that both the clergy and laity of " other de-
nominations" habitually sympathize with them as purely Protest-
ant and evangelical ; and I know of no anti-prelatical contro-
vcrtist who has not conceded to them these points. The view
current among them is, that this large and respectable portion of
the Church Episcoj)al, at least for the most part, is in doctrine
Calvinistic, and that their views of the ministry are so nearly
Presbyterian^ that there is but the shade of a shadow of dif-
ference between them. But the question is, are these things
so f An answer involves the necessity of a reference — for which
we must claim the indulgence of the reader for a short space— -
to the history of the nse, etc., of English Episcopacy.

Speaking of the High and Low Church parties, Hallam says —
" About the end of William's reign [William III.], grew up the
distinction of High and Low Churchmen, — the first distinguished
by great pretensions to sacerdotal powers, both spiritual and tem-
poral, by a repugnance to toleration, and by a firm adherence to
Tory principles ; the latter by the ojy-posite characteristics."*

But, which was the^rs^, in the order of time? To this we an-
swer, the Low Church party. And what were their views of the
orders, powers, etc. of the ministry ? We answer, that, Henry
VIII. having thrown off the Papal yoke, and set up a Church of
his own (and of which he and his successors became the supreme
head, both in temporals and spirituals), the first English Reform-
ers under his reign and that of Edward VI., namel}^, Cranmer
and his coadjutors, though they adopted the Episcopal form of the
ministry in the three orders of Bishops, Priests, and Deacons, as
best adapted to the exigencies of the " Reformed Church of Eng-
land as by law established," yet placed it, not on tlie ground of
prescriptive or divine right, but of expediency f alone; a theory

* See Hallam, p. 623.

•| The most porfect form in which this system of Episcopacy, on the ground of expe-
diency, now extant, is that adopted by that targe and respectable body — "TiiR Metho-
dist Episcopal CinrRCH." Take in illustration the following extract from the '' Meth.
Quarterly Review'- for Jan. 184.'), from an article by the Rev. Geo. Peck, D.D., on the
recent controversy between the Rev. Drs. Potts and Wainwright. Dr. Peck says : —

" It is remarkable that the note-writer, who takes frequent notice of the Methodists,
though he sometimes classes them with ' Mormons,' and all sorts of fanatics, still arrays
them against the Presbyterians, on the side o^ Episcopalians. Now we protest against
this classification. The Methodists, in this coinitry, have adopted an Episcopal form of
government, as, according to Archbishop Whateley, they had a perfect right to do.
But Methodist episcopacy is based upon, and grows out of, the presbytery. It is an

which, whenever and wherever it has obtained, has always recog-
nized and advocated the absolute eqitality of Presbyters and Bi-
shops, hy divine right, as constituting one and the same office.*
And in doing this, they but threw themselves on the old platform,
on which, toward, the close of the second century, this theory of
episcopal government on the ground of expediency, was first
adopted. And, I would here remark by the way, that their action
in this particular furnishes an interpretation of the testimony of
the early Fathers on this subject, which has tne highest claims to
the respect of every Anglican and Anglo-American Churchman.
These authorities, embracing the earliest and purest writers of an-
tiquity, are given at large in the following Treatise : — Clem.
Eomanus, Ignatius, Justin Martyr, Irenseus, TertuUian, Origen,
Cyprian, Firmilian, Ambrose, Chrysostom, and Jerome. These
testify that the above-named regimen prevailed in the Church
(though not exclusively) from the close of the second and onward
for several succeeding centuries. And, to their testimony may be
added, to the same effect, that of all the Christian churches in the
world, down to the time of the Reformation — the African, Greek,
Western or Roman, Lutheran, German Reformed, French, Wal-
densian, Scotch, etc.f And, Anally, as to the adoption by the first
English reformers, of this theory of the parity of Bishops and

official relation concerted for the harmonious action of the great itinerant scheme, and
the better government of the Church. But it claims no divine right or apostolical succes-
sion, as these things are understood by High Churchmen, for its basis. In the great con-
troversy between Presbyterians and Episcopalians, upon apostolical succession, we sym-
bolize with the former and not with the latter. Our episcopacy is not antagonistic to
Presbyterianism as we understand it, but is the very modification of it which Baxter,
Gillespie, and many of the reformers seemed to have in their conceptions, but did not
realize in history. An exception to this remark, perhaps, should be made of the German
Lutherans, who have a superintendency, or an episcopacy, somewhat similar to ours.
We are not, then, to be ranked among Episco^mlians, when the great essential elements
of their creed, episcopacy yitre divino. and s. personal succession of Bishops from the Apos-
tles only having the right of ordination, are taken into account. We are at war with
these principles, not because we ivould have, but cannot obtain, what our secessionists
call ' a legitimate episcopacy;' but because we believe this episcopacy to be contrary to
Scripture, and destructive of true Christian unity. No, gentlemen ; we do not want
your ' succession.' We would not thank you for it. We reject it as a usurpation, and
would in no case descend to accept it at your hands. We understand what our note-
writer means by ' the wishes of the Methodists, who would have it if they could, and
might if they would.' — P. 12. Now, dear Mr. ' Anti-sectarian.' we wish you to under-
stand, if indeed you are capable of learning anything, that ' the Methodists' have no
' wishes' for your 'episcopacy,' even ' if they could' have it without price ; and though
they knew very well, before they were told by you, that they 'might if they would'
join your church, and come under the jurisdiction of your episcopacy, they will not be
very likely to avail themselves of that gracious proffer. They have a legitimate, scrip-
tural, primitive episcopacy, and they have no itching to exchange it for one whose high-
est boast is that it is in the line oi Roman popes. '"

* See Part If. of this Treatise on this subject.

t See Part III. of this Treatise. Chap. X., Sec. II., III., IV., V.

Presbyters^ jure divino, we refer tlie reader in proof to two acts,
both published by royal authority, — ^the first, " a declaration made
of the functions and Divine institution of Bishops and Priests,"
etc. ; and the second, " A declaration of the Christian doctrine for
ithe necessary erudition of a Christian man," etc., both of which
will be found in this Treatise,''^

But, the doctrine of the perfect identity of Bishops and Priests
:as a " Divine institution," forms the corner-stone in the founda-
tion— the key-stone in the arch, of Preshyterianism.

Ergo, — The ministry of " the Reformed Church of England as
by law established," was Pkesbyteriajst !

We now remark that, the Rev. Mr. Chapin's ipse dixit to the con-
trary notwithstanding, this Presbyterial form of ministry in the
English Church remained unaltered from the year 1545 to 1662 —
a period of more than one hundred years — at which time was
passed " the act of uniformity ^''^ so called, by which, no person,
unless Episcopally ordained, was allowed to hold a living in the
English Church.f This brings the history of this affair down to
.the time of Laud. True, Bancroft, Archbishop Whitgift's chap-
lain, A.D. 1594, and Saravia and Sutcliflfe before him, had written
against Beza, the successor of Calvin, who, in a.d. 1566, had
written a defense of ministerial parity, etc. True also, that Whit-
gift himself joined with the others against Beza. But, to Arch-
bishop Laud belongs the honor (a.d. 1604) of having first intro-
duced the doctrine of Episcopacy by divine right into the English
Church.

Two other facts are worthy of special notice in this connection.
The first is, that during the above interval, that is, from the time
of Cranmer down to " the act of uniformity," a large number of
ministers with no other than Presbyterial ordination were admitted
to livings in the English Church. The second, that, during the same
interval, the Archbishops^ Bishoj^s^ and Clergy of the English Church
were^ in doctrine, thoroughly Calvinistic.

In the light then of these facts, what follows ? Why, that the
original principles of the English reformed Church consisted,

1. Of the adoption of Episcopacy on the ground of expediency,
as a mere ecclesiastical arrangement, thereby restoring to that

* See Part ITI, of this Treatise, Chap. X. Sec. IV.
t Burnet's History of his own Times, Vol. I. p. 332.

cliurch the scriptural and primitive parity of the ministry — " that
priests and bishops, by God's law, ake one and the same ; and
that the power of ordination, etc. belongs equally to both."*
And hence,

2. Of the admission of the /aZZ and absolute yahdity of the
MINISTRY of the foreign Presbyterian and other churches. And,

3. Of preaching and advocating those doctrines of grace com-
monly called Calvinistic.

It is scarcely necessary to add, that the original compilers of
the standards of that church — the liturgy and articles — fully recog-
nized " the church character" of " other denominations."

Thus much then of the Low Churchism of the Anglican Epis-
copal Church, during the first century of her existence.

That there are now, in the Anglican and Anglo- American
branches of that church, both among her clergy and laity, those
who still adhere to these original principles, we admit. But, that
that large body which, under the cognomen of Evangelico-Pro-
testant Low Churchmen, claim to be the representatives of those
principles, actually repudiate them, we shall now, regardless of
consequences to ourself, proceed to show.

First. In regard to the article of their alleged Evangelicism.
Now, the great body denominated non-episcopal of all names,
taking the XXXIX Articles of the Church of England in their
natural or grammatical sense, understand the Vlth., which treats
^^ of the Sufficiency of Holy Scripture for Salvation f^ the IXth.,
which treats " of Original or Birth-Sin ;" the Xth., " of Free- Willf^
the Xlth,, " of tlie Justification of Man ;" the Xllth., " of Good
WwksT the Xlllth., "o/ Worhs before Justification f' the XVIth.,
"o/" Sin after Baptism f and the XVIIth., " of Predestination and
Election ;" the XXVIIth., " of Baptism ;" and the XXYIIIth.,
'■'■ of the Lord^s Supper f as inculcating those doctrines of grace
denominated Calvinism. But, is this the sense in which the
party claiming that appellation in the Protestant Episcopal Church,
understand and use it ? We submit the following in reply :

The Protestant Churchman^ of May 17, 1851, in an article
headed the "Pseudo-Evangelical Party," quotes with approbation
the "remarks" of the editor of the Western Episcopalian — the

* Buniet's History of the Reformation, Vol. I , p. 372.
t The organ, as is known, of the Low-Church paity.

accredited organ of the Diocese of Ohio, under the episcopal
supervision of the Right Rev. C. P. Mcllvaine, D.D., — on an arti-
cle in Tlie Churcliman of the 26th ult., under thd head " Lim-
ited Atonement," the following. The editor of Tlie CTiurch-
inan having said, "This dogma" (namely, "Limited Atonement")
" is one of those which distinguishes the Pseudo-Evangelical
party," etc. — meaning the Low Church party, the editor of the
Western Ejpiscopalian remarks as follows :

" Here, then, we are furnished with a criterion by which we can ascertain
who are members, and determine the extent of that party which he calls
Pseudo- Evangelical. It does not exist in Ohio. We have heard many Evan-
gelical clergymen preach, have heard some who were called Calvinists, and some
who called themselves Calvinists, though the number is small, and never yet
heard from an Episcopal pulpit the doctrine of a ' limited atonement.' We
therefore think the 'Pseudo-Evangelical Party,' at which The Churchman often
sneers, inust be a very small one, and not worth his notice. As a candid and ho-
norable man, he would not of course attempt to confound, in the minds of his
readers, the ' Pseudo-Evangelical Party.' Avith the evangelical portion of the
Church, many of whose prominent men are noted Arminians, and all of whom
claim no higher title than that of being good Bible and Prayer-Book Church-
men."

Again. In the Protestant Churchman of July 12, 1851, in
a communication headed the " Evangelical Knowledge Society,"
the correspondent is defending said society against an attack from
the editor of The Chitrchman, who represents it on a certain
occasion as " coming near to explode." The occasion alluded to
is thus explained. The " E. K. S." had published a book under
the title of " The Key to the Prayer-Book," in which it was after-
wards found that " there were a few sentences which showed the
author to be a doctrinal Calvinist, as it is now known and admitted
that the Reformers were TO A MAN." Well, what was done
with the book on this account ? Why, this writer informs us that,
" at the next annual meeting of the Board of Directors, the book
being objected to by some, it was promptly withdrawn ,/" and that
too, though in other respects the writer declares it to have been
" a most excellent book, well worthy the purchase and study of*
every Churchman," etc.

Here then is a " Society," instituted within the pale of the Prot-
estant Episcopal Church, for the avowed purpose of promoting
"Evangelical Knowxedge" within its bounds, "PROMPTLY"
throwing aside "a most excellent book" — "A Key to the
Prayee-Book" — for the simple reason that it contained " a few

sentences whicli showed tlie author to be a doctrinal Calvinist,"
aje, and that too, though " it is now known and admitted that the
reformers were Galviuists, even TO A Mx\N !"

Similar extracts might be addaced from the same source, to
almost any extent. But, " a word to the wise is sufficient." Not
that we mean to affirm, that none are to be found within the pale
of the Protestant Episcopal Church who are truly evangelical and
Protestant. Such, doubtless, there are, as we have said, both
among the clergy and laity of that church. But we do affirm,
that that " number is small" — " very small." We also affirm — •
and that on the authority of the Protestant GJiurcliinan — ■

Second. That between the pkelatigal theoey of that " very
small number," and that of those claiming the appellation of
" Evangelical Low Churchmen," there is a difference, wide as the
nether i^oles. Take the following in illustration :

A correspondent of that journal, in an article bearing date May
81, 1851, under the head of "Diversity of Opinion and Liberty
of Action," in treating of the divisions prevalent in "the Church,"
says — " It is not to be denied that there is among the members of
the Episcopal Church a very great diversity of opinion." In classi-
fying these, he divides them into —

1. Those who " profess to hold Episcopacy on the ground of its
expediency''' only ; and

2. Those " who hold a sacramental system^

These, he says, are the two " extremes" into which " the Church"
is divided. But between these, he places "several other classes,"
as —

3. Those who maintain that " Episcopacy is essential to the per-
fection of a church ;" and

4. Those who take the ground that Episcopacy is essential " to
the existence of a church."

Now, of the two sects or parties forming the " extremes" into
which " the Church" is divided, this writer says of the first^ that,
" to hear them talk, one would judge that it was any thing hut
expedient to be ruled by bishops," and that " their sympathies are
q}1 outside of the body to which they are nominally attached," etc.
"While of the second^ he says, that "their sacramental system is
difficult to be distinguished from that of Kome, the sacraments
being made by it the sources of grace^ the new-birth universally talcing

place in Baptism, and the new-creature being nourished in the Lord's
/Supper." They also, lie adds, " substitute the visible Church in the.
place of its Invisible Head,'' etc. ; a distinction this, we remark,
which, if taken in connection with what we have said of the origi-
nal principles of the Anglican Church, is precisely analogous to
that given of the High and Low Church parties by Hallam.
Again :

Our Correspondent, in speaking of the other two classes —
Nos. 3 and 4, represents them as being " within the extremes." He
certainly, however, cannot mean that they are both independent
of this last named " extreme." At least, this cannot be true of
No. 4, or those who take the ground — ^^ Nulla ecclesia sine
episcopo" — that "Episcopacy is essential to the exktence of a
church." For, in speaking of them, he tells us that they " believe
in the especial efficacy of the sacraments" etc. And, as it regards
sect No. 3, he tells us that they affirm of " Episcopacy," that
it " is essential to the perfection of a church," etc. But, we ask,
What is the difference between this theory, and that which makes
Episcopacy ^^ essential to the existence of a church?" In other
words, of what value is an existing imperfect church, in carrying
out the designs of its divine Founder ? of a church loanting in
those very essentials, without which its ministry and ordinances
are declared to be invalid, and of no effect ? "It is evident unto
all men," therefore, that both theories, de facto, are founded on
the same hypothesis— "iVwZ?a ecclesia sine episcopo" — " No Chtibch
WITHOUT A Bishop."

Episcopal bishops, "essential to the perfection of a church."
This, then, is the admitted theory of the so-called Low Church
advocates of prelacy. Hence, as we find, nothing is more common
in their writings, when speaking of the constitution of "other
denominations," than to represent them as " irregularly formed,"
and that they still continue "to be in an imperfect state;" that
" when the despotism and corruption of Rome rendered a reforma-
tion necessary, and the awful abuses of priestly power created a
natural prejudice against the whole hierarchy," it "made it easy
for the conscientious judgment" of such of the continental reform-
ers as Luther, Calvin, Beza, Zwingle, Melancthon," and a host of
others, " to be led astray," and hence, as a gracious act of their
Christian clemency, under the pretext that the ministry is "not ot

the essence, but only of the order of the church," they are pleased
to consider that, " under the circumstances" named above, " the
unnecessary abandonment of the apostolic ministry, although still
a sin," is "greatly mitigated in the judgment of reason, as well as
charity ; and the indulgent allowance of our merciful Eedeemer"
may " well be supposed to pardon the deviation, and still bestow
his blessing," etc.;* and especially in consideration of the fact, that
the great Genevan Reformer, John Calvin, made the laudable
though unsuccessful attempt to obtain the episcopacy from the
English bishops !f in view of which, and in the hope that those of
the present day who sympathize, with the Presbyterianism of that
involuntary schismatic, are not entirely beyond the reach of recov-
ery, the members of " The Protestant Episcopal Society for the
promotion of Evangelical Knowledge," inasmuch as they deeply
"lament a want of completeness in the ministry" among them, we
have the very encouraging assurance that they will not cease to
" labor and pray that the defect may be supplied !"

And yet, " the Protestant Episcopal Church is not exclusive I"
How then comes it to • pass, that our correspondent of the Protestant
Churchman, already introduced to the reader's notice as a repre-
sentative of the so-called Low Church theory, thus summarily dis-
poses of class No. 1. out of the four classes into which he has
divided the aggregate body ? — those, I mean, who, placing them-
selves on the original platform of the English Church, " hold epis-
copacy on the ground of expediency''^ only. Having informed us
that these constitute " a small number," he adds, " and we wish
it were smaller." " Their sympathies" being " all outside of the
body to which they are nominally attached, we often wonder they
do not go at once to some quarter" [among the illegitimate brood
of dissent] " better suited to their temperament." For, besides
their aversion "to be ruled by Bishops, they can discover in both
the doctrines and organization of the Church serious errors, and
these are their topics. While they consider rubrics and canons of
little account, they are fond of new measures for doing good, and
engage more readily in them than in those prescribed by authority
and of immemorial observances^ And, we here observe, that this

* See Bishop Hopkins's second leUer on " The Novelties which Disturb our Peace,"
&c. 1844.

t For a full vindication of that renowned reformer from the imputation of this state-
ment, see Appendix. B.

correspondent, without doubt, is right. Consistency requires that
they should do so.

On the other hand, as this writer has the candor to admit, that
" ALL" the other " classes," namely, Nos. 2, 3 and 4, '* are sincerely
attached to the Church ; that they love the Liturgy^ Episcopacy^ and
the cardinal doctrines of the Church ;" and having repudiated the
Low Church principles established by Cranmer and his coadjutors
in the English Church, we respectfully advise, on the same score
of consistency^ that the editors, proprietors and patrons of the
"Protestant Ciiuechman" cease all further "agitation" concern-
ing questions about things which do not differ, and unite henceforth in
co-operating with their more consistent compeers of the Tractarian
school in the Support and extension of true Catholicity. The
propriety of such a course, I submit, is apparent from the follow-
ing considerations : First, Inasmuch as, on the one hand, there
is not the least affinity between the systems of ministerial parity
and modern prelacy, and hence that there can be no via media in
regard to them, the former, if the trv£ scriptural regimen, proving
the latter to be false, and so vice versa. So, on the other hand,
Second : If the theory of Prelacy has claims which are founded in
prescriptive or divine right, those claims being dependent, in the
first place, on the fact of its antitypal relation to the orders in the
Levitical Priesthood ; and second, in the fact of its- appointment by
Christ and his Apostles to the exclusion of all others, it follows, —
that any attempt to escape the consequences of its adoption, such,
for example, as the denunciatory, exclusive and unchurching
dogma of the Tractarians, through a via media by-way, is as "a
house divided against itself" That the doctrinal and practical
workings of the theory of Prelacy, as advocated by the so-called
Evangelical Low Church sect, furnishes ample proof of this, we
need go no further for evidence than that given in the extracts
from their writings on pages 23-25. Take, for example.

First: That from the "Church Universal," by the Rev. Dr.
Stone. Now, that learned divine, it is presumed, would be slow
to allow that the church of which he is a minister is not Christ's
Church. But, then, if we understand him, it is indispensable that
the phrase " Christ's Church" be inserted in the Preface to the
Ordinal, in order to make good the allegation, that it unchurches
others, etc. " The word ' Christ's,' instead of ' this,' " says he,

" would have made a vast difference of meaning," that is, it would
have been equivalent to saying that his church was, par excellence^
" the" Church ; which, he adds, '* would not only make her, in
theory^ unchukch a considerable portion of Christendom, but also
pledge her to carry the unchukciiing edict into practice." But
this, he adds, " I repeat, till she loses her Protestantism, she cannot
be made, by her high authorities, to declare," etc.* What then
must be the astonishment of the reader when informed that this
very phrase, viz., " Christ's Church," stands out in bold stereo-
typed relief in that very " Preface," and that it precedes the word
" this" ? " It is evident," says this document, " unto all men dili-
gently reading holy Scripture and ancient authors, that, from the
Apostle's times, there have been these orders of ministers in
CHRIST'S CHURCH : Bishops, Priests and Deacons," etc. ;
*' and, therefore, to the intent that these orders may be continued
and reverently used and esteemed in ^A?^," that is, " in Christ's
Church," etc. Here, evidently, the word " this," being a " dis-
tinctive adj€ctive,^^-f is the " substitute'^ of the word " Christ's."
Ergo, Dr. Stone's Church, in the Preface to the Ordinal, is
alleged to be " the" Church of Christ, to the exclusion of all others I
But Dr. Stone says that his Church cannot unchurch others, " till
«^ loses her Protestantism."" But, if our criticism as above be cor-
rect, what, I ask, according to Dr. Stone's hypothesis of the
*' Preface," becomes of her " Protestantism" ? Pass we now,

Second: To the quotation from Bishop Burgess's Episcopal
Charge on page 23 : "A Catholic feeling," says he, " embraces
all who love the Lord Jesus Christ, and the Catholic organism
embraces all who have been baptized into Christ ; and both are
hostile to a narrow, miserable spirit of sectarian contention."
" Never has it," that is, " the name Catholicity," " been more per-
verted than when it has been made to designate exclitsiveness,^^ etc.
But does the Bishop here mean to admit that those who have been
baptized by a?i^i-prelatical hands, have been so "baptized into
Christ," as that they belong to the " Catholic organism" of which
he here speaks? Such, clearly, is the inference into which the
reader is betrayed. ^^All Christians," says he, "believe that all
Christians have such fellowship," that is, the " Catholic feeling" and

* The Church Universal, p. 132, and note,
t See Webster's large Dictionary on the word.

the " Catholic organism" are commensi'rate. Any other view of
" Catholicity" is " made to designate eocclusiveness" But let the
reader go on a little further and he will find in the same '* Charge"
the following : " The excellency of our Church," says that pre-
late, /'is, not that it stands apart as a sect claiming to he purer
than all others." Oh, no; "but that it is, in fact, the kepkesen-
TATivE of that Church which once included all Christians of our
language and lineage. " Ilaving," he adds, " never abandoned that
position, IT, that is, " Our Church," " is still the parent, the basis,

THE BULWARK OF ALL THEIR RELIGION, AND UNITES THEM, THROUGH
A FAITH TRANSMITTED FROM THE BEGINNING, AND THROUGH SaCRA-
MENTS, IN AN EQUALLY LONG SUCCESSION, TO THE ORIGINAL FELLOW-
SHIP OF THE Apostles," etc, "Mirabile dictu !" It turns out,
then, after all, that those baptized by anz^i-prelatisls, belong to the
true " Catholical organism" in no other sense than that of their de-
riving, " through the /fecramente* o/" the Church Eiiiscopal KLiL
THEIE EELIGION!" Yes, "IT"— the Church Episcopal— is
" the parent, the basis, the bulwark" of ALL ! ! And that, through
a " long succession,^'' traced back " to the original fellowship of the
Apostles" ! ! ! How liberal ! how magnanimous ! how Catholic !
Such a theory of Prelacy justly chargeable with '■'■ exclusiveness^^ !
The thought, surely, could never enter the heads of any but such
as are dupes to the blindness and bigotry of Presbyterianism,
who ought rather to thank God that their salvation is rendered at
least possible, if not certain, by being thus charitably encircled
within the ea-pansive embrace of their Episcopal "Parent !"

Nor is the Low Church Bishop Burgess alone in thus disposing
of "other denominations." In a recent work in answer to the
question, " What is the Church of Christ V and which comes to
us under the imprimatur of the Tractarian Bishop of Maryland
(Whittingham), the writer, having argued that the Church is not

* Hence, the ground of the assumption, by a large body of prelatists — and which, in
the earlier part of my connection with that church, I myself adopted— of the total in-
validity of Presbyterian, which they esteem no other than lay baptism. This theory,
however, is supposed to be confined entirely to the Tractarian and Hobartian sects.
Not so. Of this class is the Rev. S. H. Tyng, D.D., the rector of St. George's Church,
Stuyvesant square. Whether that reverend gentleman carries out his theory practically
to ALL the proselytes from Presbyt'-rianism admitted to his church, — why, he may, or
he may not. Those who are sufficiently interested in the matter can ask him. My pre-
sumption is, that as — if I am rightly informed — he occasionally dispenses with the
requisition, from such, of even the rite of confirmation, when it would prove a bar to
their uniting themselves with his church, he may possibly observe the same rule with
regard to baptism.

a "class," but a " society,"* assumes the hypotliesis that " the
Church Catholic" is " not distinct from particular churches," all of
which "must be associated into- one." He then proceeds to the
inquiry", " in what consists that unity which brings us all together
and makes us all oneT^ To which he answers, "It consists not
in meeting together ; not in similarity of forms and rites ; not
in similarity of faith ; not in unanimity ; not in supremacy of
one head bishop," etc.f But " this principle of oneness con-
sists in their origin" — " it is the having one beginning, the
descent from one origin. ":j; And this " union must he based
on transmission or descent — one of siiGcessionyi And thus,
says he, " they are all derived from the parent clubj^% He then
proceeds to state that " an overt act, whereby the Church is re-
nounced^ is plainly the setting up or the joining a sOciet}'- which,
not being one with the Church by lawful succession from the
founder, Christ, yet claims to be regarded as if it were a portion
of the Church of Christ." For, says he, "we cannot profess two
faiths^''"' though he had a. little before said that the principle of the
Church's unity " consisted not in similarity of faithj'' etc. ; " or
belong, as it were, to two churches^ What then ? Oh, says he,
" we must still account them within the pale of the Churchy if they
have been validly received into it by the sacrament of baptism.'''''^
Otherwise, he argues, that " Baptism," being " initiator}^," it would
be wholly at variance with the apostolic declaration, that there is
one Baptism ; for it would increase the number of baptisms to the
number of the particular churches into which the holy rite ad-
mitted new members.** The above " overt act," therefore, of
separation from the Church to the contrary notwithstanding, these
dissenting schismatics all having received the " one baptism" at
the hand of one " who lav fully''' (or validly) " administers bap-
tism, "ff prior to said separation, whj^, they are all safe. We
"account them" ALL "within the pale of the Church." And,
this being " a c^wrc/i-member, and at the same time member of a
society which is not a church," this immaculate prelatieal logician,
Mr. Hill, would have all to know, "is nothing inconsistent or con-
tradictory":}::]: ! I remark, in conclusion, that, from the striking

* "What is the Church of Christ?" By George Hill, Shrivenham, Eng. Pub. by
Brunner, Bait., Maryland. 1844. pp. 11-18.

t lb. pp. 34-48. \ lb. pp. 48, &c. || lb. p. .-53. (j lb. .'53.

T lb. pp. 102-104. ** lb. p. 20. tt lb. p. 24. \\ lb. p. 105.

similarity both of thought and language which mark the extracts
from these two writers, there is strong ground for suspicion that
Bishop Burgess's tlieory of Chureh-Catholicitj was borrowed from
the Tractarian, Mr. Ilill.

But, by advancing a step further, it will be found that the
lioinish Churchy in the plenitude of her charity^ claims to embrace,
within her capacious pale, the schismatical subjects of the so-called
" Protestant Church of England as by law established," and with
them all those of the so-called dissenting sects. Thus, the Roman
Catholic Bishop Purcell : " The Roman Catholic Church admits
all sinners to repentance. She counts as belonging to her commu-
nion all the children hajitized in Protestant communions, who
die before they are capable of committing mortal sin, or who, liv-
ing in invincible ignorance that they have been bred up in error,
keep the commandments of God, and love him, as far as their
knowledge of the divine nature will permit. All these belong to
the soul of the Churchy and a/i^e consequently among the most

PEECIOUS OF HER FOLD,"* &C.

It is quite unnecessary to pursue this subject further. Enough
has been said to disclose the real purpose and end of the so-
called Evangelical or Low Church advocates of prelacy in the adop-
tion of that mode which characterizes the advocacy of their theory.
Stripped of its sophistical guise, it is found to be precisely identical
with the Hobartian, Tractarian and Romish schemes of the same
systeni. To pretend that the theory of ministerial parity, and
that of modern prelacy, as advocated by Low Churchmen, are but
'''•partially separated" by " a slight diversity ;" that the " Preface"
to the Ordinal, on the hypothesis of Dr. Stone, does not " unchurch
a considerable portion of Christendom ;" and that it is free from
the charge of an " arrogant assumption of spiritual and priestly
power, — those " extravagant claims of exclusive government and
priestly power and grace" which they allege holds true against
the Hobartian, Tractarian and Romish theories, and that therefore
they cannot " go through Christendom and dogmatically deter-
mine which so-called churches are true and which are flilse;" nor
affirm that "all societies not in connection with a bishoj:) episco-
pally consecrated, are no part of the Catholic Church, their ordi-
nances being invalid^ etc. : while at the same time they affirm

* See Debate with Campbell on the Roman Catholic Religion. Cincinnati, 1837. p. 72.

of their churcli that, upon the combined authority of "holy-
Scripture and ancient authors," she teaches that " it is evident
unto all men^^ " what conditions are necessary to constitute Chris-
tian societies trvs churches f and that their Church is "the
PARENT, the BASIS, the BULWARK of ALL THE EELIGION" pos-
sessed by their a^i^t'-episcopal neighbors, and claim that they are
all " united to thcjn through a faith transmitted from the begin-
ning through sacraments in an equally long succession," back " to
the original fellowship of the Apostles," etc. ; such a system, I

AFFIRM, CAN ONLY BE DESIGNED FOE PURPOSES OF DECEPTION AND

FRAUD ! And, of all the extant theories of human device, calcu-
lated, as I have said, " by good words and fair speeches to deceive
the hearts of the simple," this theory of prelacy, thus disguised
under a Protestant Evangelical garb, holds the foremost rank. IT
IS THE MOST POWERFUL CONFEDERATE OF THE RO-
MISH DELUSION! Pius the IXth well understands. the good
service which it renders to his cause, in undermining the hulwarks
of " REAL Protestantism," both in England and in our own coun-
try. To it alone, I affirm,, is he indebted for his recent success in
planting, in the very center of the so-called " Protestant Church
of England as by law established," an Archiepiscopal See, with
its twelve Bishoprics ! And, from the present aspect of things,
his holiness, doubtless, entertains good hope of witnessing similar
results from the same influences now so rife in our midst !

Presbyterians, do you demur to this statement of what I affirm
as the real cause of the past and present progress of Romanism in
the midst of us ? I appeal then to facU^ and ask : How do you
account for the vast accessions from your " ranks " to those of the
Episcopal Church ? Episcopalians, in advocating their system,
triumphantly point to " the testimony of rio?z-Episcopalians " in its
favor, as derived from " ilie number of the strongest and best men^ out
of the Episcopal Churchy who are entering her foldj'^ On this subject,
a recent writer says : — " The leaven is silently but powerfully at
work. Truth is pervading the great mass of society. Prejudice
is becoming disarmed, and here and there one, contimMxlly, are
silently, and sometimes at great sacrifices, giving in their strongest
testimony in favor of the Episcopal Church, even the testimony of
their life. The following facts," he adds, " will speak for them-
selves : — Of the American Bishops who have joined the Church

from other denominations, arc the following — Jarvis, Provoost,
Bass, Chase, Brownell, Kavenscroft, Smith, Otey, [and to these he
might have added Griswold, McHvaine, and McCroskey.] Of two
hundred and eighty-five persons, ordained by Bishop Griswold be-
fore 1841, two hundred and seven came into the ministry of the
Episcopal Church, from other denominations. At least two-thirds
of the clergy of the Church, in this country, are not educated Epis-
copalians. And within the last thirty years, about three hundred
ministers of other denominations have entered the ministry of the
Episcopal Church." (Bishop De Lancey's sermon at the consecration
of Bishop Eastburn, p. 34.) " The rapid advances of church prin-
ciples among the Laity," continues this writer, " is another strong
argument of the same character." — (Extracted from Reasons Why
I am a Churchman, p. 21, 1844.) In illustration of this fact, it is
only necessary to state, that, if rightly informed, of one single
church — and that the largest in this city, St. George's, Stuyvesant
square — out of about six hundred communicants, by far the greater
portion is made up of proselytes from Presbyterian, Reformed
Dutch, and Methodist and Baptist churches.

Then again. I affirm that, so far as the article of Intant-
Church-Membekship by Baptism is concerned, it is to be traced
to a radical difference^ doctbinally, between "the Church" and
their so-called " w?i!ra-Protestant " neighbors, regarding the nature,
design, and end of Baptism. Of this I propose to furnish the
proof as drawn exclusively from the practical use of that ordinance,
by both bodies. The circumstances under which it is practically
and habitually applied to the infant recipient, is the key to its doc-
trinal interpretation, as held by the respective administrators. Of
the difference then of which I here speak, as characteristic of "the
doctrine of baptism," episcopal and anti-episcopal, the Low Church
evangelical Bishop Burgess, in his recent charge on " Great Prin-
ciples," etc., alluding to its administration by the latter, says, that
it is founded on the principle of " LiMrrATioN." This is true. In
chap, xxviii. of " the Confession of Faith," on the Article of " bap-
tism," the IVth section reada thus : " Not only those that do ac-
tually profess faith in, and obedience unto Christ, but also the
infants of one or both believing parents are to be baptized." The
article clearly limits the right of baptism to the " infants " of
*' believing parents" — that is, " one or both of the parents,"by a cred-

ible profession of their faith, miist be communicants of the Church,
to entitle their infants to baptism.

But this principle of " limitation," the Church Episcopal con-
demns. " Wide is the gate, and broad is the way" which she opens
to her baptismal font. The children of Jews, Turks and Infidels,
together with those who are nominally Christian (and such the
" other denominations" hold to be all the non-communing baptized
members of their respective churches), are alike admitted to its
benefits. On what ground? " Oh," says the evangelical Bishop
Burgess, " inasmuch as, by a numerous portion of surrounding
society" — namely, Presbyterian pedobaptists — "these holy institu-
tions"— namely, the sacraments — "are viewed as merely' a kind of
profession of higher holiness ; a profession acceptable, if faithful ;
needless, if not absolutely compelled by the strongest feeling;" —
that is, as arising from a sense of religious obligation, etc., I, the
apostohcal bishop of Maine, would have all to know, that we Epis-
copalians " hold it wiser to jperfornii what we never promised^ than
to promise what we may fail to jperformP

Profound theology this ! and so consistent withal ! As though
a " promise," or " vow," on the part of an adult, or by him in be-
half of the infant or child, were not a component pakt of bap-
tism! Not to speak of "other denominations," look at the pro-
fessions and vows required and entered into, as set forth in the
three haptismal offices of the American liturgy. Or, have the Bishop
of Maine and his clergy commenced the work of reformation, by
expungirig from their baptismal offices all professions and vows
whatsoever ? The above language of his right reverence certaiply
implies that he,. with his presbyters and deacons, regards the above
professions and vows at most as a dead letter.

Well then, we have at length arrived at this point. The absence
of a "promise" or vow by a " parent," etc., is no bar to the bap-
tism (in the Ejiiscopal Church) of an " infant." Indeed, so far
from it, the chances are rather in favor of the more effectual reli-
gious training of the child! The zeal of the "parent" in this
work is increoysed, just in proportion as he finds himself relieved
from the trammels of a religious vow, such as that imposed by the
" limitation" principle of Presbyterians, which, the bishop tells us,
leads "at length" to " 2i practical indifference to all things in reli-
gion which are outward and visible, an indifference not seldom

disguised under the appearance of an excessive exaltation of tteir
sanctity, by an " attempt to vindicate" for their " communions a
character of unmixed purity," etc.

Is it then, I ask, any marvel that, with such seductive blandish-
ments to entice them, the Church Episcopal should secure to her-
self such vast accessions from among the nori'Com'muning baptized
members of anti-prelsitical churches, who, with the path thus
smoothed down before them, can secure that for their children
within h^r pale, which the scriptural requisitions of their own
Church withhold?

It is, however, the nature, design, and end of baptism, — in other
words, its efficacy in a doctrinal point of view, as educed from
its practical application as above, which most concerns us. As
administered anti-prelatically on the principle of " limitations^'' it
proceeds on the hypothesis of a denial of the opus operatum of
that ordinance. In other words, it repudiates the Romish dogma
of BAPTISMAL REGENERATION. Vicwiug baptism as a means to an
end^ it proceeds throughout on the ground, that spiritual qualifica-
tions on the part of the " parent" are indispensable, under God, to
secure those gracious benefits to the "infant," of which its baptism
is a sign and sealP* It teaches that, although " by the right use
of this ordinance the grace promised is not only offered, but really
exhibited and conferred by the Holy Ghost, to such (whether of
age or infants) as that grace belongeth unto, according to the coun-
sel of God''s own will^'' yet that its conferment is reserved to " his
appointed time^'' and affirms, expressly, that " the efficacy of bap-
tism IS NOT TIED TO THAT MOMENT OF TIME W^HEREIN IT IS ADMIN-
ISTERED."! Hence its uniform language to those who, though
baptized, yet give no credible evidence of spiritual regeneration.
" But unto the wicked God saith, What hast tliou to do to declare
my statutes, or that thou shouldest take my covenant in thy
mouth ? seeing thou hatest instruction, and castest my words be-
hind thee." •

Now, that \}ci& opposite to this "doctrine of baptism," or the opv^
opcratum theory of baptismal regeneration, results from its un-
limited application by the Episcopal Church, is evident from the
fact of its dispensing with the spiritual qualifications of the pa-

(1) Ps. 50 : 16, 17.
♦ Conf. of Faith, Chap. XXVIII., Sec. I. t lb., Sec. VI.

rent as required in the former case. This very circumstance, of
itself I contend, imbues the mind of the " parent" with a sort of
ideal efficacy of that rite. And, happy in finding himself relieved
of responsibilities which he feels it would be profane for him to
assume, or if assumed, that they are only in conformity with ritual
usage ; and proud of the privilege of placing his child on a com-
mon footing with the covenant " seed" of the Church ; under this
persuasion he presents them to their baptismal font.

But it is denied by the so-called Low Church or evangelical ad-
vocates of prelacy, that they administer baptism in that sense.
Do they then, I ask, administer the ordinance on a moj'e limited
scale than that of the High Churchman, the Tractarian, or the
Komanist ? So far from it, all proceed on the principle that, to do
so, would involve the grossest act of schism agkinst the standard
doctrine of their baptismal office. The measure of their failure to
reconcile their denial of the ojous operatum of the rite with their
unlimited extension of it to all, is the general prevalence of the
opus operatum dogma within their pale. On this subject Dr.
Aydelott, already quoted, speaking of the different theories which
have obtained in the Episcopal Church regarding it, says that
there are applied to it the " three constructions" following, viz. :
the first " is the doctrine of the opus operatum applied to baptism,"
which " explains it as teaching that every subject of baptism is
thereby spiritvxilly regeneratedP The second holds it " as teaching
only an ecclesiastical regeneration ; that is, a change of circumstances,
a transfer by this solemn rite from the world to the Church, etc.
The " third class maintain, that neither a spiritual nor an ecclesi-
astical regeneration is taught in the baptismal office, as taking place
at the administration of the rite," but that it ''is clearly hypotheti-
cal^ etc. ; which last is that adopted by our Low Church author,*
who tells us that " this view of the baptismal office has a large
number of supporters," etc.f

And yet this very learned divine speaks thus of this identical
^^ baptismal office'^ : — " There is certainly," says he, " no part of the
prayer-book so open to objection as this ; none that has so grieved

* I would here remark, for the information of the reader, that the above and all that
follows, in connection with the name of Dr. Aydelott, was penned before his secession fronri
the Episcopal Church. As the use I make of the quotations from his book but speak
the sentiments of those represented by him therein, they are retained unaltered.

t Condition and Prospects of the Protestant Episcopal Church, pp. 112-115.

the hearts of good men from the very first. In a ministry, little
short of thirty years," lie adds, " the writer has never conversed
upon the service with an intelligent, pious lay member of our
Church, whether male or female, who did not express regret at
some of the exjjressions employed in it ; neither has he met with
a clergyman, at all evangelical in character, who did not profess
a desire to see some change in it, etc.* Nor is this all. Speaking
of the character and tendency of his own theory of that " baptismal
office," and which he declares to be " so clearly liypotlietical^'' he
says : —

** "We cannot but confess, that we regard a form of baptism in-
volving SUCH AN HYPOTHESIS, as, to say the least, VERY PERIL-
OUS. Carefully thinking, pious men may not be placed in much
hazard by the use of it ; but the great mass of the people will,
we fear, be continually liable to put a positive construction upon the
service, and thus be in danger of either running into the Popish
doctrine of baptismal regeneration^ or of rejecting the service as
Popish, and ultimately quitting the Church altogether ;f or, after
struggling for light on the subject a while in vain, of settling down
contented with no clear, definite views whatever." And he adds :
" In this last state we have reason to apprehend that the great mass
OF OUR PEOPLE, and NOT A FEW OF OUR MINISTERS, really are at this
moment.'''''}^

Thus much then in reference to the Low Church theory of their
" baptismal office." In view of it and of the other two theories,
how obviously " vain" the struggle, amid the interminable jargon
of conflicting statements respecting it, to escape the consequences
here pointed out ! The lamentable ignorance of " not a few" of
the Episcopal clergy, thence arising, taken in connection with their
unlimited application of the rite, and the either positive or implied
release of the "parents" from a sense of religious responsibility to
the baptized ; and what wonder that " tlte great mass of the people!''
should imbibe, as a consequence, " tlie popish doctrine of hap)tismal
regeneration^^ ? Br. Aydelott can find, within the pale of the
Church, " a large number of supporters" to the " clearly hypothe-
tical" theory of the "baptismal office," while " the great mass of

♦lb., pp. 111-112.

t As, since writing his book, he has himself done.

X Cond. & Prosp., etc., pp. 115, 116.

the people" aud " not a few" of its " ministers," he affirms, have
" no clear, definite views whatever" of what that " baptismal
office" teaches. But, be that number large or small (and I not
only admit but contend that it is " not a few"), where, I deferen-
tially ask, is there room for a choice between their own alleged
" clearly hypothetical" theory of the " baptismal office," which the
learned Doctor declares to be of a " very perilous" tendency, and
the " Popish doctrine of baptismal regeneration" into which "the
great mass of the people" by it, are "continually liable" to be be-
trayed ? How, in view of this admission, can we escape the in-
ference that this " clearly hypothetical" theory " is, in fact, but a
step or two, and those very short ones," from that of Rome?
Clearly, " no one who stands at tlie first point," — viz. : this " very
perilous" " hypothetical" theory, "has a right to find fault with
those who have gone onward to the second."

But, the " carefully thinking, pious" portion of the laity of the
Church, and those of the clergy who. are " at all evangelical in
character," the Doctor tells us, "desire to see some change" in
their " baptismal office." First, then, what, according to his ac-
count, is "the number" of such? And,

First, of the clergy. The reader will here bear in mind, that
the statements made by Dr. Aydelott regarding the matters in
hand, are the results of " thirty years " close observation, as a
minister of the Episcopal Church. In the second chapter of his
book, having insisted on a " spiritual character and call " as a ne-
cessary qualification for the ministry, in answer to the question, —
" Have we been sufficiently careful to ascertain, so far as man in
the light of God's word can judge, whether those who apply to be
admitted to the ministry are really themselves regenerated men,
and called by the Holy Ghost to preach the gospel," etc., he says : — •

" He had been somewhat conversant with examinations for the
ministry in various parts of the Church ; and never, except on a
single occasion, has he known a question put to a candidate, the
object of which was to ascertain whether he had proper views of
the sacred office and a call to it, or had been himself the subject
of that spiritual, holy change which is essential to Christian cha-
racter." To this he adds, that " He cannot but fear that many un-
converted men — men who know nothing spiritually of the truth

and grace of the Lord Jesus, Lave been admitted to the ministry
of the Church."*

Next, of the laity. "It is a divine maxim," says the Doctor,
" Like priest like people." " Can we be surprised then," he adds,
" at the rapid spread of Puscyism and other Popish developments
throughout our borders ? Why Romanism in all its forms is just
the religion of the natural man.,^^ etc.f And again, — "Popish er-
rors, both doctrinal and practical, supposed to be long since dead,
never to be revived again, have become rampant, while truth
languishes in our midst, and the Spirit of God withholds his
refreshing influences. All complain of the little fruits of
their preaching ; a deadness seems to have come over iJie whole
Chwch ; while here and there a voice is heard to protest against
the fatal errors," etc.:}: The Doctor also speaks of the general ad-
mission of persons to Confirmation and the Lord's Supper, with-
out any regard to their spiritual qualifications ; by which, saj^s he,
"the thoughtless, the worldly, and the self-deceived have been
pressed forward in throngs to the altar!" And again: " Yery
many unconverted men have found their way into our churches —
some thoughtless, some self-deceived, and others still worse, but
ALL worldly, worldly !"|1 And, speaking of the " evils" thence
resulting, he says that they exist " not merely in one or two
parts," but they are" found running through nearly the whole of
our ecclesiastical fabric, from the vestry upward to the general con-
vention f so that not only may their "vestries," "diocesan con-
ventions," and " standing committees," — to all of which bodies
are committed as well the spiritual as the secular affairs of the
Church, — be composed of irreligious men ; but " a layman, without
even the form of godliness, a perfectly worldly man, even an infi-
del^ may take his seat in this our grand ecclesiastical council," —
the general convention — " and thus exercise a controlling influ-
ence in the most vital matters affecting our whole Church T^

The fair inference from the above statements we think is, that
the clergy "evangelical," and the " carefully thinking, pious" por-
tion of the Church Episcopal, who desire to see some change in the

*Cond. & Prosp., &c. pp. 18, 20. t lb., p. 20.

Jib., p. 13. y lb. pp. 48, 49.

i lb., Chap. IV., pp. 30-39.

" baptismal office," compared with " the great mass of the people"
who are popishly inclined, must be very small.

But, second. — On what ground can this "desire" be predicated?
Of course, of none other than such a change in the " baptismal
office," as will totally and for ever exclude from it the opiis opera-
turn dogma — and that for the reasons following, namely : that dogma
involves the theory of sacramental grace : and that again, the theory
of the " exclusive government and priestly power" of episcopacy
by divine right : and that again, the theory of an unbroken apos-
tolical succession, without which there can be no church, no minis-
try, no sacraments, no salvation : and that again, the theory of
auricular confession and absolution, without which adjuncts the
sacramental dogma is wholly incomplete and valueless : and that
j^gain, — * * * * But we might as well stop here, and return-
ing back to the so-called Evangelical or Low Church " clearly hy-
pothetical" theory of the " baptismal office," and on the authority
of one of its most distinguished advocates, say, briefly, it is be-
cause, that, from its " very perilous" nature and tendency in ren-
dering " the great mass of the people!'^ of that communion " conti-
nually liable''' to run " into the Popish doctrine of haptism^al re-
generation^^''Xh^rQioTQ, SQidi "change" is indispensable. In other
words, it is because that, in the Low Church theory of that
" office," are contained all the elements of that theory of sacra-
mental grace, the efficacy of which is made to depend on their 'oalid
administration " by the hands" of a mystic prelatico-episcopal
priesthood, in uninterrupted succession from Christ and his Apos-
tles, jure divino ; and of which the Hobartian, Tractarian, and
Romish theories are but the more complete developments. As
such, by the admission of those of the Episcopal clergy and laity
" at all evangelical," (and the number of such, as I have said, is
very, very small, compared with " the great mass" both of the
clergy and the people,) this " clearly hypothetical" theory, this
" very perilous" theory, equally with the others, stands diametri-
cally opposed, doctrinally and practically, to that theory which
harmonizes with the great cardinal Protestant principle of Justi-
fication BY Faith alone. The former theory erects the " bap-
tismal office" into an end, by making the spiritual renewal of the
heart to depend on grace received in and AT the instant of baptism.
Thus, both in the Anglican and American liturgies, tlie child being

•«r

baptized, we read: "seeing now, dearly beloved brethren, thsA this
child is REGENERATE," ctc, and again — " "We yield thee hearty
thanks, most merciful Father, that it hath pleased thee to regene-
rate this infant with thy holy Spirit,^'' etc.* Now this, if we un-
derstand that gentleman, is what the Eev. Dr. Butler in his book
on " Old Truths and New Errors," pronounces " absolutely blas-
phemous !" Of course it can be such on no other ground than
that of its antagonism to the latter theory, which affirms that
baptism is a means to an end : that " neither circumcision avail-
eth anything, nor uncircumcision, but a new creature!"

But, on this dogma of " baptismal regeneration," of which the
Low Church " clearly hypothetical" theory is one of three inter-
pretations, RESTS THE ENTIRE FABRIC OF ProTESTANT EpISCOPACY !

Were this the time and place to do so, I could prove, from the
earliest Christian antiquity, that the ideal of infant baptismal re-
generation preceded, in the order of time, the introduction of a
Christian sacerdotal ministry of three orders. The former was
one of the stepping-stones, among others, to the creation of the
latter. Suppose, then, that those of the Episcopal clergy, etc.,
who are " at all evangelical in character," should succeed in jRro-
testaoitizing their present Romish " baptismal office." The entire
fabric of Protestant prelacy would at once crumble into ruins. Its
only safety consists in retaining the " baptismal office," AS IT IS !
This, amid the bewilderments of mind occasioned by the three dif-
ferent interpretations given of it, will induce " the great mass of
the people" " to settle down contented, with no clear, definite views
whatever" of it ; and, happy in the reflection that " ignorance is
bliss," and promotes " devotion ;" their triple united teachers will
cast toward those of their brethren " at all evangelical in charac-
ter," and who " profess a desire to see some change in it," a smile
of complaisant defiance.

What then? Why, I would say to my " dearly beloved breth-
ren" of the really "evangelical" part of the Episcopal communion,
seeing it is evident that the " clearly hypothetical" theory of the
" baptismal office," is so " very perilous" as that it renders " the
great mass of the people" " continually liable" to run into " the
Popish doctrine of baptismal regeneration," I see not how you can
do otherwise than " abandon this error altogether, and embrace a

* See Amer. Prayer Book, Office for the " Public Baptism of Infants."

• 49

scriptural Cliristianitj, and thus become -rkal Protestants."
Such " real Protestants," the inference from Dr. Stone's argument
as drawn from the language in the "Preface" to the Ordinal,
clearly shows you are not now : In his great zeal to prove his
Church truly " Catholic" in her relation toward her anfi-prelatical
neighbors, the learned Doctor has completely rr^PROTESTANTizED
her! and all that now remains to that learned divine, so far as I
can see, is one of two alternatives ; either, first, to prove our
reasoning regarding his hj^pothesis fallacious ; or second, to yield
to the interpretation of the' "Preface" by the High Church party,
and unite with them in denying that the appellation of " Pro-
testant," forms a legitimate part of the title of " the Church." In
illustration, witness, on this subject, the acts of- the Diocesan Con-
ventions of New York, in 1839 and 1843, in corroboration of the
efforts made by more than one Episcopal chair, to erase from their
ecclesiastical escutcheon — the title-page of " the Book of Common
Prayer" — ^and from all their authorized standards, the very name
of " Protestant ;" and that, upon the ground, — as set forth in a
communication on this subject, in the columns of The ChurcJi-
Tnan of 1843,- — that " the title-page of the Book of Common
Prayer contained prirna facie evidence of schism, and boldly re-
commending a RE-uNioN wrrn Rome, on the common basis of the
authorized decrees of Trent" ! This done, and — as we have said—
the name of " Protestant Episcopacy" would soon be numbered
among the things that were ! And, in regard to the " baptismal
office," we must insist that, taken as it is, it leaves to every honest
Churchman but one of two alternatives — Rome or Geneva —
" CHURCHISM, by a perfectly natural process" — to use the lan-
guage of Dr. Aydelott, — draws the mind and heart Romeward.
Yes, " Churchism," in its most diluted and modified forms. To
account for this, there is no assignable reason other than that found
in the ever-to-be lamented fact, that, incorporated in the very " for-
mularies of the Protestant Episcopal Church," as constructed by
the reformers themselves, is the utterly incongruous leaven of the
old Romish superstitions, with the 7ic>;^-jure-divino episcopacy and
Calvinistico-evangelical doctrines, as originally set forth by them
in those same standards. Thus, the Book of Common Prayer of
Edward VI. is declared by the commissioners appointed to con-
struct it (and of whom Cranraer was the head) to contain " every

thing sound and valuable in the Eomish missal and breviary,"
such parte having been " transferred by them, without scruple, to
the English Communion Service, and to the Common Prayer."
The same of the commissioners appointed by Charles II., a.d.,

1661, to revise the liturgy. They say, " we humbly desire that it
may be considered that our first reformers^ out of their great
wisdom, did at that time compose the liturgy so as to win the
Papists^ and to draw them into their church coinniunion^ by

VARYING AS LIITLE AS THEY OOULD FROM THE E.OMISH FOEMS BEFORE

m USE."

With these facts, then, before us,, the protest of the XXXIX
Articles of the Church of England against Popish errors, and her
engraftment therein of the doctrines of the continental reformers,
to the contrary notwithstanding, — and which, so far as they go,
we concede to be both Protestant and evangelical, — it is clear,
that, constituted as she now is, the Protestant Episcopal Church
never can be reformed. The effects of incorporating into her
reformed "formularies," the life-Uood^ so to speak, of the old
"Eomish forms before in use," are first discoverable in exchan-
ging the regimen of episcopacy as founded in expediency alone,
for that of an episcopacy by divine right, and that for the simple
reason, that the theory of. sacramental grace., as derived from "the
Eomish forms before in use," demands for its basis, a ministry, —
a priesthood— founded in ^'^ jprescriptive rightP To the same cause
may be traced all those earthquake commotions which, since a.d.

1662, under Laud, during the time of Elizabeth, and for the fif-
teen years last past, have shaken that Church to its center, and,
from the present aspect of things in that body, as we have shown,
the same Romanizing tendencies^ with but one exception, signalize
all the various forms of development — the Tractarian, the Ho-
bartian, and the so-called Evangelical Low Church forms — of the
prelatical scheme. Otherwise, how is it, we deferentially ask,
that, of the only portion (and that a " very small" portion) of those
within that pale who adhere to the original platform of the first
Enghsh reformers regarding Episcopacy and. the evangelical doc-
trines of the Church, it is said that they are " outside of the body
to which they are nominally attached?" Again, we ask, by what
party is this "very small number" thus virtually excommunicated?
The reply is, chiefly by the so-called Evangelical Low Church sect.

What follows ? We answer, The uprooting of the heart, the core,
of all that is worth the name of Evangelical Protestantism within
that body. Yielding, then, to the influence of your "evangelical"
promptings, do as I and others have done, and are continually
doing: — -"reject the (baptismal) service as Popish, and quit the
Church altogether."* " Come out of Jier^ my jpeojple^ that ye he not
partakers of her sins, and that ye receive not of her plagues /" '
And so, Presbyterians, and all others concerned, I would ear-
nestly caution you, on the other hand, to " beware" of the insidi-
ous blandishments of those so-called Evangelical or Low Church
advocates of prelacy, who, assuming the Protestant name, conr
ceal the proscriptive, exclusive, unchurching, Romish attributes
of the prelatical theory, beneath the pretexts of great liberality,
Catholicity, and Christian fellowship towards those of "other
denominations," until, having seduced you within the inclosure of
the Episcopal pale, as the curtain of disguise is gradually drawn
aside, you find yourself inducted by piece-meal into all the mys-
teries of the mystic faith, as really believed and taught therein.
In the above pretexts, I forewarn you, lie the secret of the power
of that proselyting lever so successfully plied by Low Churchmen
in upholding and promoting the cause of prelacy. Then, " be-
ware" of them. Ask these prelatists — if your " baptismal office"
does not inculcate the Romish dogma of " baptismal regeneration,"
how comes it to pass that,^ by your own acknowledgment, even
your own "clearly hypothetical" theory of that "office" is so
"very perilous," as that " the great mass" of those brought under
its influence are " continually liable" to be betrayed into that
heretical, anti-Christian, soul-destroying heresy? Ask them, if,
as you say, you are but " partially separated" by "a slight
diversit}^," doctrinally and practically, from those of "other de-
nominations," and that you "do not hold, and shall not teach,"
that those not " episcopal ly consecrated are no part of the Catho-
lic Church, their ordinances being invalid," etc., and that, " whilst
giving hospitality to a truly pious clergyman of a denomination
different from your own," you have " been entertaining an angel
unawares ;" how is it that, in view of such statements as these,
you are not as ready to extend clerical civilities to them by an oo-

(I) Rnv. IS : 4.

* Dr. Aydelolt's Condition and Prospects, etc.. p. 116.

'\S

casional exchange oi pulpits not only, but, as in the case of the
English Church from which you sprang, allow them to settle in
your churches, as to meet them " in their studies ?" Aye, further,
why is it, when one such "angel" seeks to minister at your
altars — one whose office you declare you " do not hold, and shall
not teach" is invalid — that, before admitting him thereto, you
insist on his re-okdination ? Ask them, liow do you harmonize
the declaration, that " the name ' Catholicity' is never more per-
verted than when it is made to designate exdusive7iess,^^ with the
affirmation that " the Church" Episcopal " is the parent, the basis,
the bulwark of all the religion" without, as well as within, her
pale ? And, Christian brethren, when they can answer these and
the like interrogatories in strict accordance with scriptural consist-
ency and truth, and with historical fact, then, and not till then,
can they honestly adopt the language of Paul following : — " For
our rejoicing is this, the testimony of our conscience, that in sim-
plicity and godly sincerity, not with fleshly wisdom, but by the
grace of God, we have had our conversation in the world, and
more abundantly toward you." ' Yea, then, and not till then,
can they honestly say, — " For we are not as many, which corrupt
the word of God, but as of sincerity, but as of God, in the sight
of God, speak we in Christ." '

In conclusion on this subject, I have only to add, that the pre-
tenses of the so-called Evangelical or Low Church advocates of
prelacy to the contrary notwithstanding, their theory of " Church-
ism" is iivi^^j proscriptive and exclusive — equally founded on the
basis of DIVINE bight, with those of the Hobartian, Tractarian, and
Romish schemes.

To the above, we now add, that all classes of prelatists equally
maintain that their system, in its complete and distinct form, can-
not be found positively set forth in, or that it is even strictly
deducible from, the New Testament scriptures alone, and there-
fore, that it depends for its support upon testimony superadded
to Scripture.

Hence, the traditionary scheme, Part I. of this treatise, is
designed to demonstrate that this traditionarj^ scheme, being em-
ployed to uphold the system of prelacy on the ground of divine
right, must necessarily be co-ordinate, or of equal authority, with

(1)9 Cor. I :13. (2) 2 Cor. 2 : 17.

53 ■*"

Scripture, and hence, that tills Is as true of the Low Church, as of
the Tractarlan and Romish theories of tradition.

In opposition to this hypothesis, Part 11. claims to furnish the
evidence, that the scriptures of the New Testament clearly reveal
a complete scheme of that Church order, etc., which the Holy
Ghost designed' for the ordinary and permanent upbuilding and
edification of the Church, to the close of the present dispensation,
and that the primitive ecclesiastical regimen of the Church con-
sisted of the Dual Orders of Presbyter Bishops — in whom were
merged the double functions of teaching and Tilling elders, and of
Deacons.

Part III. is devoted to an exhibit of the system of prelacy as al-
leged to be founded in divine right: — that is, that it was instituted
by Christ and his apostles, and by them was designed to be con-
tinued in an unbroken succession of bishops, who were to be in-
vested with the prerogatives of "exclusive government" in the
Church, and of "priestly power" in dispensing "sacramental
grace," to the end of time.

I claim to have entered into a thorough examination of every
position assumed, and of every fact and argument employed .in
their defense, whether drawn from " holy Scripture," or " ancient
authors," or whether advanced by the Romanist, the Tractarian,
the Hobartian, or the Low Churchman.

It is scarcely necessary again to repeat, that the main design of
my treatise is to furnish the evidence, from their' own acknowl-
edged standards and writers^ that the theory of prelacy as advo-
cated by the so-called Evangelical or Low Church sect, contains all
ih.Q elements^ and hence all the tendencies^ Homeward, as those of
the Hobartian and Tractarian schemes, and that, with the single
view of guarding the " unlearned" and unwary from the power of
its more seductive blandishments.

The work is committed to the blessing of Him who alone '■'■is
able to heep tcs from falling, and to present us faultless lefore
the throne of his glory with exceeding joy. '''' * Amen.

R. C. SHIMEALL.

0) Judo, V. 24.

PART I.

PRELIMINARY ESSAY ON THE RULE OF FAITH.*

THE SCEIPTURES ALOISTE,

versus

THE SCEIPTURES AISTD TEADITIOI^^.

"To the Law and to the Testimony." (Isa. 7 : 20.)

'* The Church hath power to decree rites and cerernonies, and authority in controversies
of Faith." (.Boole of Common Prayer. Articles of Religion. See XX.)
" Holy Scripture and Ancient Authors."' (Preface to Ordinal.)

In the following Treatise we " speak concerning Christ and the
Church.'" Christ, whom the Father " gave to be the Head
over all things to the Church, which is His body."^ The Church,
its Constitution and Ministry : the latter in the aspect of its Origin,
Nature, Orders and Powers ; or, the " Gifts" conferred upon her
(" when He ascended up on high")' as " holding the Head."*

Now, that the Church, in her constitution, etc., from an early
period subsequent to the New Testament age, differs essentially
from the Church Apostolical and Primitive, the various claimants
to an exclusive inheritance of the o?-iginal 7nodeI, abundantly

It matters not now, in what these differences consist. What at
present concerns us is, to fix upon an authoritative standard
OF APPEAL, regarding the points at issue. Is it " the Bible, and
the Bible alone "? or, is it " Scripture and Tradition" ? One or
the other it must be. Both, it cannot be. The fact, however, that
the latter theory stands identified, controversially, with all our in-
quiries after truth, a decision of the question in favor of the one

(1) Eph. 5 : 32. (2) Ih. 1 : 22, S3. (3) lb. 4 : 8, 11. (4) Col. 2 : !C.

* Of the more elaborate helps in this important department, designed for popular
use — as what I here offer is intended simply as an outline of the argument in defense of
the Scriptures as the supreme and only authoritative Rule of Faith against the claims
of Tradition as co-ordinate therewith — I know of no work extant so admirably
adapted to the wants of the inquirer as that of the Rev. Georre Peck, D.D., entitled,
"Appeal from Tradition to Scripture and Common Sense; or, an Answer to the Ques-
tion. What constitutes the Divine Rule of Faith and Practice ? New York : Published
by G. Lane and P. P. Sandford, for the Methodist Episcopal Church, at the Conference
Office, 200 Mulberry street 1844."

or tlie other, is indispensable to a determination of tlie merits of
the claims to our belief and trust of the systems respectively whieh
they are designed to uphold. There is, we affirm, no other mode
of escaj)e from the bewildering " labyrinth of opinions" now so
rife in the nominally Christian Church. Either " the Bible, and
the Bible alone," as the bulwark of Protestantism, is of itself suf-
ficient and supreme, or it is not. If it is, then, undeniably, the
sufficiency and supremacy of Scripture, as " the Rule of Faith,"
being predicated of its infallibility as attested by miracle, neces-
sarily nullifies^ as authoritative, all other teachings, — tradition,
oral, or written ; creeds, confessions,, the decisions of Popes or
councils, or the " voice of 'the Church.'" As the only authori-
tative standard of appeal, all alike are referable to, and must de-
pendon, ^'fe decisions. Even the injunction, "Hear the Church,"'
inasmuch as the Scripture shows us whicJt is the true Church by
Christ speaking to us therein ;^ can impose no other obligation
than that of a respectfid deference to her teachings as the inter-
preter of Scripture through her ministry ; and that, not legis-
latively or judicially, not making laws, &c., but simply in the sense
of explaiiung those which God has already promulgated. Hence,
while the Church speaks to us ministerially^ the Bible does so
authoritatively. The Church does not " exercise dominion over
our faith, but is a helper of our joy."^

And, if founded in truth, this theory involves the right, not
only, but the iiecessity of _^^/'^'yai!6 interpretation. It contemplates
revelation in the aggregate as addressed to the understanding of
men ; and hence, that its truths are to be reached by that convic-
tion which results from a proper use of the means ordained of
God to that end, — a prayerful* searching' of holy Scripture,
in dependence upon the guidance of that wisdom from on high,"
which is founded in the declared inadequacy of mere abstract
reason.''

While, therefore, speaking of ' the Church' collectively, a self-
sufficient, self-willed, litigious spirit is at war with that respect
which is due to her decisions in matters both of doctrine and of
discipline," and is to be condemned;' yet, arguing a p7'iori,
that as ' the Church has erred, so she may err again ;* such a
spirit is not to be confounded with the right of her individual
members in the exercise of an enlightened judgment and con-
science, to " be fully persuaded in their own minds"'" regarding
all things pertaining to "the faith once delivered to the saints.""

(1) A'fitt. IS : 17. (2) Fph 2 : 19-21. (3) 0 Cor 1 : 24. (4) Jamea 1 : 5. (5) John 5 : 39 ; Acts

17 : 11 ; i Pet. 1 : 10. (6) .James 1 : 6. (7) 1 Cor. 2 : 14. (8) Matt. 28 : 17 ; 1 Cor. 6 : 1. (9) Matt.

18 : 17 ; Titus 3 : 10. (10) Horn. 14 : .'J. (Il).)ijile3.

* " General Councils may err.'" (XXXIX Articles. Art. XXI.)

"As the Church of Jerusalem, Alexandria and Antioch, have erred, so also the

Church of Ronne has erred, not only in their living and manner of ceremonies, but also

in matters of faith." (lb. Art. XIX )

Yea, more : There is a needs be that each one for himself " try
the spirits" of his religious teachers, "whether they be of God-
'* TRY theTTh which say they are apostles and are not^ hut are,
found lia7's"

This theory — the palladium of Protestantism — thus defined,
traditionists impugn ; not, however, on the same ground or to the
same extent ; nor do they professedly apply their conflicting
schemes to the same uses, some holding the dogmas of tradition as
subordiyiate to Scripture, while others maintain its absolute
equality with Scripture.

If, however, it should be made to appear — as we shall presently
show — that, from the very nature and character of tradition as an
alleged standard of appeal in matters of religious controversy, it
leaves us no other alternative but to receive and apply it as co-
ordinate with Scripture, the inconsistency and futility of the
scheme which alleges it to be subordinate to Scripture, is at once
apparent.

We argue, then, as follows : Tradition, as a test of orthodoxy,
unless co-ordinate with Scripture, involves the theory of a divided
authority. In other words, it is to appeal to a standard partly
infallible, partly fallible. But this is the charge preferred by
traditionists en masse against their so-called ultra-Protestant oppo-
nents, and upon the evident inconsistency of which standard is
built up the theory of an infallible tradition, alias the voice of a
divinely -insjoired^ VOST-apostolic Church.

The above charge, however, is unfounded. Ultra-Protestants,
so-called, make no appeal to a double-tongued standard. With
them the question at issue is purely one of authority. And,
however they may defer to the opinions of others, ancient or
modern ; or to the historico-eccltsiastical records of j906^apos-
tolic times ; or to the rudimental instructions of the novitiate
catechetically or otherwise "&?/ the Church,^' agreeably to the
admitted maxim, " oportet discentem credere ;" yet the question
with them regards, not the utility or even the necessity of such
teaching, but on what grounds and to what extent it is to be carried.
And they deny the co-ordinate authority of one or all of these
sources of instruction, with that of holy Scripture. Yea, more :
These sources of instruction being ^05^apostolic, as the idea of
authority on the part of the teacher necessarily involves that of
implicit faith in, and unconditional obedience to, the things taught ;
they deny the appointment, either by Christ or his Apostles, of
any such authority. In a word, they deny the legitimacy of the
inference that, because the /Scriptures are infallible, therefore the
Interpreter of Scripture must be infallible also.

But this is the theory essential to the supiport of the ecclesiastical sys-
tem maintained by traditionists. Anti-prelatists admit and con-
tend that the scriptures of the New Testament (as we shall show
in the sequel) clearly reveal a complete scheme of church order,

etc. Prelatists, however, are engaged in the maintenance of a
system which, in its coinplete and distinct form, they themselves
admit cannot be found positively set forth in, or that is even
strictly deduciblc from, the New Testament Scriptures afone, and
hence, that it depends for its support upon testimony superadded
to, Scripture.

One of two alternatives follows. Either, first, the system of
Church order, etc., which they advocate, is a mere human device,
and rests for its support on mere human testimony ; or, second, if,
as they allege, it is founded jure divino — by Divine appoint-
ment— and hence, that it constitutes an integral and essential part
of Christianity, securing to them the exclusive right of a divine
commission to perpetuate the succession, administer sacraments,
condemn heretics, etc. ; then, the superadded testimony called in to
its support, must stand on a footing of equal authority with Scrip-
ture itself

But, as we have said, it is upon the evident inconsistency of an
. appeal to a divided authority, partly infallible, partly fallible, in
determining any controverted point, that traditionists set up the
plea of necessity for an infallihle traditionary standard. In no
other way can they ward off a turning of the tables against them
by their so-called ultra-Protestant opponents. Hence, differ as
they may in other respects, they all concur in a declaration of the
insufioienGy of an appeal to written evidence alone, in support of
their system. That written evidence, they affirm, must be clothed
with authority^ or it is nugatory.

Hence, the main point in this discussion. What is the origin,
nature, and extent of that authority ? We reply, the only view
consistent with the alleged traditionary hypothesis, is that which
makes it co-ordinate, or of equal authority with, and, conse-
quently, independent of^ holy Scripture. To maintain the au-
thority of tradition simply upon the ground that its claims are
supported by Scripture, and therefore, that it is subordinate to
Scripture, involves the alternative of a " vicious circle," such as
none but a true Romanist can employ. For example, a denial
that the above claims are supported by Scripture drives its advo-
cates to an appeal to the orthodox interpretation, as " established
by the authority of tradition^ and the sentence of the Church.''^
Thus, the perpetual circle — the claims of traditional authority
supported by Scripture, the sense of which can only be deter-
mined by the alleged authoritaiive interpretations of tradition!
This, however, is to make tradition its own witness. Christ
has declared, " If a man bear witness of himself his witness is
not true." '

It follows, therefore, that on any other hypothesis than that of
the absolute independence of tradition, " the Bible, and the Bible
alone," holds the supremacj^ as the standard of appeal. At least,

(1) John 5 : 31.

the only escape from this alternative, is the supposition that the
New Testament Scriptures, though they may have been the pro-
ductions of wise and good men, were, nevertheless, not given by
inspiration,* and hence, are not infallible. Traditionists, however,
are strenuous in their advocacy of both the inspiration and infalli-
bility of Scripture. Tradition, therefore, if possessed of an au-
thority independent of Scripture, the authority of both must be
equally divine.

What, then, is the hasis of this traditionary scheme ? Its advo-
cates, having assumed that the Scriptures, and especially the New
Testament writings, cannot be primarily understood by the mere
perusal of them alo7ie^ argue hence the necessity of an interpret-
er— " THE Chuech" — whose teaching, to prove effectual^ must be
authoritative. In other words, tradition, oral and written^ alias
"the voice of the Church," is the authoritative interpreter of the
inspired records. Hence, the rule of faith to the traditionists—
" hol}^ Scripture and ancient authors."

Let us now test this assumption, and the inference deduced from
it, by the principles of sound reason. Inasmuch as the revelation
of those truths which hegan by inspiration, can only be completed
by inspiration, so "no power can decide with authority in anj
case, what is the sense of revelation, but the same which origi-
nally disclosed it." But, "mere human authoritj^, however good,
is obviously insufficient for this purpose. Unauthoritative tradi-
tion (however applicable in other ways) can never create points of
faith, or lay down the terms of salvation: to do so, it must be-
come authoritative." Therefore, " if the New Testament be admit-
ted to contain the divine revelation of Christianity, and if the
additional interpretation of tradition and judgment of the Church
be equcdly necessary to the full exjyosition and maintenance of the
Gospel^ THEK these traditional and authoritative additions must
also be regarded as conveying portions of divine revelation as
well as the written record : they must., in fact., he a part of the
Gospel : they must he as much the word of God as the New Testa-
ment is?''

Again : along with Scripture, on the above hypothesis, the tra-
ditionary theory involves the question of evidence. All agree that
the evidence on which rests the divine authority of holy Scripture
is that of miracles. But tradition, as an alleged independent sys-
tem, implies the addition of an authorized comment thereto. We
thence argue, if revealed truth require miraculous evidence in its
support, then similar evidence must attest every veliicle of revela-
tion. On the ground, then, that the authority of Scripture and
tradition are alike divine, it follows that miraculous evidence is
equally indispensable in regard to hotli., and the claims of tradition,
sustained by such evidence — and, the writings of Ignatius, Poly-
carp, Clement, Hermes, etc., are as inspired, infallible, and authori-
tative, as those of Peter and Paul 1

We ask, then : Is it so ? The claim, be it observed, if pre-
ferred, at once identifies the preseiit with those past ar/es, which
were acknowledgedly miraculous. At least, this alternative follows,
unless the limit be definitely determined, where and when authori-
■ tative tradition ceased. This, however, cannot be done. The
only choice left us is to treat it agrecabl}'' to the current view,
which assigns to it three epochs, — primitive, mediaeval, and modern.

Then, also, as a condition, indispensable to the maintenance of
the rjenuineness of the above evidence in behalf of tradition as a
whole, if preferred, so far from diminishing, the proof of miracu-
lous agency in the Church must rather increase, just in proportion
to its remoteness, in point of time, to the apostolic age. This con-
dition is founded in the very nature of miraculous evidence, the
design of which is to supply a tangible and therefore definite test
of that which is divine revelation, and that which is not ; to dis-
tinguish absolutely between what is Christian truth, and what is
heresy. And, surely, this is as essential to one period of the
Church as to another ; to the Church at the present day, as to the
Church eighteen hundred years ago.

Now, that the theory of tradition necessarily involves the unin-
terrupted perpetuity of miracles in the Cliurch, is evident from the
principles on which it is built. It contemplates the Church as one
and indivisible ; having a ministry, jure divino, to whom Christ
has delegated His of&cial functions, with power to transmit the
same in unbroken continuity to their successors to the end of time,
and hence, as the divinely authorized interpreters of the Scriptures,
to originate a traditional commentary or synopsis of Christian doc-
trine, discipline, ceremonial observances, sacerdotal authority, etc.,
as parts of the revelation of Christianity, and as essential to the
right recognition of the real spirit and genius of the apostolic
institution, as the text of the New Testament itself As, then,
according to this view, ' the Church and the Fathers' were simply
as much the depositories of one portion of Christian doctrine as
Apostles and Evangelists were of another ; it is a necessary con-
sequence that the evidence demonstrative of the genuineness of
both must be precisely the same for each.

And this brings us to a question o^ fact. Tradition, its advo-
cates inform us, has never been interrupted. They profess to trace
it upward, from the present time, through the Oxford school ; the
divines of the last century ; the nonjuring party ; Laud and his
coadjutors; some of the reformers; and so on through the purer(?)
channel of the schoolmen of the mediaeval ages, up to the Apos-
tolical Fathers, by whose writings the whole system of traditional
teaching is alleged to be directly connected with the Apostles
themselves, who, they affirm, left in writing but a small portion of
the instructions orally delivered to their converts and successors.
The question then presents itself: Is it a fact that these miracu-
lous powers, as evidence of the divine authority of tradition, have

heen continued and are now present in tlie Cliurcli ? Has the " gene-
ral consent" of the Church, to which traditionists refer ns as the
sole and sufficient test of true doctrine, — most comprehensively
expressed in the famous maxim of Vincentius Lirinensis, " Quod
uhique, quod semper, qiood ah omnibus creditum est,'''' been confirmed
all along since the tmies of the Apostles by this evidence ? On
the above hypothesis of an authoritative and independent tradi-
tion, consistency, we insist, requires the admisssion, and the unin-
terrupted continuance of, such evidence. On any other supposi-
tion, the whole theory falls to the ground.

Now, it is conceded that the tradition conveyed in the writings
of the early fathers bears distinct, and unequivocal testimony to
the prevalence of miraculous powers in the Church, not only in
the earliest age, but even to a much later period. There are ample
grounds, however, for a mooting of the question, how far said
testimony is not surreptitious, — the work of those who, to erect
tradition into an authoritative standard of appeal, have not scrupled
to corrupt, mutilate and interpolate these early ecclesiastical
records. On this subject we shall only trouble the reader with
one out of many similar proofs which might be added, confirma-
tory of this fact. We quote, in evidence, from the learned Du
Pin, of standard Romish authoritj^. Speaking of the indiscreet
piety of some persons w^ho thought they did the Church consider-
able service in forging ecclesiastical and profane monuments in
favor of religion and the truth, he says : "This reason prevailed
with some ancient Catholics to compose some books, that they
might refute the heretics of their own times with the greater
ease." And he adds, "the same motives carried the Catholics so
far as to invent false histories, FALSE- miracles, and false lives of the
saints, to nourish and keep up the piety of the faithful" !*

But, admitting the genuineness of these early records of miracu-
lous powers in the Church, as evidence that the writings of the
j0o.9^apostolic fathers are to be received by us as authoritative and
independent of holy Scripture, then, on the supposition of a con-
tinued authoritative and independent tradition, that of the media?-
val and modern eras, stands on the same footing with the other.
" In this respect, then, the latest and darkest ages of superstition
and corruption are inseparably united in one chain of evidence
with the earliest and purest times, and these again are necessarily
connected with the present."

In conclusion, therefore, we ask : How comes it to pass " that
there are now no miracles to authenticate the alleged divine
decrees of the Church ?"

Till then, the advocates of the traditionary scheme, first, recon-
cile this last named fact with their high and arrogant claims in its
behalf; second, exonerate themselves from the imputation cast

* Du Pin's Ecclesiastical History, etc. Preface, p. 8. London. 1693.

upon them as above by Du Pin ; and third, prove that the spurious
miraculous impositions of the superstitious monkery of the media3-
val age are entitled to stand side by side with the miracles of the
inspired apostles, we shall think ourselves justified — the tradition-
ary anathemas to the contrary notwithstanding — to adhere to the
pure Protestant standard, "the Bible, and the Bible alone!" At
least, we shall escape the dilemma inevitably attendant on the
above traditionary hypothesis — that, we mean, of obliterating the
boundary line of distinctive evidence between what is, and what is
not, truly inspired, miraculous and divine.

At this point, with some, Xhe fallacy of the traditionary scheme
is sufficiently apparent. Writing, however, as we do, for the spe-
cial benefit of those who are either not at all, or but partially ac-
quainted Avith the sophistry employed to defend it on the one
hand, and the abundant proofs at command in support of the oppo-
site theory on the other, the preceding is to be viewed simply as in-
troductory to the main subject — Tradition.

To proceed. Of tradition, we are told, there are two kinds;
apostolical, and ecclesiastical or Catholic.

We will examine them seriatirrh.

I. — Apostolical Tradition.

By this we are to understand, that the apostles, delivered to the
bishops of their times, an oral creed^ supjyleinentary to the New
Testament writings, to be used " as a test of all doctrines claim-
ing to be Christian," which oral creed, it is alleged, was finally
committed to writing by the early fathers, "comprising matter
independent of, and distinct from, the truths which are directly
scriptural," and hence, that this oral creed " ought to be religiously
guarded by us, even for the same reason that we reverence and re-
tain that which is properly scriptural, both being portions of the
same divine treasure" — "a treasure of doctrine which we know to
have been embodied in the confession or creed" — " the treasure of
apostolical doctrines and Church rules — the rules and doctrines
which made up the charter of Christ's kingdom."*

In the support of this alleged apostolico-oral tradition, the fol-
lowing passages are adduced and held as the comnnon property
of the several classes of the advocates of prelacy. " Keep the
ordinances (or traditions f), as I delivered them to you." ' "There-
fore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have
been taught, whether by word or our epistle."" "O Timothy,
keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and
vain babblings," etc.' " Hold fast the form of sound loords which
thou hast heard of me :" — " That good thing which was committed

(1) 1 Cor. 11 :2. (2) 2 Thess. 2 : 15. (3) 1 Tim. 6 : 20.
* Keble's Sermon on Primitive Tradition. Fourth edition, pp. 16, 20, 21.
f Yiiipai6aeis.

unto thee, keep bj the Holy Ghost which dwelleth in us."' Of
these passages, the first point to be determined is, whether the
word TRADITION is to be understood of Paul's individual teachings
and injunctions as an inspired apostle, designed to be received in
connection with, and as a part. of, the sacred canon: or whether, in
the more modern sense of that term, we are to understand by it,
" oral comnninication, eventually deposited in writings, and handed
down through successive ages," as " independent of" and distinct
from, the written word," and hence, to be taken as an apostolic
creed, " divinely appointed in the Church as the touchstone of
canonical Scripture itself"* Now, in opposition to this latter
sense, we remark,

1. There is no evidence in Scrijyture of the existence of any
such apostolic creed. So far from it, while it is admitted that,
from the truths, precepts, ordinances and usages of Christ and his
apostles, taken ,as a whole, may be gathered a symmetrical and
harmonious system, analogous to that of the diversified machinery
of the physical universe, yet Christianity is presented to our view
in holy Scripture rather as a tissue oi facts ^ than a system of doc-
trioies j the doctrines are merged in, and are to be deduced from
the facts ; divorce them, and both are robbed of their attractive
and life-giving power. Evidence of this may be furnished by a
recurrence to the life and actions, and to the parables, conversa-
tions, discourses, etc., of our Lord ; and to Peter's sermon on the
day of Pentecost ;' to his discourse in the house of Cornelius,' and
to Paul's account of his own preaching to the Corinthians, in his
first Epistle to that Church." By what argument, then, we ask,
can we assign to the oral teachings apostolic, the form of a creed,
over those of their written communications ? To argue, a priori^
from the admitted value and importance of the doctrines of Chris-
tianity, that they must have been so j^i'oniulged, is assuming
what must be proved ; nor will a fair construction of the passages
relied upon to this end,f warrant the use to which , they are
applied. The most plausible argument adduced by the tradition-
ists from the above passages is by insisting that the words, "avoid-
ing profane and vain babblings," etc./ involves, necessarily, thei
existence of an oral formulary or creed. That the context, however,
warrants no such inference, we think is evident from the 17th
verse of 1 Tim. 6 : " Charge them that are rich in this world, that
they be not high-minded, nor trust in uncertain riches," etc. ; in
which, as Paul is speaking, not of doctrines, not of creeds, but of
persons; so it is fair to conclude, that the "trust" committed to
Timothy, mentioned in verse 20, was not an oral creed, but the
Church of God at Ephesus, of whom Timothy had been left in
charge by that apostle, and whom he was to labor to protect
against the " vain babblings and oppositions of science falsely so-

0) 1 Tim. 1 :13, H. (2) Acts 2 : 14-36. (3) Acta 10 : 34^3. (4) 1 Tor 1.5 : I-H. (5) 1 Tim. 6 : 20.
* Keble's Sermon, page 27. t See quotations above.

called," to wliich its members were exposed. The same, doubtless,
holds true of "the good thing" spoken of as committed to him :
2 Tim. 1 : 14, — the Jtock of Qod, of which, at that time, he had the
oversight, and for whose benetit he was to "hold fast the form (or
pattern, ' v-noTvnuioiv ^^) of sound words" — the pure doctrine — " the
model or conception of that sound teaching which the apostle had
instilled into him."* Indeed, both these cases are precisely analo-
gous to tlic charge subsequently given by the same apostle to the
Ephesian " elders" at " Miletus."' But, what we deem decisive
of this point is, that even assuming that the above charges, as
given by Paul to Timothy, did contain doctrines, the ground on
which traditionists "build their hypothesis is the very thing which
would lead us to reject it." If the " deposit" had been committed
to Timothy after the canon of Scripture had been completed, then
there might have been some evidence of its being something " in-
dependent of" the written word ; but, as at the time " the truths
and rules were almost or wholly unwritten," it is much more than
probable, that these inspired teachers embraced every thing of im-
portance in their letters to individuals and the churches."f We
remark,

2. That in the writings of the earliest fathers^ there is no recognition
of the existence of any such apostolico-traditionary creed as is here
claimed. On all points of doctrine, their standard of appeal was
" Holy Scripture ;" else, wherefore the niimerous formularies pre-
pared by their own hands ? "In the second and third ages of the
Church," it is affirmed, "there were as many creeds as authors;
and the same author sets down the creed after a different manner,
in several places of his works.":}: This, certainh^, on the hjqjothe-
sis of the existence of a traditionary creed apostolic, was plainly a
work of "idle supererogation" — "of self-sufficient presumption."^
Nor should we overlook the fact in regard to the so-called "iipos-
tles' Creed," that, when urged upon the Council of Florence, com-
posed of 141 Greek bishops, they indignantly exclaimed, "We
neither have, nor do we know any creed of the apostles."! "Many
of the ancient fathers, namely, Justin Martyr, Irenseus, Clem.
Alexandrinus, Origen,. Tertulliau, and Eusebius, are silent "as to
the existence of any such a creed." Other creeds were early used
in the oriental churches, and others again made at the CEcumenical
Councils of Nice and Constantinople, without any mention of the
apostles' creed. Many other arguments are found in Usher, Vos-
sius, etc., which weaken the hypothesis by which the apostolical
origin of this creed is supported."^

Oar next topic of remark relates to,

(1) Acts 20 1 17-'28.
♦ Alexander's Anglo-Cathollcisni, &c., p. 54.

t Rev. J. Spence, M.A., on the Tractarian Heresy. London : 1847, p. 10.
X Buck's Theological Dictioiuiry, Art. Creed.
§ Alexander's Ans;. Cath., p. 65. || Sponce, p. 14.

1[ Spanheim"s Ecclesiastical History, p. 147.

•^5

II. — Catholic or Ecclesiastical Tradition.

By Catholic trrvdition, we arc to understand the writmgs of the
earlier Fathers, alias the voice of the ancient Church. These, to-
gether with all the extant legends of the Church of Eome, both
written and unwritten, — the former of which, though consisting,
besides the apocr3'phal writings, of not less than one hundred and
thirty-five large folio i;oZ;mes,* and which bear a very small pro-
portion to those of the latter — it is alleged, cons'itute the only au-
thoritative interpreter of revealed truth, whether ol doctrine, or of
discipline, from whose decision there is no appeal.

True, the sui-papal traditionists distinguish between Catholic or
ecclesiastical tradition, which they limit to the patristic lore of the
first three or four centuries, and the written and unwritten legend-
ary appendages thereto of the Church of liome : not, however, on
the ground of " an a priori question on the value of tradition in
itself, or at an earlier period of the Church ; or of such traditions,
as, though not contained in Scripture, are primitive, universal, and
apostolical;" but as a question " purely historical." The Romish
traditions, it is alleged, "are not such, but, on the contrary, are re-
pugnant to Scripture," and hence are not to be received,"f

The Church of Rome, however, claims that all her 2^^'esent tra-
ditions are to be received as of equal validity with the written
word, because she holds them. But the st<Z)-papal traditionists
urge the same claim in behalf of their admitted traditions. Hear
the poet-laureate Keble, of the University of Oxford, on this sub-
ject:—

" With relation to the supreme authority of inspired Scripture," says he, " it
stands thus : — Catholic tradition teaches revealed truth, Scripture proves it ;
Scripture is the document of faith, tradition the witness of it ; the true creed
is the Catholic interpretation of Scripture, or scripturally-proved tradition;
Scripture by itself teaches mediately, and proves decisively ; Scripture and tradi-
tion token together^ are the joint rule of faith. "%

So, another writer : — " We do not make Scripture the rule of
our faith, but that other things in their kind are rules likewise ; in
such sort that it is not safe, without respect had unto them, to judge
things by the Scripture alone."§

And another. — " The intelligible argument of ultra-Protestant-
ism may be taken, and w^ may say, * the Bible, and nothing but
the Bible ;' hut this is an unthankful rejection of another great gift^^
(viz.. Catholic tradition) '■^ equally from Qod^ such as no true Angli-
can can tolerate."!

#These volumes consist, first, of the Apostolical Fathers, thirty-five vole, folio; siec-
ond, of the Romish Decretals, eight vols, folio; third, of the Bulls of the Popes, ttn
vols, folio; fourth, of the Canons and Decretals of Councils, thirty-one vols, folio; and
fifth, of the Acta Sanctorum, or the Acts of the S&ints, fifty-one vols, folio.

t Tract 77, p. 13.

j Catena Patrum. Appendix of Sermon on Primitive Tradition, 3d Ed. p. 2, 1837.

\ Tract 90, p. 11.' || Tract 71, p. 8.

Nor do these writers, any more than the Romanists, confine
themselves to ■written traditions. Kcble, on this subject, holds the
following language. Having spoken of " certain remains or frag-
ments of the treasure of apostolical doctrines and church rules;"
in other words, an oral law, " independent of, and distinct from,
the truths which are directly scriptural ;" he remarks :
• " It is as an unwritten sj^stem which the holy writers spoke of,
when they so earnestly recommended ' the deposit,' ' the command-
ment,' the ' word heard from the beginning,' to the reverential
care Ijoth of pastors and of all Christian people." And again : " If
we will be impartial," says he, " we cannot hide it from ourselves,
that His unwritten word, if it can be any how authenticated, miist
neoessarily demand the same reverence from us ; and for exactly the
same reason : because it is ins word."*

These views, however, it will be said, belong to the Trac-
tarian school, and are not therefore to be taken as the criterion
of the current sentiment on this subject. Let us then pass
to the standard of appeal, " the Book of Common Prayer^''^-\ as ex-
ponent of the nature and use — the value — of Catholic tradition.
In the preface of the ordination service, our knowledge of what
constitutes the orders of the Christian ministry, is made equally
dependent on our " diligently reading holy Scripture and ancient
authors^ Nor this only. The very reading of the Scriptures and
the offering up of prayers in the church, is set forth in the preface
of that book as having " the first original and ground thereof" in
primitive practice — as " the godly and decent order of the ancient
Fathers." So too, of the ordination vows. They imply that
Scripture requires external aid for its due interpretation : for the
ordained thereby engage to " be diligent" not only " in reading
holy Scriptures," but also " in such studies as help to the knowl-
edge of the same ;" and among such studies, must not the tradi-
tions of the Fathers hold an important place ? A canon of the
convocation of 1571, which is a part of the law of the Church,
commands preachers "to be careful never to teach anything in
their sermons, as if to be religiously held and believed by the peo-
ple, but what is agreeable to the doctrine of the Old and New Tes-
tament, and collected from that very doctrine by the Catholic Fathers
and ancient BishopsJ^

Now, true : the language employed on the subject of Catholic
tradition in the passages here quoted, is more qualified and hence
less pernicious, at least in its direct effects upon ordinary minds,
than that current with the less scrupulous Tractarian. Still, the
question is, whether, from its evidently equivocal character, it is not
only liable to, but warrants, that very construction for which the
Tractarian contends ? It is sufRcient to our purpose to insist, that
the simple circumstance of coupling Catholic Tradition — " ancient

* Rebel's Caten. Pat., etc., pp. 26, 31.
t See quotations at the heail of this essay.

authors" — with " Holy iScripture," is suggestive of their co-ordinate
authority ; and, taken in connection with the passages quoted on
pages 62, 63, as the common basis of traditionists of all grades for the
support of their apostolico-oral traditionary theory, the only con-
sistent inference is that of the Tractarian, via. : that the so-called
*' ultra-Protestant" plea of ' the Bible, and nothing but the Bible,'
is an unthankful rejection of another great gift," (Catholic tradition')
as " equally from God," and " Which no true Anglican can tolerate, '

The conclusion, according to our mathematical calculus, is, that
the difference in the nature, use and value of Catholic tradition, as
advocated by the Romanist and the Tractarian, and as set forth in the
Book of Common Prayer, is as the difference between four and
twice two. As with the Romanist, so, " Scripture is not, on
Anglican principles, the Rule of Faith."* *' As it is, by the gracious
providence of Almighty God, the points of Catholic consent,
known by tradition, constitute the knots and ties of the whole
system,"f " Acknowledging Scripture as the written charter, and
tradition as the common law, whereby both the validity and prac-
tical meaning of that charter is ascertained," the Church " ve-
nerates both as inseparable members of one great providential
system.":};

Now, if the above statements, taken. as a whole, make not Tra-
dition the primary, and holy Scripture the secondary, teacher of
divine truth, we know not the meaning of words. According to
them, we are to search the inspired word of God, not as the one
authoritative, adequate rule of faith, but as the document of what
this tradition teaches ; we are to stud}^ the Scriptures, not in order
to* ascertain simply God's revealed will, but to prove tradition by
scriptural evidence ; and the standard of revelation is no longer
the Bible alone, that is, the inspired word of the eternal God in its
plain and obvious meaning, but " Scripture and tradition, taken
together, are the joint rule of faith"!

But we are here reminded by that class of traditionists who
claim the appellation of " Evangelical," that the Vlth and XXth
of the XXXIX Articles of the Anglican and American Episcopal
Church, plainly repudiate the sense which is here attached to Ca-
tholic tradition. The Vlth article says —

" Holy Scripture containeth all things necessary to salvation : so that what-
soever is not read therein, nor may be proved thereby, is not to be required of
any man that it should be believed as an article of the faith, or be thought re-
quisite or necessary to salvation."

And the XXth article reads thus :

"The Church hath power to decree rites or ceremonies, and authority in con-
troversies of faith : and yet it is not lawful for the Church to ordain anything
that is contrary to God's word written , neither may it so expound one place of
Scripture that it be repugnant to another."

♦ Tract 90, p. 11. t Keble's Caten, Pat., p. 41. J lb., p. 74.

And it declares fhe Churcli simply " to be a witness and keeper
of Holy Writ," etc.

These articles, it is contended, taken in connection witti the
quotations from the other parts of the Book of Common Prayer,
show that the coupling of " ancient authors" with " holy Scrip-
ture" proves that the former is intended to be understood as swb-
ordinate to the latter.

'J^o this, however, we reply, that the same feature is strikingly
peculiar to the writings of the Oxford tractators. The very same
Keble, who in one place of his Catena Patrum declares that
" Scripture and tradition, taken together, are the joint rule of
faith ;" in another most explicitly affirms that " Scripture is the
sole and imramountrxAe of faith" !* And, as it regards the Church
of Eome, what " power" docs she claim beyond that set forth in
the XXth article above? And in the exercise of that "power,"
who needs to be told that she most indignantly repels the charge
of having ordained, either in her written or unwritten traditions,
'* anything that is contrary to God's word written," or that she has
so expounded " one place of Scripture, that it be repugnant to
another." True, the so-called " ultra-Protestants" hold and affirm
that they can prove her guilty, in numerous instances, of having
both added to and taken from " Holy Scripture," not only, but of
falsifying and perverting " the faith once delivered to the saints."
Indeed, they contend that these superadded traditionary legends,
etc., as in the case of the " corruptions of the word of God by
the traditions of the elders" of the Jewish Church, furnish the
strongest, though not the only, evidence of her apostasy from
" the truth as it is in Christ."

But on this point the so-called ultra-Protestant has to conflict
with the Protean workings of the Romish claim of infallibility^
which, as we have said, — and as she had the sagacity at an early
period to perceive, — considering the nature and importance of the
questions at issue, is a fundamental attribute of the standard of
appeal. With her, a chain less inflexible, and at the same time
less changeable, would have failed to enthrall Christendom under
her dominion. Having assumed — what all admit — that insjnration
is the basis of infallibility, she assumed also that the interpreter
must be infallible. On what grounds? She answers: On that
of the promise made by Christ to "the twelve," "Lo, I am with
you all days, even unto the ages of ages."f The argument is, —
Christ was infallible ; and so the apostles^ by virtue of his author-
ity in imparting to them the gift of the Holy Ghost, which gift, she
affirms, resided pre-eminently in Peter as the first bishop, jure
divino, of the see of Rome, and by virtue of the same authority,
transmitted by him to his successors.

And, indeed, tradition, viewed in the aspect of tlie authoritative

* Compare Caten. Pat., or Prim. Trad, recognized by Scrip. Ap. p. 2, with p. 31.
t Douay version.

mterprcter of Holy Writ, and wielded by " the Clmrch," elotlied,
as is alleged, with " power to decree rites and ceremonies," and
having " authority in controversies of faith," is valueless when
sunk below the Romish standard. As a theory, it involves the
hypothesis of development. That is, it represents " the Chris-
tian scheme contained in the New Testament as a mere imperfect
and incomplete outline, ichich was to he filled up hy the CliurcK'' in
after ages. And whether the claim urged in its behalf regards it
either as " paramount to Scripture, or equal to Scripture, or con-
current with it, or, which comes to the very same thing, decisive
as to the interpretation of Scriptui'e," there exists the same neces-
sity to sustain it by miraculous evidence, as that which authenti-
cated the inspiration of the doctrines, etc., originally promulged
by Christ and his apostles.

We are not surprised, therefore, to find that the Oxford
tractators, as well from their regard to consistenpy as_ from
logical deduction, recognize tliis principle in their writings.
Keble speaks of those minds as in "error," which reject the
notion of a rule of faith made up of Scripture and tradi-
tion together, on the ground that Scripture is infallible, tradi-
tion merely historical ;" and he adds, " They appear to reason as if
there could be no faith without demonstrative infallible evidence."*
In other words, such demand — " What sigii showest thou that we
may believe" that Catholic tradition is equally infallible with "holy
Scripture" ? But finding it inconvenient to furnibh the " sign,"
implicit faith in traditional iiifiillibility is modestly offered as a
suitable substitute for " demonstrative" or miraculous "evidence."
A less objectionable source of authority with the evangelical school
to the same effect, however, can be adduced. Speaking of the en-
dowments of the early fathers, bishops, doctors, etc., even Arch-
bishop Wake remarks, " They were endued with a large portion of
the Holy Spirit, and as such, could hardly err in what they
delivered as the gospel of Christ."t So the distinguished Dr.
Waterland, having mentioned their " admirable endowments, ordi-
nary and eoi^moriimar?/," and that " great weight" was added "to
their testimony or doctrine" through the latter as a " probable rule
of interpretation," he says that " the Charismata, the extraordinary
gifts, were then frequent," and that they ^^ visibly rested in and
upon the Church, and there only.":|; "Visibly?" Indeed! We
are then, I suppose, to understand the learned doctor to affirm the
continuance in the primitive ^o■s^ apostolic age of the Church, of
the Pentecostal cloven tongues of fire ? Surely this passage must
have escaped the eye of the poet-laureate of Oxford, or it had
saved him the necessity of an apology for the absence of " demon-
strative infallible evidence" of the inspiration of apostolical tradi-
tion ! Nor this only. Had he been familiar with the sermon of

* Serm. on Prim. Trad., p. 82. f Wake's Apnst. Fathers, c. X p 110.

X Waterland on the Trui. Camb.Ed. 1800. pp. 369,382.

the Right Rev. Bishop McCoskrej of Michigan, entitled, " Episco-
pal Bishops the successors of the Apostles,." he had seen almost at
a glance, the basis of the perpetuity of this, with other apostolic
gifts. That learned prelate, in descanting on the passage : " Aa
my Father hath sent me, even so send I you," etc., remarks, — " that
he (Christ) transferred the power he received from God his Father,
the words of the text most fully declare." — "He was, as the apostle
declares, the head of the body — consequently this headship Avas
transferred, etc."* " To whom ? To none other than the apostles."f
But in what did this headship consist ? In the possession, by the
apostles, of " all the power necessary to preserve and regulate the
body," — in the exercise of which power " they could not err,^^ etc.:|:

The apostles, then, were inspired. But, " had the apostles suc-
cessors ?" " One of the very first acts they did after they received
the apostolic office," says the bishop, " was to transfer the very same
power they had received from Christ." We only add in conclusion
on this subject, that the comparatively youthful bishop of Michi-
gan without doubt borrowed the above sentiment from that vener-
able patriarch of the so-called Evangelical or Low Church party,
Bishop Grisw^old, late of the eastern diocese, who, in a sermon "on
the Apostolic Office," speaking of " the ministry" which Christ
" actually did give" to his apostles, declares it to have been "such
as the Father had given him ; he appoints them to the office which
he was leaving,"§ which ^' office''^ Christ " promised always to be
with," etc.|

And hence, as remarked above, (pp. 59 and 60,) the origin of
the argument for the infallibility of Catholic tradition by the
Romanists. Christ was infallible, and so his apostles, b}'' virtue of
the transfer of his headship to them, and of theirs to their succes-
sors. And, in confirmation of the identity, in all essential points,
of the various schemes of traditionists regarding the matter in
hand, we now add, that, in deciding the question as to what is
genuine tradition and what spurious, all unite in subjecting it to
the same test, that of the famous maxim of Vincent of Lerins —

" QUOT) UBIQUE, QUOD SEMPER, QUOD AB OMNIBUS OREDITUM ESt"

" that luhich has been believed everywhere, always, and by alV^

This test was put forth by Vincent, a monk of the fifth century,
under the specious plea, that it was " extremely necessary to apply
the sense of the Catholic Church to the Scriptures, as a ride to a line^
" For us," he says, " who are in the bosom of the Catholic Church,
it ought to be our first and principal care to choose such doctrines
as we find to have been believed in all places, at all times, and by
all the faithful," The tradition which is found to abide this ordeal,
may be regarded as of divine authority, and hence an infallible

* Sermon, &c., p. 7. t lb., p. 9. J lb., pp. 7, 8, and 17.

§ Tracts on the Church. No. I, Bishop Griswold on the Apost. Succ, p. 5.

0 lb., p 7.

standard of appeal in distinguisliing " tTie true Catholic faitli from
the vitiations of heresy !"

This test, we repeat, — -the legitimate offspring of Eomanism, is
claimed and used to the same end. alike by the Tractarian, and by High
and Low Churchmen. That it is insufficient to that end, not only,
\)\\i perilous to the cause of evangelic truth, we think can be made
satisfactorily to appear from the following considerations : —

1. As a test, it is inapplicahle. Differences of opinion have
given rise to controversies on all the fundamental doctrines of the
gospel, even from " the apostle's times." But the Catholic unity
required by this rule, in discriminating between " the divine and
the human amongst many different conflicting traditions and opin-
ions," excludes controversy. It hence becomes practically inopera-
tive., and Avorks its own ruin. But in addition to this,

2. It is unsatisfactory. Mere unanimity of opinion, whether ap-
plicable to the early Fathers, or to the age of Vincent, is no vahd
proof that it was of divine authority. The circumstance of prox-
imity of the former to apostolic times, and of the advantages of the
latter in the Vth century in determining which were authentic
and which were spurious among the writings, etc., of the preceding
age, and which were doubtless calculated in an eminent degree to
promote unity of opinion in the Church, will by no means apply to
her subsequent history. Since the introduction of this maxim by
the Romish monk, the Church has been literally rocked in the
cradle of revolution. Traditions, written and unwritten, claiming
equal authority with those of earlier origin, have been multiplied
beyond computation. And, if we add to these the ages of dark-
ness and superstition which have intervened, what considerate
mind Avould risk its faith bj^ an appeal to such a test ! Again we
remark,

3. It is superfluous. Why, we ask, institute a rule by which to
arrive at a knowledge of doctrines, etc., believed everywhere, at
all times, and by all? These terms must, certainly, be inclusive
of the Kew Testament age — the doctrines taught, and the ministry,
ordinances, rites, etc., instituted by Christ and his apostles. If,
therefore, the things to be believed in accordance with the applica-
tion of this rule, harmonize throughout with those taught bv
Christ and his apostles, they being acknowledgedly infallible, and
hence universally binding upon all, why not repair at once to the
original document? Why be tied down "to expound Scripture
according to the consent of the ancient Fathers " ? Wherefore be
told, that " we must look back through the long mist of years,
whenever we want to know what is good and evil " ?■•"■ And, if
the alleged unvarying Catholic tradition to which this rule points
us should be found to teach things not taught .in the original docu-
ment, what then ? Ah, this is the rub. Take for example, the
article of Eomish celibacy, which comes " nearer perhaps than any

* Se well's Christian Morals, p. 15,

^" 72

tHing else to Vincent's rule." — " Tcrtullian and Cyprian taught,
that in and by itself, it was a more holy state than matrimony-^
especially in the case of the clergy not married before ordination"
— " and so commended it to the admiration of the believers, that
this doctrine became, ere long, the doctrine of the Catholic Church."*
Mark. Of the Catholic Church : not of Iloly Scripture, unless in-
deed the apostle Peter's having had a wife,' can be adduced in
proof ! And yet our traditionists, upon the strength of Vincent's
rule, insist upon our adoption of this " doctrine" as. an article of
our faith ! One thing is certain. Consistency requires either
the adoption of the " doctrine," or the repudiation of the rule.
The responsibility of this dilemma rests with the originators and
advocates of the XXth of the XXXIX articles, who, maugre the
guards against its abuse, yet declare that "the Church hath power
to decree rites or ceremonies^'' etc. For, this " power" of the Church
once asserted, all history shows that her love of its exercise early
induced the practical substitution of the phraseology — ' not ex-
pressly forbidden^ — in the place of, " contrary to, God's word writ-
ten." Nor need the reader be informed, that this assumed license
by " the Church," soon originated a rival system of " teaching for
doctrines the commandments of men,"" to that " foundation of the
apostles and prophets, of which Jesus Christ is the chief-corner-
stone."^ Now, that Vincent's rule was designed as the prop to
this antichristian traditionary system, will appear,

4. From a view of its Judaic character. The Jews had their tra-
ditions— the Cabala, which they believed to contain an explana-
tion of the Sinai Law, which Cabala was given by God himself to
Moses ; and that without these traditions, the law itself was not a
sufficient rule of faith. Traditionists tell us, that they " do not
make Scripture the rule of their faith, but that other things in
their place" (Catholic tradition) " are rules likewise ; in such sort
that it is not safe, without respect had unto them, to judge things hy
the Scripture alone.''^ " Scripture and tradition, taken together, are
the joint rule of FaiihP Thus it is they Judaize the sj^stem of
Bcriptural interpretation. Its antichristian character may be
gathered,

First, from our blessed Lord's frequent denunciations of the Jew-
ish traditions. " For laying aside the commandments of God,"
says he, " i/e hold the traditions of meny * And again, " Why," he
demands, "do ye transgress the commandment of God by your
tradition?^'' ^ And in another place he accuses them of "making
the Word of God of none effect through their tradition^^ Loud ad-
monitions, these, to the Church, in all future ages ! But to the
above, and to the same end, we add.

Second, Those passages which affirm the absolute sufficiency and
supremacy of holy Scripture, as its own interpreter — " comparing

(1) Matt. 8:14. (2) Mntt. 1.5 : 0. (3) F,ph. 2 : 20. (4) Mnrk 7 : 8. (.5) Matt. 15 : 3. (6) Mark 7 : 13
* Alexander's Anglo-Cath., etc., pp. 82, 83.

Spiritual things with spiritual." ' Take tlie following. " The law
of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul ; the testimony of the
Lord is sitre, making wise the simple."^ "To the law and the
testimony : if we speak not according to this luord, it is because there
is no light in them."' " They have Moses and the prophets ; let
them hear themy * " Search the Scriptures ; for in them ye think
ye have eternal life."" " Fron a child thou hast known the holy
Scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through
faith which is in Christ Jesus. All Scripture is given by inspira-
tion of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correc-
tion, for instruction in righteousness : that the man of God may be
perfect, thoroughly furnished unto ALL good works." " Surely,
such passages as these, one would suppose, were sufficiently ex-
plicit. They set forth, plainly and fully as language can speak,
the absolute sufficiency and supremacy of holy Scripture as the only
divinely authorized standard rule of faith. Any thing that does not
fall within this rule, so far as authentic, we may receive, " but not
as a portion of the Christian Revelation; we may practice, but not
as a jjortion of the divine institutions essential to a Christian Clmrch,
and binding on all men in all ages. When the apostle Paul gave
his advice on matters respecting which he ' had no commandment
from the Lord,' he, of course, thought that what he was recom-
mending was good; but, so far was he from presuming to put it
forth as a divine command, that he expressly notified the contrary.
Let us not think to manifest our pious humility by reversing the
apostle's procedure !" To the above, may be added the fact,

5. That the early fathers themselves disclaim that authority in hehalf
of their ivritings which traditionists affirm. PoLYCARP, who, ac-
cording to Eusebius, " had been instructed by the Apostles, and
had familiar intercourse with many that had seen Christ," in his
epistle to the Philippians says :

"Neither am I nor is any one like me, able to follow, the wisdom of the
blessed and illustrious Paul, who, being among you, in presence of the men who
then lived, taught accurately and surelij the word of truths and who, after he was
gone, wrote to you an epistle, which, if you carefully study, ye shall be able to
build yourselves up in the faith which has been delivered to you, and 'which is
the mother of us all.' "*

Iren^^us, the disciple of Polycarp, and who wrote in the
second century, says :

" We do not know the plan of our salvation through any others than those by
whom the Gospel has come to us, which indeed they first preached ; but, after-
wards, by the will of God, delivered it to us in the Scriptures to be the ground
AND PILLAR of our faith."f

Origen, in his commentaries on Matthew, speaks of

(1) 1 Cor. 2 : 13. (2)Ps. 19:7. (3)13.8:20. (4) Lk. 16 : 29. (.5) John 5 : 39. (6) 2 Tim. 3 : 15-17.
* Hefele, Patrum Apost. Opera, p. 118. f Iran. Adv. Hacres, 3 : 1.

" Tho whole word of God as the only perfect and proper means of afiFording
to those who wish to learn, one safe voice amidst discordant sounds."

Justin Martyr, in his dialogues with Trypho, the Jew, says,

" We are commanded by Christ to obey nOt the dogmas of men, but the doc-
trines preached by tke holy prophets, and taught by himP And,

Augustine, whose writings are often appealed to by tradition-
ists, says,

" We ought not to esteem the writings of any men, even although Catholics,
and men of repute, as we do the canonical Scriptures, as if it were not lawful
for us, consistently with the honor due to such men, to condemn and repudiate
in their writings any thing which they have delivered contrary to truth, as that
has been understood through divine assistance, either by others or by ourselves.
This I myself do in reference to the writings of others, and this I wish my
readers to do with me."*

Now, in what terms, we deferentially ask, could the sufficiency
and supremacy of Scripture be more explicitly declared ? It is
true, Paul exhorts us to hold fast the "traditions." But it is
equally true from 2 Thess. 2 : 15, , that these traditions were
written as well as spoken, that is, what was delivered orally to one
church was conveyed in letters to others, so that the &riptures
contain the whole word of God. Would that our zealous modern
traditionists might be led to see that. Paul's persecuting spirit,
while- in an unrenewed state, was the fruit of his zeal for the tra-
ditions of his fathers P The early ecclesiastical writers, — if we
may judge from the above quotations (which might be greatly
extended), — were alive to the danger of substituting human for
divine guidance in matters of faith. And that their convictions of
this danger arose from their knowledge of the perverting and cor-
rupting influence of " the traditions of the elders" — the Jewish
Cabala — in " making void the law of God," by " teaching for
doctrines the commandments of men," there can be no doubt.
We must therefore insist that, in the sense in which it is designed
to be understood by the traditionists of our day, they respectfully
decline the honor of the title, " venerable luminaries of the an-
cient church" !

Finally, we have said that Scripture is infallible ; and so, of ne-
cessitv, the rule by which to interpret it. This, on Protestant
principles^^that of interpreting Scripture by Scripture — is clear
enough. It, however, by no means follows that they by whom the
rule is applied are themselves infallible. But this position our tra-
ditionists— Koinanists, positively, and others, as we have shown,
virtually, or by implication — deny. They affirm the infallibility
of the interpreter by whom the rule is applied. True, they are not
agreed as to wJiom the right of interpretation belongs, Romanists
asserting it in behalf of " holy mother Church," to whose interpret-

(1) Gal. 1 : 14.
* Epist. 14S— ad Fortunatianum Aug. Op. vol. 2, p. S02. Paris, 1679.

ations all the faithful are required, under penalty of the heaviest
anathemas, to yield implicit faith and obedience; while others,
under the rule of Vincentius Lirinensis, demand the same implicit
faith and obedience to the teachings of what they claim to consti-
tute " Catholic Tradition." On the other hand, Protestants hold'
all such claims of infallibility in behalf of the interpreter^ as con-
stituting, essentially, the corner-stone in the foundation— the key-
stone in the arch of the entire fabric of Antichristianism. And
they oppose to it the right of private interpretation. On
what grounds, will appear from the following : —

1. The fact that God has given to us a law or standard to which
we can appeal in cases of doubt, involving, as it does, our moral
accountability for its use or abuse, implies the possession, by us,
of an internal jprincijjle by which we are enabled to distinguish
between truth and error, and right and Avrong. To this internal prin-
ciple, which we call conscience, and the law or standard ordained
to guide it in its search after truth, the' Scriptures frequently appeal.
For example, our Lord asks, " Yea, and why, even of yourselves,
judge ye not what is right ?'" So, the Apostle, " Examine your-
selves, whether ye be in the faith ; prove your own selves.'"
"Prove all things; hold fast that which is good.'" Now, these
passages recognize the possession, by us, of a judging principle^ and
the provision for us of a test both of truth and of character. And
that both the test and the duty to apply it to the purposes here set
forth are of universal apjjlication, is evident from another fact. It
has for its support,

2. Common consent. This apparent, and the right of private
interpretation is placed beyond the reach of controversy. In proof,
we appeal at once to the workings of the argument adduced by
Romanists in support of their dogma of infallibility of " holy
mother Church." If the result shows a clear concession on her
part, of the above j^rinciple, the fact of the common consent is
fully sustained. And, mark, the Romish Church is not now on the
bench, but at the bar — is not the judge deciding, but the party
pleading. The question, — the infallibility of the Romish Church
as the exclusive interpreter of holy writ, etc. This high claim she
sets forth in the following Tridentine decree : —

" All saving truth is not contained in the Holy Scripture, but partly in the
Scripture and partly in umvrittea traditions, which, whosoever doth not receive,
with like piety and reverence as he doth the Scriptures, is accursed ! No
one, confiding in his own judgment, shall dare to wrest the sacred Scriptures
to his own sense of them, contrary to that which hath been held and is still
held by holii mother Church, whose right it is to judge of the true meaning and
interpretation of holy writ, or contrary to the Mnrirt^nous consent of the Fathers.
If any disobey, let them be denounced by the ordinaries, and punished accord-
ing to law."*

(1) Luke 12 : HT. (2) 2 Cor. 13:5. (3) 1 Thess. 5 : 21.
* Cone. Trid. Sess. 4.

Now, bj what argument is it pretended to support this claim f
Why, that it is a, doctrine of divine revelation, founded upon
Christ's 23Tomise to his apostles and their successors, that He would
" be with them all days, even unto the ages of ages." The question
however presents itself — How are we to knoiv, that this promise re-
lates to the endowment of " holy mother Church" with the perpe-
tual gift of infallibility as the interpreter of holy writ ? To affirm,
as docs the Eoman Catholic Bishop of Cincinnati, that in virtue
of this promise, " the Church is as certainly assisted by the Holy
Ghost to teach all truth, as the evangelists and other writers of
the hol}^ Scriptures were insinred by the same Divine Spirit to write
the special truths which they were commissioned to reveal to par-
ticular churches and on particular occasions," is assuminj the very
thing to be proved. The phrase, " I am with you," in Scripture,
is susceptible of the four following meanings : "I am with you,"
personally, providentially, graciously, and with miraculous power.
Now, it is clear that it could not be the first ; for Christ was then
withdraioinrj his personal presence from his Apostles. Nor the
second and third ; for this will apply equally to all good men of
every age. The sense of the fourth has its illustration in the
words and act of Peter in the cure of the cripple — " Silver and
gold have I none, but such as I have give I thee: In the name of
Jesus Christ of Nazareth rise up and walk,"' Nor in Peter alone.
For, in virtue of the declaration — " These signs shall follow," ' etc.,
"the twelve" as well after as before the crucifixion and ascension,
cast out devils ; spake with tongues ; took up serpents, and drank
of deadly poisons, unharmed ; and cured the sick b}^ the laying on
of hands. ' Of all of them it is said, that " they Avent forth, and
preached everywhere, the Lord working with them, and confirm-
ing the word with signs following." *

Thus much, then, as the result of private judgment in the inter-
pretation of the above promise — the spirit and presence of Christ
miracidoushj " working with" the twelve, in attestation of the di-
vinity of their mission as sent by Him ! But what evidence, we
ask, does this furnish in support of the claim of Eomish infalli-
bility ? " Can the popes work miracles ? Can the bishops ? — Such
a miracle, forsooth, as the existence Of the Eoman Catholic Church
in the western empire, after the rise of Mahometanism in the east !
A splendid miracle, truly ! That proves as much for Mahometan-
ism and Paganism, as for the Popes of Eome : for these systems
rose upon the ruin, and also withstood the shocks of other sys-
tems" !

The question of the dogma of Eomish unbroken succession from
Peter avc must reserve for a subsequent page. It must suffice that
we now observe, that the fact of a reference by Eomanists to Scrip-
ture for a proof of said claim, is a tacit acknowledgment, on her
part, of the right of private j udgment as the rule of interpretation.

(1) Acts 3 : 6. (2) Mark 10 : 17. (3) lb., vv. 17, 19. (4) lb., v. 19.

Tlie same holds true of lier mode of admitting proselytes to lier
communion. We will suppose a case in illustration. A Jew, for
example, is converted to Christianity. We will suppose him to
have "heard of just two sects of Christians — the Eoman Catholic
and the Protestant. He has read the New Testament. He wishes
to join the Church. He goes to the Roman Catholic bishop, and
says, ' I see two churches, sir : I don't know which to join. I read
that there is but one true Church.' What does the bishop respond ?
' Sir, you ought to join our church.' The Jew asks, ' your reason,
sir? for the Protestant says, I ought to join his church,' The
bishop shows him fifteen marks of the true Church. He says,
' Read the Bible, and see if these marks are not characteristic of
us; and then judge for yourself ' He finds these marks involve
the principal part of the New Testament. He reads, however, and
joins the Church. Has he not decided this question by examining
the holy Scriptures ? Has he not interpreted yor himself f^*

We, however, leave Romish traditionists (and their respective
allies) to reconcile these and the like admitted instances of the
right for which we contend, with their ex-cathedra announcements,
that we must believe what " the Church" (taking Catholic tradi-
tion as the infallible oracle of her teachings) believes. Our own
conviction is,, that there is no risk, at least with the unprejudiced
mind, in opposing the logic of private judgment when subject to
divine guidance, to the sophistry of " the vicious circle," — we
must beheve the Scriptures on the authority of the Church, then
the Church on the authority of Scripture. In other words,
the Pope is infallible, for the Bible asserts it ,• and the Bible is in-
spired, for the Pope asserts it : a mere petitio principii, a begging
of the question, as gross and as palpable as any that can be found
in the category of sophisms ! Take the following in illustration.
His Holiness, for example, appears in court, and presents before
the judge and jury the Bible to prove his claims; but, instead of
allovring said witness to speak for himself, and proving that he is
worthy of credit (which an infidel would insist upon as indispen-
sable), he merely remarks, ' This witness, gentlemen of the jury,
clearly afl&rms that I am the supreme and infallible head of the
Church of Christ upon earth.' ' But I beg,' says the opposite
counsel, ' to cross-examine the witness, in order to ascertain — •
First, his credibility ; and, second, the real nature of his testi-
mony.' ' As to his credibility,' remarks the Pope, ' his oath was
not entitled to the least credit, till I expunged what I deemed spu-
rious from the genuine ; nor even now does his evidence deserve
the least credit, only when it is in my favor. ' That is very singu-
lar,' adds the counselor, ' but as you have brought him into court
to prove your vicarship and infallibility, I should like to examine
him, to see what he sa3^s on these points.' ' You may if you
please,' quoth the Pope, 'but then it must be through me. For

* Roman Catholic Debate, Cincin , O., 1837.

you must know that it is impossible to understand him in the vul-
gar tongue, and even in the " authentic Latin," — he speaks so in-
distinctly, that without my interpretation^ you could make nothing
of his evidence. The truth is, he is almost dumb, and nobody but
myself can tell infallibly what is passing in his mind.'

* And pray, how did you get this exclusive prerogative of tell-
ing what is passing in his mind ? What proof have we that you
possess it ?'

' What proof have you ? You have no proof, but I have, and
that is enough.'

Having thus exposed the fallacy of the above pretensions, we
pass to another, namely : That of an alleged advantage by
Romanists over all the Protestant sects, in that they have oio au-
thentic Bible. This claim, on the Romish hypothesis, involves the
proposition, ' The Church BEFORE the Bible.'' Hence, no Church,
no Bible !

On this subject, a living Roman Catholic prelate* proposes the
following question, '■''which was prior ^ the Bible or the Church?"
To which he responds, "manifestly, the Church was the o?c^er."
His argument in support of this assertion is this : " Faith," says
he, comes from hearing, or preaching, by which " whole nations
were converted to the Savior, before the different books composing
the present Bible were determined to be genuine Scripture," etc.
And he adds, " the Church was therefore prior to the Bible : and
if the Bible had never been written, the gospel could have been
preached and believed, as it was in the early ages, without its aid ;"
and, finally^ says he, " if there is any thing clearly taught in the
Scriptures, it is the authority of the Church, which, without aid
from the Bible, not all composed when the first apostles preached,
had fully established her authority," etc. " Hence," says he, "we
believe in the Church first." "The Bible, which the Church pre-
sents to us, obtained, sanctions the authority of the Church, and
confirms our faith,"

It requires but a partial acquaintance with Romish theology on
this subject, to evidence its current identity with the sentiments
advanced, as above, in its support. And, viewed as a whole,
what a medley of theological jargon! Here we have "the au-
thority" of holy mother Church "/w% established" as "clearly
taught in the Scriptures," while yet those very Scriptures are
declared to have been " not all composed when the first apostles
preached"! We affirm, that "if there is any thing clearly taught
in the Scriptures," it is the fearfully recorded doom of this scrip-
turally denominated "mother of abominations,'" as she, who, to
support her antichristian usurpations, has blasphemously dared
both to take from, and to add to, its inspired contents.'^ It Avere no
difficult task to show, as well from the internal and external evi-

(1) Uev. 17 : 5. (Q) See Rev. -22 : 18, 19.

*Bp. Purcell, Cin. O. Debate, etc., pp. 262, 263.

dences of the Scriptures themselves, as from the concurrent voices
of all Christendom (Romanists excepted), that the Apocalypse of
St. John completes^ as the Gospel bj St, Matthew commences^ the in-
spired canon of the New Testament. This is not the place to fur-
nish such evidence in detail. Suffice it now to state, that the
above evidences place the date of St. Matthew's Gospel between
A.D. 41 and 44 ; and that of the Apocalypse just before the acces-
sion of the Emperor Nerva, A.D. 96. The intervening three Gos-
pels, with the Acts, and the twenty-three Epistles (the authenticity
and divinity of which are sustained by similar evidence with the
above), were, at difierent dates, penned by those divinely inspired
amanuenses of the Holy Ghost whom Christ, "when he ascended
up on high, set in the Church for the perfecting of the saints ;'"
— and, taken in connection with the Gospel of Matthew, the Apoc-
alypse, and the Old Testament writings, constitute the aggregate of
those inspired Scriptures which the Holy Ghost has declared to be
both sufficient and supreme — ^^ profitable for reproof ^ for correction^
and for instruction in righteousness ; THAT THE MAN OF GoD MAY
BE PERFECT, THOROUGHLY FURNISHED UNTO ALL GOOD WORKS.'"

Now, for the proof,

That the words of Christ — ■" out of thine own mouth will I
judge thee, thou wicked servant,"-^ will apply to Romanists in the
sense of both talcing from and adding to these inspired Scriptures,
we refer to the quotations above. First. " Faith," says Bishop
Pui'cell, " comes from hearing." But what, we ask, gives efficacy
to the hearing ear? " Hearing," adds the apostle, " comes by the
word of Qodr * Here is the relation set forth between ccatse and
effect "The word of God" preached, the instrument ; " faith" pro-
duced, the result. " The word of God," the basis of the truths
addressed to the hearer; and hence, ^'- prior ^'' in the order of time,
to " faith" in the truths proclaimed. True, the inspired materiel
for the erection of that structure of Christianity Avhich, to all
future ages, was to furnish a finished model " for the perfecting
of the saints, for the work of the ministry, and for the edifying of
the body of Christ,"^ was distributed, in its diversified forms," in
such manner, and at such times, and to such persons, as "seemed
good to the Holy Ghost," who " divided to every man severally
as he would."' In other words, the substratum of " the faith" in
doctrine, church order, ordinances, and discipline, "delivered to
the saints" by the inspired apostles, was gradually revealed. But
it is demonstrable that the last of the New Testament epistles —
the 2d of Peter — was written as early as A.D. 65, and hence,
that the four Gospels, the Acts, and the twenty -three Epistles, were
all extant in the Church in written form, in the short space of
about twenty years ! These inspired writings, we repeat, together
with the Apocalypse, penned^ as we have said, in a.d. 96, and

(1) Eph. 4 : 8-13. (2) 2 Tim. 3 : 17. (3) Luke 19 : 22. (4) Rom. 10 : 17. (S) Eph. 4 : 12. (8) 1
Cor. 12 . 4, 6, 23. (7) Judo 3.

which sets fortli the predicted fortunes of the Church to the close
of time, completed the New Testament canon before the close of
the lirst century. It follows, that " the foundation of the apostles
and prophets," resting upon " Christ as the chief corner-stone,'"
^^ was p'rior'' to the erecting thereon of those " lively stones," who,
by the " hearing" of " faith" wrought'' in " them by the word of
God," were "built up a spiritual house"— THE CllUECH— "an
holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God
by Jesus Christ;'"' otherwise, we have the anojnaly of a building
without a foundation! and such, Bishop Purcell being judge, is
the Church of Eome ! ! else, why lop off the latter limb of the
passage which he pretends to quote from Paul? Wherefore
affirm, that " if the Bible had never been written, the gospel
could have been preached and believed without its aid f^ and, that
the hypothetical form of presenting this matter furnishes no escape
from the tremendous aiiathema which we claim to apply to the
advocates of the above theory is demonstrated from the fact, that
though the Church of Home claims to be the ordy conservator and
interpreter of Scripture, jQi that she has neither an authentic
copy, nor an authentic commentary, of the Bible ! and in present-
ing our proof, as a shield against the imputation of unfairness in
the premises, we shall, for the time being, yield to " holy mother
Church" her assumed prerogative to be her own zvit?iess, leaving
her, by the way, to dispose, as best she can, of the declaration of
our Lord — "If a man bear witness of himself, his witness is not
true :"^ for the reason, as we suppose, that, being deeply interested in
the points in controversy, we have a right to demand evidence
other than his own bare assertion.

First, then, The Church of Rome is totally destitute of an authentic
copy of the Bible. With all her pretended infallibility, she cannot
produce a translation of any sort, in any living language on
earth. With all the riches, and learning, and infallibility of the
Romish hierarchy, she owns not a New Testament, authentic
and authorized, either by Pope or Council, or by the Church
diffusive or responsive.

Proof The Council of Trent declared " that the ancient and
common edition (of the Latin Bible) should be considered the
authentic edition, and that the Bible should be printed as correctly
and as expeditiously as possible, principally according to the
ancient and Vulgate edition. In consequence of this, it was pub-
lished by Sixtus Quintus, in 1590. He, himself, watched over the
work with admirable attention and zeal ; he perused every sheet,
both before it was committed to the press, and after it was printed
off, but his edition scarcely made its appearance, before it was dis-
covered to abound with errors" !*

These are the words of an eminent and highly esteemed advo-

0) Eph 2 : 20, (2) 2 Cor. 5 : 5. (3) 2 Pet. 2 : 5. (4) John S : 31.
* Horae Biblics, by Charles Butler, Esq., of Lincoln's Inn. Dublin, 1799, p. 119.

cate of the Romish Church. Sixtus demanded a universal recog-
tion of his Bible, and denounced the heaviest anathemas against
all who would charge it with any errors. Yet within the period of
thirty years, his successor. Pope Clement the Vlllth, not having
the fear of these curses before his eyes, brought out a new edition
in 1593. " The difference," says Butler, " between the two Papal
editions is considerable; Dr. James, in his celebrated Bellum Pa-
pale, reckons 2000 instances in which they dilll-r ; Father Henry
de Bukentop a Recollet, made a similar collection ;" while " Lu-
cas Brugeusis reckoned -1000 places in which, in his opinion, the
Bible of Clement YIII. wants correction." Cardinal Bellarmine,
who had a principal part in the publication of the edition, praised
his industry, and wrote to him that those concerned in the work
had not corrected it with the utmost accuracy, and that intentionally^
they had passed over many mistakes." — {^^ Scias velim Bihlia Vul-
gata nan esse a nobis accuratissime castigata; multa enim de indus-
trial jicstis de causis, pertransivimnsJ^ — Bellarmine.) Then, too,
Clement hurled the same anathemas against all who should either
refuse to accept, or who should dare to charge error against his
edition.

" Yet this is the Bible which, according to Mr. Butler, was de-
clared by the Council of Trent" to be " inerranf — " where the dog-
mas of faith or morals are concerned," "In this decision," he
adds, "every Eoman Catholic must acquiesce, as he receives the
Scriptures from the Church, under her authority, and with her in-
terpretation."*

A Bible, with 4,000 acknowledged errors, "inerrant"! Nor
this only. A Bible, placed under the ban of an anathema, as the
rival of a previously existing infallible edition !

To decide upon the merits of their claims, involves the question
of infallihility of their respective authors. But here we encounter
another difficulty. For, though both Sixtus and Clement assume
it, the latter treats the pretense of his predecessor with the utmost
contempt ; while another, namely. Pope Adrian YI., denied that the
popes were infallible, another actually rescinded his own act, as in
the case of Pope Martin Y., who at one time coniirmed the de-
cree of the Council of Constance, which set a general council above
the pope, and subseqhently issued a decree forbidding all appeals
from the pope to a general council ; while others, again, as in the
case of Clement and Sixtus, rescinded the acts of their predecessors
— for example. Pope Stephen YI. rescinded the decree of For-
mosus ; and Sergius III. so hated Formosus and all that be did as
pope, that he obliged all the priests that he ordained to be re-or-
dained f Truly,

" When Greek fought Greek, then was the tug of war.''

Perhaps, however, a general council, as tJie seat of infallibility,

* Butler's Horae Biblicae, p. 12L
6

may decide this point. Let us see. That of Constance, for ex
ample, " says that the Church in old times allowed the laity to par-
take of both kinds — the bread and the wine, in celebrating the
Eucharist." The Council of Trent says, the laity and unofficiating
priests may commune in one hind only. In the time of Pope Gela-
sius, it Avas pronounced to be sacrilege to cZenythe cup to the laity;
but now it is nnccmonical to allow it. Here then we have council
against council, as in the other case of pope against pope.

And yet, it is upon such authorities, either separately or eon-
jointl)^ — (but which of the two, it has never 3'et been decided),
Protestants are called upon on pain of eternal perdition, to receive
the Latin Vulgate as above, as "inerrant," — "authentic"! "The
fact is, hoAvever, that the Vulgate now extant never had the sanc-
tion of a general council, as that of Trent had broken up before it
was issued." And as to the Douay version, it was made from the
so-called "inerrant" and "authentic Latin" copy as above; the
best evidences of its infallibility being those of the 4,000 blunders
of the original of which it is a translation, and the numerous cor-
rections of its inaccuracies by the bishops of the Romish Church,
at different times.

Then, regarding the question as to what constitutes the canoni-
cal Books of the Old and New Testaments, while Eomanists ad-
mit all that Protestants acknowledge to be such, they insist upon
adding thereto as a part of the inspired writings, productions affirmed
by Protestants to be totally destitute of any such claim. This,
they insist, is true of the Apocrypha, which they reject as being
uninspired, and that on the following grounds — namely :

"It was never extant in Hebrew — never formed any part of the Jewish Scrip-
tures, not being reckoned among their canonical books (of whose purity and int'^g-
rity they were remarkably jealous^, either in ancient or modern times. Neither
is it found in the Septuagint version of the Old Testament, made by Jews at
Alexandria for the use of their Hellenistic brethren. These books, moreover,
were not referred to by our Lord or his apostles. They are not mentioned in
the sacred canon by the learned Josephus or Philo, who flourished in the first
century. During the first three centuries, they are not found in the catalogue
of inspired books, drawn up ]jy the Greek or Latin Fathers. In the list made
by the council of Laodicea, and acknowledged by the universal Church (a.d.
364), they are not mentioned : and even St. Jerome, the translator of the Latin
Vulgate, expressly omits them ! They contain fobles and contradictory state-
ments. They recommend immorality ; such as lying, assassination, suicide, and
magical incantations. And never were they acknowledged by any general
council as inspired, till the Council of Trent, in the XVIth century, foisted them
into the canon, cursing, according to custom, all that would refuse to receive
them. This was done in the Fourth Session, there being present at the time
but forty-eight bishops and five cardinals. These infallible gentry decreed that
the books of Wisdom and Ecclesiasticus were written by Solomon, whereas
there is internal evidence most decisive, to prove that thoy were not written till
long after the time of that monarch. Besides, the writers made no preten.sione
to inspiration. The author of the book of Ecclesiasticus entreats the reader to
pardon any errors into which he may have fallen : and the writer of the 2d
Maccabees concludes as follows : ■ If 1 have done well, and as is fitting the story,
it is that which I desired ; but if slenderly and meanly, it is that which I could

attain unto.' What words for a man speaking as ht was ' moved by the Holy
Ghost !' " But,

2. Second. The Churcli of Eome — lier claims to the contrary
notwithstanding — has no autliorized commentary on the Bible. This,
assuming as she does, the prerogatives of an infallible interpreter
of Scripture, she holds to be indispensable, as the only effectual
safeguard against .heresy. She, therefore, has her 7iotes. Their au-
thority and value, however, we leave the reader to infer from the
following testimony of one of her most eminent and distinguished
prelates. " The late Rev. Dr. Doyle was asked by a committee of
the House of Lords, — 'You consider yourselves pledged to all
matters contained in those notes ?' ' No ; not by any means,'
was the reply. ' On the contrary, there were notes affixed, I be-
lieve, to the Ehenish Testament, which were most ohjectionahle.
The notes carry, in our edition of the Bible, no lueight, for we do
not know the loriters of many of them.'' "

Clearly, then, the Church of Rome has neither an authentic
copy of, nor an authorized commentary on, the Bible. A Bible
she may have, or rather a book which she calls such. But the
Bible, which contains the " all Scripture" which was originally
" given by inspiration of God" at the hands of those " holy men of
God," "the apostles and prophets,"' she has not! Indeed, the
system of Romanism, accommodating itself in all its parts and
powers to unregenerate humanity, its history throughout is but a
demonstration of the tendency of " the natural man," under the guise
of Christianity, to depart from the simplicity of primitive gospel
truth and order, in exact proportion as, by the arrogant claims,
the spiritual despotism, and the infinite superstitions of the jDapacy,
it has receded therefrom. This system, in subjugating humanity to
its control, so far as it regards the original inspired Scriptures, has
all along proceeded on the principle of substituting, practically at
least, the absolute for the hypothetical. Such a procedure was at
once fundamental to, and the evidence of, the grand apostasy.
The dogma — " the Church before the Bible,^^ as it involves the
right, so it proceeds on the principle, of furnishing a gospel, "with-
out its aid" ! And this, notwithstanding the fact, that all the
books received as canonical by Protestants, are received also by
Rome. The history of all religious delusions shows that their suc-
cess is dependent on and is in proportion to, their adherence to the
true. Take, for example, the Mormon delusion, and we must con-
fess that it transcends our philosophical discrimination to discern,
why " the Bible " of the notorious fanatic, Joe Smith, has not as
just a claim t(^ our credence, as the so-called " authentic" and " in-
errant" vulgate of Rome. Both claim that their Bible is the only
true word of God. Both profess to derive their authority from it.
And both affirm the evidence of miracles to substantiate their

(1) Compare 2 Tim. 3 : 16, 17 ; 2 Peter 1 : 18-21 ;

claims. As it regards the first, suffice it to say, tliat both Bibles
abound in Scripture. Of the second and third, so far as it regards
the Mormon prophet, a discussion of the merits of his claims were
a waste of time and paper. And, of the pretended popish miracles,
whether of mediaeval or of modern date, all that we have to say
further is, that they " are wholly destitute of the support of credi-
ble and competent testimony. They were wrought secretly, or in
the presence of those only who had already em'braced the super-
stition which was intended to be supported by them ; or when the
miracle was pronounced complete, the effect said to have been
wrought was imperfect or doubtful."*

3. One other point, however, calls for remark, before we leave
this subject. Komanists, having assumed, that " whole nations
were converted to tlie Savior before the different books composing
the present Bible were determined to be genuine ScrijDture ;"
allege that Protestants are dejyendent upon " holy mother Church''''
for their collection^ jjyreservation^ etc. The argument is thus stated
— " How, on Protestant principles," it is demanded, " can we be
sure of the authenticity of a single book of the Old or New Tes-
tament, seeing we have no voucher for the truth, but the testimony
of men ?" It is then claimed in behalf of the Church of Home,
that " she has selected the genuine books of Scripture, and stamped
forgery upon such as are spurious." And, it is demanded in an air
of triumph — " Had she not done this, where would have been the
Bible ?" In reply, we remark —

1. Admitting that we, as Protestants, are indehted to her wis-
dom in deciding upon, and her vigilance in preserving, the canoni-
cal books of Scripture, claiming, as she does, to exercise the exclu-
sive prerogative of an infallible umpire in all matters of feith and
conscience, Avhat follows ? Why, that if a book be handed to me,
and I read and believe it, that my faith in it necessarily rests iqoon
him who hands it to me .■'f But,

2. Protestants, we affirm, are not depeyident on the Church of
Rome for an authentic version of the Scriptures. There is the
most indubitable evidence of the existence of complete copies of
the holy Bible, long before the name of Pope, or the Papal su-
premac}', was known to the Church. Such, the learned Plorne, in
his " Introduction to the critical study of a knowledge of the Holy
Scriptures" — (and to which, for want of space, we must refer the
reader for further information on this subject) — is true of the
" Codex Alexandrimis,''^ or Alexandrine MS., in four volumes, which
tradition ascribes to the pen of Thecla, a little after the Coun-
cil of Nice, A.D. 325, and now preserved in the British Museum ]\
the " CodexVaticanus," which contests the palm of antiquity with
the preceding,§ and the Syrian Peschito, or literal, (versio simplex,)
which Michffilis assigns to the .early part of the second century.|

* Dr. Plumer. " The Bible True," p. 29. f Roman Catholic Debate,

t Home's Introduction, Vol. II., pp. 67, 68. § Id. lb., p. 74. || Id. lb., p. 189.

Other examples might be added. Those here given, however,
are sufficient to show that Protestants are no more dependent on
the Romish Church for their Bible, than is the man who supplies
himself with water from one of the streams of the Nile, when
there are six others equally available to him. We will only, in
conclusion, add by the way, that the learned Du Pin, of standard
Romish authority, admits that, before the Council of Laodicea,
even in the third century, " the Scriptures were read as tliey now
areT* and, besides those versions of the Old Testament, both
Hebrew and Greek, which were extant even before the first schism,
A.u. 250, from the writings of those ancient skeptics, Celsus, Por-
phyry, Julian and others, together with those of heretics and pa-
gans, we could almost compile a new Testament, containing every
thing read, not only since, but before the Council of Laodicea.

What now, we ask, becomes of this boasted claim ? It is equally
at war with reason, as it is unsupported by fact. Rather, it may
in truth be affirmed, that, had it not been for the o^ivals of " Holy
mother," who, like Argus, have ever watched the sacred text, and
guarded it from the hand of the destroyer, what had been its fate
ere this, may be inferred from what we have already said of the
interpolations and corruptions of those editions of the Primitive
Fathers and other works which have fallen into her hands. f

(4.) But, the Council of Trent tells us that we must interpret
Scripture according to the " wianimous consent of the fathers.'''''}^
What a boon ! Pray, who are the fathers ? Who can give their
number, or their names ? They wrote in Greek and Latin ; their
works, as we have shown, consist of one hundred and thirty-five
ponderous folios, § which it would t3onsume a man's life to read,
even in part. Now, how is it possible to ascertain whether they
are unanimous on any single passage of the word of God ? What
a hopeless task ! One might as well sit down to interpret the
Egyptian hieroglyphics. The fountain of life — the Scriptures — -is
streaming before our eyes, inviting our thirsty spirits to drink.
But the Council of Trent tells us we must not taste it till we get
the divining cup which all the fathers used — an article that never
existed ! AVhat a mockery, to talk to the laity about the unani-
mous consent of the fathers ! What do they know about the
fathers? Just as much as they do about the priests of China.||

But, in addition, even admitting the possibility not only, but
the practicability of such a task, into what a hahel of confusion is
the reader thrown ? We venture the assertion, that a very partial
trial will induce every unbiassed mind to coincide in the estimate
which Milton formed of them : — " Whatever time, or the heedless
hand of blind chance, hath drawn down from of old to the pre-

* Du Pin's New History of Ecclesiastical Writers, p. 35.
t See page 75, of this Essay. { Cone. Trid., Sess. 4.

§ See p. 65. H See Guide from the Churcli of Rome, etc., p. 328.

sent, in lier liuge drag-net, whctlier fisli or sea-weed, shells or
schrubs — unpicked, unchoscn — these are the fathers." Indeed,
from the very nature of the case, this is inevitable ; not only the
lapse of time, but ignorance and carelessness, or (as it has most
generally liappcned) prejudice and passion, incited by self-interest,
conspire to jeopard an oral statement, whether of opinion, or of fact.
From these, and other causes, the original import of such communi-
cations is constantly liable to corruption. Of this, there is a nota-
ble instance in the New Testament. We refer to our Lord's reply
to Peter's question regarding the beloved disciple.' " If I will
that he tarry till I come, what is that to thec?"^ — words which,
intended as a gentle reproof to Peter's indulgence in an un-
warrantable inquisitiveness regarding the future destiny of that
disciple, " the brethren" construed to mean, " that that disciple
should not die."^ St, John himself, however, in penning his Gos-
pel a few years after, (before the destruction of Jerusalem,) alludes
to the above "saying" of the brethren as an evident perversion
of Christ's original meaning.'' And, as to the early ecclesiastical
writings, it has been well said, that " every thing pertaining to
an appeal to tradition is obscure, uncertain, disputable, and actu-
ally disputed 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. One father,
as we have shown, says one thing, another refutes it, while a
third, on the same subject, exj^resses an opinion different from
either. So with the councils. One delivers one set of doctrines
as true, while another adds some, and rejects others, presenting
a new creed for the belief and guidance of men, as in the ease of
the Council of Arminium, where Arianism was countenanced, or
of the second Nicene Council, where image worship was estab-
lished. Is it, then, supposable, that the Great Head of the Church
would commit the doctrines of his Gospel, fundamental to the
salvation of men, to a vehicle so easily corrupted as Catholic or
ecclesiastical tradition ?

Finally. The theory which makes tradition co-ordinate with
Scripture as a standard of appeal, dethrones reason, annihilates the
rights of private judgment, and hence, undermines the best interests of
liberty and religion. AYithout controversy, " private opinion must
be allowed on all points, or prohibited on all points ; and if i3ro-
hibited, it must be by force, not by reason : for that would be an
appeal to reason. There can be no middle course between the un-
limited freedom of conviction and the dungeon or the stake."
Nor does this consequence result from the Roraish theory of tra-
dition only. If followed out to their legitimate extent, the
claims of an authoritative tradition, whether found among
the Tridentine Decrees or the Book of Common Prayer of the
Protestant Episcopal Church, alike involve and maintain that

(1) John -21 : 21. (2) lb. v. ii. (3) lb. v. 23. (4) lb. v. -2.

principle which, beginning in coercion^ ends in j^crsecution. Yes.
\Ye repeat it. As ca theory, it cannot consistently condescend
to any appeal to human conviction. The nature, character and
powers of the doctrinal and ecclesiastical system which it is
employed to uphold — " THE Churcu," jure divino, and an un;
interrupted transmission of an inherent episcopo-sacerdotal power
of self-perpetuation, and the eflEicacious administration of the
sacraments — being the measure of its alleged authority. Such
a system, surely, cannot be sustained by an authority less than
the " divinity of tradition" !*

Who, then, we ask, can fail to see that this unholy alliance of
tradition wiih Scripture, prostrates human reason before the sacer-
dotal power — destroys mental liberty, and subverts the right of
private judgment — saps the very foundation of all intelligent con-
viction of divine truth — and, availing - itself of the universally
prevalent preponderance among men of the religion of sense over
that of faith, renders the mass the easy dupes to a sj'stem of cap-
tivating ceremonials ! Yes. It is to this principle — " the power-
ful bias of human nature towards a religion of infallible pretensions,
a faith consisting in a mere ascent to creeds, a worship of forms,
and a service of external observances, of times and seasons, of
" days and months and years,'"— the proneness to a superstitious
reliance on the performance of the ceremony rather than on the
spiritual influence — to sanctimonious devotion rather than to moral
purity ; — we repeat, it is to this principle of depraved humanity.
Drought under the influence of the natural love of power and the
disposition to arrogate authority, and, in turn, reacted upon by the
institutions thus gradually enforced ; that we may trace the suc-
cess of a crafty and ambitious priesthood in erecting a fabric of
authority and infallibility out of the spiritual office of the twelve
fishermen of Galilee ; and in supplanting the simple regivien of
the New Testament Church by the external blandishments of that
" infinite superstition" — the Papacy !

Thank heaven, that our feet were in time diverted from that
semi-Roxmsh. avenue — Protestant Episcopacy — through which
so many, both of the clerg}" and laity of that communion are
finding their way back to that antichristian fold ! For this Ave
are indebted, under God, to the deep and abiding conviction, in
the light of the evidence here in jDart exhibited, that " the Bible,
AND the Bible aloxe," is the divinely authorized standard of
Christian faith. " To the Jaw and to the testimony ' if we sjKok
not according to tlds word^ it is hecause there is no light in ics.''^

xVnd the Bible is its own interj)reter, its own witness, and its
own Judge. As such the following are its attributes, viz. :

1. It is inspired. " Holy men of God spake as they were
moved by the Holy Ghost."'

(1) Gal. 4 : 10. (1) 2 Pet. 1 -.21.
♦ British Critic. No. 48. Notice of Harcourt on the Deluge.

2. It is authoritative. " The word tliat I speak to you, shall
judge you in the last day."'

3. It is intelligible. " When you read, you may understand
my knowledge in the mystery of Christ.'"

4. It is moral. " The word of the Lord is pure, rejoicing the
heart.""

5. It \s, j)erpetual. " The word of the Lord endureth for ever.
And this is the word which by the Gospel is preached unto you."*

6. It is catholic. " He that is of God, heareth God's word."
" Preach the word," " Preach the Gospel to every creature.'"

7. It is perfect. " All Scripture is given by inspiration of God,
and is prolitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, and for
instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be perfect,
thoroughly furnished unto all good works."" And,

8. It isplaiyi, and easy to he understood. " From a child thou
hast known the holy Scriptures, which are able to make thee wise
unto salvation.'"

With such a lamp to our feet, and light to our path (and we in-
tend, in the iirst instance, to follow wheresoever it leads, exclu-
sively and implicitly), let us, in reliance upon the Divine aid,
enter upon our Scriptural examination of the Origin, Nature,
Orders and Powers of the Christian ministry, as set forth in Part
II. of this treatise.

(1) John 12 : 48. (2) Eph. 1 : 9 ; 3 : 4. (3) Ps. 12 : 6 ; 19 : 8. (4) 1 Pet. 1 : 25. (5) John 8 : 47 }
1 Tim. 4:2; Mark IC : 15. (6) 3 Tim. 3 : 16. (7) 2 Tim. 3 : 15.

>..

PAKT II.

MINISTERIAL PAEITY, TESTED BY SCRIPTURE.
CHAPTEE I.

SCEIPTURAL VIEW OF THE ORIGIN", NATURE, ORDERS, AJSTD
POWERS OF THE CHRISTIAN MINISTRY.

SECTION I.

Introductory Remarks — Plan of the Argument inductive — A visible Ministry a con-
comitant of the visible Church state, Patriarchal, Jewish, and Christian — Opening
History of the New Testament exhibits its last transition state — Its distinguishing
characteristic, Justification by Faith, through grace, in opposition to the law of
Works — Process of ingathering — The Church invisible and visible — The latter, the
basis of its external unity — A baptized body — Subjects, infants and adults — The
Lord's Supper the bond of visible union and communion.

In discussing the subjects connected with Part II. of the follow-
ing treatise, our inquiries will be conducted exclusively upon the
ground of what saith " Holy Scripture."

To this end, that we may abstract our mind — no easy task, in-
deed— from the influence of long-standing associations with, and
powerful predilections for, an ecclesiastical constitution which we
have been led, on mature reflection, to believe to be " repugnant"
to " Holy Scripture," the plan of our argument will be, induc-
tive.

We premise, then, — what none will dispute, — that a visible
ministry is a concomitant of the militant Church state j three
forms of xohich have obtained under the three disjpensations^
Patriarchal^ Jewish^ and Christian.

On opening the pages of the New Testament, the subject of pro-
minent attraction and most absorbing interest, is, that of a con-
catenation of events, indicating that the Church is in a transition
STATE. " The fullness of the time"' of " which God had spoken by
the mouth of all his holy prophets"" had at length arrived, when
those better things"^ so long adumbrated by the types and shadows

(1) Gal. 4 : 4. (2) Acts 3 : 21. (3) Heb 12 : 24.

of the old or Levitical economy, should be dispensed. Paul's em-
blematic olive-tree of the Xlth of Eomans, illustrates the nature,
fullness, and extent of God's covenant with Abraham, not only ;
but also the mode — mysterious indeed — by which the Divine faith-
fulness in regard to all its stipulations, should be verified to " all
the seed,'" Gentile as well as Jewish. The national rejection of
Christ bv the commonwealth of Israel, results in their excision,
for the most part, from the good-olive-tree as its natural branches ;*
while, ^^•ith the believing remnant, " according to the election of
grace, "3 new scions from the believing Gentiles, though " wild by
nature,"* are engrafted thereon.^

It is also to be particularly observed, that in virtue of the same
perpetual tenure of the covenant Abrahamic, the church is now
transferred from under the Judaic or Sinaitic covenant or law of
works, and placed under the covenant of grace. That dis})ensa-
tion, though, as " the letter," it dealt out nothing but condemna-
tion and death, was nevertheless " glorious.'" From the first mo-
ment of the first transgression, God had ordained that no law
could be given yielding a righteousness which could give life.''
But, man's sin could not annul God's law. As a subject of moral
obligation, he was still responsible. Hence the divine enactment,
" cursed is every one that continueth not in all things written in
the book of the law to do them."* In this, then, consisted the
glory of that economy. The law stood forth as the stern and un-
compromising vindicator of the honor, truth, holiness and justice
of God, against the unreasonableness of man's infraction of it.
But just as after the promise to Abraham of a son, human device
is allowed to exert itself for the fulfillment, and Hagar with her
unhappy offspring — the occasion of domestic discord — -is the issue :
so at Sinai. JSTo sooner does God proceed to accomplish his uncon-
ditional covenant with Abraham, than Israel embraces the testing
proposition of a conditional covenant. "7/^ ye will obey nny
voice indeed,^ and heej? my covenant^ then ye shall he a peculiar
treasure unto me above all people^''''* is the language of God to
them' : just parallel to our Lord's intimation to the self-righteous
ruler, " Thou knowest the commandments :'"" and it is followed by
their self-complacent replv, " all that the Lord hath spoken^ we
win dor

Creaturehood, however, under every preceding dispensation,
had totally failed to render obedience" to God's law, and hence
lay under his just Avrath and curse. And, for the simple reason,
that " the law is not of FArrn :"'^ for, " whatsoever is not of faith,
is sin."" Wherefore? It is because of its Cainite infidel rejec-
tion of all belief in and reliance upon, that piacular or expiatory
sacrifice and atonement for sin, predicted to be made in the divine

(1> Kom. 4 : 16. (-2) Rom. 11 : 11, 21. (3) lb , 5. (4) lb., 24. (5) lb. (6) 2 Cor. 3 : 7-9
(7) Rom. 5:17. (9)Gal. 3:10. (9) Exod. 19 : 5. (10) Luke 18 : 20. (11) Rom. 5 : 19. (12) Gal. 3 : 12
(13) Rom 14:28.

^*#;

person incarnate of the pre-ordained Son of God, as the Slain
Lamb,' " set up from everlasting or even the earth was,"^ to that
end. In opposition, therefore, to the theory of creaturehood jus-
tification by the law of works, is the New Testament doctrine of

JUSTIFICATION BY FAITH,

through the alone merits and righteousness of our blessed Lord and
Savior Jesus Christ. It reveals that, having assumed our nature in
mysterious union with the divine. He (Christ) was "made sin for
"Qs who knew no sin ; that we might be made the righteousness of
God in hira."^ That He " was made a curse for us:"^ and that, in
order to render complete our salvation in, through, and by Plim,
having fulfilled the law' in all its parts, moral, ceremonial, and
mediatorial. He is "the end of the law for righteousness to every
one that believeth."* "As by the deeds of the law no flesh living
can be justified in God's sight,'" " the law" fulfills the ofiice of a
" schoolmaster to bring us to Christ."* It points us to Christ as
our Substitute, by whom, " all that helieve are justified from all
tilings from which Ave could not be justified by the law of Moses.'"
" There is therefore now no condemnation to them that are " thus"
in Christ Jesus, Avho walk not after the flesh but after the spirit." '"
And, in this consisteth " the glory that excelleth," of the economy
under which we live, compared with that which, at the opening of
tliis dispensation, was " done away."'^

The process for the ingathering, from among all nations, both of
Jews and Gentiles within the encircling arms of the Church under
this new aspect of her development, was gradual. These, as " the
first fruits unto God"" hj faitJi in Christ,''' constituted that mystical
body, the Church,'^ of which he is the divinely constituted Head;"
We repeat, " the Church — universal or Catholic, as being gath-
ered out of all nations : mystical or invisible, (whether in heaven
or on earth,)* as known only to God.

(1) Rev. 5 : 6. Ci) Proy. 8 : 23. (^) 2 Cor. 5 : 21. (4) Gol 3:13. (5) Gal. 3 : 13. (6) Rom. 10 : 4.
(7) lb. 3:20. (9) Gal. 3: 24. (9) Acts 13 : 39. (10) Rom 8:1. (11) 2 Cor. 3 : 10. (12) lb. 5: 7.
(13) Rev. 14 : 4. (14) Rom. 13 : 22. (1-5) Col. 1 : 24. (16) F.ph. 1 : 22 ; lb. 4:15; Col. 1 : 18.

* That these last named attributes are as applicable to the true Church militant, as to
those of her members who, havinsj "fallen asleep in Christ'" are joined to the Church
triumphant, is evident, first, from those words of our Lord, " they are not of the world,
even as I am not of the world." — " The glory which thou gavest me I have given them."'-
These words had direct reference to Christ's true Church and people on earth. But such
surely can only be said to be known to him. Their "life is hid with Christ in God."*
They have " a name which no man knowcth^ save they to whom it is given.'" " The
secret of the Lord is with them that fear him, and he will show them his covenant,"-^
through "the Spirit." which is given to them to "bear witness with theirs, that they
are the children of God " '

On the other hand, wherever the Church or kingdom of God is spoken of as a visible
body ayncmg; men, it is always associated with the presence therein of the false and the
self-deceived. Within her pale is found the intermingling of individuals of opposite
character, the prevalence of error, and the admixture of ignorance, imperfection and sin,
with better and holier elements. "All are not Israel who are of Israel."' For an
illustration of the nature and character of the church visible^ we refer the reader to the
parables of the wheat and tares, of the drag-net, and of the ten virgins.*

(1) 1 Cor. 1.5 : 20, 23. (2) John 17. (3) Col. 3 : 3. (4) Rev. 2 : 17. (5) Ps. 25 : 14. (6) Rom.
8 : 16. (7) Rom. 9 : 6. (8) Matt. 13 : 24-30 ; ib. 47-50 ; ib. 2-3 : 1-13.

It follows, that the first condition of clmrcli unity is, fellowship
with God, through Christ, hy faith. But, where this great princi-
ple exists, cementing, as it does, the affections of each toward
those of all ; it results, from the very nature of our Catholic Chris-
tianity as a social system, that it be provided with an external bond
of concord of man with man, not onlj^, but of unity of action in the
dissemination of its blessings to others.

Hence, the origin of the external unity of the Church. It has
for its fpundation, the co-membership of each of the mystical
members of the church with Christ himself, as " members of his
body, of his flesh, and of his bones."' It has for its marks of visi-
bility, visible ordinances, and a visible ministry.

The visible church is a hajytized hody. From the first, her adult
members were the subjects of a double baptism — first, by the
Soly Ghost / and second, by water : this latter baptism being a
" figure" or symbol of the former, as representing their spiritual
regeneration through faith." Not to enter into a lengthened argu-
ment on this point, it will suffice to refer to a single instance in
illustration. We allude to Peter's recognition of the distinction
between the baptism of the Holy Sjnrit and that of water haj^tism^
as set forth in the command given by him for the baptism by water,
of those on whom the Holy Ghost had been previously poured out.
" Can any man forbid ?^afer, that these should not be baptized
which HAVE RECEIVED thc Holy Ghost as well as we ?"^

As to the right of the infant children of helievers to church mem-
bership hy hajytism^ it is necessary in this place to remark, that the
commission of Jesus to his apostles is no less hroad in its scope,
nor less 2>ositive^ express^ or definite in its directions regarding
those for whose everlasting salvation it was designed, than those
embraced within the purview of the covenant Abrahamic. This
commission runs thus : "Go ye, therefore, and teach all nations,
haptizing them^'' etc., "teaching them to observe all things," etc.*
Now, of this commission we remark, that it undeniably contains
two parts, namely :

I. The commission itself. MaBr]Tevoare -navra ra eOvq : Disci-
ple all nations ; make them disciples or Christians.

II. The onode of its execution. BaTrriCovref , kol ^idaoKovrec :
which literally translated is, baptizing-teaching.

But the first, — the command to disciple all nations, is in the im-
perative mood : and hence, the whole commission is included in
DisoiPLiNG ; while the second, the command to baptize and teach,
both words being participles, indicates the mode or order of fulfill-
ing the commission. But, baptizing is put before teaching, show-
ing thereby that a person may be haptized before he be taught.

(!) Eph. 5 : 30. (2) Acta 10 : 47. (3) Matt. 28 : 19, 20.

This, however, was not true of adults, the apostles first having
taught ancWA(?;i baptized them, Ergo^ to carry out . the order of
the commission according to the EXPKESS COMMAND of
Christ, it could only have been done by fi'i^st baptizing and then
teaching, which can only be true of infants and cliilclren.

Evidently, then, though, in discii^ling adults by preaching,
and admitting them into the church by baptism, the apostles fully
acted up to the spirit of their commission — that order being indis-
pensable in regard both to Jews and Gentiles in the first planting
of Christianity ; yet it is clear that, from the order of the commis-
sion, ^i6aoKovrz^, teaching^ being put after Ba-nrii^ovreq, hajptizing^
the duty especially enjoined was that of teaching children already
brought into the church by baptism. Any further positive injunc-
tion regarding them had been superfluous. It was perfectly analo-
gous to the long standing membership with the Jewish Church of
infants by circimicision. To prove the above exposition fallacious,
e\ddence the most positive must be adduced to show that, in the
instances of the household baptisms of Cornelius, of the Jailer, of
Lydia, of Stephanus, of Crispus and Gaius, of Onesiphorus, of
Aristobulus and Narcissus, and of the many believers who formed
the Church of Corinth, together with the families of the bishop,
the deacon, and the young women in the Epistle of Timothy, there
neitlier loere nor could he yoking children in any one of them !

Baptism, therefore, though in the case of adults, it is followed by a
declaration of faith or "the answer of a good conscience towards
God ;" ' 3-et in its relation to children as " the seed" of the Church,
was, in its office, 'prosi:)ective. It pointed the eye of faith (of those
who, thus baptized, were, /?-o?n childhood^ to be taught to know the
holy Scriptures) to Christ, in all the pardoning and sanctifying
efficacy of his atoning blood.* But —

The visible Church is also a united body. For this Christ pray-
ed. " Holy Father, keep through thine own name those whom
thou hast given me, that they may be one as we are." — "Neither
pray I for these alone (that is, Jewish believers), but for those (Gen-
tiles) also that shall believe on me through their word : that they
all ma}' be one, as thou, Father, art in me and I in thee : that they
also may be one in us. — I in them, and thou in me, that they may be
made perfect nsr one." * For this the apostles labored. Whether
they preached, baptized, or wrought miracles, their work concen-
trated in a " perfecting of the saints in the unity of the faith," ^ and
of union with each other, by preserving " the unity of the Spirit in
the bond of peace,"* through communion with Christ the Head, of
which,

(1)1 Peter 3 : 21. (2) John 17 : 23. (3) Eph. 4 : 12, 13. (4) F.ph. 4 : 3.
♦The writer had intended to pass over any alhision to the suhject of these remarks.
Upon reflection, however, he considered them as necessary to an exhihit of what, in ac-
cordance with his views, constituted one of the elements in the re-constniction of the
Church under Christ and his apostles. He c!aim.«, therefore, the charitable indulgence
of those who conscientiously differ with him in this particular.

Tlic LonVs Supper is, pre-emiucntlj, if not exclusively, the sign,
seal, badge, or bond. We object to that view of water baptism
which would make the Lord's Supper subsidiary thereto, as though
baptism constituted the hoiul of union to the Church : than which,
no principle can do greater violence to the declared design of the
institution of this latter ordinance, or tend more seriously to mar
the " communion of saints" with Christ the Head. Take, in evi-
dence, the words of institution, — " The Lord Jesus, the same night
in which he was betrayed, took bread" — and also " the cujd" —
saying, " this do, as oft as ye eat and drink, in remembrance of
me ; For as oft as ye eat this bread and drink this cup, ye do show
the Lord's death till become," as a commemorative act: which,
with Paul, constituted the basis of the communion of the members
of the mystical body of the redeemed witli Christ the Head, and
of visible fellowship with each other. " The cup of blessing which
we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ ? The
bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of
Christ ? For we being many, are one bread and one body ; for we
are all partakers of that one bread." ' Yea, and that not after a
natural or corporeal, but after an ineffably spiritual manner: the
material elements directing the eye of faith to Him who is " the
true Bread," who alone can give " life to the world ;" ^ even as the
typico-symbolic " rock in Horeb" pointed to the " Kock," Christ,
of which the Israelites spiritually drank. ^ Hence, our Lord's de-
claration at the last Supper with his apostles, — " I will not drink
henceforth of this fruit of the vine until that day when I drink it
new with you in my Father's kingdom :" * words, be it observed,
pointing directly to his approaching personal withdrawal from the
Church. " It follows, that Christ's promised perpetual presence
with the Church, could be realized to her in no other way than by
his spiritually abiding with her through the agency of the Divine
Paraclete — the Holy Ghost, — who, he declared, should " take of
the things that are His, and reveal them unto her" ° by His ineffably
perjDetual presence forever.' And it is, we observe in this connection,
particularly worthy of note, that the Holy Ghost in His office-Avork
of Sanctifier of the faithful, sustains to them the two-fold relation
of a seal, and the Sealer. Paul, having spoken of our adoption of
God as his predestinated children by Jesus Christ, adds, "after
that ye believed, ye were sealed with the Holy Spirit" : and he ad-
monishes us — " Grieve not the Holy Spirit, lohereby ye are sealed
unto the day of redemption." *

The Lord's Supper, therefore, as it is the medium of the commu-
nion of believers with each other and with Christ the Head,
through the Spirit ; so it is the sealing or cementing of the differ-
ent parts with the Head in an union spiritual, ineffable, divine :
and, we add, not the less real, because not corporeal. Christ is

(1) 1 Cor. 10 : 16, 17. (2) John 6 : 32, 33. (8) 1 Cor. 10 : 4. (4) Matt. 26 : 29. (6) John 14 : 1-4 :
16 : 1-7. (6) John 16 : 14. (7) John 14 : 16. (8) Eph. 1 : 5, 13 ; 4 : 30.

present therein : present, as when the apostle says, " what, know
ye not that ye are the temple of God, and that the Spirit of God
dwelleth in you ?" ' Present, as when Jesus said, " where two or
three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst
of them." ^

We have thus presented, in brief, the migin of the exter-
nal unity of the Church. It has for its foundation, as we
have said, the co-membership of each of her mystical members
with Christ himself, by faith. It is only those, therefore, who, in
commemoration of his passion through the visible symbols ordain-
ed to that end, rightly " discern the Lord's body," ' that are truly
united to him as members "of his body, of his flesh, and of his
bones."* Nor can the pious mind be too deeply impressed with
the conviction, that the essence of that " unity of the Spirit" which
binds together in holy concord "the household of faith," lies not
so much in external membership with this church or that, as in
union with God himself through Christ. " Circumcision availeth
nothing, nor uncircumcision : but a new creature.^'' ^ Indeed, we
know of no Scripture which makes external conformity a condi-
tion of spiritual unity. That unity may exist under great external
dissimilarity ; it may fail under the most perfect show of outward
agreement. It has been well said, therefore, that it is amongst the
worst corruptions of Christianity, to confound our individual union
mth Christ and the perfect symmetry of the Church in him, with
our external union with the Churchy its sacraments, etc. To this
circumstance — involving, as it does, the subordinating of the reli-
gion of faith to that of sense* — may be traced the rise, " hy little
and little,^^ and the progress and final consummation, of that most
fearfully stupendous system of spiritual despotism, the Papal Su-

PEKSTiriON !

SECTIOI^ n.

The Christian Ministry — Differs from the Jewish in its form, its spirit, and its end —
Diverted froai its original divinely-appointed intent — Paul's description of — Scrip-
tural account of the Origin, Nature, Orders, and Powers or Functions of, as in-
stituted by Christ and his Apostles — Chillingworth, the Homilies, and Bishop Taylor
quoted.

We proceed now to add to these details of the reconstruction of
the Church under this dispensation, yet another : that relating to

THE CHRISTIAN MINISTRY.

The original simplicity of the priestly attributes of the patri-

(1) 1 Cor. 3 : IG. (2) Matt. 18 : 20. (3) 1 Cor. 11 : 29. (4) Eph. 5 : 30. (a) Gul. 6 : 16.
* It is the exclusive design of Parts II. and III. of this Treatise, to exhibit in detail
the points of diflererice of these respective systems, with illustrations of their practical
development.

archal functions, post-diluvian and ante-diluvian, being finally
merged into that of the more imposing triple priesthood of Aaron ;
and [)oth, having fulfilled the purposes of their appointment, van-
ishing away : ' they were succeeded by a ministry totally diverse
therefrom in its foryn, in its spirit, and in its end. Vie allude to
THE Christian Ministry. Its Origin, Nature, Orders, and Pow-
ers, will constitute the basis of our inquiries ; a subject, it is scarcely
necessary to add, fraught with the deepest interest to the Church
and people of God, of this day. Indeed, since the age almost im-
mediately succeeding that of Christ and his apostles, no subject
has been more widely discussed ; certainly none which has more
frequently engaged Christendom in fiercer conflict. Diverted from
its original and divinely-appointed intent of conveying to man, by
the word'' and spirit of God,^ the blessings of " the Great Salva-
tion ;" the arm of a purely evangelical resistance has proved pow-
erless before those terrific engines — proscription, confiscation, im-
prisonments, martyrdoms, etc. employed by the hordes of ecclesi-
astical aspirants after " the jye-eminence,^^ in the Church, of early
and mediaeval times, and continued — though, thank Heaven, as
yet, imder more modified forms — by those of the present day.

To understand the merits of this conflict, and the responsibility
respectively of its agents, it must be traced back to its source. This
is indispensable to a determination as to whether, in the primitive
constitution of the ministry, it was of so equivocal a character as to
engender that spirit of unholy rivalship which, though at first "like
a grain of mustard-seed cast into the earth," yet, having sprung
up, has long since attained and still retains, a giant growth. Upon
its outstretched branches repose, at this day, the Eomish "birds of
the air" of every size and tinge !

Of this ministry, synoptically, Paul furnishes us with the follow-
ing account. Christ, " when he ascended up on high," having
" led captivity captive, gave gifts unto men."- — " And he gave
some, apostles ; and some, prophets ; and some, evangelists ; and
some, pastors and teachers;" — after that, miracles, then gifts of
healings, helps, governments, diversity of tongues :" which gifts
"God set in the Church" "for the perfecting of the saints, for the
work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ ; till"
the newly-organized Church should have " all come to the unity of
tlie faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God unto a perfect man,
unto the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ.''^*

Hence we see that, as^^in the heavenly, so in' the militant, king-
dom of Christ. There are diversities of operations and of admin-
istrations (b}^ the appointment and under the guidance of the same
God, the same Lord, the same Spirit) in the visible, as there are
differences of orders and of rank in the invisible. Church ; * with
this difference, however, that, in regard to the heavenly hierarchy,

(1) Heb. 8 : 13. (2) James \ : 21. (3) John 6 : 63 ; 2 Cor. 3 : 6. (4) Epli. 4 : 8-11 ; 1 Cor. 12 : 28,
Eph. 4 : 12, 13. (5) Compare 1 Cor. 15 : 41, etc., with 2 Cor. 12 : 4-11.

the Orders are fixed and permanent : whereas in tlie militant
church state, to the intent that " no flesh should glory in His
presence," ' God has ordained that " the ministry of reconcilia-
tion"" should be committed to "earthen vessels," plainly inti-
mating thereb}'-, that they were, in themselves, comparatively
valueless not only, but that, as such, in order " that the excellency
of the power" displayed in man's salvation miglit be clearly seen
to "be of God, and not of them,''^^ that they might either be
broken, or removed, or changed, as He might tliink lit.

With these preliminaries, proceed we now without further de-
lay, to an examination, inductively, and in the liglit of Scripture
alone,

OF THE ORIGIN, NATUBE, ORDERS AND POWERS OR FUNCTIONS OF THE
CHRISTIAN MINISTRY, AS INSTITUTED BY CHRIST AND HIS APOSTLES.

In the light of Scripture alone. We are happy to record the
unqualified concurrence, in tlie adoption of " the Bible and the
Bible alone" as our standard of appeal in those inquiries, first, of
the great Chillingworth. " The religion of Protestants," says he^
" is the Bible. The Bible, I say, the Bible onhj, is the religion of
Protestants ! Whatsoever else they may believe besides it, and
the plain, indubitable consequences of it, well may they hold it as
a matter of opinion ; but, as a matter of faith and religion, neither
can they with coherence to their OAvn grounds believe it them-
selves, nor require the belief of it of others, without most high and
most schismatical presumption."* To the same effect speaks the
Book of Homilies of the Church of England. " Our Savior Christ
teacheth not, or needeth not any testimony of men ; and that which
is once confirmed by the certainty of his eternal truth, hath no more
need of the confirmation of marLS doctrine and writings, than the
bright sun at noon-tide hath need of the light of a little candle, to
put away darkness and to increase the light."f And, finally, says
that great champion of Episcopacy, Bishop Jeremy Taylor, "What-
soever was the regiment of the Church in the apostle's times, that
must be perpetuall, (not so as to have all that was personall, and
temporary, etc.), for that and that only is of Divine Institution
which Christ committed to the apostles ; and if the Church be not
now governed as then^ we can show no divine authority for our
government, which we must contend to doe, and doe it too, or be
called USURPERS."

(1) 1 Cor. 1 : 29. (2) 2 Cor. 6 : 19. (3) 2 Cor. 4 : 7.
* Chillingworth's Works, Chap. VII, sec. 56.
t Homily against Perils of Idolatry.

i?-.^.'' 98

SECTION in.

^ The Origin of the New Testament ministry — Instances of ministerial appointments —

f, 1st: By Christ personally — 2d: By the Holy Ghost — 3d: By the Apostles — 4th:

By the Apostles with others — 5th : By others than the Apostles — 6th : Of those

respecting whose appointments no allusion is made, either as to the source or mode

of — 7th : Those appointed by special Providence — Total number, sixty.

First, then, of the Origin of the New Testament ministry.

The plan of our inquiries will involve the necessity of present-
ing before the reader, seriatim^ all the instances of ministerial ap-
pointments therein recorded. Tlicse, on inspection, will bo found
to have originated either from Christ personally, or from the Holy
Ghost, or from the Apostles united with others, or from others
besides the Apostles, or by special Providence. Besides these,
others are mentioned as holding office in the Church, without any
allusion either to the source of their appointment, or the mode of
their designation thereto.

I. Of those appointed by Christ personally. These were,

1. The twelve Apostles. " And he ordained twelve, that they
should be with him, and that he might send them forth to preach,
and to have power to heal sicknesses, and to cast out devils," viz. :

(1.) Simon Peter ; (2.) James and (3.) John^i sons of Zehedee /
(4.) Andrew ; (5.) Philip ; (6.^ Bartholoraew ; (7.) Matthew ;
(8.) Thomas ; (9.) James, son of Alpheus ; (10.) Thaddeus ; (11.)
Simoyi., the Canaanite / (12.) Judas Iscariot.^

The object of their vocation was, that, as eye-witnesses of Christ's
resurrection,' etc, they might receive those qualifications^ requisite
for muster huilders,'^ in laying the foundation and erecting thereon
the edifice of Primitive Christianity.'

2. The Seventy Disciples. " After these things the Lord ap-
pointed other seventy also, and sent them two and two before his
face," etc."

3. The man who cast out devils in Christ's name.'

4. The man who was sent to preach the kingdom of God.*

5. Pauli the great Apostle of the Gentiles.^ Though, com-
pared with the other vVpostles, he was " born out of due time,"
yet he was called, " not of men, neither by man^ but by Jesus
"Christ {whom he had seen), and God the Father," asr- a chosen
vessel unto Christ, to bear his name among the Gentiles and kings,
and the children of Israel."'"

(1) Mark 3 : 14-16 ; Matt. 10 : 1. (2) Acts 1 : 3, 8 ; 21, 22. (3) Mark 3 : 14, 15 ; Matt. 10:1;
Mark 6 : 7-13 ; Luke 9:1-6; John 4:1,2; Maik 16 : 12 ; 17. 18 ; .John 16 : 12 ; 21 : 15-17 ; Matt.
16 : 15-19 ; John 21 : 23. (4) 1 Cor. 3 : 10. (r,) Kph. 2 : 20 ; 4 : 11-13. (6) Luke 10 : 1, 2. (7) Mark
9 : 38, 40 ; l.uke 9 : 49, 50. (8) Luke 9 : 59, 60. (9) Gal. 1 : 1, 12 ; 1 Cor. 15 : 8. (10) Acts 9 : 18 ;
Gal. I : 1, 12; Horn. U : 13.

n. Of those appointed directly by the Holy Ghost. These

were

6. Barnabas and Savl. " And as they ministered to the Lord
and fasted, the Holy Ghost said, separate me Barnabas and Saul
for the work whereunto I have called them." Called, airoaToXoi,
Apostles.'

III. Of those appointed by the Apostles. These were,

7. The Seven Deacons. Being chosen by the multitude of the
disciples, " they set them before the Apostles. And when they
had prayed, they laid their hands on them.'"

8. Those also denominated " The Elders^'' npeafivTegoi, whom
Paul and Barnabas " ordained in every church throughout Lystra,
Iconium, and Antioch," etc. And,

9. The hoelve prophetic disciples at Ephesus, by Paul.'

10. Timothy, selected by Paul as his companion, under the title
of EvayyeXiOTov, Thangehsty*

11. Philip, the Deacon, so-called.'

IV. The appointment by the Apostles, with others,

12. Of Matthias, to fill the vacancy occasioned by the apostasy
of Judas.*

V. Of those appointed by others, without the Apostles. These
were,

13. Barnabas, sent forth by the Church in Jerusalem to
Antioch.'

14. Saul and Barnabas, by the prophets and teachers in the
Church at Antioch."

15. Timothy., by the Presbytery of Ephesus.'

It will aid us hereafter by preserving, in this place, a distinction
in things which differ, as connected with the origin and design of
the ministry of the Church as recorded in the New Testament.
We shall therefore reverse the order of the last two articles now
under consideration, by presenting a summary

VI. Of those mentioned as holding office in the New Testament
Church, without any allusion either to the source of their appoint-
ments, or of the mode of their designation thereto. These were,

16. Those certain prophets and teachers in the Church at

(1) Acts 13 : 1, 3 ; 14 : J4: (2) Acts 1 : l-«. (3) Acts 14 : 23 ; v. 21 ; 19 : 1-6 ; vv. 5, 7. (4) Acts
16 : 1. 3 ; 2 Tim. 4 : 5. (5) Acts 21 : 8. (6) Acts 1 : ld-i6. (7) Acts 11 : 22. (8) AcU 13 : 1-3
f9) 1 Tim. 4 : 14.

100

Antiocli. (1.) Barnabas^ or Joses ; (2.) Simeon^ called Niger ;
(3.) Zucius of Gyrene; (4.) Manaen ; (5) Judas ; (6) Silas;
(7.) Jo7m Mark.'

17. Titus, whom Paul calls his partner and fellow-helper,' also
his companion.

18. Epapltjroditus. Paul's companion and fellow-soldier. Called
also the oTroCTTo/lof, apostle, or messenger of the Church.'

19. "A certain Jew, named Apollos, born at Alexandria, an
eloquent man, and mighty in the Scriptures." This man, though
instructed in the way of the Lord, and fervent in the spirit, and
teaching diligently the things of the Lord," nevertheless, " knew
only of the baptism of John." " Aquilla and his wife Priscilla,"
however, having heard him "speak boldly in the synagogue, took
him unto them, and expounded unto him the way of God more
perfectly ;" after which, bearing a letter from " the brethren" to
" the disciples at Achaia, he helped them much which had be-
lieved through grace ; for he mightily convinced the Jews, and
that publicly, showing by the Scriptures that Jesus was Christ."*

20. PJiehe, who is called by Paul ^^ AiaKovov^^^ a servant, or dea-
coness of the Church in Cenchrea.s

21. Priscilla and Aquila, styled by the apostle Paul his "help-
ers in Christ Jesus."*

22. Marcus, sister's son to Barnabas — first, the companion of
Barnabas and Saul, then of Barnabas alone, to Cyprus, and sub-
sequently again of Paul.'

23. Aristarchus of Macedonia, Paul's companion in travel, and
fellow-laborer." (Col. 4 : 10.)

24. Sojmter or Sosipater (Rom. 16 : 21), of Berea. lie accompa-
nied Paul into Asia.'

25. Aristarchus of Thessalonica. He accompanied Paul into
Asia.'"

26. /Secwwi^w^ of Thessalonica. He accompanied Paul into Asia."

27. Gaius of Derbe. He accompanied Paul into Asia.''

28. Tychicus of Asia. (Col. 4 : 7.) He accompanied Paul into
Asia."'

29. Tropliimus of Asia. He accompanied Paul into Asia.**

30. Artemas. Either he or Tychicus was sent to Crete by
Paul to relieve Titus, whom he wanted to join him at Nicopolis."

31. Epenctus, Paul's well-beloved.'"

32. Andronicus and Junia. Paul's " fellow-prisoners," and
" of note among the apostles.""

33. Urhane. Paul's " helper in Christ.""

34. Apelles. " Approved in Christ,""

(1) Acts 4 : 36 ; 13 : 1 ; and V. 5 ; 12 : 25 ; 15 : 30-32. (2) 2 Cor. 8 : 23. (3) Phjlipp. 2 : 25. (4) Act*
18 : 24-28 ; Titus 3 : 13. (5) Rom. 16 : 1. (6) Rom. 16 : 3 ; 2 Tim. 4 : 19. (7) Col. 4 : 10 ; Acts
12 : 12-25 ; 13 : 13 ; 15 : 37-39 ; 2 Tim. 4 :11. Philem. v. 24. (8) Acts 19 : 29 ; 27 : 2. Philem. v.
24. (9) Acts 20 : 4. (10) lb. (11) lb. (12) lb. (13) lb. See also 2 Tim. 4:12; and Titus 3 : 12.
(14) Acts 20 : 4 ; 2 Tim. 4 ; 20. (15) Titus 3 : 18. (16) Rom. 16 : 5. (17) lb., v. 7. (18) lb., ▼. 9.
(19) Rom. 16 : 10.

101

35, Aristobulus, 36, Herodian, and 37, Narcissus. " Wliich are

in the Lord.'"

38, AmpUas, and 39, Stachys. " Beloved in the Lord.'"

40, Tryphena^ 41, Tryphosa^ and 42, Per sis. ^'■Yfholdbcyred in

the Lord.'"

43. Rufus. " Chosen in the Lord."*

44. Onesiphorus.

45. Erastus.

46. Eubidus.

47. Pudens.

48. Linus.

49. Claudia."

50. Epaphras. "A faithful minister of Christ," and Paul's "fel-
low-prisoner."'

51. Onesimus. He accompanied Tychicus to Colosse.'' (For
Tjchicus, see 28.)

52. Jesus., called Justus, Paul's " fellow-worker unto the king-
dom of God.""

53. Lucas. Paul's " fellow-laborer.'"

54. Demas. Paul's "fellow-laborer."'" The unfaithful. Paul
writes of him, " Demas hath forsaken me, having loved this pre-
sent world.""

55. Crescens}^

56. ArcMppus. A charge was given him to " take heed to the
ministry which he had received of th^Lord, to fulfill it."'3

57. The angels or stars of the seven Asiatic Churches.'*

58. Diotrephes.^" He "loved to have the pre-eminence."
The following names : — Asyncritus^ PJdegon, Hermas, Patro-

has^ Hermes^ Philologus^ Nereus., Olympas and Dem£trius^^ with
those of J/ar?/, Julia^ the sister of Nereus^'' etc., may have been —
the former Deacons, and the latter the Dorcases or Deaconesses of
the churches. But, no mark of official designation being attached
to their names, we classify them with such as the " well-beloved"
Gaius, " the elect lady," etc., mentioned by John," as having occu-
pied in the churches the position of general " fellow-helpers to the
truth,"" in the extension of their charity, hospitality, and timely
assistance rendered to their suffering ministerial " brethren and
strangers."" And, of this class also, may have been several whose
names appear in the preceding catalogue as officers in the Church.
For example, 31, Epenetus ; 34, Apelles ; 35, Aristobulus ; 36,
Herodion ; 37, Narcissus; 38, Amylias ; 39, Stachys^ eic A
few doubtful cases, however, in regard either to the one or the
other of the above-named classes, can in no way affect our general
argument in the premises. We add to the above,

(1) lb., V. 10. 11. (2) lb., V. 8, 9. (3) lb., v. 12. (4) lb., v. 13. (5) 2 Tim. 4 : 19-21. (6) Colos.
1:7;4:12. Philem v. 23. (7) Col. 4 : 7-9. (8) Col. 4 : 11. (9; lb., v. 14. (10) lb., v. 14. Philem.
T. 24. (11) •.? Tim. 4 : 10. (12) lb., v. 10. (13) Colos. 4 : 17. (14) Rev 2 : 3. (15) 3 John, vv. 9, 10.
(16) Rom. 16 : 14, 15 ; 3 John, 12. (17) Rom. 16 : 6, 15. (18) 2 John, v. 1 ; 3 John, v. 1. (19) lb., v.
8. (20) See 3 John, 1 : 8.

102

Vll. — Those appointments in the Church made by sI'ecial
Providence. These were,

59. The '■^ elders'^ or " hisTiaps'^ — -rrpealSvreQol vel emoKonoi ;' and,

60. The " deacons^^ — ^Iukovoi, in the churches of Ephesus and
Crete."

Such, then, were the ministerial " gifts" appointed under the
direction and control of "the Lord God and his Spirit," in the
primitive or New Testament Church.

SECTION rv.

The nature of their powers or "gifts." — This inferred, 1st: From their moral qualities of
heart and of life — 2d : Must have a Divine call — 3d : Intellectual qualifications — 4th:
Must be of sound doctrine — 5th : Excluded self-adulation, jealousy, and a love of " the
pre-eminence" — 6th : The duty enjoined, to forsake such as are unholy in life, or
who " handle the word of God deceitfully."

Pass we now, therefore, from this account of their origin, to our
next step of induction in these inquiries. This relates to,

11. — The NATUEE of these "gifts." This may be gathered from
the following particulars. The first regards, —

1. The moral qualities of heart and of life of those who pos-
sessed them. To the apostles, Christ said, " Ye have not chosen
me, but I have chosen you, and ordained you, that ye should go
and bring forth fruit'" — " the fruit of the Spirit"^ — and that, first,
personally — "love, joy, peace, long-suffering, meekness, gentle-
ness," etc' Second, ministerially — by turning sinners " from
darkness to light, and from the power of Satan unto God,"" and
by the building up of the believer in the most holy faith ;' and,
for this work, they were eminently qualified, by imparting to them
the .Divine affiatus from Christ personally, both at the time of, and
subsequently to, their first call ;' and also, and especiallj'-, by the
descent upon them of the Holy Ghost on the day of Pentecost.'
So of the elders or hishops. It was required that they be " blame-
less, as the steward of God" — "sober, just, holy, temperate," etc.,
that they might be able both to exhort and convince the gainsay-
ers."'° The same of deacons^ of whom it was required " that they
be men of honest report, full of the Holy Ghost and of wisdom.""

(1) 1 Tim. 3 : 1, 2. 3, 7 ; Titus 1 : 4-9. (i) 1 Tim. 3 : 8-13. (3) John 15 : 16. (1) GjI. 5 : 22. (5) lb.,
92, 23. (6) Acts 26 : 18. (7) .Jude 20. (8) John 3 : 34, 35 j 20 : 22. (9) Acts 2. (10) Titus 1:6-9;
1 Tim. 3:1-7. (11) Acts 6 : 3.

103

2. To these spiritual qTialilications, we add the necessity of a divine
call ; and that, either direct, as in the case of tlie twelve apostles,
the scvent}^, Paul, etc. : or, by the authority of the Church, under
the guidance of the Holy Spirit, as in the case of Saul and Barna-
bas, the seven deacons, etc. " He that entereth in by the door, is
the shepherd of the sheep." All who " climb up some other way,
are thieves and robbers.'" Of such God says, " I sent them not^
neither have I commanded them, neither s2Kdce unto them." '' Hence
the direction — applicable alike to every age of the Church — "Pray
ye the Lord of the harvest, that He would send laborers into his
harvest." ^ We add,

3. Intellectual qualifications. " A hishop must be apt to teach"
— " a scribe well instructed" — " a workman that needeth not to be
ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth:" " not a novice, lest,
being lifted up with pride, he fall into the condemnation of the
devil."*

4. Sound doctnne, is another pre-requisite of this ministry.
Christ warned his apostles to " beware of the leaven, or doctrine,
of the Pharisees and Sadducees."' Paul charged Timothy thus:
*' Take heed to thyself and to the doctnne, and continue in them,"'
" that the name of God and his doctrine be not blasphemed."'
" But speak thou the things which become sound doctrine," " that
ye be not carried away by every wind of doctrine, and cunning
craftiness of men, whereby they lie in wait to deceive." *

5. This ministry of reconciliation," though constituted, as above,
of " diversities of gifts ;" " that there should be no schism in the
body,"' the Great Head of the Church early warned those included
therein against indulgence in a spirit of self-adulation, of jealousy,
or of a love of the pke-emin^nce. Says he to them, " seek not the
honor which cometh from men, but the honor which cometh from
God."'" And, to quell that spirit of unholy, schismatical, church-
disorganizing rivalry so deeply inwoven in the very nature of sin-
ful humanity, — yea, and from which even the regenerate are not
wholly exempt— as may be seen in the conduct of the two sons of
^ebedee, James and John" — and to allay the rising jealousy of
"the ten" to\yard their erring brethren, Jesus said : — "Ye know
that they which are accounted to rule over the Gentiles exercise lord-
ship over them ; and their great ones exercise authorit}^ over them.
But so it shall not he among you : but whosoever will be great
among }' on shall be your minister : and whosoever will be the
chiefest, shall be the servant of all : for even tlie Son of man came
not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a
ransom for many."" And so again on another occasion. In oppo-
sition to that overweening love of titles and distinctions prevalent
among the Pharisees, our Lord enjoins iipon them, " But be not

(1) John 10 : 1, 2. (-2) Jer. U : 14 ; 23 : 21, 32 ; 27 : 15. (3) Matt. 9 : 38. (4) 1 Tim. 3:2; Matt.
13 : 52 ; 2 Tim. 2:15; 1 Tim. 3 : 6. (5) Matt. 16 : 5-12. (6) 1 Tim. 4 : 16. (7) 1 Tim. 6:1. (8) Titni
2:1; Eph. 4 : 14. (9) 1 Cor. 12 : 4, 25. (10) Jolia 5 : 41-44. (11) Matt. 20 : 20-23. (12) Mark
10 : 42-^5.

104

ye called Rubbi : for one is your master, even Christ, and all ye
are brethren. And call no man your father upon earth : for one is
your Father, which is in heaven. — But he that is greatest among
you shall be your servant. And whosoever shall exalt him-
self SHALL BE ABASED ; AND HE THAT HUMBLETU HIMSELF SHALL BE

exalted;'" admonitions, one would think, sufficiently emphatic
to deter Christ's ministers from the assumption of titles of distinc-
tion^ be they what they may, which would in the least reflect in-
vidiously on any among the " ALL," who are alike denominated
" brethken."

Such, then, namely : a changed heart, and a holy life — a Divine
call — suitable intellectual qualifications — soundness in doctrine —
freedom from indulgence in a spirit of self-adulation, of jealousy, and
of a love of the pre-eminence, etc., being essential characteristics of the
Christian ministry, the inference is, that that ministry must be, in
its nature, eminently spiritual and holy. We would, however, be-
fore dismissing this subject, and in the hope of adding greater force
and impressiveness thereto, remark, that it is made an imperative
duty upon all, to withdraiv themselves from those who, claiming to he
ministers of Christ, are nevertheless not only unholy in life, hut who
" HANDLE THE WORD OF GoD DECErrFDLLY." " Bcwarc," says our
Lord, " Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's
clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves. Ye shall know
them by their fruits," etc." Such are styled " blind leaders of the
blind:" 3 "false apostles, deceitful workers, transforming them-
selves into the apostles of Christ."'' Such, primitively, were
"Jannes and Jambres," " Hymeneus and Philetus," and " Dio-
trephes, who loved to have the pre-eminence."' They were
"men of corrupt minds, reprobate concerning the faith;"" "hav-
ing a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof:" some of
them "teaching for doctrines the commandments of men;"^ and
*' changing times and laws," etc. :' while others, "by good words
and fair speeches deceived the hearts of the simple"' in regard to
all the fandamental truths of Christianity, " turning the truths of
God into a lie," and bringing in "damnable heresies, even denying
the Lord who bought them." "

Now, with these and the like " deceivers," the Church of Christ
has been more or less infected, from the New Testament times to
this day. It Avas predicted that thus it should be, of which the
following by Paul is a specimen. " For I know this, that after
my departing, shall grievous wolves enter in amortg you, not spar-
ing the flock. Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking
perverse things, to draw away disciples after them."" "They
shall deceive, if it be possible, the very elect." "

Therefore, " beware." The declaration of our Lord concerning
the conduct of his " sheep" in regard to such — " a stranger will

(1) Matt. 23 : 12. (2) Matt. 7 : 15-20. (3) lb. 15 : 14. (4) 2 Cor. 11 : 23, and v. 13. Cj) 3 John
V. 9. (6) 2 Tim. 3 : 1-13. (7) Matt. 13 : 9. (9) Dan. 7 : 25. (9) Rom. 16 : 18. (10) 2 Pet. 2 : 1.
(11) Acts '20 : 29, 30. (12) Matt. 24 : 24.

105

tliej not follow, but will flee from him ;" ' by implication not only
asserts the right but imposes the duty, to forsake all unholy and
heretical ministers, who " consent not to wholesome words, even
the words of our Lord Jesus Christ, and to the doctrine which is
according to godliness." * And especially from those of them who,
in addition to their departure from the truth as it is in Christ,

" LOKD IT OVER God's HEKFTAGe" ' BY SUBJECTING HER TO A SYSTEM OF

Judaico-Christianized ceremonials and will-worship, which
neither we nor our fathers were able to bear ; ^ and that for the
reason, that they are proud, knowing nothing, but doting about
questions and words of strife, Avhereof cometh envy, strife, railings,
evil surmisings, perverse disputings of men of corrupt minds, and
destitute of the truth, supposing that gain is godliness." ^ *

Now, " from such," says the ajoo'stle, '•'■withdraw thyself" And,
as though this were insufficient, he adds in another place, " Now
we command you, brethren, in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ,
that ye withdraw yourself from every brother that walketh disor-
derly, and not after the tradition which he received of us." •*

SECTION V.

Ministerial Orders. How many were there ? — Process of reduction and classification — 1st,
By their titles — Of the above sixty, forty bore no titles ecclesiastical — those with
titles (twenty in all) , the number reduced to eight — These compared with Eph.
4 : 11. — The present divinely-appointed ministry must correspond with those of
the above who were designed to constitute the ordinary and permanent orders of
said ministry for all time — Further reduction of the remaining New Testament
appointments to this standard — Process — Classification according to their powers
or functions, in connection with their titles — Eph. 4:11, harmonized with 1 Cor.
12 : 28 — Their powers — Varied, both in degree and duration — The first, apostles,
superior — Seven marks of, etc.

From the nature of the New Testament ministry, pass we now
to consider,

III. — Their Orders. The question here is, how many orders
are there ? One, three, thirteen, or thirty ? *

1. To determine this point, we shall limit the test to those of the
appointments (given on pages 98-102) which can be traced too. de-
finite source^ or which bear a definite ecclesiastical title. The whole
number of appointments is sixty : of which those of whose ap-
pointments no account is given, and who bear no ecclesiastical

(1) John 10 : 5. (-2) 1 Tim. 6 : 3. (3) 1 Peter 5 : 3. (4) Acts 15 : 10. (5) 2 Tim. 5 : 3-5. (6) 2
ThcS3. 3 ; 6.

* It is our deep, deliberate, and solemn conviction and belief, that to no other portion
of nominal Christendom will these words apply, in the same sense and to the same
extent, as to the present divided and distracted condition of things in the Anglican and
American Protestant Episcopal Church. " May God help her, and that right early /"

106

title, amount in all io forty. Those, deducted from tlie aggregate
number, leave twenty. But, of this latter number it is clear that
the above question cannot be determined alone by the names or
titles borne by them respectively. For, besides that several who
performed mmisterial acts have no titles assigned to them ; — viz. :
No. 3, the man who cast out devils ; No. 4, the man sent to
preach ; and No. 12, Barnabas, as sent forth by the Church at Je-
rusalem ; — of those who have, if taken as they stand, it would con-
siderably swell the amount beyond any admitted number of orders
extant. They may be classified thus : Nos. 1, 5, 6, 11, 13, and
17, speak of apostles : No. 2, of the seventy disciples : Nos. 7 and
58, of deacons : Nos. 10 and 11, of evangelists : Nos. 8 and 57, of
elders or bishops : Nos. 9 and 15, of prophets and teachers : No. 18,
of deaconesses : No. 57, of the apocalyptic angels or stars.

These titles give us, 1st, apostles ; 2d, disciples; 3d, deacons ;
4th, deaconesses ; 5th, jprophets ; 6th, teachers ; 7th, elders ; 8th,
evangelists ; 9th, angels ; a larger number, this, of Orders, than
those enumerated by Paul, Eph. 4 : 11, where he names apostles,
prophets^ evangelists^ pastors or* teachers : in all, four.

Of course, it will not be pretended that there are any orders now
extant, which, taken as a whole, will bear the least resemblance to
the above, either in number or in titles.

This premised, we shall now assume as incontrovertible, that
any extant ministry of the Church of Christ, claiming to be of Di-
vine appointment, must bear evident marks of identity with what
was designed to be the permanent orders in that Church for all time,
of those which constituted the aggregate body during the apostolic
age.

Our first business, therefore, is, to reduce the above number of
the New Testament ministerial appointments to this standard.

This done, and we shall be prepared to search out those portions
of the Church of Christ where this ministry is to be found.

The question, then, presents itself ^ — Out of the above-named ap-
pointments, how is the number to be reduced to the divinely-ap-
pointed standard orders ? There is no other way than —

1. By a deduction therefrom, of all those who, from the circum-
stances of their origin, and the nature and design of their appoint-
ments, had no titles assigned to them. These were, first. No. 3,
the man who was sent to preach ; second. No. 4, the man who cast
out devils ; and third. No. 12, Barnabas, as sent forth by the
Church at Jerusalem.

The same will apply, fourth, to No. 2, the seventy disciples
whose ministry ended before the crucifixion ; fifth, to No. 18, the
deaconesses, whose office at an early period was lost to the Church.

The next process is, —

2. By a grouping together of all bearing the same title. These

* " Teachers" — a word added, to explain the figurative " pastors," and so without the
article, and epexigetical. (The Rev. S. H. Cox, D.D.)

107

were, sixth, No. 1, " the twelve," called dnooToXoi ; seventh, No.
5, Paul, dTToaroAof ; eighth and ninth, Nos. 6 and 13, Saul and
Barnabas, diroaroXoL -^ tenth, No. 17, Epaphroditus, dnoaroXog -^
and eleventh, No. 11, Matthias, diroaToXog.

8. The next is, a classification of those whose titles were used
interchangeably ; for example, twelfth, thirteenth, and fourteenth,-
Nos. 10, 16, and 17, Paul calls Timothy, Titus, and Epaphroditus
his companions in labor, etc. ; while in No. 10 he charges Timothy
to do the work of an evangelist. Therefore, they were all three
evangehsts. So also, fifteenth and sixteenth, Nos. 8 and 57,
"elders," TrpeofSyrepoi^ and "bishops," emoKonoi^ denote the same
oflfice. The remainder are,

4. Seventeen and eighteen, Nos. 7 and 58, deacons ; nineteen,
Nos. 9 and 15, prophets and teachers ; and twenty. No. 57,
angels.

The next step of our advance, is, by deducting the five appoint-
ments referred to in the first of the above scales, to determine
which of the remainder, as viewed in the double aspect of ministerial
powers or functions AND titles^ were intended to be temporary only,
as contradistinguished from those which were designed for the per-
manent upbuilding and edification of the Church, to the end of the
present dispensation.

At this point, then, the question of ministerial orders, necessa-
rily merges into that regarding,

rV. — Their Poweks ok Functions.

By this we mean, simply, that the rank or order of each, is
to be inferred from the work assigned to each. Not, however,
exclusively. For, their names or titles^ surely, are not mere
empty sounds, without sense or meaning. Nor does it alter
the case, that, in some instances, the same name or title is em-
ployed to denote entirely separate and distinct functions of dif-
ferent orders. For, in addition to the fact, as will appear in
the sequel, that a name, commonly appropriated to denote, by
way of eminence, a particular order, is sometimes applied to those
exercising different functions under another title ; and again,
that two different names or titles are sometimes employed to
designate the same order ; so, on the other hand, the same name is
sometimes employed to denote the various functions or species of
one genus or order.

With these preliminaries in view, we remark, that the powers or
functions and titles now to be examined, regard tlie following, as
what remain in the preceding summary of ministerial appointments
by Christ and his apostles, viz. : apostles, prophets, evangelists,
TEACHERS, ELDERS, Or augcls (which Order, as will be seen hereafter,
embraces two classes — those of teaching or preaching, and ruling
elders — ). deacons, in all, six in number.

4 .

108

Now, by deducting from these, those bearing the titles of elders,
as embracing both classes of teaching and ruling elders, and dea-
cons ; the remaining four will be found precisely to correspond
with those given by Paul, Eph. 4 : 11. " And he" (Christ, " when
he ascended up on high,") " gave some, apostles ; and some, pro-
phets ; and some, evangelists, and some, pastors {alias angels)
or teachers.

But it will be asked. How is this to be reconciled with the
statement in 1 Cor. 12 : 28 ? " God hath set some in the Church,
first, apostles ; secondarily, prophets ; thirdly, teachers ; after that,
miracles ; then gifts of healings, helps, governments, diversities of
tongues ;" in all, eight in number.

We submit the following, as furnishing what we conceive to be a sa-
tisfactory reply. In the latter passage, we understand the apostle to
speak of ministerial orders by their powers or functions and titles ;
•while in the former, he presents them to view under the aspect of
their titles only. It follows, that they can be made to harmonize
on no other principle than that, talcen together^ they set forth their
respective endowments.

The question, therefore, to be determined is this : Were all
those who were engaged in preaching, baptizing, teaching, etc.,
and in governing the Church during the New Testament age, pos-
sessed of the same endowments — that is, the same in degree, and
in duration, and to the same end ? So far from it, they were cha-
racterized by the greatest possihle diversities of " gifts," " opera-
tions," and "administrations." "Wisdom," "knowledge," "faith,"
"the working of miracles," "prophecy," "discerning of spirits,"
"divers kinds of tongues," and "the interpretation of tongues,"*
were all severally distributed for specifically different ends., in
accordance with the sovereign will of the same Lord God and his
Spirit." As " the body is not one member, but many"^ — the eye,
the ear, the hand, the foot — each performs its functions, whether
superior or subordinate, in harmony with their respective relations
to tliat body, as a whole.

Which one, then, of the above orders now under consideration,
constituted, in the highest sense, the sitperior ministry.^ of the
New Testament Church ? In the Pauline catalogues, as given in
1 Cor. 12 : 28, and Eph. 4 : 11, both open with,

I.— "First. Apostles:^

Let us then, in the first place, attend to the marhs or signs.,
essential to this office. First. An apostle must have been called
and chosen by Christ himself Second. He must have been able,
as an eye-witness, to attest the fact of Christ's resurrection and
ascension, either immediately, as the twelve, or by evident conse-
quence, as Paul. Third. He must have been an inspired perison,

(J) 1 Cor. 12. (2) John 3 : 34. (3) 1 Cor. 12 : 12-27.

109

and an infallible guide to the Cliurcli, as tlie canon of Scripture
was not then complete. Fourth. He must have been endowed
with miraculous powers. Fifth. He must have been able to im-
part the extraordinary gift of the Holy Ghost to others. Sixth. He
must have possessed the right and warrant to instruct all nations,
and exercise his functions every where. And, seventh. He must
have possessed the power to govern absolutely, according to dis-
cretion, under the guidance of the Holy Ghost.*

Now, do the New Testament Scriptures bear out these marks or
signs, in their application to " the twelve ?" Let us try the

First, by that standard. In our list of ministerial appointments,
No. I. assigns that of " the twelve" to Christ, jpersonally.
Mark says, " and he (Christ) ordained twelve, that they should be
with him," etc' Their names were, Peter, Andrew, James the son
of Zebedee, John, Philip, Bartholomew, Thomas, Matthew, James
the son of Alpheus, Lebbeus, Simon the Canaanite, and Judas
Iscariot.^ To these " twelve," Jesus gave the name of "Apos-
tles."^

The second. As it respects " the twelve," Christ, having
called them as his personal companions during his ministry, and
having " showed himself alive to them after his passion," he said,
" ye shall receive power, after that the Holy Ghost is come upon
you : and ye shall be witnesses unto me, both in Jerusalem, and
in all Judea, and in all Samaria, and unto the uttermost part of the
earth."' So, in regard to Paul, whose mission, having " seen^^
Christ — though "as of one born out of due time"'^ — was no less cir-
cumscribed. As " an Apostle, (not of men, neither by man, but
hy Jesus ChHst^ and God the Father^ who raised him from the
dead,)^ he labored more abundantly than they all."'

The third. In reference to the matter of inspiration peculiar
to New Testament times, the fact, we observe, of Paul's detail,
with so much minuteness, of the " diversities of gifts" conferred
" by the Spirit," and actually possessed and exercised by the Co-
rinthian believers,' renders it certain that the divine affiatus was
not exclusively confined to themselves. Nor is it less certain that
they (the apostles) possessed it in a super-eminent degree. What-
ever difiiculties may attend our determination of the difference of
import of the /loyof oofpiag, " the word of toisdom,^^^ as distin-
guished from the Xoyog yvo)oeo)g, " the word of knowledge,''' as to
the order of their distribution ; and also those other gifts, namely,
"faith," "the gifts of heahng," "the working of miracles," "pro-
phecy," "discerning of spirits," speaking with " tongues," and "the
interpretation of tongues ;" yet, that these endowments, so far as
bestowed upon and exercised by the " prophets and teachers" of
the Church, were inferi<yr to those conferred on the apostles, is

(1) Mark 3 : 14. (2) Matt. 10 : 2-4 ; Mark 3 : 16-19 ; Luke 6 : 13-16. (3) Luke 6 : 13 ; Matt 10 : 9.
(4) Acts 1 : 3-8. (5) 1 Cor. l.i : 3. (6) Gal. 1 : 1-12. (7) 1 Cor. 15 : 10. (8) 1 Cor. 13.

* See Barrow's Pope's Supremacy, p. 64.

110

demonstrable from the fact of Paul's appeal to the proofs of Me
apostleship wrought among the Corinthians, " in signs, and won-
ders, and mighty deeds;" and of his declaration, that he "spoke
with tongues viore than they all ;''"' and that he could boast of
visions and revelations vouchsafed to him, transcending any to
which the jt?s<^w<^Zo-prophets could lay claim. So, of their pre-emi-
nent inspiration. " If any man," says Paul, " think himself
to be a prophet, or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things
that I write unto you are the commandments (or injunctions) of
the Lord." To the same effect speaks the apostle John. "He that
is of God lieareth us : he that is not of God heareth not us : hereby
know we how to distinguish the spirit of truth from the spirit of
error."

The proof of the apostolic inspiration, then, is, that the apostles
claimed implicit submission to their authority as infallible and
divinely-commissioned teachers, appealing to their miraculous
powers as credentials of their prophetic and plenary inspiration,
and that those claims were recognized. As it is impossible they
could themselves be deceived, either they must have been what
they claimed to be, infallible^ or they were impostors. But, as it
is impossible that such imposture should not have been detected
and exposed, the history of Christianity attests at once the irre-
fragable character of the evidence, and the genuineness of those
pretensions, by which the Divine signet is af&xed to all that they
taught.*

The fourth. That "the twelve" were endowed with Tniraculoua
powers^ is manifest from the entire history, both of their vocation^
and of their work. The functions apostolic were gradually de-
veloped under two separate and distinct commissions.

1. The first transpired under Christ, in his capacity of Messiah
of the Jewish nation^ the primary object of whose mission as such
was, if they would, " to restore the kingdom" — by the re-institu-
tion of the rejected and long-lost theocracy — " to Israel."' Hence
the limited tenure of this commission. Jesus having sent them
forth " by two and two,"' " commanded them, saying, Go not
into the way of the Gentiles, and into any city of the Samaritans
enter ye not : hut go rather to the lost sJi^eep of the house of
IsraeV'^ This commission was founded on their immediate en-
dowment of miraculous power " against unclean spirits, to cast
them out, and to heal all manner of sickness and all manner of
disease."* They were also, at the same time, empowered to preach,"
and to baptize.*

But, this JwcZaico-Christian commission of "the twelve" ended
with the nation's rejection, of Christ as their Messiah^ when they
exclaimed, " We have no king but Caesar !" Meanwhile, a vacancy

0) Acts 1 : 6. (2) Mark 6 : 7. (3) Matt. 10 : 6. (4) Matt. 10 : 1 ; Mark 3 : 15 ; 6 : 7, 13 ; Luke
9 : 1. (5) Matt. 10 : 1 ; Mark 3:14; Luke 0 : l. (6) John 4:1,2.

* Literary History of the New Testament, p. 286. London : Seely & Co., 1845.

Ill

occurs in the apostolic college, by the apostasy of Iscariot.' Pass
we now, therefore,

2. To the second commission of " the eleven." Not that this
commission consisted in the creation of a new office. This could
not be, inasmuch as, under the first, tliey were fully invested
with their apostolic character. But now, Christ, having expiated
sin by the sacrifice of himself on the cross, immediately after his
resurrection, appears to them " in the mountain where he had
appointed to meet them ;" and in virtue of the " all power given
to him of the Father both "in heaven and on earth," the func-
tions apostolic of the first commission, having a relation only to
that part of the covenant Abrahamic which belonged to the literal
Israel, are now so enlarged, as to be adapted to the extension of
the blessings of the same covenant to "«/^ tlie nations and fami-
lies of the earthy This commission is set forth in the following
terms, by Mark and Matthew :

Mark 16 : 15, 16. Matt. 28 : 19, 20.

'■'■ Go ye into all the world, and preach Go ye, therefore, and teach all nations,
the Gospel to every creature. He that baptizing them in the name of the
believeth, and is baptized, shall be Father, and of the Son, and of the
saved ; but he that believeth not, shall Holy Ghost ; teaching them to observe
be damned." all things whatsoever I have com-

manded you."

And, to this commission, the pledge is given, ^^ And., lo, I am
with YO TJ alway., even unto the end of the worldP

The theater of their future operations, therefore, is no longer
confined to the narrow limits of Judea. " The field is tue

WORLD !"

But, the commission, as here given, only enjoins upon " the
eleven" that they preach, baptize, and teach. Are we then, hence
to infer, that these constituted the full extent of their apostolic
functions under this second commission ? What, were their mira-
culous powers, which, as shown above, entered into the very
essence of their apostolic character and functions under the first
commission, considered essential in promoting and securing the
end of their ministry among the Jews ; while, now that they were
henceforth to be engaged in propagating the Gospel throughout
the wide-spread world of Paganism, there existed no necessity for
the continuance of the same powers ? So far from it, granting
that, in the form of this commission, there is no express reference
to these powers, it could not in consistency be inferred that they
no longer formed apart of the apostolic functions. We afl^rm,
that those miraculous powers constituted a component part of those
functions, as well under the la.?t^ as under the first, commission.
We affirm also, that, so far as " the eleven" were concerned, they
not only never ceased to exist, but were, under the second com-
mission, considerably enlarged.

(1) Luke 22 : 3 ; John 13 : 26.

114

so that, from Jerusalem, and round about unto Illyricum, I have
fully preached the Gospel of Christ.'"

The fifth mark or sign of an apostle. He must have been able
to impart tue gift of tpte Holy Ghost to others. This was a
power pre-eminently and exclusively theirs. Other ministers and
even private believers might perform miracles, but it was only as
they deriv^ed the power to do so from the apostles through the gift
of the Holy Ghost. See this illustrated in the instances of the
converts of Samaria, by Peter and John ; on Cornelius and those
with him who heard the word, by Peter ; and by Paul, on the
twelve disciples at Ephesus, and on Timothy." The only excep-
tion to the above, was in the case of the apostle Paul's receiving
this gift at the hand of Ananias, who derived his power, 7iot from
the apostles, but from "the Lord."'

The sixth. He must have possessed the right and warrant to
instimct all nations, and exercise his functions every ivhere. This is
evident from the tenure of the commission itself, and from their
qualification therefor, through the miraculous gift of tongues.
Finally,

The seventh. He must have possessed the power to govern ab-
solutely, according to discretion, under the guidance of the Holy
Ghost. Under this function apostolic is embraced the prerogative
to bind and loose, to retain and remit sin, etc. Hence their in-
flictions of punishments and judgments from God on others : for
example, the signal judgment of Peter on Ananias and Sapphira ;
and of Paul on Elymas the sorcerer ; on Hymeneus and Alexan-
der ; and on the incestuous Corinthians.*

Thus much, then, respecting the marks or signs of the New
Testament apostles. They were appointed by Christ personally,
either immediately, as "the eleven," or mediately, as Paul. They
were eye-witnesses of Christ's resurrection and ascension. They
were inspired and infallible. They were endowed with miraculous
powers. They alone could impart the gift of the Holy Ghost.
Their mission and functions were adapted to universality, and
they governed, etc., absolutely.

(1) Rorn. 15 : 18, 19. (2) Acts 8 : 14-17 ; 10 : 44 ; 10 : 6 ; 2 Tim. 1 : 6, 7. (3) Acts 9 : 17. (4) Ao
0 : 1-11 ; 13 : 11 ; 1 Tim. 1 : 20 ; 1 Cor. 6 : 4, 6

115

SECTION VT.

The Equality of " the Twelve Apostles." — The claim of Primacy and Supremacy in
behalf of Peter, considered. — Fallacy of — Arguments. 1st. In their Commission,
Christ addressed all alike. — 2d. His name. 1st : Its change from Simon to Cephas.
—UcTpni.—2<i: Exposition of Matt. IG : 18, 19, "On this rock," etc.— 3d: Do. of
the latter clause, " the keys," etc. — 4th: Do. of John 21 : 15-17, " Feed my sheep,"
etc. — 5th: Review of Peter's official acts. — (1.) The Convocation of Jerusalem.
Acts 8 : 14-27. — (2.) His accusation and defense, Acts 12 : 1-18. — (3.) Dispute
about Circumcision, Acts 15 : 1-21. — (4.) Do. between Paul and Peter, Gal. 2:
11-14. — (5.) Peter styles himself, not the apostle, but an apostle, etc.

IV. — But, another inquiry of vital moment now presents itself.
It regards the subject

Of the EQUALITY of the apostolic functions of " the twelve."
The question is : — Had any one of " the twelve" a precedence in
rank or authority either over the others^ or of primacy or svprem-
axiy in the Church of Christ f

Here again, as on the question of the Apostolic Orders, we shall
appeal to our only recognized standard, " the Bible, and the Bible
glone."

Now, it will at once occur to the reader, that the name of the
apostle Peter is prominently identitied with what is to be offered
on this subject. It is admitted, (at least a superficial view of the
matter would predispose one to admit,) that if any one of " the
twelve" was distinguished above his compeers in rank or authority,
or held primacy or supremacy in the Church, it was Peter.

But, was he thus distinguished ? Superiority in these premises
may be predicated of one of the four following qualities : 1st. Age.
2d. Talents. 3d. Character. 4th. Office. Now, Peter might
have been the eldest of " the twelve," or at least the first of the
number called by Christ.* But this circumstance alone, surely,
could not have entitled him to that dignity. To urge in his behalf
the other two — talents and character of a pre-eminent order, com-
pared with his associates — were no less dubious than invidious.
And, as it regards office^ the Scriptures, we affirm, affiDrd no coun-
tenance to the claim of superiority or supremacy in his behalf.
True, Peter did receive from Christ on several occasions, marked
tokens of esteem.* It is equally true that he possessed many
traits of character which need but to be named to command our ad-
miration. And though the impetaosity of this apostle's tempera-
ment sometimes betrayed him into error, ^ yet who does not love to
contemplate his promptitude, decision, courage, and zeal, in his

(1) Matt. 16 : 13-19 ; Mark 9:2; John 21 : 15-17. (2) Matt. 26 : 69-7.5 ; .lohn 91 : 1-3.
* Though, by the way, he was not, for that honor belonged, net to Peter, but to An-
drew his brother, who brought him to Christ. John 1 : 40—42.

114

so that, from Jerusalem, and round about unto Illyricum, I have
fully preached the Gospel of Christ.'"

The fifth mark or sign of an apostle. He must have been able
to impart tub gift of the Holy Ghost to otiikrs. This was a
power pre-eminently and exclusively theirs. Other ministers and
even private believers might perform miracles, but it was only as
they derived the power to do so from the apostles through the gift
of the Iloly Ghost. See this illustrated in the instances of the
converts of Samaria, by Peter and John ; on Cornelius and those
with him who heard tlie word, by Peter ; and by Paul, on the
twelve disciples at Ephesus, and on Timothy,' The only excep-
tion to the above, was in the case of the apostle Paul's receiving
this gift at the hand of Ananias, who derived his power, not from
the apostles, but from "the Lord."'

The sixth. He must have possessed the right and warrant to
instruct all nations^ and exercise his functions even'y xoliere. This is
evident from the tenure of the commission itself, and from their
qualification therefor, through the miraculous gift of tongues.
Finally,

The seventh. He must have possessed the power to govern ab-
solutely^ according to discretion, under the guidance of the Holy
Ghost. Under this function apostolic is embraced the prerogative
to bind and loose, to retain and remit sin, etc. Hence their in-
flictions of punishments and judgments from God on others : for
example, the signal judgment of Peter on Ananias and Sapphira ;
and of Paul on Elymas the sorcerer ; on Hymeneus and Alexan-
der ; and on the incestuous Corinthians.*

(1) Rom. 15 : 18, 19. (2) Acts 8 : 14-17 ; 10 : 44 ; 19 : 6 ; 2 Tim. 1 : 6, 7. (3) Acts 9 : 17. (4) Ac
6 : 1-11 ; 13 : 11 ; 1 Tim. 1 : 20 ; 1 Cor. 5 : 4, 6

115

SECTION VI.

The Equality of " the Twelve Apostles." — The claim of Primacy and Supremacy in
behalf of Peter, considered. — Fallacy of — Arguments. 1st. In their Commission,
Christ addressed all alike. — 2d. His name. 1st : Its change from Simon to Cephas.
— nerpoj.— 2d : ExjKtsition of Matt. IC : 18, 19, "On this rock," etc.— 3d: Do. of
the latter clause, " the keys," etc. — 4th : Do. of John 21 : 15-17, " Feed my sheep,"
etc. — 5th: Review of Peter's official acts. — (1.) The Convocation of Jerusalem.
Acts 8 : 14-27. — (2.) His accusation and defense. Acts 12 : 1-18. — (3.) Dispute
about Circumcision, Acts 15 : 1-21. — (4.) Do. between Paul and Peter, Gal. 2:
11-14. — (5.) Peter styles himself, not the apostle, but an apostle, etc.

IV. — But, another inquiry of vital moment now presents itself.
It regards the subject

Of the EQUALITY of the apostolic functions of " the twelve."
The question is : — Had any one of " the twelve" a precedence in
rank or authority either over the others^ or of lyrimacy or swpremr
acy in the Church of Christ f

Here again, as on the question of the Apostolic Orders, we shall
appeal to our only recognized standard, "the Bible, and the Bible
alone."

Now, it will at once occur to the reader, that the name of the
apostle Peter is prominently identified with what is to be offered
on this subject. It is admitted, (at least a superficial view of the
matter would predispose one to admit,) that if any one of " the
twelve" was distinguished above his compeers in rank or authority,
or held primacy or supremacy in the Church, it was Peter.

But, was he thus distinguished ? Superiority in these premises
may be predicated of one of the four following qualities : 1st. Age.
2d. Talents. 3d. Character, 4th. Ofhce. Now, Peter might
have been the eldest of " the twelve," or at least the first of the
number called by Christ.* But this circumstance alone, surely,
could not have entitled him to that dignity. To urge in his behalf
the other two — talents and character of a pre-eminent order, com-
pared with his associates — were no less dubious than invidious.
And, as it regards office^ the Scriptures, we affirm, afford no coun-
tenance to the claim of superiority or supremacy in his behalf.
True, Peter did receive from Christ on several occasions, marked
tokens of esteem.' It is equally true that he possessed many
traits of character which need but to be named to command our ad-
miration. And though the impetuosity of this apostle's tempera-
ment sometimes betrayed him into error,^ yet who does not love to
contemplate his promptitude, decision, courage, and zeal, in hia

(I) Matt. 16 : 13-19 ; Mark 9:2; John 21 : lo-17. (2) Matt. 26 : 63-7.5 ; John 21 : 1-3.
* Though, by the way, he was not, for that honor belonged, net to Peter, but to Jlii-
drew his brother, who brought him to Cliris^t. John 1 : 40-42.

116

Master's work !' Might it not then have been on these personal
grounds alone, that we are to account for the above acts of Christ's
regard toward him ? Then too, had Peter been the only recipient
of these benignant tokens of our Lord's esteem, there had been
some foundation upon which to place him at the head of the apos-
tolic college. But, we ask, which of " the twelve" Avas it, who
was privileged to pillow his liead upon the bosom of his Divine
Master at the Supper, and who bore the name of " the beloved
disciple ?"" If then, marked tokens of esteem from Christ to
Peter raised him above his brethren, John, at least, could claim to
be his equal. And thus we have two primates instead of one !*

In evidence, then, of the perfect equality of " the twelve" in the
matter of their apostolical functions, we shall urge,

1. That Avhen Christ commissioned them, he addressed them all
alike : "Go ye, therefore," etc. So again, " And ye shall be wit-
nesses unto me," etc. And yet again, " Whosesoever sins ye remit
and retain, they are," etc. And to these declarations may be add-
ed our Lord's injunctions to them — " But be not jq called Rabbi,"
for " ALL YE are hrethrenJ^ " And whosoever of you will be
chief est, shall be servant of all." Here, unquestionably, is left
no " chief seat" in favor of oixe of " the twelve" over his com-
peers !

2. Still, it is alleged, that the NAME of Peter occupies a more
conspicuous place in the founding of the New Testament Church,
than either of the others. Granted. But, does it hence follow
that he held an official superiority over them, and a primacy or
supremacy in the Church ? So far from it, as we shall show, his
position was predicated solely of those personal qualifications
named above, which so eminently fitted him rather than James or
John, to act the parts assigned him in that great work. To this
circumstance may be attributed,

1st. The change of his nam.e from Simon to Cephas. Says
Jesus to him, " Thou art Simon the son of Jona — thou shalt be
called Cephas, which is, by interpretation, a stoneJ^^ On this point
we remark, that there was nothing more common among the patrir
archs and Jews, than this custom of changing names. The name
of " Sarai" is changed to that of " Sarah ;" " Abram" into " Abra-
ham ;" "Jacob" into "Israel;" two of the apostles, James and
John, were called " Boanerges," " sons of thunder." In each in-
stance the change adopted denotes more clearly the purpose or
work to be accomplished by them than that expressed by the origi-
nals. In regard to the subject of these remarks, it is to be borne
in mind that the change was, the substitution of Cephas for Simon.
" Cephas," which is Syriac, denotes the same thing as nerpoc, Gr.,
i.e., a stone. It is therefore rather an addition to, than a change

(1) Matt. 26 : 31-35 ; 51. (2) John 21 : 7, 20. (3) John 1 : 42.

* " The canon law hath decreed, that a personal privilege Aoi\\ follow the person, and is
extinguished with the person."

of, the name Peter. Hence, the names are used interchangeably.
Indeed, while this apostle is addressed or spoken of in the New-
Testament thirty-two times by the name of Peter, and nine times
by tliat of Simon Peter, the name Cephas occurs only six times !

Now, Ave have already spoken of that "good confession" made
by this apostle, of the Messianic headship of Christ. The declara-
tion which followed, bespoke that apostle's eminent fitness, j?*?/*-
sonally^ to fill that place in the common work of erecting the glo-
rious superstracture of Christianity, which was to have for its
"foundation, the apostles" — not one^\>vX all — "and prophets,"
and of which "Jesus Christ himself was the chief coenek stone."'

2d. '•'•And I say also unto thee^ that thou art Peter ; and upon
this ROCK I will huild my Church, and the gates of hell shall not
prevail against it. And I will give unto thee THE KEYS of
the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt hind on earth,
shall le hound in heaven ^ and whatsoever thou shalt loose on
earth, shall he loosed in heaveny^

As preliminary to an exposition of this remarkable passage, it
will be necessary to refer to the term " rock," as a symbolical
representation of Deity. As a shelter and refuge from the assault
of enemies, it is employed to denote the strength and power of
God as an asylum and defense to his people. Thus, David. "The
Lord is my rocTc and my fortress." " Who is a roch save our
God ?"^ But, God is known to his people only as he is mani-
fested through Christ. " God hi Christ." Hence the application
of this symbol — " the flinty rock" in Horeb, from which the Is-
raelites were supplied with water — to Christ, iDy Paul. " They all
drank of that sinritual eock that followed them : and that rook
"WAS Christ." As such, he is, pre-eminently, the foundation upon
which is erected that spiritual edifice which is the home, the shel-
ter, of the redeemed of all nations.- In this aspect, " other founda-
tion can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ."
To him as such, the Divine attestation was given, when, havino-
honored his Father at his baptism, he was honored by him by that
voice from heaven which proclaimed, "This is my beloved Son, in
whom I am well pleased." A pagan poet has said,

" Never introduce a God unless upon an occasion worthy of
him."*

The descent of the Holy Ghost upon Christ in the form of a
dove, ratified that attestation from the heavens / while, on the
other hand, Peter's reply to our Lord's question, " Whom say ye
that I am?" namely: "thou art the Christ, the Son of the
LIVING God," was a response thereto on earth. And, together, they
proclaimed Jesus as the Savior of the world, and as the divinely

(1) Eph. 2 : 30. (2) Matt. 16 : 18, 19. (3) Psalms 18 : 2, 31.

♦ " Non deus intersit nisi dignus vindice modus — inciderit."— //or.

118

coNSTrruTED Head over all things, to his mystical body, the
Church 1

It is here also to be observed, that the above reply of Peter was
the first distinct and intelligible confession of Christ, as here rep-
resented, since his baptism. It set forth Christ as " the Lamb of
God who taketh away the sin of the world," and of his faith in
him as such. Noble declaration ! Glorious confession ! The stu-
pendous fabric of Christianity was to be reared upon it through-
out all time! No marvel, then, that his Divine Master should
pronounce him " blessed ;". nor that he should have annexed
thereto the declaration, " Thou art Peter ; and upon this rock I
will build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail
against it."

" Upon this eock." "We ask, then. Was Peter " this rock'''' f
2i) el Iltrpof, Kal em ravr-r] rrj Trerpa. " You are Peter ^ and upon
this Pctra^'' strikes the ear of a Grecian, as, " Thou art stone^ and
upon this rock^'' strikes the ear of an Englishman. And, this mode
of speech well comported with a usage common with the Savior —
that of consecrating every scene, and circumstance, and topic of
conversation, to religion and morality. For example. When call-
ing the Galilean fishermen from their ordinary occupations, his
language is, "follow me, and I will make you fi.shers of m<j?i."'
His disciples had forgotten to take bread, when embarking on the
lake, and when talking about it, our Lord took occasion to say,
" beware of the leaven (doctrine) of the Pharisees." So, in the
passage before us, he asks a question respecting himself, which
calls forth from one of the apostles a confession of that great truth
upon which he is to found his Church forever: '•'•thou art the
Christy the Son of the living God.'''' It was that zealous and in-
trepid apostle, Peter. And Jesus, turning to him, said, "Thou
art Peter" — " Cephas., which, by interpretation, is a stone /" " and
upon this petra, ROCK," that is, on this great truth which
" flesh and blood hath not revealed to thee, but my Father which
is in heaven," " I will build my Church." The thing sought after
by Christ in this conversation was a confession that he was the
Messiah or Savior. Peter gave it. The conversation, therefore,
turned upon that confession, and not upon Peter. The two words,
Trerpof and TTtrpa, are of different genders. The former is mascu-
line, the latter feminine. So the words "thou" and "this," differ
in person and in case. "Thou" is in the second person, and " this"
is in the third. The word " this," therefore, must refer to some-
thing antecedent, different from "thou" or you. We will illus-
trate it by the aid of a similar passage. Addressing liimself to the
people on a certain occasion, our Lord said, "I will destroy this
temple, and in three days I will raise it again."'' Now, here we
have the persons addressed, the subject of conversation, and the
speaker. Were those he addressed, being in the second person,

(1) Matt. 4 : 18. 19. (-2) John 2 : 19.

119

and the temple, tlie same thing ? So in the passage before us, we
have Peter, his confession, and Christ, the builder of the Church.
Were Peter, the second person, and his confession, the same thing ?
The very fact of the change of person from " thou" the personal,
to ''this" the demonstrative, proves the affinity of the latter to
Trerpa, tiik rock.

Peter, then, is but a stone^ as his name imports. But there are
eleven other stones of equal value : for, saj^s the Holy Spirit, " the
Church is built upon the foundation of the apostles" — all the
apostles ; yea, and of the " prophets" too ! When, then, all the
stones are at the foundation, and Christ himself the chief-corner,
where is the room for Peter as the rock?*

od. The balance of the passage under consideration now claims
our regard. Christ also said to Peter, " And I will give unto thee
the keys of the kingdom of heaven : and whatsoever thou shalt
bind on earth shall be bound in heaven ; and whatsoever thou
shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."

" THE KEYS :"

Binding and Loosing,

On Earth and in Heaven !

What a work this, committed to a mortal ! Of course, it related
to mortals — the world, Jewish and Gentile. Both these branches
of the human race, at the time of this address of Christ to Peter,
like condemned criminals, lay chain-bound in the prison of their
sins. But God's mercy had interposed in their behalf, by yielding
up the " soul" of his eternally-begotten Son as " an offering for
sin," ' — " the sin of the w^orld." " The keys," however, were
wanted, on the one hand, to unlock the prison doors of the captives ;
and on the other, to throw open the two-leaved gate for the ad-
mission of both Jew and Oentile into the spiritual kingdom of
Christ.

These " keys" were gi\-en to Peter. This work was assigned to
him. And, he consummated it, first, by declaring to the Jews on
the day of Pentecost, a truth which had been hid from ages and
generations preceding. " Let all the house of Israel know assuredly,
that God hath made that Jesus whom ye crucified, both Lord and
Christ." This annunciation by Peter was crowned on that day by
the conversion to God of three thousand of his brethren, and by
their admission into the mystical fold of Christ, the Christian
Church.

Soon after, it pleased God to reveal to this apostle by a vision,
" that He is no respecter of persons, hut that in every nation, he
that feareth him and worketh righteousness is accepted with

(1) Isa. 53 : 10.

*See Roman Catholic Debate, et seq.

120

him." * At the same time it was revealed to the Roman centurion
Cornelius, that God had purposes of mercy in store for the
Oentiles.

See, now, the wisdom of God in all this. In accordance with
the Divine plan, Cornelius is commanded to send men to Joppa,
to one, who, on his arrival, would " tell him words whereby he and
all his house should be saved^ ' Who was it ? We answer — It was
" Simon," called also " Peter." ' Why Peter, in preference to any
other ? Because to him had been given " the keys of the kingdom
of heaven" in behalf as well of the Gentiles as of the Jews. And
having thrown open one side of the gospel gate to the one, he pro-
ceeds now to a similar act, in setting open the remaining side in
behalf of the other. Hence, on his arrival at the house of Cor-
nelius, Peter opened his mouth and declared the mission of the
apostles from Christ as the eye-witnesses of his resurrection, " to
preach to the people, and to testify that it is he which was ordained
of God to judge the quick and dead. It is then recorded, that,
" while he yet spake these words, the Holy G-host fell on all them
which heard the word." "And they of the circumcision which be-
lieved, were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because that
on the Oentiles was poured out the gift of the Holy Ghost. For,
they heard thetn speak with tongues, and magnify God. Then an-
swered Peter, Can any man forbid water that these (Gentiles)
should not be baptized as well as we ?" (the Jews.) "And he com-
manded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord." *

Thus, we deferentiall}^ submit, the complete accomplishment of
the work of " the keys, assigned by Christ to Peter. The two-
leaved gate of gospel privileges to Jew and Gentile has never since
been closed. There is no moke use foe the keys ! Peter has
them yet. He took them to heaven with him at his martyrdom.
And there he will hold and guard them, till He who has the key
of David, who opens and none can shut, " will appear the second
time," to " give to every man according as his work shall be."

4th. The next passage having special reference to this apostle, is
that recorded, John 21 : 15-17. Christ, having thrice interro-
gated Peter as to whether he loved him, the apostle closes his last
declaration in the affirmative by an appeal to his master's omnisci-
ence : " Lord, thou knowest all things, thou knowest that I love
thee." And each declaration of Peter's " love" to Christ is fol-
lowed by the command to him, " Feed my lambs^eed my sheepj^

Our Lord's design here, as we shall show, was, simply to deter-
mine the degree of Peter's love to him. This is manifest from the
form of the first interrogation. — " Lovest thou me more than
these ?" The question here is, to what did Christ refer as the an-
tecedent to the word " these" ? Language has no meaning, but
from the context. Let us look at it. During the interval between
the second and third appearance of Christ to his disciples after his

Q) Acts 10 : 34, 35. (2) Acts 11 : 14. (3) lb. 10 : 32. (4) Acts 10 : 34, 39-42, 44-48.

121

resurrection, they liad been left alone. And, thongli that interval
was short, they felt themselves destitute, forsaken, and in need.
In the midst of their perplexity, Peter proposed a return to their
former occupation of fishing, to which they all acceded. But their
fruitless efforts furnished to them the evidence of their error, in
hsLving forgotte7i to " tarry at Jerusalem," till endowed with power
from on high. Still their compassionate Master, meeting them
again at the sea of Tiberias, upbraids them not, but inquires,
" Children, have ye any meat?" They answered, "No." A mira-
cle supphes their wants. A repast is prepared. " Jesus saith
unto them, come and dine." And, in verse 13, we read, —
*'Ep;^;eTai ovv 6 'leaovg Koi Xafifidvei rbv dprov, koI didooiv avroig, koI
TO dipdpiov ofioicjg. " Jesus then coraeth and taketh bread, and giveth
them ; and fish likewise^

We are now to bear in mind, that this repast was taken on the
sea-shore, and in sight of the ships, boats, and fishing apparatus of
the disciples. And, when it is recollected that this was, at least
in regard to most of them, the occupation in which they were
formerly engaged, and that to which they had now returned ; and
that, as the means of their worldly subsistence it ivas their all :
Our Lord, present to whose mind was the fact, first, of Peter's
having thrice denied him ; and in the next place that it was he
who had drawn the other disciples from otf their post of duty, says
to him in reference to this worldly occupation and all its appurten-
ances, lifKOv 'Icjva, dyajTag jie tcXeIov tovto)v : " Simon, son of Jonas,
lovest thou me more than these V You once said, you were willing
to " forsake all and to follow me." Are you now willing to renew
that pledge ?

Now, that the above are the things referred to by Christ, is evi-
dent from the fact that, to apply the word tovto^v, " these," to the
apostles as its antecedent, would have rendered the comparison
above exceedingly invidious, not only ; — and especially when it is
remembered that twice in this same chapter, John is called "the
beloved disciple," vv. 7 and 20 ; — but, had Jesus meant to refer to
them, he would have added to the word rovroyv, " Lovest thou me
more than these" discipAes love me ? No one, therefore, who has
studied the benignity of the Savior's character, can suppose him to
have intended so invidious a comparison.

In regard to Christ's command to Peter, "/eecZ my lamhs;''^ '•'•feed
my sheep " ; it must suffice for the present that we simply remark,
that the terms employed denote the spiritual members of his body,
as his flock.* Thus understood, the incident of the repast in the

* Romanists interpret " lambs,'^ in this passage, to denote the laity, and " slieep,''^ the
BISHOPS : and hence argue, that Peter exercised a primacy and supremacy over both
laity and clergy. And so, the reading of the Vulgate ; 1 Peter, 5:3, " Be not lords
over the clergy." But, besides the fact that the plural, "lords," in this passage, is of
itself fatal to the idea of one supreme head, the original word, i:h)p:ii, which they trans-
Jate clergy, '" occurs twelve times in the New Testament, and in nine of these it is trans-
lated lot. In Acts 26 : 18, and in Colossians 1 : 12, it is translated inheritance, and in

122

above narrative, and the use to wliicLi it was applied, is obvious :
as though Christ had said, ' as I have fed you, so feed my /cA^/pof,
" sheepy ' That this was tlie sense in which Peter understood the
above command, is evident from his notable address to those who
were discharging the functions of the ministry : — the elders, Trpea-
fivTEpoc, which are among j^ou I exhort, who am also an elder, ngea-
(3vTepo^ — -feed thejloclc of God, which is among you, taking the over-
sight thereof," * etc. How beautifully simple and fraternal this
address ! lie modestly withdraws from the view the insignia of
the apostolic office which he was entitled to wear ; and contenting
himself with the same title, " elder," which he applies to them, he
illustrates and urges their duty by an allusion to the imstoral re-
lation of a shepherd to his flock, common alike, we observe, to the
ministry of the old Law and the new ; and that, to the intent that
they might thereby " take heed to themselves and to all the fioch
over which the Holy Ghost had made them overseers, to feed the
CJiurcli of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood." "

5th. In addition to the above, there are several other incidents
connected with this ajDostle's official relation to his compeers and to
the Church, further confirmatory of the fact that he neither held a
superiority over them nor supremacy in it.

Take for the first, the convocation of the apostles at Jerusalem, on
the subject of the report made to them by Philip the deacon,
" that Samaria had received the word of God." Their very first
action in the premises was to appoint Peter as a legate, in com-
pany with John, to confer upon those of them who believed, the
gift of the Holy Ghost,^ an appointment obviously at variance
with the idea of that apostle's oflicial superiority over his brethren,
or of primacy in the Church.

(2.) Equally at variance with such an idea, is the conduct of this
apostle, when the brethren of the circumcision rose up against him
&7i tnasse,, for having gone in to men uncircumcised, and eating with
them. How did he meet this accusation ? Was it by claiming in
his behalf that he was Christ's vicar — the chief of the apostles —
the head of the Church, etc. ? So far from it, having simply related
the fact that God through him had opened the door of faith to the
Gentiles, he rests the wbole of his defense on the plea, ^'- what was
7, that I could withstand Godf AVith this appeal, they were
satisfied.

(3.) So, with the position and conduct of this apostle at the con-

(I) 1 Pet. 6 : 1-4. (2) Acts 20 : 28. (3) Acts 8 : 14-17. (4) Acts 12 : 1-18.
the passage before us, it may be either lot, heritage, or inheritance." so that it may read,
" not as lords over the heritage, lot, or people of the Lord.'' The absurdity of the Rom-
ish rendering will appear from the following examples : As well might the Vulgate
have said to Simon Magus, "thou hast neither part nor clergy in this matter:" or, in
Col. ] : 12, " he has fitted us to partake in the clergy of the saints." '• In both cases, the
word is the same in the original. These show by what a stretch of power and arbi-
trary dominion over words, these critics would bring the clergy or Christian ministry
under the bishop of Rome !" (Roman Catholic Debate, pp. 96, 97.)

123

vocation of tlie apostles and elders at Jerusalem, on the subject of
the dispute which arose about circumcision. That convocation was
called, not by Peter, but by tioo or three of the churches. During
the discussions which this question elicited, in common with Paul
and Barnabas, Peter took his stand on the floor, True, he spoke
first, as it was always his custom to do. But, so far from dictating
the course to be pursued, the apostle James, having heard their
several relations of what God had wrought through their instru-
mentality among the Gentiles, arose and said: ^^M.Y sentence is,
that we ought to write so and so to the Gentiles. And, in that
sentence, they all — Peter with the rest, acquiesced. The letter
sent to the Gentiles, accordingly, commences thus : "It seemed
good unto us," etc. ; that is, " the apostles and elders.'" To the
same end, we refer,

4. To the dispute hetween Paul and Peter ^ on a certain question
of expediency. "For, before certain persons, came from James,
Peter did eat with the Gentiles ; but when they came, he withdrew
and separated from them for fear of the Jews. And the other
Jews dissembled likewise with him, insomuch that Barnabas was
carried away mth their dissimulation.'" Peter, therefore, having
come down to Autioch, Paul felt it his duty to rehuke him ! So
" he withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed :"
and he demanded of him in the presence of them all, " why do
you compel the Gentiles to live as do the Jews ?" A rebuke, one
would suppose, involving the highest presumption and arrogance
on the part of Paul, if iriferior in apostolic functions to Peter.
Indeed, as the context shows, this rebuke was inflicted on Peter
purely as a matter of self-defense. Some of the Galatians, it ap-
pears, had considered Paul as inferior to those whom they had
been in the habit of calling " pillars," as Peter, and James, and'
John. His design therefore was to show them, that, aside from
their having been the personal companions of Christ and eye-wit-
nesses of his resurrection, he was not behind the chief est of them.^
Finally,

(5.) In the last will and testament of this apostle (Peter) as set
forth in his two epistles, he calls himself, not the apostle, but, " an
apostle."* He also styles himself a /dZ/M^)-" elder and witness of the
sufferings of Christ," etc.^ And he directs that his brethren
should, " after his decease, be mindful of us the apostles of our
Lord and Savior."" Thus disclaiming, in the most positive terms,
and under the most solemn circumstances, all pretenses to superior-
ity over his compeers, or of primacy in the Church.

(1) Acts 15 : 1-21. (-2)031.2:11-14. (3) See Gal. 1. (4) 1 Pet. 1 : 1 ; 2 Pet. 1 : 1. (5) 1 Pet. 6 : L
(6) 2 Pet. 1 : lo ; 3 : 2.

124

SECTION vn.

The Number of the Apostles. — Proof that there were "Twelve" only. — Argued, Ist.
from the Declared Perpetual Relation of " the Twelve" to Christ. Luke 22 :
28-30. — 2d. From the Name, A7r(5<7roXoj — examination of the Titles npcaffvTcpos,
iniaxoirtSfj oiiiovoi^ rroinnv, SiSd<TK<iXoi, irpo(p'JTrii , ayycKoi. — (1.) The Name an6i7To\o! al-
leged in behalf of some to whom it is never given — Andronicus and Junia, Apol-
los, Silas or Silvanus, Titus, Timothy, the Seven Apocalyptic Angels. — (2.) Those
to whom the name is given, who were not of " the Twelve." — Proof that it is ap-
plied to them in a different sense. Barnabas, Epaphroditus, the two brethren who
accompanied Titus to Corinth, Matthias and Paul.

Having thus considered the subject of the New Testament
ApostoHcity in connection with the questions of the marks or
signs by which it was to be known ; and, of the uniformity or
equaUty of their official functions ; we pass to examine another of
equal interest, and of vital consequence, in a scriptural view, to
the matter before us. It relates to,

V. The NuaiBEE of the New Testament Apostles. IIoio many
were there ? Besides " the eleven," the name and functions — the
OFFICE — apostolic, is alleged in behalf of Matthias, Paul, Barnabas,
Andronicus, Junia, Apollos, Timothy, Titus, and certain brethren
who accompanied him to Corinth, Epaphroditus, Silas, and the An-
gels of the seven Asiatic churches.

1st. There is, however, we observe, one New Testament, diffi-
culty to encounter, in admitting all the above named personages
to that honor. We allude to \\iq. jyt'ornised reward made by Christ
to " THE TWELVE," a little prior to his Passion on the Cross. Inas-
much as their work in the founding and settlement of that spirit-
ual empire which " is not of this world," had for its ulterior end
the subjugation of a revolted world to the dominion of Christ ;
now that they had " continued with him in his temptations," our
blessed Lord says to them, " / aj^point unto you a kingdom^ as
Ttiy Father hath ajpjwinted me y that ye may eat and drink at my
table in my kingdom^ and sit on thrones^ judging the twelve
TEiEES OF Israel.'"

Now, the Savior here evidently speaks of " the twelve," both in
their then existing relation to himself, and in their prospective re-
lation to the future church ; and, he unites them together : they
are "the twelve" whom he bad chosen and commissioned, and who
are privileged with daily communion with himself. If one of
them becomes a traitor and goes to his own place, the vacancy
must be filled by another, so that there may be still " twelve
APOSTLES of the Lamb." We hence see, that the associated body

(1) Luke 22 : 2a-.?0.

125

here consists of the same number as composed the fathers of the
Jewish tribes — twelve patriarchs — twelve apostles.

Nor does the difficulty end at this point. For, the same " twelve
apostles" are connected together when the Savior opens the future,
as when he speaks of the present. Does he give them the per-
spective of his own and of their future glory ? (as on the mount
of transfiguration) — it is glory which " the twelve" are to share in
common. " And Jesus said unto them, Verily I say unto you,
that ye which have followed me in the regeneration, when the Son
of man shall sit in the throne of his glory, ye also shall sit upon
TWELVE THRONES, judging the TWELVE TKiBES of Israel." Again.
Does he, after his ascension, give to one of their number a revela-
tion of the heavenly Jerusalem ? He still presents them as eter-
nally and immutably united together. " And the wall of the city
had TWELVE FOUNDATIONS, and in them the names of the twelve
APOSTLES of the Lamb."'

2d. How, now, are these statements in regard to " the twelve"
apostles, to be made to harmonize mth the alleged claims in be-
half of the others f It is clear, that if they were all apostles in
the same sense, there should have been several scores, instead of
"twelve" foundations in " the wall" of the Jerusalem " city," with
" the names" of each inscribed thereon. Such a supposition, how-
ever, militates against the infallibility of the inspired records, at
the very thought of which the pious mind revolts. That we are
not, however, reduced to so sad an alternative, we remark, that,
even admitting — what we concede — that the name d-oaroXog,
apostle, is used in reference to some, at least, of the persons men-
tioned above, it does not follow that they were apostles in the
same sense as were " the eleven."* The New Testament writers
not unfrequently employ official names or titles with great latitude
of signification. As for example: the two following names,
liQEOtiireQoq, Elder or Presbyter^ and E-n-m/fOTro^-, Bishop^ are used
interchangeably to denote the same office.^ And again, these two
names, with several others, and especially the following, namely,
^laKovog, npe(7/3vTepof , and AiddoKaXog^ " the three which occur most
frequently in application to ecclesiastical office, have a threefold
usage perfectly distinguishable." In illustration of our meaning,
take the title,

1. npe(7/3t'repoc. It is used (1.) to signify older, as an adjective
in the comparative degree f (2.) an old man in the proper sense \*
(3.) a Jewish magistrate ;' and (4.) an officer of the Christian
Church.*

2. EnioKOTTog. A name which belongs and is applied pre-emi-

(l) Rev. 21 : 14. (2) Titus 1 : 5, 7 ; Acts 20 : 17, 28. (3) Luke 15 : 25 ; John 8 : 9. (4) 1 Tim. 5 :
I. (5) Matt. 21 : 23 ; Mark 15 : 1 ; Luke 7:3; Acts 4 : 8, etc. (6) Acts 13 : 2 ; 20 : 17 ; 1 Tim. 5 :
19 ; Titus 1:5; Jas. 5:14; 1 Pet. 5 : 5.

♦ The reader will henceforward bear in mind the vacancy created in the apostolic
college by the fall and death of Iscariot.

126

nently (1.) to Christ as the spiritual Head and Shepherd of his re-
deemed people ;' (2.) subordiuately, to an officer of the Christian
Church.'

3. IlotiiTjv, denotes, (1.) a literal shepherd \^ (2.) a spiritual pas-
tor, as Christ;^ and also (3.) his ministers.*

4. AuiKovog, is applied (1.) to a domestic ;" (2.) to a minister or
agent either of good or evil ;' (3.) to a civil magistrate ;" (4.) to a
minister of the old dispensation ;" (5.) to the Christian ministry of
all ranks ;'" (6.) to deacons in particular."

6. AiddoKaXog, means (1.) a teacher generally, as opposed to a
learner ;'* (2.) the religious founder of a school or sect ;" (3.) an
official teacher in the Church."

6, UQOfprj-rj^. (1.) A heathen poet, regarded as inspired ;" (2.)
a prophet of the old disjDensation ;'" (3.) an inspired Christian
teacher."

7. AyyeXog. (1.) A human messenger ;" (2.) a spirit, good" or
bad f (3.) an ecclesiastical superior.^'

We hence argue in regard to the name AnoaroXog, that if it
" has one invariable meaning in the New Testament, it is contrary,
not only to what might have been expected from the origin and
previous use of the term, but also to the analogy of the other
terms used in the New Testament to designate ecclesiastical offices.
The only probable supposition a priori is, that it would have the
same variety of meaning as the rest."* The names or titles,
Aidicovog, UpeafivTepog, and AiddonaXog, as may be seen by referring
to 4, 1 and 5, " are all used in a popular sense, in a general reli-
gious sense, and in a specific ecclesiastical sense." So, we affirm, of
the name AnooroXog. "The three corresponding senses" are,
" (1.) a messenger of any kind ;'- (2.) a religious messenger or mis-
sionary ;'^ (3.) an apostle, in the strict official sense,"^''f as set forth
under the marks or signs of "the twelve," in pages 108 and 114
inclusive.

Now, if it can be shown, first, that, of several of those who, in
addition to " the eleven," are alleged to have been apostles, that
name is never given to them in the New Testament ; and, second,
that, of those who confessedly bore the name, only one of the
number possessed the marks or signs peculiar to the apostolicity
of " the eleven ;" we shall have fully vindicated the statements as

(1) 1 Pet. 2 : 25. (2) Acts 20 : 28 ; Philip. 1 : 1 ; 1 Tim. 3:2; Tit. 1 : 7. (3) Matt. 25 : 32 : Luke 2
8, 15, 18, 20. (4) Matt. 26 : 31 ; John 10 : 2, 11, 12, 14, 16 ; Hcb. 13 : 20 ; 1 Pet. 2 : 25. (5) Eph. 4
11. (6) Matt. 20 : 26 ; 22 : 13 ; 23 : 11 ; John 2 : 5, 9. (7) Gal. 2 : 17 ; 2 Cor. 11 : 1.5. (8) Rom 13
4. (9) Rom. 14 : 8. (10) 2 Cor. 3:6; 11 : 23 ; F.ph. 3 : 7 ; 6 : 21 ; Col. 1 : 7. 23, 25 ; 4 : 7 ; 1 Thes.s
3 : 2 ; 1 Tim. 4 : 6. (U) Philip.l : 1 ; 1 Tim. 3 : 8, 12. (12) Matt. 10 : 25 ; Rom. 2 : 20. (13) Luke2
46 ; John 3:2; Heb. 5 : 12 ; Jas. 3 : 1, comp. with Matt. 9 : II ; 7 : 24 ; Luke 18 : 18. (14) Acts 13
1 ; 1 Cor. 12:28, 29; Eph. 4 : 11 ; 1 Tim. 2:7:2 Tim. 1 : 11 ; 4 : .3. (1.5) Titus 1 : 12. (16) Matt. 1
22 ; 8 : 17, etc. (17) Acts 13 : 1 ; 1 Cor. 12 : 28. 29 ; 14 : 29, 32, 37 ; Eph. 4:11. (18) Luke 9 : 52
(19) Matt. 1 : 20. (20) Matt. 25 : 41 ; 2 Cor. 12 : 7. (21) Rev 1 : 20 ; 2 : 1, 8, 12, 18 ; 3:1, 5, 7, 14.
(22) Consult John 13 : 16. "Sent," anoaroUs. (23) Rom. 11 : 13 ; 1 Tim. 2 : 7 ; 2 Tim. 1:11. (24)
Luke 6 : 13.

* See more fully on this subject, the Biblical Repertory and Princeton Review, Art.,
"The Apostleship a Temporary Office," July, 1849. pp. 367-369.
t lb. p. 369.

127

above given by the inspired records respecting " tlie twelve apoS'
tics of the Lamh^'' against the charge of incongruity, such as is in-
evitable on the hypothesis of an addition to their number.

We are here compelled to venture upon a somewhat liberal in-
dulgence from the reader, in presenting a scriptural view of the
cases here involved. Our apology is, a deep conviction, that in no
other way can it be determined who are the true, from those who
are " false apostles.'" In other words, whether the apostolicity of
" the twelve" as appointed by Christ himself, were an institution
special, extraordinary, and of limited or temporary duration — an in-
stitution which loas to terminate with the completion of the New Tes-
tament age^ or, whether it was to be perpetuated to the close of time.

(1.) Of those then which fall under the first class in the above
category — those to whom the name K-nooroXog is never given, we
think the evidence will be found clear in reference to the following,
namely, Andronicus and Junia, Apollos, Silas, Titus, Timothy,
and tlie seven Asiatic angels.

[1.] Andronicus and Junta. The passage on which rests the
claim of their apostolicity, is the following : — " Salute Andronicus
and Junia, my kinsmen and my fellow-prisoners, who are of note
among the apostles,^'' etc. * St. Paul, though at first looked upon
with great suspicion by the original college of apostles as well as
others ; ' yet, having fvnsiWj proved his apostleship by the " signs
and wonders" which he wrought, " was held in high repute by
them. Now, Andronicus and Junia were not only his " kinsmen,"
but had become his companions, and had even stood by him in
his greatest perils; yea, had even become sharers with him
in his prison and his chains. And this their devotion to him
in his sufferings, had rendered them " of note among the apostles,"
imaT]^oi ev rolg dnoaroXotg — that is, they were " highly esteemed among
(or by) the ajyostles^ And, doubtless, there were others " of note"
among them, for example, Aquila and Priscilla, Paul's "helpers
in Christ Jesus," and who " had laid down their very necks" for
his sake. ^ If, then, the former were made apostles on this ac-
count, why not the latter ? On this principle there would be added
to that holy band the apostle-ess Pkiscilla !

[2.] Apollos. The passage relating to him in this connection is
1 Cor. 4:6. " And these things, brethren," says Paul, " I have
in a figure transferred to myself and to Apollos for your sakes."
What "things"? The Corinthian Church had become inflated
with spiritual pride ; and this had engendered among them " envy-
ing, and strife, and divisions." One said, " I am of Paul and
another, I am of Apollos," ** etc. Apollos had watered, with his
pastoral eloquence, '' the seed planted by apostolic hands. This

(1) 2 Cor. 11 : 13. (2) Rom. 16 : 7. (3) Acts 9 : 27 ; sec also vv. 13, 26. (4) Hfcb. 2 : 4. (5) Rom.
16 : 4. (G) 1 Cor. 3 : 1^. (7) Acts 18 : 24 j see 1 Cor. 1 : 6.

128

circumstance had led some to exalt the tongue of the waterer above
the liand o^ Xho, planter. But, so far from feeling aggrieved toward
them or envious toward Apollos, on this account, though conscious
of his official superiority as an apostle, he is willing for their sakes
not only to stand on a level with him, and so to be accounted
simply as "ministers — laborers together with God;" ' but even to
think and to have them think, "that God had set forth" himself
and his apostolic compeers " last, as it were appointed to death," *
if it would but restore union among them. And he therefore de-
termined, with Apollos, to set before them " in a figure,''^ such an
exemplification of practical humility, as " that they might learn
from them not to think of me?i," whether apostles or others,
"above that which is written," that is, to "esteem them very
highly for their work's sake," ' whether that Avork consisted of
planting or watering, " that no one of them be puffed up for one
against another." * Did this make Apollos an apostle ?

[3.] Silas or Silvanus, Paul's chosen companion after his sepa-
ration from Barnabas. ^ Paul unites his name with that of Timo-
thy, in the opening of his two epistles to the Thessalonians. " Paul,
and Silvanus, and Timotheus, unto the Church of the Thessalo-
nians," etc. This circumstance, taken in connection with verse 6
of the 2d chapter of the first epistle, — " nor of men sought we
glory, neither of you, nor yet of others, when tve might have been
burdensome, as the apostles of Christ," — it is alleged assigns to each
the ofiice apostolic. We are, however, to bear in mind in the first
place, that, in the peroration of these epistles, neither Silas nor
Timothy are called apostles. Then, in the next place, the word
dnoGToXoc^ 1 Thess. 2 : 6, is separated from the opening of the epis-
tle by fourteen intervening verses ; which fact, taken in connection
with Paul's frequent usage, after such a joint address, of the Jirst
person singular^ proves that there is no necessary relation between
it and the names of Silas and Timothy. Indeed, as if to guard
against such a construction, he says, near the conclusion of this
very passage, " Wherefore we would have come unto you, even /
Paul, once and again," — (1 Thess. 1 : 18.) Though Paul could
not, in strict propriety of speech, apply the plural d-noaroXoL to him-
self, yet " by a particle denoting resemblance or comparison, he
could assert his right to do a thing " as the apostles of Christ."
In conclusion on this subject we remark, that the hypothesis of
making apostles by the mere mention of other names with that of
Paul in the opening of his epistles, would make apostles of some
whom its advocates would be slow to admit as such. Take, for
example, the following. In the epistle to the Galatians, Paul hav-
ing spoken of himself as " an apostle, not of men, neither by man,
but by Jesus Christ and God the Father," etc. he adds, " And all

(1) 1 Cor. 3 : 5, 9. (2) lb. 4 : 6, 7, and v. 9. (3) 1 Thess. 0 : 13. (4)1 Cor. 4: 6. (5) Acts 15 : 37-10.

129

the brethren which are with me, unto the Churches of Galatia." ' The
" brethren" here mentioned were the brethren of Antioch ; but
that all these *' brethren" were apostles no one pretends : that any
one of them was such, no one can prove.

[•!.] Titus. The passage from which it is inferred that Titus was
an apostle, is the following. " Whether do any inquire of Titus,
he is my partner and fellow-helper concerning you : or our breth-
thren be inquired of, they are the messengers of the churches
and the glory of Christ." * It will be seen, however, that this pas-
sage is fully explained by a comparison of 1 Cor. 16:3, " And
when I come, whomsoever ye shall approve by your letters, th&m
will I send to bring your liberality to Jerusalem ;" with 2 Cor.
8 : 19, " who was also chosen of the churches to travel with us in
this grace." " The brethren^'' then, and they only^ were the mes-
sengers, aTTOCTTo/loi, sent by " the churches." Titus was only
sent in company with them, by the apostle. Titus is never called
an apostle.

[.5.] Timothy. As seen above, the name of Timothy occurs in

1 Thess. 1:1, thus : " Paul and Timotheus, unto the Church of

the Thessalonians," etc. And in the 2d chapter, v. 6, thus : " We
might have been burdensome as the ajyostles of Christ." Is it not
evident, then, that Paul here associates Timothy with himself as
an apostle ? Let us see. In the 2d verse of chap. 2, the apostle,
adopting the plural form of speech, speaks of himself thus : " We
had suffered before, and were -shamefully entreated, as ye know, at
Philippi," etc. But, Timothy was not with the apostles at this
time, and hence could not have been of the number referred to as
partakers with him of his sufferings there. Then also, in addition
to this: The First Epistle of Paul to the Thessalonians was written,
Macknight says, as early as A.D. 51. None place its chronology later
than A.D. 54 : whereas his epistles to Timothy were not written,
the first till A.D. 56, and the second till a.d. 61. Some place them as
late as a.d. Qb or QQ. But, in neither of these epistles, though they
bear his name, and though written expressly to instruct him in the
powers he was to exercise and the duties he was to discharge, is he
called an apostle. We ask, therefore. Had the apostle Paul, in
writing to him, intended to include Timothy with himself by the
use of the plural " we" and " apostles" in 1 Thess. 1 : 1 and 2 r 6,
how is the above omission to address him as such in the two epis-
tles which bear his name, to be accounted for ? What places this
matter in regard to Timothy, however, beyond the reach of con-
troversy, is the fact, that in several instances where Paul associates
him with himself, he is careful to call him by another name.
There are two instances of this, both of which are so marked, as to
forbid the supposition that they could have occurred otherwise

(1) Gal. 1 : 1-3. (2) 2 Cor. 8 : 23.

130

tlian by design. " Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ by the will of
God, and Timothy our brother.''^ ' Precisely the same form of ex-
pression occurs in Col. 1:1."

[6.] The seven apocalyptic ^■''angels^'' or " stars*'' of the seven Asi-
atic Churches. These two names, " stars" and " angels," are evi-
dently used symbolically. And, occurring, as they do, in immediate
connection with " the seven candlesticks," as the emblems of "the
seven Churches,"' they are intended to denote (in harmony with
the poetical and figurative phraseology of the book throughout) the
ministry of the Church, not singly or individually, but collectively,
without discrimination either of official rank or of character. For,
as one " star" or " angel " — ayyeXog F.KKXrjaiag [angel of the
ChurGh\ is appropriated to one " Church," as one candle is to one
"candlestick;" it follows, from the nature of the comparison, that
as one candle is the full complement of light for one candlestick,
so one star is the full complement of light for one Church. But
the light which shone in these churches did not emanate from any
individual ; it emanated from a number of individuals ; from the
collective hody of the ministers of religion. Therefore, the "star,"
which expresses the whole light in one of these churches, is a
symbol, not of a single minister, but of her ministry collectively P
Hence, in correspondence with this view, is the use to which the
term " angel" is elsewhere appropriated in this book. For exam-
ple : " I saw another angel (in the singular) fly in the midst of
heaven, having the everlasting Gospel to jDreach to them that dwell
on the earth, and to every nation, and kindred, and tongue, and
people."^ But, " it is perfectly evident that no single man" can
dispense the Gospel through the whole Christian Church, as de-
noted in this passage by the term " heaven." It follows, that "the
angel" mentioned in the text is, and must of necessity be, the sym-
bol of the ministry collectively. And, if further confirmation of
this point were necessary, one would suppose it sufficient that the
angel of the Church in Smyrna is addressed by the Kedeemer " in
the singular and plural number, indifferently," " I know thy
works, and tribulation, and poverty, but thof art rich. Fear
none of those things which thou shalt sufifer. Behold, the devil
will cast some of YOU into prison, that YE may be tried ; and
YE shall have tribulation ten days : be thou faithful unto death,
and I will give thee a crown of life."*

But, the name a-rToaroXog, as applied to "the twelve," is no
where employed, either in the symbolic form, or to express the
sense here denoted by the term dyye?.oc, nor are the latter any
where called apostles.

2. We proceed now to a consideration of the remainder of the
cases added to " the eleven," as above, namely, Barnabas, Epa-

(1) 1 Cor. 1:1. (3) Rev. 1 : 20. '3) Rev. 16:6. C4) Rev. 2 : 8-10.

181

phroditus, the brethren Avho accompanied Titus, with Matthias,
and Paul.

To each of these, then, it is conceded that the name — dTroaroAof,
is given. There is, however, a question of vital importance con-
nected with this concession. It is this. Does the name in each
case necessarily indicate tlie same official functions with those of
" the eleven" ? To this, we reply, that the sense in which that
name is applied to them, can only be determined by a comparison
of the circumstances which originated their respective offices, to-
gether with their official acts, %oith the marks appertaining to the
apostolicity of " the eleven." If, like these, the result shows that
either all or any one of them were designated and appointed by
Christ himself, etc., and that they were otherwise miraculously
endowed, then were they apostles in the true and proper sense.
If not, then their apostleship, being derived from human, though
inspired sources, was of an inferior order to that of " the eleven."

We shall now enter upon an examination of each case, seriatim,^
in the full confidence of our arrival at the two following conclu-
sions, namely, first, that the name or title — a-nroaroAof, is used in
the New Testament in a double sense ; that is, that it is em-
ployed to denote two offices^ ecclesiastical^ entirely separate and
distinct. And, second, that of the five cases under review, one
only possessed the marks essential to that apostolicity which be-
longed to " the eleven," and that hy that one was restored the
original number of " the twelve apostles of the Lamb."

Let us consider this name, dTT6a7oXo(;, then, as applied,

[1.] To Bamahas. It occurs in connection with his name as
an associate with Paul. ".Which, when the apostles, a-nooroXoi, Bar-
nabas and Paul, heard of, they rent their clothes,"' etc. For an
account of their appointment to the apostleship here spoken of,
the reader is referred to the following passage : " There were, in
the Church which was at Antioch, certain prophets and teachers ;
as Barnabas, Simeon, etc., and Saul. As they ministered to the
Lord, and fasted, the Holy Ghost said. Separate me Barnabas and
Saul, for the work whereunto I have called them. And when they
had fasted and prayed, and laid their hands on them, they sent
them away."*

The question here is, who laid hands on these two men ? The
apostles ? No. They were " the prophets and teachers of the
Church at Antioch." Then also, so fiir as it regards Saul, he had
been raised to the apostleship some time before this, and that by
Christ himself' To suppose, therefore, that Barnabas was an
apostle in the same sense as was Paul, involves the absurdity that
" Saul" was twice raised to that office.

Then too, the looi^k of an apostle in the highest sense, was to
continue during the life time of the incumbent. But, the work to

en •> cts 14 : 14. (-2) .\cts 13 : 1-3 P) Acts 9 : 1-18. See al^o vv. 20, ii, 27. 29.

132

which Barnabas and Saul were specially set apart, was " fulfilled"
or terminated at Antioch about three years after^ It follows,
that the title dixdaroXoi, as applied to Barnabas with Saul, is to be
understood simply in the sense of messenger^ or the setting apart
of persons already ordained, to a sjpecial missionary woi'k. The
title is never subsequently applied to Barnabas. Try it in its ap-
plication,

[2.] To Epaphroditus. Paul speaks of him thus : ** Yet I sup-
posed it necessary to send to you Epaphroditus, my brother, and
companion in labor, and fellow-soldier, but vjuwv 61 aTxoaroXov,
your messenger,'" or apostle. On this passage we remark, that the
phrase crvvepyov juov, is rightly rendered in our version, not, my
compeer, but " my companion ;" in a sense similar to its applica-
tion to Aquila and Priscilla, Rom. 15 : 3, rovg ovvepyovg fiov, " my
helpers," etc. ; and to the apostles : — Qeov yap eoiiev awepyoi^ " We
are laborers together with God." (1 Cor. 3 : 9.) Otherwise Aquila
and Priscilla (!) are apostolic compeers ; and, the apostles are com-
peers with God !

The apostle explains the nature of the apostolicity of Epaphro-
ditus, chap. 4 : 18. "I have all," says he, "and abound: I am
full, having received of Epaphroditus the things which were sent
from you, an odor of a sweet smell, a sacrifice acceptable, well-
pleasing to God." The Philippian Church, by an act of well-timed
liberality, had " communicated with Paul in his afflictions," (chap.
4 : 11-14,) through Epaphroditus, whom he therefore styles their
anoaroXov, messenger, and he that iiiinistered to his wants." (ch.
2 : 62.) Further remark would be supei-fluous.

Consider this title,

[3.] In reference to the tioo hrethren that accompanied Titus to
Corinth. Of these two brethren the apostle speaks in terms of the
highest commendation. (2 Cor. 8 : 18, 22.) Titus, in compliance
with Paul's request,' being about to visit Corinth, is accompanied
by these brethren, one of whom at least " was chosen of the
churches to travel with us [i.e. Paul] with this grace," etc. (v. 19.)
He was therefore a messenger of the churches, and both he and
the other companion of Titus were messengers of Paul to the
Church at Corinth. These facts afford sufficient data for the de-
cision of the question as to the sense of the word dnoaroXoL in the
following sentence : " Whether do any inquire of Titus, he is my
partner and fellow-helper concerning you ; or otir brethren be in-
quired of, they are the messengers, dnooToXoi, of the churches, and
the glory of Christ."

We only remark in conclusion in regard to these cases, that,
whatever were their functions as denoted by the application to
them of the title d-noaToXog, they were evidently of an order not
only totally distinct from, but inferior to, those of " the eleven."

(1) Compare Acts 13 : 4-52, with chap. 14 : 1-36. (2) Philip. 2 : 25. (3) 2 Cor. 3 : 6, 16, 17.

133

[4.] If now, it can be made to appear, that, of the remaining
two cases, — those of Matthias and Paul, — though the name cTrofTro-
Aof, in the sense of its comprehending all the marTcs which be-
longed to the apostohcity of " the eleven," is applied to them ;
yet that but ONE of them is entitled to that honor, jure divino,
the New Testament Scriptures will be relieved of the incongruity
of making scores, not only, but even " THIETEEN," instead of
" TWELVE, apostles of the Lamb," on earth and in heaven.

SECTION vni.

Proof, that Paul filled the vacancy created hy the fall and death of Judas — Acts 1 : 26,
reconciled with the above — Objections answered — 1st : That it impugns the inspi-
ration of the Sacred Narrative as furnished by Luke — 2d : That Peter being in-
spired, could not err — 3d : That Peter must have received explicit directions frour:
Christ — 4th : The Election of Matthias was decided by lot — 5th : That the num-
ber " twelve" is applied to the Apostles both before and after the Vocation of Paul.
— Direct proofs of Paul's claims over those of Matthias. — 1st : Peter's agency in
the above transaction was premature — And hence, 2d : Unauthorized — 3d : Psalm
109 : 8, inapplicable to this case — 4th : No evidence that it was dictated by the
Holy Ghost. — No direct evidence that the Apostles themselves claimed the right to
fill said vacancy. — Conclusion.

In conclusion, therefore, of this somewhat protracted inquiry
into the number of the New Testament apostles, we shall claim
this honor — though we trust, with becoming deference — in behalf.

Of Paul, over that of Matthias. Yes : and that too, with our
eye now resting on the statement as recorded in the Acts (than
which, nothing can be more explicit), in reference to Matthias's
election to fill the place of Judas. " And they gave forth their
lots ; and the lot fell upon Matthias ; aiid he was numbered with
the eleven apostles.''''^

"We trust that our candor in making this concession, will evi-
dence that, to our mind, at least, this statement of the inspired
narrator 7nay be reconciled with the proposition above asssumed,
in reference to Matthias and Paul.

First, then. To the objection, that the historian " could not
have written under the inspiration of the Spirit, or he never would
have recorded an unwarrantable act, and palmed it off on the
Christian world as authorized ;"* we reply : It by no means fol-
lows that, because an act is recorded by an inspired amanuensis,
the act itself must of necessity have been dictated by the Holy
Ghost. The business of the historian is, simply to record facts.
Indeed, the entire structure of sacred history is founded on a sim-

(n Acts 1 : 26.
• Bp. McCoskrey's Sermon : Episcopal Bishops the Succes.sors of the Apostles, p. 15.

134

pie record of facts. And, when connected with " the acts" of indi-
viduals, be they apostles or others, these acts are left " to speak
for themselves, without censuring the agents." So, in the above in-
stance of the recorded election, etc. of Matthias. The apostle Peter
had predicated the action in regard to the appointment of Mat-
thias, on the prediction concerning Judas, as contained in the
109th Psalm. "Let his habitation be desolate, and let no man
dwell therein : and his bishopric let another take^ It formed no
part of the business of the historian, however, to scan the reason-
ing of Peter regarding it, or to decide upon the merits of the infer-
ence which formed the basis of his conduct, or of those who acted
with him. That is the exclusive province of those for whose " in-
struction in righteousness"' the Bible was written. That the spirit
of inspiration should have permitted the record of this appointment
of Matthias to appear on the sacred page unreproved and uncon-
demned, is no more evidence that it had the Divine sanction, than
that the conduct of Peter in returning himself, and in instigating his
apostolic companions to join him in returning, to his and their
former occupation of fishing, during the interval of Christ's en-
tombment and resurrection, because not condemned by their risen
Lord, was divinely authorized."

But it is further objected, that Peter and those who acted with
him, being divinely inspired, could not have erred in this matter.
To this we answer, that nothing is more evident than the fact, that
such a belief in apostolic infallihility as predicated of their inspira-
tion^ formed no pait of the creed either of "the eleven" or of the
brethren. Peter had erred before this transaction.^ And, his act in
having " gone in to men uncircumcised and eating with them,"
though a divinely official act on his part, yet until it was fully ex-
plained to those of the circumcision, was considered and treated as
wholly unauthorized.'* Paul's rebuke of Peter for another of his
official acts,' the nature and tendency of which seriously threatened
the best interests of the infant Church, illustrates this same fact.
If, then, Peter thus erred both before and after his endowment in its
fullest measure, of the Pentecostal gift of the Holy Ghost, might
not he, and with him his compeers and others, have erred before
that event ?

Once more. It is urged, that as Christ " must have spoken of
the treachery of Judas, and also of the position which he occu-
pied," etc., " it is reasonable to suppose that he gave his apostles
instructions to supply his place."* But, why left to "infer" the
giving instructions in a matter involving consequences so stupen-
dous ? If Christ " must have spoken of the apostas)^ of Judas,"
upon the hypothesis that his apostles were to supply his place, is
it not "reasonable to infer" that he would have given them in-

(1) 2 Tim. 3 : 16. (Q) John 21 : 3. (3) John 21 : 3 ; comp. with Matt. 26 : 31-35 ; 69-76.
(4) Acts 11 : 1-18. (.5) Gal. 2 : Il-la.

* Bp. McCoskrey's Sermon, p. 16.

135 •

structions in regard to it at once direct and positive ? And, espe-
cially, when the effect would have been to have precluded the
possibility of, or at least to have silenced at once and forever, all
cavils on, the question of apostolic prerogatives ? But, allowing,
for the sake of argument, the alleged appointment of Matthias by
Peter ; so far from his referring to any such instructions from his
Divine jNIaster, he predicates the whole procedure on the prophecy
already referred to respecting the filling of the vacancy of the
apostate Judas, in the 109th Psalm.

Again, it is urged, that the appointment of Matthias was decided
by " lot^''' and, therefore, that it must have been valid. Not, Ave
reply, without the evidence of direct Divine authority for the substi-
tution of that method in the place of an appointment by Christ per-
sonally. True, those concerned in this transaction, could plead
in justification of its adoption a variety of precedents for deciding
the election in that form. But these precedents, employed, as they
were, on such diversified occasions, are resorted to as well hy Pa-
gan ' as by Hebrew ; and the design of which is, to illustrate that
superintending Providence of God which extends to the minutest
and every-day affairs of men : — for " the lot is cast into the lap^ hut
the whole disposing thereof is of the Lord :''^^ — certainly show the ab-
sence of that force and authority which the nature of the appoint-
ment, and the pending consequences to the Church of God, in-
volve.

Finally, it is objected, that the number " tiuelve''' is applied to
the apostles, between the above aj)pointment of Matthias, and the
vocation of Paul ; and also by that apostle himself at a subsequent
period.^' But, that nothing definitive can be derived from these
references in favor of Matthias as one of " the twelve," may, we
think, be inferred from the fact, that the same number " twelve"
is applied to them by John after the death of Judas and before the
election of MattMas, when, of course, there were only "eleven" in
all not only, but when there were only TEN of them present ; and
that too, on the very solemn occasion when Jesus said to them,
"As my Father hath sent me, even so send I you"! The passage
referred to is the following : " But Thomas, one of the twelve^
called Didymus, was not with them when Jesus came." *

It only remains now that we ask, whether there be not reason-
able ground for the conclusion, that the entire proceeding as nar-
rated of this transaction in the first chapter of the Acts, had its
origin in that indomitable ardor and impetuosity, so characteristic
of the apostle Peter ? We shall call to our aid in suj^port of it
the following : —

1. This act of Peter, even if officially valid, was premature.
The election etc. of Matthias transpired prior to the Pentecost;
which circumstance, to our mind, cannot be reconciled with

(1) Jonah 1 : 7. (2) See Acts 13 : 19 ; Lev. 16 : 8 ; Josh. 18 : 10 ; 1 Sam. 14 : 41, 42 ; 1 Chron
24 : 5 I Prov. 16 : 33. (3) Acts 2 : 14 ; 6 : 2 ; and 1 Cor. 15 : 5. (4) Compare Johu 20 : vv. 21 and 24

136

Christ's positive command to tliem, "that they should not depart
from Jerusalem, httt ^Y ait for the ^promise of the Father ;^ which
promise had reference to their baptism by the Holy Ghost on that
day, as an absolutely indispensable qualification for the exercise
of their apostolic functions," Hence,

2. This act was unautTwrized. True, with the facts present to
his mind of the vacancy inr the apostolic college, occasioned by the
apostasy of Judas on the one hand, and of the declaration of
Christ, made prior to the creation of said vacancy,' that "the
twelve apostles" in the militant, should "sit on twelve thrones,
judging the twelve tribes of Israel" in the heavenly, hierarchy, on
the other : we are not surprised that Peter should have concluded
that there " m^lst one he ordained to he a witness with them (the
eleven) of Chrisfs vesurreGtionP*^ But, that he erred in regard to
the person destined to fill that vacancy, to the agency to be em-
ployed therein, and to the inode of its accomplishment, we think
may be gathered,

(rt.) From the ahsence of any specific allusion to either^ in the
prophecy of David, in the 109th Psalm, v. 8. The passage in the
original reads thus : ^iHh w^^^ ^fi^p^ another shall take his office.
The verb n;?-; yikkach, is in the future tense ; and the prophecy,
consequently, simply announces that another should take that
ofiice or charge, no allusion whatever being made to the agency
of the apostles therein, or the mode of the appointment thereto.
To this we add,

(h.) There is no evidence that this transaction was dictated by the
Holy Ghost. So far from it, the record declares that the Holy
Ghost was not yet given, because that Jesus was not yet glori-
fiedr" Admitting, then, that Peter and his compeers in ofiice, in
virtue of their functions previously conferred, had the right to fill
said vacancy ; yet, those functions being at the time incomplete —
(for the breathing of the Holy Ghost upon them by Christ, as re-
corded John 20 : 22, was dilTerent in degree, and for a different
end, from the " power" with which they were to be clothed by the
descent of the Iloly Ghost upon them at Pentecost),* it follows,
that the office, as conferred on Matthias, was imjyerfect. They
could not have conferred functions on another, which themselves
did not possess. But,

(c.) We have the most decisive evidence, that tlie apostles them-
selves claimed no right to fill said vacancy. Else why, we ask,
the proposition by Peter, not to his ten apostolic compeers, but to
'"''the disciples,'''' that is, to the "men and brethren," ("the number
of the names together" being "about an hundred and twenty")?''
True, all the apostles might have been present. We admit that
they we/'e present. But nothing can be more explicitly stated,

(1) Acts 1 : 4, 5 ; comp. 2 : 33. (2) Acts 1 : 8. (3) Matt. 19 : 28 ; Luke 22 : 30 (4) Acts 1 : 22.
(5) John 8 : 39 ; Acts 1 : 7-11 ; 2 : 1-4. (6) Compare John 20 : 23, with Acts 1 : 8, and 2 : 1-lL

(7) Acts 1 : 15, 16.

137

than that " ^/^'y," that is, "the disciples," " appointed two, Joseph
called Barsabas, and Matthias. And they prayed, and said," etc.
"And theij gave fortli their lots," etc.' Add to this, finally, the
fact, that the result of the election was referred by the whole body
of the disciples, together with Peter and his ten associates in office,
to the Lord I and we submit, whether evidence can be more com-
plete. "And they prayed, and said, Thou^ Lord, which knowest
the hearts of all men, show whether of these two thou hast
chosen," etc.*

In conclusion, then, on this subject, we remark, that, after a
most careful review of the narrative of this transaction, to our
mind there are grounds for much more than a doubt, whether
Matthias was the divinely a2)2)ointed successor of Judas. Indeed,
we are fully persuaded that nothing more can be claimed to sus-
tain it, but an honest but mistaken inference of Peter on the one
hand, and an exceedingly equivocal rule of conduct by the hun-
dred and twenty disciples, on the other. And these considera-
tions, taken in connection with the fact, that no conviction could
have been more deeply seated in the minds of the apostles them-
selves, than that they, as such, had no power to fill that vacancy,
not only, but also that, unless the successor of Iscariot should
receive his commission directly from the Lord Jestjs himself, it
was, to all intents and purposes, null and void j we are, we
think, compelled to look elsewhere for the one possessed of a
clearer title to compeership with " the twelve apostles of the
Lamb." That title, we shall now claim, adheres in

The APOSTOLiciTT OF Paxil. As shown above, the vacancy
in the apostolic college could be filled by none other than by
one who had seen the Lord, and who should derive his appoint-
ment directly from Christ hhnself both of which conditions meet
in the vocation of that "chosen vessel" of the Lord — Paul. For,
though "born out of due time," yet, saj^s he, ''''last of all^ he
(Christ) ivas SEEN of me also.''^^ And, that he did not receive
his appointment from the apostles, but from Christ himself, is
manifest from the following. He tells us, that he " did not go
up to Jerusalem to them which were apostles before him," but
that he was " an apostle, {not of men^ neither hy man^ hut hy
Jesus Cheist, and God the Father, who raised him from the
deadr'Y

(1) Acts 1 : 23, 24, 26. (2) Acts 1 : 24. (3) 1 Cor. 15 : 8. (4) Gal. 1 : 1, 11, 12, and v. 17.
♦ It is here to be particularly noted, in defense of the claim here urged in behalf of
Paul as one of " the twelve,'" that, as of " the eleven,''^ so of him ; his designation to the
apostleship teas not by imposition of hands. The laying on of hands upon him by Ana-
nias, Was not an act of consecration to the apostleship. To such a pretense, it is sufficient
that we reply, that the qualifications of Ananias fell far below those required by prela-
tists for the performance of that act. In the vision of Paul, Ananias appeared simply
as "a ware," not as an apostle, (Acts 9 : 12.) His highest appellation is that of" a dis-
ciple^^ (ib., V. 10.) And the object of his mission to Paul was, not to make him an apos-
tle, but by laying hands on him, to restore him to sight, (ib., vv. 12, 17, 18.) and by bap-
tism, to introduce him into the Christian Church, (ib., v. 18.) Nor this only. But, as

138

SECTION IX.

Recapitulation of the reduced ministerial N. T. appointments, according to, first, their
titles ; and second, their functions and titles. — Result : The whole number reduced
to four orders — namely. Apostles, Prophets, Evangelists, and Pastors or Teachers. —
Proof, that neither of these orders, in respect to their original primitive endow-
ments, was designed to be perpetuated in the Church. — The argument applied, 1st,
to " the twelve apostles of the Lamb ;" 2d, to the other thr6e orders. — Their (that
is, the apostles's) primitive functions not transmissible, though their names, in part,
are retained.

We come now to remark, that, of the ministerial appointments
recorded in the New Testament — 1st, by Christ personally; 2d,
by the Holy Ghost; 3d, by the apostles; 4th, by the apostles with
others ; 5th, by others independently of the apostles ; and 6th, hj
special Providence, the following is the result : —

I. That the aggregate numbers amount in all to twenty, and

II. That, on the reduced scale, the orders consisted of Apostles,
Evangelists, Prophets, Teachers, Elders (as inclusive of pastoral
and ruling elders). Deacons, and Angels ; in all, eight in number ;
which, leaving out the three bearing the titles of elders, ruling el
ders, and deacons, (for which, the reasons will be assigned in the
proper place,) precisely corresponds with Paul's enumeration of
them as given in 1 Corinthians 12 : 28, and Ephesians 4 : 2. For,
the apostle, having spoken in the former passage, of ministerial
appointments by their powers or fLinctions and titles ; and in the
latter of their titles only as inclusive of their powers or functions ;
it follows, that, of the number of Orders which remained to be con-
sidered, there were apostles, prophets, evangelists, and pastors or
teachers : in all, four.

Of these four orders, it was assumed as fundamental to a deter
mination of what was to constitute the standing ministry of the
Church of Clirist in all time, to settle the question as to whether
they were designed to form the permanent ministry of the
Church.

On this subject, the Scriptures, we believe, will be found most

though it were designed as a standing reproof in all future time to those who, in virtue
of their alleged official prerogatives as the successors of the apostles, should arrogate
the right to dispense the Holy Ghost, " the man^' Ananias, imparts to him this gift also .'
(ib., v. 17.)

Again. The same act of manual imposition, as recorded. Acts 13 : 3. was the mere
setting Saul apart, with Barnabas, to a special and t>>mporary mission (compare Acts
13 : 1. with 14 : 26) : a work, though compatible with, 3'et certainly, not exclusively a
part of, the apostolic office. Nor were the apostles the agents employed by the Holy
Ghost in that act. It was performed by " the prophets and teachers^' in the Church at
Antioch. (Acts 13 : 1-3.) Paul's appointment to the apostleship, though " the signs"
of it (2 Cor. 12 : 12) might have been reserved to an after period, was of a date anterior
to that event, (Acts 9:1-9; 15, 16.)

139

unequivocally to sustain the hypothesis, that they were, one and
all, of temporary duration. Let us test it in its application,

I. To " THE TWELVE APOSTLES OF THE LaMB."

On this subject we remark in the first place, what, we think, can-
not fail to strike the mind as peculiarly significant, that, with the
account given above of the origin, nature, and functions of " the
twelve," harmonizes the declaration of Christ regarding the ulti-
mate end to be accomplished by their appointment. Having
" showed himself alive to them after his passion," etc., he said : " Ye
shall receive poiver^ after that the Holy Ghost is come upon you : AND
YE SHALL BE WITNESSES UNTO ME, BOTH IN JUDEA, AND IN
JeKUSALEM, and in all SaMAEIA, AN'D UNTO THE UTTERMOST
PARTS OF THE EARTH." *

Now, this declared design of their mission, viewed in connection
with the marks or signs of their apostolicity : namely, 1st, that they
were chosen by Christ himself; 2d, that they had seen Christ per-
sonally, etc. ; 3d, that they were inspired and infallible ; 4th, that
they were endowed with miraculous powers ; 5th, that they alone
could impart the gift of the Holy Ghost ; 6th, that their mission
was universal ; and 7th, that they alone possessed the right to
govern absolutely : and what, we ask, can be more evident than
that, as an Order, their ministry in the Church militant, — whether
it related to preaching, baptizing, teaching, the working of mira-
cles, speaking with tongues, appointing ofiicers in the Church, and
laying down rules (whether by usage or by express injunction) for
the government of the Church, — was of a special and extraordinary
character ?

Nor this only. For having fulfilled the purposes of its appoint-
ment, the Scriptures, as we shall show, are equally clear in furnish-
ing the evidence, that it expired with the necessity that created it.
In other words, that the office, apostoliccd, of " the twelve,'''' was in
no sense designed to he transmissible to others. No, not even the
najyie d-nooroXog, was so transmissible. That name, like "the keys"
of Peter, passed with them into the heavens, where they " sit on
twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel." And, even
admitting, — which, by the way we do not, except in a secondary or
subordinate sense — that the names, either in whole or in part, of the
remaining three orders, — prophets, evangelists, and p)astors or teach-
ers, are now used to designate the ordinary ministry of the Church,
even their primitive functions were not transmissible. In proof,
take the following comparison of the commission as originally given
by Christ to "the twelve," with Paul's account of the design of
tneir ministry in conjunction with the others, equally derived from
Christ, as recorded Eph. 4 : 11, 12. "We will place the two pas-
sages side by side.

(I) Acts 1 : 3-8.

140

Matt. 28 : 19, 20. Eph. 4 : 11, 12.

" Go ye, therefore, and teach all na- " And he gave some apostles ; and
tions, baptizing them in the name of some, prophets ; and some, evangelists ;
the Father, and of the Son, and of the and some, pastors and teachers ; For
Holy Ghost : teaching them to observe the perfectmg of the saints, for the
all things whatsoever I have command- work of the ministry, for the edifying
ed you : And lo, I am with you cUway, of the body of Christ : Till we all
even unto tlie end of the world," come in the unity of the faith, and of

the knowledge of the Son of God, unto
A PERFECT MAN, unto the meosure of
the stature of the fullness of Christ."

The facts here affirmed, are, that Christ, " when he ascended up
on high," " gave," in the order of his " gifts unto men," " first,
apostks.''^ Following these, as the necessities of the Church re-
quired, now that she was being reconstructed under the new econ-
omy, were others under the apostles, requisite to the consumma-
tion of the great work of which he speaks — namely, " the perfect-
ing of the saints" in the faith of Christ doctrinally, and for their
edification, government, etc. : — propliets., evangelists^ and pastors or
teox^hers.

The question now is, How long was this their work as " apos-
tles, ^Drophets," etc., to continue? The apostle answers. " Until
they all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son
of God, unto a perfect man ; (mark — not men) — elg dvdpa reXeiov ;
that is, to a perfect body — " the Church of Christ, which is his
body^^ : " unto the measure of the stature, ^XiKiag (age), of the full-
ness of Christ."

The meaning therefore evidently is, that from the apostolic com-
mission as recorded in the 28th of -Matthew to the penning of
Eph. 4 : 11-13 ; such a ministry as, in addition to their endow-
ments of the gifts of inspiration to preach, dispense ordinances,
teach, work miracles, govern, etc. ; others also were endowed with
miraculous gifts through them, for the edifying of the body of
Christ, " UNTIL," out of Jews and Gentiles, they {i.e. the apostles)
had made one perfect man, the Church.

Hence the harmony of this view with the original promise of
Christ to " THE TWELVE :" " Zo, I am with you ahvay, et^g rr^g
avvreXeidg rev ali^vog, — that is, TILL the conclusion of THIS STATE
OR PERIOD to be appropriated to THE PERFECTING OF THE
MODEL KINGDOM, SPIRITUAL. And so, the word "until,"
as employed by the apostle. It is /^s;tP* in Greek, donee in Latin,
adverbs expressive of the time, how long. Both passages, as to
time, refer, not to the offices as filled by either, but to \\\% personal
ministry of each. But, " the twelve," and those who, under
them constituted the miraculous ministry of the New Testament
Church, having " fallen asleep in Christ,"' are no Xowg^x personally
with the Church. Therefore, their office and functions, being ex-
traordinary, were untransferable, and hence, temporary. To

(1) 1 Cor. \i : IS.

141

place this matter beyond tlie reacli of reasonable controversy, we
nave but to compare tlie above promise of Christ, " I am with
YOU continually^'' etc., with the following testimony of Paul :
" Verily^ their sound^'' — that is, the preaching, etc., of the apos-
tles, ^^loent into all the earth, and their words nnto the ends
OF THE woKLD."* This douc, and the tenure of their commission
" for the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for
the edifj'ing of the body of Christ," had accomplished its widest
range. The Church, through its divinely appointed instrumentality,
had attained to " the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of
the Son of God, unto a perfect man^ Hence, their work, thus
finished, joined with that of the "prophets," etc., COMPLETED
that " foundation" which rests upon " Christ as the chief corner
stone," and upon which was to be reared the superstructure of that
Church against which " the gates of hell never can prevail."'' For,
though dead, they yet speak. " In their essential functions of in-
struction and government, they are stilly and ever will Je, with the
Church as the foundation on which the whole structure must rest,
as the enthroned authority to which the mind of every minister,
and of every member, must yield implicit subjection."

On the subject of the remaining orders, — "Prophets, Evange-
lists, and Pastors or Teachers," — the evidences demonstrative of the
inferiority of their functions to those of " the twelve" ; of their
respective characteristic differences each from the other ; and of
the line of demarkation dra^vn between the extraordinary or tem-
porary and the ordinary or permanent, ministry, of the Church ;
being so intimately connected with the New Testament " doctrine
of laying on of hands^'' an exhibit of a scriptural view of
the one, will furnish a key to the opening up of the other. Hence
our passport to another, and a most important and interesting
topic of inquir3^

(1) Rom. 10 : 18. (2) Matt. 16 : 18

142

CHAPTER II.

ORDINATION.
SECTION I.

Two extremes respecting it. — As a ceremonial action, it involves " the laying on of
hands." — Was applied to various uses. — This Ceremonial Action defined. — Is com-
mon to every Dispensation — 1st : The Patriarchal Age — Instances of its use — 2d :
The Jewish Dispensation — Do. — 3d : The Christian Dispensation — Do. as em-
ployed, (1) by Christ. Proof, that the action, as employed by Him, involved no
inherent virtue of His human hand. — (2.) By the ^^osf/cs. They disclaimed a//
inherent virtue in the act itself. — Instances of its use by them. First, in healing the
sick ; Second, in the bestowment of Spiritual Gifts ; Third, in the setting apart of
a person to any work or office, special or ordinary. — These two, entirely separate
and distinct acts, and regarded entirely different ends. — Proof, that the bestowment
of spiritual gifts was exclusively the work of the Apostles, and constituted, pre-em-
inently, the " seaV of their Apostleship.

Two EXTREMES mark the current views respecting this rite. The
one sinks it helow^ the other raises it above, the scriptural stand-
ard. Our endeavor will be to show, that it is not an empty, idle,
and unmeaning ceremony, on the one hand ; nor a sacramental
channel for the communication of grace, on the other.

Our first remark is, that ordination, as a ceremonial action, in-
volves '■^ the laying on of hanrJsy But this action was appropri-
ated to other purposes, than that of setting apart a person to some
ministerial office. To understand it, therefore, we must take a
view of it as a whole. Paul makes it one of the rudiments of the
Christian economy — "the doctrine o^ laymg on of hands,'" thus
erecting it into the position of a religiotis rite. As such, its action,
of course, is symholic.

The import of this symbolic action, then, is the point to be de-
termined. We offer the following, as, in our view, the only defi-
nition of it warranted in Scripture.

Ordination is employed to denote, that the instrument, man,
IS " ONE with God in declaring his purposes towards others,
ON whom some special blessing is to descend, or by whom

SOME sacred work IS TO BE PERFORMED.

In this aspect, be it observed, unlike any other rite, it stands
alone as being common to every dispensation, Patriarchal, Jewish,
and Christian,

(1) Heb. 6 : 1, 2.

143

I. — The Patriarchal Age. — Under it, tlie head of each family
was invested with a threefold dignity — the regal^ sacerdotal^ and
prophetic. In this last named capacity, we have a most delightful
illustration of one of the modes of administering this rite, in
Joseph, who sought, at the hands of the venerable and dying
Jacob, his last prophetic benediction upon his two sons, Ephraim
and Manasseh. Nor can we overlook the circumstance of his re-
fusal to accede to the request of Joseph to change his right hand
in favor of Manasseh as his eldest son, as evidence that he under-
stood the ceremonial action as denoting the harmony of his will
with the will of God respecting " the lads." " He guided his hands
wittingly.'" The previous instances of the use of this rite by Mel-
chizedek in blessing Abraham,^ and by Isaac in blessing Jacob
when he sent him to Padan-Aram,' furnish proof that " the lay-
ing on of hands" had been a custom long established and was well
understood. And, its continuance,

II. — Under the Jewish Dispensation, shows its equal applicabil-
ity to that age. Indeed, this economy, so far from abolishing, ex-
panded pre-existing religious rites ; and, the very ministry ordained
to dispense them, furnished the^r^^ recorded instance of ordina-
tion to any office by " the laying on of hands." And in it, as in
the other cases, its symbolic action is equally conspicuous. We
have, 1st. God's will, appointing the Levites to their enjoined ser-
vice. 2d. The Levites's will, in purifying themselves for said ser-
vice. 3d. The people's will, who, by the impositions of their
hands, signify their concurrence with the will of God.

The next instance to which we shall refer, is that of Moses in
the setting apart Joshua by the same rite, to the work assigned
him of the Lord.'* The significancy of the act in this instance in
the sense above attached to it, is greatly heightened by the pecul-
iar circumstances under which it transpired. The nation of Israel,
now brought to the very confines of the promised land, is to be led
over to its possession by Joshua ; while Moses, their former leader
and lawgiver, is called upon to set him apart to his great work hy his
own hands^ not only, but, having been permitted merely to view
that " glory of all lands" from Pisgah's top, is there gathered to his
fathers.^ " It requires great submission from Moses that he is to
have no share in reaping the harvest of his previous toil." Still,
he does submit. It is seen in visible form, in the imposition of his
hands on the head of Joshua.

This rite was also of frequent occurrence, as connected with the
sacrificial services of the Levitical priesthood ; of which, the prin-
cipal instances were, when, on the day of annual atonement, " Aaron
laid his hands on the head of the" atoning " scape-goat," followed
by the " lifting up of his hands toward the peopjl^'' in scjlomn

(1) Gen 48 : 13-20. (2) Gen. 14 : 18. (3) Gen. 28 : 6. (4) Numb. 27 : 18 J3. (u) Compare Numb.
27 : 12-23, with 33 : 47 ; Deut. 3 : 27 j 32 : 49 j 34 : 1.

I**-

144

benediction:' and which, together, typified the atoning sacrifice of
Him upon whom " the Lord had laid the iniquity of us all," and
of the blessings which were to accrue through it to the penitent
believer.

We now remark, that this rite, thus familiarized to the Jewish
nation by long continued usage under the two preceding dispensa-
tions, and endeared to their hearts by its connection with acts
which they held to be of priceless value ; it is, to say the least,
very natural to suppose, would find a place in the ecclesiastical ar-
rangements of the Church as reconstructed under Christ and his *
apostles. And thus we find it in various modes, adapted to,

III. — The Christian Dispensation, under which, its perpetuity,
we observe, was ratified, 1st. by ihQeai'Uest official acts of Christ him-
self . Nor should we overlook the circumstances of its administra-
tion, marked, as they were, with the deepest solemnity and interest.
Under the promptings, as we have said, of long established usage,
Jewish parents " brought their little children unto Christ, that he
should j'yw^ his hands on them^ and pray.'" And, so far from re-
fusing compliance therewith, having rebuked the pride and folly
of human device in those who "forbid them," we read, that "He
took them w^ in his arms, put his hands upon them^ and hlessed
them.'" Nor them only. At Capernaum, " when the sun was set-
ting, all they that had any sick with divers diseases, brought them
unto him ; and he laid Ms hands on every one of them, and healed
them."^ And, besides other numerous instances of this act, as it was
among the first, so, we now remark, it constituted the last official
act of the Redeemer on earth ! " And he led them" (his apostles)
** as far as to Bethany, and he lifted up his hands, and blessed
them. And it came to pass while he blessed them, he was parted
from them, and candied into heaven.^'"' Yet more. This rite, so
oft observed by Christ on earth, is perpetuated in heaven ! St.
John, overpowered by the bright visions of his glorified Eedeemer
before the throne, received divine succor from him by the ^^ laying
on of his hands upon him., and saying, Fear not.""

Christ, therefore, b}^ his own examjile, has placed this rite among
the fundamentals of his own spiritual and heavenly religion.
And, we remark, with the same design with that which marked
its previous administration. It is no dereliction from the dignit}^
of Christ in his human nature, to affirm, that his purpose in these
acts was, to illustrate the perfect concurrence of Ilis will in that
state, with that of his heavenly Father's will, whose work he came
to perform. Ilence his own declaration. " I came down from
heaven, not to do mine own will, but the will of him that sent
me.'"

And, we remark, in conclusion, what is of vital consequence in

(1) Lev. 16 : 20. (2) Matt. 19 : 13. (3) Mark 10 : 16. (4) Luke 4 : 40. (5) Luke 24 : 50. (6) Rev
1 : 17. (7) John 6 : 30.

.145
these premises, that the wonders performed by Christ under this

act, PROCEEDED FKOM NO INHERENT VIRTUE OF HIS HUMAN HAND.

" The words that I speak unto you," says he, "I speak not of my-
self, hut of the Father that dwelletli in 7ne : lie doeth the worhsJ^
No. It was the indweUing power of the Deity in mj^sterious
union with Christ's humanity which wrought tliese wonders ; and
which at times were wrought without the movement of the hand,
or even the utterance to the sufferer, of the voice. Pass we now,
therefore, to consider this " doctrine of laying on of hands," as
connected with

2d Apostolic Usage. With them, this rite was administered in
healing the sick, in the bestowment of spiritual gifts, and in set-
ting apart to any special of&ce or work.

AVe must here however premise, — what, by the way, it is almost
superfluous to add, — that, if there were no inherent virtue in the
manual impositions performed by Christ himself; such a virtue
cannot be presumed to have presided in similar acts as performed
by the apostles. We are not surprised therefore in finding them,
and that on an occasion when ihej had just wrought a most signal
miracle, — that of curing the cripple — disclairning in the most em-
jpihatic terras^ all siich pretensions. To the men of Israel who
marveled at that miracle, they thus spake : " Why look ye so
earnestly on us, as though by our own power or holiness wb had
made this man to walk ? The God of our fathers hath glorified
his son Jesus, whom ye delivered up," etc. ; " and his name,
through FAITH in his name^ hath made this man strong, whom ye
see and know."' So too, miracles wrought by them also, were
sometimes unaccompanied b}^ the usual visible rite. Nor were
they confined to this particular action. " Signs and wonders were
wrought in the name of the holy child Jesus," by the " stretching
forth of his unseen handj"* in answer to their prayer.^ And,
"Peter's shadow falling on the sick,'" and "handkerchiefs and
aprons taken from the body of Paul,"* might each, on a special
occasion, prove the miraculous presence of the Holv Ghost in them.
Still,

(1.) In healing the side, it will be seen that " the laying on of
hands" formed the general rule. " They shall lay hands on the
sick, and they shall recover." ^ Hence we read that, by the
hands of the apostles, many signs and wonders were done among
the people." ' The same rite was employed,

(2.) In the bestowment of spiritual gifts. See this, as illustrated
in the case of the Samaritan converts, by Peter and John ; ' and in
that of the disciples at Ephesus, by Paul : * and we add, in that of
Timothy, by the same apostle.

This latter case requires a passing remark. True, " the time
and place at which it was done, is no where recorded ; but, in the

(1) Acts 3:1-11 . 12-16. (2) Acts 4 : 30. (3) Acts 6 : 15. (4) Acta 19 : 13. (6) Mark 16 : Ift
(6) Acts 5 : 12. (7) Acts 8 : 14-17. (8) Acta 19 : C, 7.

second epistle written to him, Paul indulges for himself, and ret
quires from Timothy, a complacent remembrance of the occasion,
when that grace was conferred. " Wherefore I put thee in re-
membrance that thou stir up the gift of God which is in thee b^y
ihe putting on of my handsj'' ' What this " gift" was, is obvioug
from the words which follow. " For God hath not given us the
spirit of fear ; but of power, and of love, and of a sound mind." *
Now, that this Avas a " gift," not of office, but some special endow-
ment which might qualify Timothy — as the apostle himself had
been qualified — for the discharge of office, will appear from a view
of this act when taken in connection,

(3.) With the setting apart of a person to any work or ojftce,
special or ordinary. We affirm, then, that these two acts, — that of
conferring spiritual gifts, and that employed in the creation of
office, or work, special or ordinary, were two entirely separate and
distinct acts, having in view entirely separate and distinct ends.

The confounding of these, — as will appear in the sequel, has ori-
ginated in the Church from an early period following the apostolic
age, the gradual departure from the ministry etc. of apostolic in-
stitution, to which may be traced that most stupendous system of
" spiritual despotism," the PAPACY ! In proof of the above
proposition, we olfer the facts and arguments following : —

1. " The laying on of hands" in the bestowment of spiritual gifts^

WAS EXCLUSIVELY THE WORK OF THE APOSTLES. Others bcsidcS

them possessed these gifts, — for example, the " hundred and
twenty disciples" on the day of Pentecost, among whom doubtless
were the seven deacons mentioned in Acts 6, and of whom it is
said that they were " men of honest report, full of the Holy Ghost
and of wisdom." Now, of these, Philip, whose preaching in Sa-
maria had resulted in the conversion of many of " the people,"
though he had been baptized by the Holy Ghost, and ordained
by apostolic hands, and could perform all the ordinary and somxe
of the extraordinary functions of the ministry ; yet there was
one thing Avhich he could not do : which none hut an apostls
could do. He was not empowered to impart spiritual gifts. An
apostolic deputation must be sent from Jerusalem for that pur-
pose. " Then laid they (the apostles Peter and John) their hand^
on them, and they received the Holy Ghost." The same is
true of this gift as imparted to the disciples of Ephesus by Paul.
Then also, what was true of " Philip the deacon," is equally
true of Timothy and Titus, though endowed with ministerial
functions superior to his. For, in the official duties as prescrib-
ed and enjoined on them by Paul, there is not the least intima-
tion given that they were required to bestow, or that they ever did
bestow, those gifts on others.

It will also be seen from the above, that these gifts were bestow-
ed by the apostles indiscriminately on all believers — private Chris-
CD 2 Tim. 1 : 6. (2) lb. v. 7.

tians as well as ''the ministers of the word." Hence those "di-
versities of gifts," *' differences of administrations," and " diversi-
ties of operations" mentioned in the 12th of 1st Corinthians, and
of which the apostle treats as appertaining to the Church as a
hody^ and not of those who sustained the ditferent offices which
are connected with its permanent organization. Two inferences
follow.

First. That the power to impart spiritual gifts, as they were
bestowed exclusively by, so they constituted, pre-eminently, the
seal of^ the functions apostolical. Of this, Paul's appeal to the
Corinthians is decisive. " Are not ye my work in the Lord ?
If I be not an apostle unto others, yet doubtless I am to you :
for the SEAL of mine apostleship are ye in the Lord." '

Second. That the design of these endowments being " to pro-
vide for the rapid diffusion of Christianity by extraordinary means
and instruments," in an age which rendered them indispensable to
that end, no arrangements of which we have any account being
made for their continuance beyond the lifetime of the apostles,
they necessarily expired with them.

But it was otherwise with "the laying on of hands" in setting
apart an individual to any work or office, special or ordinary, as
will be shown in

SEcnoN n.

Proof, that, in setting apart to office, others beside the Apostles laid on hands. — Instances
of the recorded ordinations by both — First-, by the Apostles ; The seven deacons,
Acts 6 : 1-8 — Second, by the prophets and teachers of Antioch ; Saul and Barnabas,
Acts 13 : 1-3 — Third, Timothy circumcised by Paul, Acts 16 : 1-3 — also, the con-
ferment on him by Paul, of " the gift of God," 2 Tim. 1 : 6, 1— Fourth, Timothy's
ordination by " the presbytery" of Ephesus, 1 Tim. 4 : 14. — Proof that, as these
acts occurred at different times, places, and occasions, they could not have been
identical. — Inference, Paul not connected with his ordination by " the presbytery."

2. Others besides the apostles were identified with these acts. Take,
as evidence, the conduct of Simon the sorcerer, on the occasion of
the bestowment of spiritual gifts by Peter and John on the Sama-
ritan converts. What are the facts in this case? They were
simply as follows. The truth and power of the miracles wrought
by Philip among the Samaritans, had foiled all the arts of Simon's
sorcery and had mortified his pride. Could he therefore but "obtain
that power" which Philip did riot possess, of enabling others to work
miracles in connection with himself, he might organize a body in
dependence on himself, emerge from the eclipse he had suffered,
and be again the " great one of the city." Having therefore wit-
nessed t£e bestowment on the Samaritan converts of the power

(I) 1 Gor. f> : 2.

'»f*

148

he so mucli coveted, " that through laying on of the apostles's hands
the Holy Ghost was given, he offered them money, saying, Give
ME also THIS POWER, that on whomsoever / lay hands, he may re-
ceive THE IIoLY Ghost." It is clear, therefore, that Simon coveted,
not office, but a power which lay heyond it.

So, of the instance of the conferment of this gift by Paul on
the disciples of Ephcsus. There being no field assigned them for
the exercise of ministerial functions, it could not have been office
to which they were appointed by that act.

Having thus cleared the way before us, we now proceed to an
examination of the several instances recorded in the New Testa-
ment, of " the laying on of hands" in connection with the appoint-
ment of individuals either to some special work or ordinary office.

Here again, we must observe, an obvious necessity exists for a
careful discrimination between appointments to a special work, and
designation to an ordinary office. It will be found indispensable to
a scriptural view of what was designed to constitute the extraordi-
nary and temporary, and what the ordinary and permanent^ ministry
of Christ's Church.

The instances, then, of " the laying on of hands" above alluded
to, are the four following, viz, : —

I. The ordination of the Seven Deacons by the twelve Apostles.
(Acts 6 : 1-6.)

II. The setting apart of " Barnabas and Saul for the work where-
unto the Holy Ghost had called them." (Acts 13 : 1-3.)

III. The manual impositions employed in the case of Timothy
by Paul and the Presbytery. (See 2 Tim. 1:6; and 1 Tim. 4
-14.

ly. Paul's directions to Timothy and Titus, regarding the cases
of ordination about which they were to employ their minds and
hands. (1 Tim. 1 : 1-2 ; 8, etc. ; 5 : 22 ; Titus 1 : 5, etc.)

I, The Seven Deacons. The first six verses of the 6th chapter
of the Acts give an account of the circumstances which occasioned
the instituting this office, and the process by which it was effected.
The proposition of the Apostles to " the multitude of the disci-
ples," to relieve them from all worldly and secular concerns, that
they might " give themselves continually to prayer and to the
ministry of the word," meeting with their cordial assent, they pro-
ceeded at once to elect the above number of deacons, "whom
they set before the Apostles ; and when they had prayed, they laid
their hands on them.''^ As they had previously received the gift of
the Holy Ghost," this act was a designation to office. Of their
precise functions, we shall have occasion to speak in another place. .

149

II. The appointment of Saul and Barnabas to their work. In
addition to what we have already offered on the subject of this
appointment,* we now remark, that Saul and Barnabas, at the
time of their separation to the work assigned them, are classified
with, and are spoken of as performing certain official acts common
to, " the prophets and teachers''' in the Church at Antioch, who ar*-
now commanded by the Holy Ghost to set them apart by the la-

on of their hands. Yet it is certain that Saul had been calle'^
apostle several years before this,' and hence was posse^.
functions superior to theirs. It follows, that no apostolic hanuo
having been concerned in this transaction, and their mission having
been accomplished in the space of about three years,* is evidence
decisive that the work assigned them was of a special and extra-
ordinary character,

III. The manual impositions employed in the case of Timothy.
There are three passages relating to this individual, which, in this
connection, claim our special regard. The first relates to his cir-
cumcision by Paul.' The second, to the gift of God conferred on
him by the laying on of Paul's hands.* The third, to another gift,
which he received by the imposition of the hands of the Pres-
bytery,*

Of "the occasion, nature, and design, of Timothy's circumcision
by Paul, we shall speak presently. An important question, how-
ever in regard to the other two acts, now presents itself We ask,
then : Were they identical 1 If so, then was Paul, as an Apostle,
UNITED WITH the Presbytery in conferring office on Timothy ? If not,
it follows that the imposition of hands by Paul (2 Tim. 4 : 14)
was conferred on Timothy on another occasion, and at a different
time and place, and also for a different purpose, from those con-
nected with the act of the'Presbytery. In support, then, of this
latter conclusion, we remark,

1. That Paul, having chosen Timothy as a co-worker with him,
it is natural to suppose, that proof being furnished of his meetness
for his work, the Apostle would be desirous of completing, in
every way, his qualifications. " It might be anticipated that he
would make him a living epistle of himself to those to whom he
would have to send him. How could this be done but by laying
his own hands upon him at some fitting and solemn season, to con-
fer that power of miracles," which lay beyond the reach of the
official functions of the Presbytery, and which was indispensable
to " authenticate him as an associate and messenger of the Apos-
tle, wherever he might be sent, and on whatever mission he might
be employed." Such a qualification, in all other cases, had in-
variably preceded ordination to office. In no case had it been con-

(1) Acts 9 : 1-14 ; 15, 16. (2) Compare Acts 13 : 1-3, with 14 : 36. (3) Acts 16 : 1-3. (4) 2 Tim.
1 : 6, 7. (5) 1 Tim. 4 : 14.

♦ See p. 131.

150

ferred simultaneously witli that act On what ground, then, could
the order of its conferment on Timothy be made an exception to
the general rule ? But,

2. Though the time and place of this transaction should he no where
recorded^ it furnishes no ground for the inference that the gifts here
spoken of are identical. Taking the fact as it stands recorded in
1 Tim. 4 : 14 ; on our hypothesis, what occasion, we ask, so
opportune for the conferment of this " gift of God" on Timothy,
as when commended to that apostle on his visit to Derbe and
Lystra by the brethren there, as a suitable person to aid him in
his arduous work ?' The Apostle doubtless was aware of the fact
that the office which Timothy was destined to fill in the Church
had been designated by " prophecy."* But Timothy was a youth.
And if Paul found it necessary to enjoin upon the Church the
dut}^ of not despising him on that account' after he had been in-
ducted into office, how much more necessary, that the conferment
of the above " gift" should precede his induction into said office,
by way of enabling him to furnish the evidence of the fullness of
his qualifications for his work, and of the consequent applicability
of the " prophecy" as above to him. With such credentials, the
Presbytery could furnish no pretext for refusing to admit the
youthful candidate to the office thus assigned him by the Holy
Ghost. What would seem decisive, however, of the point here
contended for, is the fact, that from all the circumstances of the
case, we are fully warranted in the conclusion, that Timothy re-
ceived the imposition of the Apostle's hands at least as early as a. d.
53, when Paul " would have him go forth with him" as mentioned
Acts 16 : 3 ; whereas his appointment to office by the Presbytery
of Ephesus, 1 Tim. 4 : 14, did not take place until A. d. Qb ; which
circumstance accounts for the Apostle's omission to allude to his
absence from the Presbytery on the occasion of his ordination at
their hands; and is, therefore, to our minds, decisive of the point
that " the gift of God," in the sense of qualifying him for the dis-
charge of liis office, and which the Apostle only could impart, had
preceded theirs ; and that, consequently, his presence with them in
the conferment of office, was unnecessary. Again :

3. If a necessity existed for the presence of the Apostle on the
above occasion, in order to invest Timoth}^ with official functions
which " the Presbytery" had not the power to convc}', and with-
out which his ordination had been invalid ; how are we to account
for the fact, that the writer of " the Acts" has omitted to refer to
a circumstance of such vital importance to the guidance of the
Church in all future time; while he is most careful to record
another fact, that of his circumcision by Paul, which was, unde-
niably, " a mere subordinate and prudential operation."

In view, then, of what is here offijred in reference to the three

(1) AcU 16 : 1-3. (S) 1 Tim. 4 : 14. (3) 1 Tim. 4 : 12.

151

passages whicli relate to Timothy, as above, three inferences
follow :

First, that, as a matter of expediency, Paul circumcised him.
His mother was a Jewess ; his father was a Greek, It was, there-
fore, to render him, as his co-worker, equally accessible to Jew and
Greek.

Second. As the office which Timoth}'- was to fill had been de-
signated by ^^ prophecy,^'' Paul, by lajdng on his hands, had com-
pleted those qualifications essential to the full exercise of hie
functions, and to enable him through them to overpower any
objections which might have arisen in the minds of the Presbytery
on account of his youth, showing them the hand of God already
upon him to form him for his work, which hand theirs were, with-
out hesitation, to follow. And hence,

Third. That there is an evident distinction in the gifts here
spoken of: the former consisting of his endowment of miraculous
powers by Paul as an indispensable qualification for the discharge
of his offtcial functions ; the latter of his induction into said ofiice
by " the laying on hands by the Presbytery."

SECTION in.

But were the official functions of Timothy and of the Pres-
bytery identical? That they were not, will appear from the fol-
lowing :

" The Preshytery'''' was composed of those so often designated
in the New Testament, "Me elders, TrpeajSyrepot, of the Church,"'
such, for example, as those ordained by Paul and Barnabas in
Lystra, Iconium, and Antioch;^ and those whom Paul called to
him from Ephesus to Miletus.^ In one passage, that of 1 Tim.
4 : 14, in our version the Greek word for elders, TrpeGjSvTepoi, ib
simply Anglicized, and they are called " the Presbytery." They
are also known by the name of Bishop, enioKOTrog, overseer.* The
one name, " Elder,'''' indicated one of the qualifications desirable
for the individual who was to discharge the functions denoted by
the other, " Bishop,'''' or an " overseer." Their functions consisted
in their having "the oversight"^ of " the flock," to rule or govern,
to " feed the flock of God,"" to "labor in word and doctrine,"' etc.,
as the stated pastors thereof They may therefore be properly
designated Presbyter-Bishops.

(1) A cts 20 : 17. (2) Acts 14 : 21-23. (3) Acta 20 : 17. (4) Acts 20 : 28 ; Philip. 1 : I j 1 Tim. 8 : « ;
Titus 1 : 7 ; 1 Pet. 2 : 25. (5) 1 Pet. 6 : 2. (6) lb. (7) I Tim. 6 : 17.

152

Now, that the functions of Timothy (and with which we may
connect those of Titus, his compeer in office,) transcended those of
the Presbyter-bishops, will appear from the duties enjoined on them
by the Apostle. They were directed to "preach the word,'" not
only, but to " charge some" who had departed from the truth
that they "teach no other doctrine'"' than that which they
had received from the Apostles. Also, to " exhort and re-
buke with all authority;'" to "command and teach;"* to try delin-
quent elders ;' to rebuke sinners before all f to commit to faithful
men the things they had heard from Paul, that they might be able to
teach others also ;' to " ordain elders in every city," and to " set in
ord^r the things that are wanting''''^ to the " perfecting of the saints^
the WOHK of the ministry^ and the edifying of the body of Christy TILL
they all come in the unity of the faith to A PERFECT MAN,"' efc., as the
Apostle had " appointed" them.

Additional light on this subject, however, may be derived from
a view of the nature and design of the worh assigned to Timothy
and Titus, as indicated by the title applied to them. As \ve proved
on a previous occasion,* the name apostle is no where given to
them in the New Testament ; so, we affirm, they are no where
called bishops, in those writings. The postscripts, at the close of
the Second Epistle to Timothy, and that appended to the Epistle
to Titus, and which speak of the former as the first bishop of the
Church of Ephesus, and of the latter as the first ordained bishop of
Crete, are confessedly legendary and spurious. Hence, unauthori-
tative. The title, then, by which Timothy (and his work being
the same, of Titus, also) is known, is that of Evangelist ; a title, it
should be particularly noted, which Paul affixed to his office,
AFTER his ordination by "the Presbytery." " Do the worlc of an
EVANGELIST." " 'E.vayyeXiOTOv.

The office of an evangelist — -we remark by the way — originated
in diffisrent ways. It was sometimes appointed by the Holy Ohost^
as in the instance of Barnabas and Saul. Sometimes by that of
the Church, as Epaphroditus by the Church at Philippi. Some-
times by prophecy, as in the case of Timothy.

Then too, its functions varied : that is, they corresponded with
the circumstances which originated them : for example, Mark and
Luke compiled for the Church at large the history of our Savior
as they received it from the lips of the apostles, while each of the
others were employed in other ways. The fact however of its ap-
plication to different functionaries, no more invalidates its use as
denoting a special office, than that of the double signification of
the name, apostle. Generally, then, the office which it denoted
was that of an itineracy, in which respect, it partook, in part, of
the character of the great apostolic work itself, and was evidently

(4) 2 Tim. 4 : 2. (2) 1 Tim. 1 : 3. (3) Tit. 2 : 15 ; 2 Tim. 4 : 2. (4) 1 Tim. 4 : 11. (5) lb., T.
19. (6) lb., V. 20. (7) 2 Tim. 2 : 2. (8) Tit. 1 : 5. (0) Kph. 4 : 12, 13. (10) Compare 1 Tim. 4 : 14,
with 2 Tim. 4 : 6.

* See pp. 129, 130.

153

designed to sustain to the apostles, a relation corresponding to
that of theirs to the Great Bishop over all, during his public min-
istry. They were either the apostles's personal companions in their
travels, or were deputies, " whom the apostles employed in their
communications to the churches at times when they could not
conveniently visit them," and "on whom they devolved the work of
completing the organization of infant churches when they could
not tarry to finish that which they had themselves begun." Hence
the Pauline directions as follows, to Timothy and Titus. Writing
to Timothy, he says — " As I besought thee to abide still at Ephe-
sus, when'l went into Macedonia," ' etc. Now, on the supposition
that Timothy's official functions as an evangelist invdved his per-
manent location at Ephesus, the language, " I besought thee to
abide still at Ephesus," etc. seems irrelevant and superfluous not
only, but invidious. " To beseech Timothy to stay in a place where
he is fixed in his charge, and which he could not quit without of-
fending God and failing in his duty : to speak the truth, that is a
request that is not very obliging; for it evidently presupposes,
that a man does not lay his duty much to heart, when he must
needs be entreated to do it." In addition to this it is to be borne
in mind, that the above passage is the only one which connects the
name of Timothy with Ephesus.

To Titus, the apostle writes thus — "For this cause left I thee in
Crete, that thou shouldest set in order the things that are wanting,
and ordain elders in every city, as I had appointed thee." ' A case,
entirely analogous to the preceding. Titus is " /e/?" in Crete,
which implies a temporary separation between himself and the apos-
tle. And, chap. 3, v. 10, shows that Paul was anxious that that
separation should terminate as soon as possible. " When I shall
send Artemas unto thee, or Tychicus, be diligent to come unto me
to Nicopolis : for I have determined there to winter." Titus was
.wanted elsewhere than Crete, and for other purposes. As soon
therefore as the apostle could fix upon a suitable person to fill his
place in Crete, he desired him to hasten to join him at Nicopolis,
to receive his further instructions to labor in another field.

Finally, what is decisive of the point here contended for is, that
both Timothy and Titus, throughout the epistles addressed to
them, continued to receive and obey directions from the apostle to
perform those labors peculiar to their functions respectively as
itinerating evangelists, at periods subsequent to the fulfillment of
the mission of the one at Ephesus, and of the other at Crete ; — and,
their functions, as shown above, having been created as an appen-
dage to the office apostolic, it follows, that those functions, as
such, having found their beginning, so they found their end, in
their relation to it.

Clearly, then, the official functions of Timothy and Titus as

(1) 1 Tim. 1 : 3. (2) Titus 1 : 5.

154

itinerating evangelists, were entirely distinct from those of Presby-
ter-bishops, which were local.

So also of the superiority of the former over those of the latter.
If to this it be objected, that it involves the designation of one to
office of a grade superior to those of his ordainers ; we reply : that
Paul, though an apostle, having been himself set apart to a special
work by the " laying on of hands" of Simeon, and Lucius, and
Manaen, and others of " the prophets and teachers in the Church
at Antioch ;" ' which special work, independently of his apostoli-
cal character, was superior to theirs : he saw no difficulty in the
way of such designation to office as in the case of Timothy by "the
presbytery."

We add, in conclusion on this subject, that there is a total absence
of any intimation in the New Testament^ that the official functions of
Timothy and Titus were intended to he perpetual. In Paul's vale-
dictory address to the elders of the Church at Ephesus ; (and
which was doubtless cotemporary, or nearly so, with his informing
his son Timothy of his approaching martyrdom),* where we might
reasonably expect the most explicit and ample directions respecting
so grave and important a matter, not a word is said on the sub-
ject. So far from it, the apostle, " as an appropriate designation
of their office and character," calls them " bishops^^ — he speaks of
"the flock" over which the Holy Ghost had made them overseers
— he charges them to " take heed to themselves and to all the
flock," and to " feed the Church of God,"' etc. : but he utters not
a word from which it can be inferred that they either were, or ex-
pected to be, under the permanent direction and control of an
ecclesiastical superiorT^

Of the last of the orders enumerated Eph. 4 : 11, namely, ^'- pro-
phets,''^ and ^'■pastors'''' or " teachers,^'' we remark, that their titles,
viewed in connection with what is denoted in the terms " helps,^^
governments,^^ etc. in 1 Cor. 12 : 28, as constituting their respective
functions, do not enable us to assign to each the precise posi-
tion held by them respectively in the New Testament Church.
That those to whom the apostle wrote, however, were well ac-
quainted with the character of these gifts, and required no expla-
nation of terms which to us have become obscure and of uncertain
import, is evident from the very brevity with which he incident-
ally alludes to them. And this circumstance too, we add, furnishes
to our mind convincing proof that they were designed not to ex-
tend beyond the limits of the apostolic age. Otherwise each one for
himself had been made to stand out in bold relief, as a guide to the
Church in all future time.

Still, it may be observed in regard to the functions of the "p-o-
phets,^^ TTpo(j)f]Ta^, that to them appertained the province of preach-
ing, exhortation, etc., for purposes of edification and comfort,^ not

(I) Acts 13 : 1-3. (-2) 2 Tim. 4 : 6, 7, 8. (3) Acts 20 : 17-28. (4) 1 Cor. 14 : 3.
* Dr. Snodgrass, on Apost. Succ, pp. 157, 158.

155

only ; but also to predict future events ; as of the prophetic impulse
under which Agabus, after the manner of the ancient prophets, is
seen accompanying with a symbolic action the prediction that the
owner of Paul's girdle would be bound by the Jews at Jerusalem : *
a species of inspiration which we must unquestionably ascribe to
the agency of the Holy Ghost,*

Under the article of *' Ae/jjs," doubtless may be ranked, for one,
those endowed with the " gift" of " discerning of spirits ;" an en-
dowment indispensable to the safety of that miraculous age against
imposture. For example — The " spirit of divination" in the Py-
thoness " which brought her masters much gain by soothsaying," «
very nearly simulated with the prophetic gift of Agabus. Hence
the danger to the Church of being imposed upon by false prophets,
and the special provision against it by the above gift.

The office of " teachers^'' AiddoKaXoi, probably embraced, in ad-
dition to their teaching generally in the Christian Church, the
function of " interpreters" ^ to those who " spake with tongues."
And, inasmuch as " the spirits of the prophets were subject to the
prophets," ^ Paul, in view of the scene of confusion and tumult
which he describes as having taken place in their assemblies, when
" every one had a psalm, had a doctrine, had a tongue, had an in-
terpretation ;" ^ pointed to

The "joa5tors,"f TToi[ievag (who, as having the oversight of the
flock, and in whom might have centered most, if not all, the other
gifts), when he commanded, " Let all things be done decently and
in order;"' which command implies the existence in the Church of
government and discipline, and, of course, of some office-bearers
to exercise it.

(1) Acts QO : 23. (2) Acts 16 : 16. (3) 1 Cor. 14:27,28. (4) 1 Cor. 14:32. (6) lb, v. 26
(8) lb., V. 40.

* See pp. 109, 110. T See page 138.

156

SECTION IV.

Of Elders, Ruling Elders, and Deacons. — Proof, from Paul's directions to Timothy and Ti-
tus respecting them, that they were to constitute the boundary- line which divides
the extraordinary and temporary ministry of the Church, from that which was in-
tended for its ordinary and permanent use, to the end of time, as drawn, First, from
the directions given them — Second, from the personal qualifications specified. — To
be inducted into office by the laying on of hands. — The standard model ministry of
the Church, two orders only.

It only remains that we now speak of those styled Elders^ Ruling
Elders^ and Deacons. It will be found that they, as those about
whom Timothy and Titus were directed by Paul to employ their
minds and hands as connected with the ministry of Christ's
Church, were designed to constitute THE BOUNDAEY-LINE
which divides the special, extraordinary^ and temporary ministry of
that Church, from that which was intended for its ordinary and
permanent use, to the close of time.

Our first business here is, to collect together the various items
of instruction given by Paul to Timoth}^ and Titus, in which it is
admitted that the work of ordination was assigned to them by the
laying on of hands. They are the following : —

To Timothy. " The things that thou hast heard of me among
many witnesses, commit thou to faithful men, who shall be able to
teach others also." (2 Tim. 2 : 2.)

To Titus. " For this cause left I thee in Crete, that thou
ghouldest ordain elders in every city, as I had appointed thee." —
(Tit. 1:5.)

To Timothy. " This is a true saying. If a man desire the office
of a bishop, he desireth a good work," etc. (1 Tim. 3 : 1.) Again :
" Let the elders that rule well, bo counted worthy of double honor,
especially they who labor in word and doctrine." — (1 Tim. 5 : 17.)
Again : " Likewise must the deacons first be proved" ; then let
them use the ojice of a deacon, etc. (1 Tim. 3 : 8-10.) And, finally
says the apostle to him, " Lay hands suddenly on no man^

Now, in reference to these Pauline directions to Timothy and
Titus we remark in the first place, that they indicate a most mark-
ed and emphatic difference in the MODE OF ministerial designa-
tion by tvhich they were to be guided, compared with that peculiar to
all others — apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors, or teachers, etc.
Yes. The age of that heaven-inspiring gift to the Church — " dis-
cerning of sjjir its,' ^ was about to pass away. The directions of Paul
to Timothy, Let the " deacons first be proved,^' etc : " Lay hands
suddenly on no man," etc., furnishes a clear intimation of the
apostle's conviction, that the ministers of Christ's Church were no
longer, as in the case of Timothy, to rely upon the miraculous
agency of a ^^ prophecy,^'' to announce the fact to themselves or to

157

the Cliurcli. Indeed, it were the same as though Paul had said to
them, ' Ilereafter, of those who are to be set apart as office-bearers
in the Church, there should " be prudent delay, until a vigilant
and prayerful observation shall have clearly discovered those inti-
mations of the Divine will" respecting them, " which are to he ga-
thered from the ordinary sources of providential direction. Let not
your hand," therefore, "be laid upon an individual until you can
nave reasonable satisfaction that God's hand, qualifying him for
the work, has preceded yours, ordaining him to its discharge.
You then perform an obedient and intelligent service. You put
your hands to God''s hand, and by your deliberate concurrence in
the work, you help to clear the path and cheer the mind of the
candidate for office, who may be trembling under a sense of its
responsibility, and seeking the comforting indications of Divine
guidance in the conclusions and countenance of those who are
more experienced than yourself*

And, the evidence confirmatory of this change in the mode of
designation to office — if, indeed, such evidence were wanted — may
be gathered yV'om those qualifications so minutely particularized
Jyy the apostle., as pr^e-requisites therefor. In the case of a bishop,
they embraced the following twenty-three particulars : "A bishop
must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good
behavior, given to hospitality, apt to teach ; not given to wine,
no striker, not greedy of filthy lucre ; but patient, not a brawler,
not covetous ; one that ruleth well his own house, having his chil-
dren in subjection with all gravity ; (for if a man know not how
to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the Church of
God ?) not a novice, lest being hfted up with pride, he fall into the
condemnation of the devil. Moreover, he must have a good report
of them which are without, lest he fall into reproach, and the
snare of the devil,"* He must also be, " not self-willed, not soon
angry, a lover of good men, just, holy, temperate, holding fast the
faithful word as he hath been taught, that he may be able by
sound doctrine, both to exhort and convince the gainsayers."' In
the case of a deacon.^ take the following : He " must 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," etc'
Surely, the presence in the Church of miraculous guidance, if
continued heyond the limit here 'prescribed to it^ had rendered
superfluous such marks or signs of guidance in the premises. But,
from the very nature of the Pauline instructions and directions
here laid down, and the qualifications specified as indispensable
to a title to office, Timothy and Titus, with the churches, could
not pther than infer, that they had at length arrived, through the
miraculously appointed agency of the apostles and their coadju-
tors., at that " unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son

(1) 1 Tim. 3 : 1-7. (2) Tit. 1 : 6-9. (3) t Tim. 3 : 8. 9.
* Stratten's Argument against Apostolic succession. London, 1845,

158

of God," by which they had grown " unto a perfect man, unto
the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ." That
" foundation of the apostles and prophets," of which " Jesua
Christ himself is the chief corner-stone," and upon which, in all
future time, the Church was to be " built," HAD NOW BEEN
LAID, BROAD AND DEEP* The churches planted by the
apostles had seen their miraculously endowed and inspired found-
ers and guides, one after another, cut down by death. And, Paul
had written to Timothy, informing him that the time of his de-
parture was at hand — that he had finished his course. Ilence, the
instructions etc. regarding the future ministry of the Church,
as above, while they served as a note of assurance on the one
hand that she was not to be left in a state of perpetual widow-
hood; on the other, she was furnished with a line of demarkation,
wherewith to determine at what point ended the extraoi'dinary
and temporary^ and at what commenced the ordinary and perma-
nent ministry of the Church.

As to the mode of induction into office^ the rite of " laying on
of hands," as an action symbolic of the concurrence of the human
with the Divine will as practiced by the apostles and others after
the example of Christ, and with which they were so familiar, not
having been abrogated, was adopted as a standing rule.

And now, as to the orders about which Timothy and Titus
were to employ their minds and hands, in forming the model
for the future permanent service of the Church. These, we have
said, were the following: elders or preslyyter-hishops^ and deacons.
The evidence that no others are included in the filial instruc-
tions given to them, will be furnished in the next section.

♦ If we except the Apocalypse of the apostle John, which was written a.d. 96, the
entire canon of the New Testament Scriptures — the four Gospels, the Acts, and the
eighteen Epistles, had all been sent abroad for the instruction of the churches, prior to
the death of Paul. Some writers think this doubtful, as to the epistle of Jude, which
was written in the year 64, and the 2d epistle of Peter, in 65. The circumstance, how-
ever, of the absence of any data upon which to determine the precise chronology of the
death of Paul, leaves for the support of the above doubt no other ground than that <rf
conjecture.

SECTION V.

Proof, that the dual orders of Presbyter-Bishop and Deacon were to constitute the ordi-
nary and permanent ministry of the Church, as derived, First, from the interchange-
able use of the names Elder, irpio-/SvTepos, and Bishop, cniaKoiros, to denote the same
office — Second, from the two classes of functions, those of teaching, preaching, and
governing, and those of ruling only, common to '' the presbytery." — Passages quoted
in illustration. — Remarks. — Mode of appointment, that of popular election, or elec-
tion by the Church. — Import of the term, x'^^P"'^'"'^'"'- — Paul's instructions to Timo-
thy.— This office in the Church of Christ shown to be most reasonable in itself. —
Advantages of. — Further proof of the dual orders of Presbyter and Deacons, as drawn,
1st, from the answer to the objection urged against the mixed nature of the func-
tions of the eldership, etc. — 2d, from the Pauline address to the Church at Philippi.
— Scriptural account of the office of Deacon.

That tlie two orders of elders or presbyter -bishops and deacons
only, were included in the final instructions given by Paul to Timothy
and Titus, will appear from the fact, first, that two of the titles men-
tioned therein, viz. : elder, TTpeajSyrepog, and bishop, emoKo-rxog, are ap-
plied interchangeably, to denote the same office, that of presbyter-
bishop. In this form their application had been of long-standing
use in the Church, In the 20th chapter of the Acts, those whom
Paul exhorts, (v. 28) to " take heed to themselves and to all the
flock over which the Holy Ghost had made them overseers,^^
emaiwTToi, bishops; are the same with the TrpeofivTEpoi, elders of
Ephesus (v. 17), whom he had called thence to meet him at Mile-
tus. So, in defining the constituent elements of the office of
" elders," -rrpefj/Sf repot, who were to be ordained in every city ; the
apostle, in his instructions both to Timothy and Titus (1 Tim. 3 :
2 ; Titus, 1 : 7), says, " A bishop, imoKOTTog, must be blameless,"
etc. The title elder, indicated age, as one of the qualifications de-
sirable for those who were to discharge the functions denoted by
the other — bishop or overseer.

There is, however, yet another important aspect in which this
title, elder, is to be considered. The New Testament use of it de-
monstrates, that while in each church there were a number who
bore that title, there was, nevertheless, a distinction in their re-
spective functions.^ The government and discipline of the Church
were common to all ; but a portion of them (and that the smaller
portion) also taught, or ^'■preached the loord^'' etc. Nor is it difficult
to recognize their distinctive functions, as, we think, the follow-
ing passages will verify. But let us refer,

1st. To those passages which prove a plurality of elders in each
church : — Acts 14 : 23. " Thus" — Barnabas and Saul " ordained
them cldzrs, TrpeaftvTeQoi, in every church" Titus 1:5. " For this

* See Appendix, Article, Ruling Elders.

160

cause left I thee in Crete, that thou shouldest ordain elders^
npeolivTepot, in every city, as I had appointed thee."

2d. Passages which prove that some 3d. Those passages which speak of
of these elders exercised government ciders as teaching akd governing : —
only : — 1 Tim. 5 : 17. " Let the elders that

Rom. 12 : 8. " He that rtUeth., vrith rule well be counted worthy of double
diligence."' honor ; especially they who labor in

lleb. 13 : 17. " Obey them that word and doctrine."
have the ride over you, and submit Heb. 13 : 7. "Remember them which
yourselves : for they watch for your have the rule over you, who have spoken
souls, as they that must give account : unto you the word of God: whose faith
that they may do it with joy and not follow, considering the end of their
with grief." conversation : Jesus Christ," etc.

1 Tim. 5 : 17. " Let the elders that
rule well, be counted worthy of double
honor,"' etc.

James 5 : 14. " Is any sick among
among you, let him call for the elders
of the Church," etc.

4th. The passage which speaks of both.

Heb. 13 : 24. " Salute all them that have ilie rule over you"
etc.

These passages are explicit. They affirm, in the first place, that
elders were appointed not only in every city, but in every church.
And, in the second place, that, inasmuch as the " double honor"
due to the college of " elders in every church," is declared to be-
long " especially'''' to those who " labored in word and doctrine,"
the inference clearly is, that, of " the elders that ruled well," only
apart of them labored in word and doctrine ; in other words, that
there are ruling elders, and among these, teaching elders. If to
this it be objected, that v. 18, — " thou shalt not muzzle the ox that
treadeth out the corn," requires the " double honor" spoken of
in reference to these elders to be interpreted of 'the honor of
maintenance ;' we reply, that while it may sometimes denote pay
or wages, and even that it may bear that meaning in this place ;
it by no means invalidates the ground upon which is claimed a
difference in their functions. "-The apostle, on this supposition,
enjoins, that ample recompense be given to elders who spend a
portion of their time in ruling well, and especially to those elders
who occupy themselves more entirely with the affairs of the
Church, by not only ruling well, but also laboring in word and
doctHneP But, to limit the interpretation to this sense, involves
one of two consequences ; either, that the " double honor," to
which they are entitled, is to be signalized by dollars and cents —
a view, to say the least, wholly unworthy of the sacredness of their
functions ; or, " that the distinction lies, not in the ' order of offi-
cers, but in the degree of their dihgence, faithfulness, and eminence,
in laboriously fulfilling their ministerial work, to the edihcation of
the Church ;' in which case, it follows, that ministerial ineiliciencj,
or it may be even indolence, is worthy of " double honor" !

161

Again. Upon no principle of Biblical hcrmeneutics can we
"make the latter clause of the verse expository of the former," as
though the apostle meant by ruling well to mean teaching. The
very structure of the passage forbids such a construction. " It is
not said, 'especially labor,' as if to mark the degree of laboring;
but ' especially they who labor,'* fixing attention on certain per-
sons as distinguishahle from other persons — one section of elders
from another section of elders." Indeed, this is a mode of ex-
pression conmion alike to the Old and New Testament. Take the
following in illustration. David says, " I was a reproach to mine
enemies, but especially among my neighbors,'" etc. Festus said,
*' Wherefore I have brought him (Paul) before you, and especially
before thee, O King Agrippa,"" etc. We are to "do good unto
all men, especialhj unto them who are of the household of faith." '
Christ " is the Savior of all men, specially of those that believe."*
We are to " provide for our own, and especially for those of our
own house." * Paul's charge to Timothy, " The cloak that I left
at Troas, — bring with thee, and the books, but especially the parch-
ments." " Why then, we ask, should a sense be given to the pas-
sage now before ns, different from its obvious import as a mark of
discrimination in those here quoted? "Paul first mentions all
the elders who rule ivell^ and then singles out from these certain of
their number who also labored in word and doctrine. They were
all ruling elders, but some of them were also teaching elders ; and
to these latter his directions especially applied."

Evidently then, the fact of an eldership, as embodying the idea
of a plurality or association of rulers over a single church, with
distinctive functions, — some ruling only, while others both ruled
and taught, — is clearly maintained in the New Testament scrip-
tures. And, as shown above,f the names elder and bishop being
used interchangeably to denote the same office, the only mark de-
notive of a distinction among them, was that of the "double honor"
due to the latter over the former. We read of elders in each of
the churches of Jerusalem, Ephesus, and Philippi. But though
some of the New Testament churches, when first planted, were
favored with the extraordinary ministrations of apostles and evan-
gelists, yet they enjoyed that distinction only for a limited period,
and at short intervals. Now that the Church, under their culture,
had attained to "perfect" manhood, "to the measure of the stat-
ure of the fullness of Christ," their superior functions being no
longer necessary, not only, but being absolutely incommunicahle ;
gave place, by apostolical appointment, to a system of ecclesi-
astical jurisprudence, which, while it was fully adapted to meet all
the wants of the Church in the matter of her spiritual edification
through all time, so reduced it to a platform of EQUALITY, as to

(1) Vs. 31 : 1 1. (2) Acts 25 : 26. See also chap. 26 : 3. (3) Gal. 0:10. (4) 1 Tim. 4 : 10. (5) H)..
6 : 8. (fi) 2 Tim. 4 : 13.

* It is not said oi fi'iKiira K-on-itoirtf, but fiiXiara ui KOiriCivTCi. f See p. 159.

162

exclude all emulation after a " chief seat," ' all aspirations after
" the pre-eminence," ' all lording it " over God's heritage." =" Ac-
cordingly, in order to the security of this end, we remark.

First, that the mode of appointment of these office-bearers was,
that of popular election^ by which we mean, election hy the Church.
Instance, 1st, the C9,se of Matthias, who, with Joses, was not only
nominated^* but elected''* by the suffrage of the assembled body of
believers. On this passage, Chrysostom says, " Peter did every
thing here with common consent ; nothing, by his own will and
authority. He left the judgment to the multitude, to secure the
respect to the elected, and to free himself from every invidious re-
flection." After quoting the words, " they appointed two," he
adds, " he did not himself appoint them, it was the act of aZi."f
So, 2d, in the case of the seven deacons. The proposal by the
apostles for their appointment, meeting the approbation of " the
whole multitude" of the faithful, "they chose Stephen,"" etc. So,
3d, of the election of delegates, companions for the apostles, etc., hy
Hie Church. This was undeniably true of the mission of Paul and
Barnabas to Antioch. It was the act of " the apostles and elders,
urith the ivhole church.^'''' And, Paul speaks of " the messengers of
the churches" as being " chosen- oj the churches,^^ ;:^eipoTov7;0«f vtto
TO)v ekkXtjolojv, "to travel with him,"' The good report even of
Timothy by " the brethren^'' of Lystra and Iconium, would seem to
have been looked upon by the apostle as a confirmation of " the
prophecy which went before" respecting him, and, doubtless, led
to his selection of him as his " work-fellow." * The same may be in-
ferred in regard to Titus,'" Silvanus," Mark," Clemens," Epaphras,"
etc. And, with such precedents before us in these premises, we
think it no infringement upon the laws of fair inference to con-
clude, that a similar mode was observed by the Church, in the
election, 4th, Of elders, TrpirrfivTeQoc, or presbyters. For, conced-
ing,— as we do — that the apostles in some instances might have
nominated, not; only, but actually appointed these officers, — for ex-
ample, in the case of Stephanus at Corinth, the members of whose
household upon their conversion to Christianity becoming also
the first to fill the offices of the Church,'' — yet, with the above

(n Luke 20 : 40. (2) 3 John 9. (3) 1 Pet. 6 : 3. (4) Acts 1 : 23, comp. with vv. 15, 16. (5) Ih. 1 :
26. (6) Acts 6 : 1-6. (7) Acts 15 : 22. (8) 2 Cor. 8 : 19, 23. (9) Acts 16 : 2, 3 ; Rom. 16 : 21.
(10) 2 Cor. 8 : 23. (11) 1 Ihess. 1 : 1. (12) Coloss. 4 : 10 ; 1 Pet. 5 : 13. (13) Philip. 4 : 3. (14) Co-
loss. 1 : 7. (15) 1 Cor. 16 : 15, 16.

* " Mosheim understands the phrase, liosxtv KXdpovg ourwv, to express the casting of a
popular vole by the Christians. To express the casting of lots, according to this autlior,
the verb should have been i(Ja\oy, as in Matt. 27 : 35; Luke 23 : 24 ; John 10 : 34;
Mark 15 : 24. Comp. Septuagint, Ps. 22 : 19 ; Joel 3:3; Neh. 3 : 10 ; which also
accords with the usage of Homer in similar cases. (Iliad, 23, 352. Odyss. 14, 209) .
But the phrase, Ucokcv KX>)povi, according to this author, expresses the casting of a popu-
lar vote ; the term, icXOfo"s, being used in the sense of xpn'pof, a suffrage, or vote, so that
what the evangelist meant to say was simply this : ' And those who were present gave
their votes.' » (De Rebus Christ., Sacc. 1. ^ 14. Note) . See Coleman's Apost. and
Prim. Chh. p. 54.

t Horn, ad locum. Vol. IX., p. 25. Comp. also Cyprian, Ep. 68. Coleman, pp.
55, 56.

163

precedents present to tlieir minds, and especially that of the model
organization at Jerusalem, it is not sapposable that either they or
the churches could have lost sight of the long-standing usage of
election by popular suffrage. We shall assume, then, that thus it
was with those elders, rrpea/Surepot, appointed by Paul and Barna-
bas at Lystra, Iconium, and Antioch.' The question here turns
wholly upon the interpretation of the term, ;:^;tiporox'?/aav-ec, "when
they had ordained," or, as in the margin, ^'■when with lifting up of
hands they had chosen them^ Two points are here involved. First,
whether the choice was limited to the two apostles': and second,
whether the act was an ordination or consecration. That it was
neither the one nor the other, we argue,

1st, From the fact that the same word is used in reference to
the companion of Paul mentioned, 2 Cor. 8 : 23, who is declared
to have been x^i'QorovTjdeig, " chosen of the churches."

2d, From the current import of the term x^K^orovelv : * it means,
to give a vote by stretching out the hand : to choose^ to elect ; and
is thus used both in classic Greek, and primitive ecclesiastical
writers. " Demosthenes exhorts the Athenians in popular assembly
to elect, xeLQOTovr]aat, ten men to go on an embassy to the The-
bans."f " It will become you," says Ignatius to the Church at
Philadelphia, " as the Church of God, to choose^ ;^;£fpoTov^aa(, some
deacon to go there," that is, to the Church at Antioch.":}; Again,
To the Church at Smyrna, " It will be fitting, and for the honor
of God, that your Church elect, x^i^poTovrjoai, some worthy delegate,"
etc. II ... " The Council of Antioch forbids a bishop to be
chosen, x^i^QO'ovelodo), without the presence of the synod, and of the
metropolitan."! . , . " Again, in the Greek version of the Codex
Ecclesiae Africanee, the heading of the XlXth Canon is, that a
bishop should not be chosen, ;^;eiporovei(T0at, except by the multi-
tude, drcb TToXXojv.^l Finally, to the same effect is also the follow-
ing extract from Tyndal : " We read only of the apostles, consti-
tuting elders by the suffr-ages of the people, Acts 14 : 23 ; which, as
it is the genuine signification of the Greek word, x^-Qorovijaavreg,
so it is accordingly interpreted by Erasmus, Beza, Diodati, and
even English Bibles, till the Episcopal correction [?], which leaves
out the words, by election, as well as the marginal notes, which af-
firm that the apostles did not thrust pastors into the Church
through a lordly superiority, but chose and placed them there by the
voice of the congregation.""^^ Tyndal's translation is as follows :
" And when they had ordained them seniours by election, in every

(1) Acts 14 : 21-23.

* Robinson renders the word to choose by vote, to appoint. So Parkhurst on " Xtiporo-
v'.o>; — from x-'P^ ^he hand, and Tcroi,a, perf. mid. of rtivw, to extend, stretch oiU.^^ (Park-
hurst's Gr. Lex., which see.)

t Oration on the Crown, ^ 5.5, and § 9.

t Ad Phil. c. 10. II Ad Smym. c. 11.

§ Cone. Ant. c. 19. •[[ Cited by Suicer, ad verbum.

** Rights of the Church, p. 358.

164

congregation, after they had preyde and fasted, they commennd
them to God, on whom they beleved." It is reasonable therefore
to conclude,

od. That in the Pauline instructions to Timothy and Titus in
reference to the appointment of officers in the churches of Ephesus
and Crete, together with the manner in which the apostle addresses
himself to the whole Church in the epistles directed to them ; the
well-understood import of the term ;^£fpoTomv as denotive of the
doctrine of popular suffrage, taken in connection with the general
practice of the churches as corresponding therewith, precluded the
necessity of any further specific rules to that end.*

Finally, in reference to the ecclesiastical arrangement predicated of
the divinely-appointed order of teaching and ruling elders in each
church, and which, on examination, will be found to have borne a
very close resemblance to that of the synagogue worship, etc. ;f —
we remark, that, while it has the sanction of Scripture, as we have
shown, it is most reasonable in itself.

In the matter of ecclesiastical polity, a choice is obviously con-
fined to one of three systems: jurisdiction by the members of the
Church generally ; by the minister exclusivel}'" ; or by a company
of elders. Now, in regard to the first of these systems, while it is
delightful to contemplate that each member of the mystical body of
Christ is " a spiritual ofiice-bearer" — being " made kings and
priests unto God" ' to " offer up spiritual sacrifices by Jesus
Christ :" " yet, when we consider on the one hand the multiform
secular and domestic cares devolving on each, and on the other
the numerous instances in every church of incompetency to manage
its affairs, we cannot well resist the conviction of a want of wisdom
in such an arrangement. Besides, does it not " appear somewhat
anomalous to speak of a society superintending itself" ? — " The
Church is sometimes compared to a flock — sometimes to an army
— sometimes to a kingdom ; and none of these emblems afford
much countenance to self-superintendence. Where is the flock, in
which the distinction is lost between the sheep and shepherds ? —
where the army, in which the soldiers are indiscriminately privates
and officers? — where the kingdom, in which rulers and subjects
are convertible terms ? Add to this, the almost inevitable heart-
burnings, and discord, and jealousies incident to the infirmities,
prejudices, and party interests inseparable from miscellaneous
legislation and the exercise of discipline on this hypothesis, and it
is difficult to repel the conviction, that it cannot be according to
the mind of the Spirit. And,

The apostolic injunction to the Hebrews, " Obey them that have

(1) nev. 1 : 6. (2) 1 Peter 2 : 5.

* See the whole of this subject more fully discussed in Coleman's Apostolic and Prim-
itive Church, pp. 53-64.

t See on the analogy of the Christian Church to the Synagogue, etc. the Rev. Dr. Addi-
son Alexander's new work, "Essays on the Primitive Church Offices." Essay I., on
Scripture Elders. (New York, Charles Scribner, 1-1.5 Nassau street. 1851.)

165

the rule over you," ' very naturally reminds us of " a body of super-
intendents distinct from the general community, and can hardly
suppose the parties who are addressed to wield the very power
they are exhorted to respect." The question, then, presents itself :
Is this right to " rule," etc., exercised by the minister exclusively ?
It requires but a glance at the numerous and complicated elements
of labor in ever}^ church, to perceive that it "cannot be the ex-
clusive trust of one individual." Its concerns, spiritual and secu-
lar— private and public — domestic and foreign — pastoral and dis-
ciplinary— viewed in connection with the vast responsibilities as-
sumed by him who would attempt it, would " give occasion for
friends sa^'ing to him, as Jethro said to Moses, on seeing all that
he did to the people : " What is this thing that thou doest to the
people ? why sittest thou alone^ and all the people stand by thee
from morning unto even ? The thing that thou doest is not good.
Thou wilt surely wear away, both thou and this people that is with
thee, for this thing is too heavy for thee : thou art not able to perforin

it TUYSELF ALONE." '

And yet it is not denied that it is the duty of every minister to
take the oversight of all the flock over which the Holy Ghost has
placed him ; but this by no means supposes that such a superin-
tendence is of itself sufficient. It is to be borne in mind that un-
divided power is a perilous temptation to imperfect humanity ; and
the clergy (as may be seen in Part III. of this Treatise) have shown
that they are not more exempted than any other class from its de-
leterious influence on the temper and conduct. If there had

NEVER BEEN A PoPE OVER A SINGLE CHURCH, THERE NEVER WOULD
HAVK BEEN A PoPE OVER THE ChRISTLA.N WORLD !

The ecclesiastical polity of the New Testament — that, we mean,
designed for the permanent edification and upbuilding of the
Church — we believe to be equally removed from both the extremes
here brought to view. It forms the via media between the Scylla
of an always dubious and oftentimes injurious system of church
democracy, on the one hand ; and the Chary bdis of an antichristian
spiritual despotism, on the other. Having for its basis the untram-
meled rights of the elective franchise, each church, reserving to her-
self the independent control of her secular concerns, also commits
her spiritual interests, not to one, but to a college of office-bearers,
endowed with qualifications, intellectual, moral, and spiritual, to
fit them for their work ; and with " gifts differing according to the
grace given unto them," adapted to all the exigencies of her mili-
tant state, whether doctrinal, practical, governmental, or disciplinary.
Of course, these office-bearers, being " chosen by the churches"
under the guidance of an all-wise and all-gracious Providence, is,
in its character, purely representative, and hence rigidly republican.

Finally, on the subject of the ordinary atod permanent ministry
of the Church, we now proceed to show, that the Pauline instruc-

(1) Heb. 13 : 7, 17, 24. (2) Kxod. 18 H, etc.

166 ,

tions to Timothy and Titus reduced the whole number of minis-
terial appointments to the dual orders of Presbyter-Bishop^ and
Deacon. This will appear, if we consider,

First, the use, interchangeably, of the titles, Elder ^ TrpeofivTEpog,
and Bishop., emoKonog, to denote the same office. If to this it be
objected, that it is irreconcilable with the hypothesis which affirms
the existence, under one order, of separate and distinct functions
— for example, that, while some of the same order, besides ruling,
labored also in word and doctrine, others ruled only : — we reply,
that the Scriptures furnish various examples, to show that entirely
separate and distinct functions may formally center in one and the
same person. Thus, Melchisedec was formally a Mng and a
priest ; David was formally a king and a prophet / and Peter,
though an apostle., yet styles himself " an elder," -ngeofivrepog, in
common with others who bore that appellation, " The elders
which are among you I exhort, who also am an elder, ^^ etc' In
reference to this last instance, we remark, that it is clear that Peter
Avas so an elder that he was still an apostle ; and so an apostle that
he was still an elder ; his eldership did not exclude his apostleship,
nor did his apostleship swallow up his eldership. If then Peter,
or any of "the twelve," could be formally both apostles and elders,
what hinders but that, among a college of elders or presbyter-bish-
ops, some of the order, besides governing, should also exercise the
functions of pastor and teacher ? But,

Second. A reference to Paul's address to the Church at Philippi,
will afford additional light and confirmation of the position here
laid down. The facts, we premise, in reference to this city, Philip-
pi, that the apostle had been directed thither by express revelation
from heaven ;" that it was the city in which he had first opened his
commission, and in which he had established the first Christian
Church founded by himself in all Europe / and, that it occupied
the place of " the chief city in that part of Macedonia ;"' all tend,
from the prominence of its position, to commend it to our special
regard. Nor these facts only. Lydia and her household, and the
Jailer and his household, were enrolled among the members of this
Church. Above all, this Church, more than all others, had pre-
served the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace,"^ not only, but
had ever treasured up the most grateful afiection towards the apos-
tle, of which, the relief they afforded him when in distress, and
especially when suffering as a prisoner at Eome, is the evidence.
Indeed, of the two churches, that of Philippi and that of the im-
perial city, Rome, if there be any virtue in contrast, it is not difii-
cult to determine which of the two held the preponderance in the
estimation of Paul. We will place the two passages side by side.
Speaking of the Church of

(1) 1 Pet. 5 : 1. (2) AcU 16 : 9-12. (3) Acta 16 : 12. (4) Eph. 4 : 3.

K 167

ROME, PHILIPPIANS,

He says : — " Some indeed preach He says : — " I thank my God upon

Christ o( envy and strife; and some every remembrance of you, always in

also of good-will : the one preach every prayer of mine for you all, mak-

Christ of contention, not sincerely, sup- ing request vriih joy, for your fellowship

posing to add affliction to my bonds "^ in the gospel from the first day until

While to the now."'

We come now to observe, that the date assigned to Paul's first
visit to Philippi, is a.d. 53. The Epistle, as above, was written
A.D. 62 or 63. During this interval, therefore (about ten years),
sufficient scope had been given to the apostle to pe^jfect its organi-
zation in all the essentials appertaining to the standing orders of
ministry of an Apostolic Church. What, then, were these orders?
His epistle opens thus : —

" Paul and Timotheus, the servants of Jesus Christ, to all the
saints in Christ Jesus which are in Philippi, with the Bishops and
Deacons."

Now, it is here to be particularly noted in the first place, that
the apostleship, together with the primitive order of Evangelists,
as we have shown,* from their special and extraordinary character,
not being transmissive, and hence, extraneoiis to the ordinary and
standing ministry of the Church, cannot be included in the above
category. Nor, second, can it be supposed that, by the term
" Bishops," the apostle speaks of an order superior to Elders or
Presbyter-Bishops. For, besides the fact of the interchangeable
use of the titles "Elder" and " Bishop" to them as demonstrative
of their identity ; the twelve apostles are no where in the New
Testament called his/iops, and hence, could not be included in the
orders there enumerated. It follows, that the apostolic organiza-
tion of the Church at Philippi was constituted simply of the two
orders of bishops and deacons. And, no other orders being includ-
ed in \h.Q final instructions given by Paul to Timothy and Titus,
these two orders, namely Bishops and Deacons, and these ONLY,
were designed to constitute the ordinary and permanent ministry
of the Christian Church to the end of time.

The office of deacon, — an account of which is given in the 6th
chapter of the Acts, at the time of the penning of this epistle, had
been in existence about thirty years. Their functions may be in-
ferred from the circumstances which originated the office. The
phrase in that passage, " to serve tables," is obviously employed
to describe the trust and distribution of the funds of the Church.
There was then but. one source whence these funds were derived —
the voluntary contributions of the people. They were, however,
sufficiently ample, all the property of the Church being put into
one common stock. There were inconveniences, however, which
arose from this abundant liberality and implicit confidence. Those

(1) Philip. 1 : 16. (2) Philip. 1 : 6.

♦ See pp. 152-153.

168

who received the distribution, awarded to the apostles less of grati-
tude and trust than those who supplied it. Tlieir hands, though
" they coveted no man's silver or gold," were cumbered. Their
minds were embarrassed with conflicting claims and expecta-
tions. Their ministry was liable to reproach and hindrance.
They felt the necessity — they saw the reasonableness, of de-
volving the whole of these affairs upon the hands of others,
who are known and approved for their wisdom, piety, and
integrity. In transferring the funds of the Church to the deacons,
they transferred to them, at once, the ad^ninistration of all tempo-
ral affairs. And, by so doing, ' they established a principle most
wise and healthful, and which, in its exhibition, was to last as
long as the imperishable pages which record the measures they, on
this occasion, directed :' the object being, ' to relieve the minds and
hands of those who have the spiritual oversight of the flock, that
they might thereby "give themselves continually to prayer and
to the ministry of the word." '

In conclusion on this subject of the deaconate, we remark, that,
while those who " used the office of a deacon well," might thereby
be admitted to the exercise of other and higher functions, as in the
instances of Stephen and of Philip ; yet, their designation to their
office no more included such an office prospectively, than in the
case of any other individual possessed of the requisite qualifica-
tions.

It results, that the ministry, apostolic, designed for the ordi-
nary and jjerpetual service of the Church to the period when
"the fullness of the Gentiles be come in,"' as furnished in accord-
ance with the divinely -inspired model exhibited in the instructions —
not, be it particularly noted, of Peter, but — of Paul, was, the
DUAL orders of PRESBYTEK-BISHOPS, and DEACONS.

SECTION VI.

Recapitulation of the argument, etc. — Conclusion.

We have now, so far as we know, conducted the reader over
the entire scriptural ground relating to the re-organization of the
Church under the ministry of Christ and his Apostles. We have
seen how, by the perfect obedience rendered by our blessed Lord
and Savior Jesus Christ to the law, moral, ceremonial, and media-
torial. He changed the moral relation of man to his God, by re-
moving him from under the Ilagar or Sinai covenant of works,
which gendereth to bondage, and placing him under the older
Abrahamic covenant of grace : and hence, that Justification ey

(1) Rom. 11 :25.

169

FAITH IN Christ, who " is the end of the law for righteousness
to every one that believeth,'" was thenceforward to constitute the
only ground of the sinner's acceptance with God. And,

Corresponding with this fundamental change, — constituting, as
it did, the grand turning --point of the Church's transit from Judaism
to Christianity, — is the nature and design of those ordinances,
and of that ministry which was instituted by Christ and his Apos-
tles. They were intended, not as an end^ but as a means to an end ;
not as, in themselves^ possessed of any saving virtue^ or efficacy either in-
herent or derived. To suppose the possession of such saving efficacy
by them, involves the ascendency of the religion of sense — of
symholico-ecclesiological-ism — as comprehensive of a Judaico- Chris-
tianized or sacerdotal priesthood, and of ceremonials and a stereo-
typed ritual, over the simple, unostentatious, spiritual religion of
faith. A carnal and unyielding Judaism thundered in the ears of
its votaries, " except a man be circumcised after the manner of
Moses, and keej) the law, he cannot be saved. "^ Christianity,
Judaized, teaches, except a man be baptized, etc., he cannot be
saved. Both systems strike at the very root — the heart — of true
Christianity, which has for its foundation the great fundamental
doctrine, justification through faith in the perfect obe-
dience AND THE PIACULAR OR EXPIATORY SACRIFICE OF JeSUS

Christ for sin ! " For, in Christ Jesus, neither circumcision
availeth anything, nor uncircumcision ; but a new creature."^
" For he is not a Jew, which is one outwardly ; neither is that
circumcision which is outward in the flesh" — the same thing being
true of the external rite of baptism — " but he is a Jew, which is
one inwardly; and circumcision (or baptism) is that of the heart,
in the SPIRIT, and not in 4he letter ; whose praise is not of men, but
ofGod."-

In conclusion on this subject, I would add — what I earnestly pray
may find a deep and abiding place in the mind and heart of every
true believer in the Lord Jesus Christ — that the only invulnerable
stand-point in this age of religious declension and of doctrinal defec-
tion from "the faith which was once delivered to the saints," is, an
enlightened, firm, and uncompromising resistance of, and opposition
to, the already wide-spread and rapidly-increasing tendency to
SUBORDINATE the Head, CHRIST, as " the great Shepherd and
Bishop of our souls," and the Spirit's agency in our enlightenment,
regeneration, and sanctification ; to the supkemacy of a system

CLAIMING TO DISPENSE God's GEACE THROUGH THE CONDUIT OF EXTER-
NAL SACRAMENTS DISPENSED AT THE HANDS OF A JUDAICO-CHRIS-

TIANIZED PRIESTHOOD !

From this system, — the danger of our exposure to which is in-
creasedj'it^^ in proportion as it is presented to us under the guise of an
EVANGELICAL GARB, may God of his infinite mercy preserve those of

(1) Rom. 10 : 4. (2) Acts 15 • 1, and v. 24. (3) Gal. 6 : 1 J ; see also v. 0. (4) Rom. i : 26, 29.

170

his people who have not, and speedily deliver those of them who have,
been seduced by its insidious blandishments from " the old paths
AND THE good way" of primitive truth and order, through Jesus
Christ our Lord. Amen.

N.B. — We refer the reader to the Table of Contents, and to the Alpha-
betical Index of the subjects discussed in these pages, as a suitable sub-
stitute for a more detailed recapitulation of the General Argument.

171

PART III.

MINISTERIAL PARITY, VERSUS PRELACY.
CHAPTER. L

THE PREDICTED TRIAL AND APOSTASY OF THE CHURCH, UNDER
■ THE CHRISTIAN DISPENSATION.

SECTION I.

Introduction. The characteristics of the New Testament Ministry, as exhibited in
Part II. of this Treatise, shown to have been eniinently simple and fraternal. — This
Ministry to be the center-point of a further trial of the Church's integrity to Christ
the Head. — Her defection the subject of prophecy. — The basis of that defection, the
tendency of all orders of creaturehood, angelic and human, to self-deification. — Its
mode of development in the Church, a love of " the pre-eminence." — Its progress,
gradual. — Its fruit, the Papacy.

The Church, as reconstituted under Christ and his apostles,
whether it relates to her ordinances or her ministry, presents to
view a most strilcing contrast to the same Church under the last
preceding dispensation. The splendors of the temple worship are
exchanged for the private chamber, the sea-shore, deserts, moun-
tains, dens, and caves of the earth.' The Levitical ritual service
and almost numberless ceremonials give place to the offering up
of "all manner of prayer and supplication,'" and of "praise,"^
upon the altar of faith, as " spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God
through Jesus Christ." * And, the gorgeous array of sacerdotal
vestments are displaced by the seamless robe^ of the antitypal
" High Priest of our profession," a fisherman's coat," or a Pauline
cloak/

Then also, the ministry of the Church, — Though like the
Aaronic priesthood, its origin (whether appertaining to the extra-
ordinary and temporary, or the ordinary and permanent, parts
thereof,) was divine ; yet, in its nature, orders, functions, and ends,

(1) John 20 : 19. (2) Eph. 6 : 18. (3) Heb. 2 : 12. (4) 1 Pet. 2:5 (5) John 19 : 23. (6) John 21 : 7.
(7) 2 Tim. 4 : 13.

172

how changed ! These marks of dissimilarity, however, and which
evidence the total absence of all analogy between them, will fully
appear as we advance. What more particularly concerns us now
is, to advert to that portion of the ministry connected with the New
Testament age, which, as has been shown in Part II. of this Treatise,
was designed for her ordinary and standing service, extension, and
edification to the close of time.

This ministry, then, we remark, being cast in the apostolic mould
of the inspired Paul, (of which his instructions, etc., to Timothy
and Titus are the embodiment,) how sublimely simple ! How
eminently fraternal ! We here behold the Preshjter-hishop^ in
accordance with his pastoral relation to the Church, appointed —
not to "lord it over God's heritage," ' as "though he had dominion
over their faith ;" ' " but, as being ensamples to the flock," to " feed
the flock of God which is among them, taking the oversight thereof,
not by constraint, but willingly, not for lilthy lucre, but of a ready
mind."' And, in his ecclesiastical relation to t\ie ruling eldei\ ap-
pointed, not to assume over him the prerogatives of a spiritual
despot, but to act with him as a coadjiitor in the government and
discipline of the flock, and finding in that coadjutor a willing ^j»a/'-
ticipant in its weighty and otherwise perilous responsibilities.
And both these, by the wisely-adapted functions of the deaconate,
happily relieved from the cares and anxieties of its temporal con-
cerns.

Now, we can conceive of nothing connected with the hene esse —
the well-being of the Church in every subsequent period of her
militant existence, and under every supposable variety of external
circumstances, which such a ministrj^ was not fully adequate to
promote. With the model-church apostolic, doctrinal, govern-
mental, and disciplinary, before them, their "work" was, not to
lay a neiv foundation ; not to labor as though sent to complete an
unfinished mission assigned to others; but, to '•'■ huild upon'''' that
" foundation" already furnished them at the hands of " the apos-
tles and prophets," and of which " Jesus Christ was the chief-
corner-stone." No. Jesus Christ bequeathed not to the Church a
single vestige of what originally constituted the essential elements
of the office apostolical. Their functions, as we have shown, from
their nature and the design of their conferment, were absolutely in-
communicable. And, taking human nature at what it ever has
been and still is, — that feature of it, we mean, by Avhich it has been
so strikingly characterized under every state and condition, inno-
cent or fallen, patriarchal, Levitical, or Christian, namely, its ten-
dency to SELF-EXALTATION : the intelligent and pious mind cannot
but admire the wisdom of God in the construction of a ministry for
the permanent service of the Church, which, from the simplicity of
its structure and its fraternal character and relations, carries with

(1) 1 Pet 5 : 3. (2) 2 Cor. 1 : 24. (3) 1 Pet. 5 : 1-4.

173

it the evidence of its adaptedness to curb all unholy aspirations
after " the pre-eminence." '

How adinii'ably adapted such a ministry, therefore, to preserve
and promote that xmion of the mystical body of Clirist in its visible
form, for which Christ prayed and the apostles labored ! So far
from furnishing any ground of contention as to who " should be
the greatest in the kingdom of God,"^ the one order of pres-
byter-bishops, though exercising their functions, some, by teach-
ing or preaching and ruling, and some by ruling only, the plat-
form of equality of the ecclesiastical corps involved any the least
departure from the original regimen, into a positive usurpation of
prerogatives totally foreign thereto. "We are here reminded, and
cannot but re-quote,* the strong and emphatic language of Bp.
Jer. Taylor, on this subject. " Whatsoever was the regiment of
the Church in the apostle's times, that must be perpetuall, — and if
the Church be not now governed as then^ we can show no divine
authority for our government, which we must contend to doe, and
doe it too^ or be called USURPERS." Indeed, the wisdom of
God, in a final commitment of designation of this ministry to the
Church under the guidance of His special providence,f left no
pretext for a primacy of one over the other or of suprem,a^y of
one over the Church, not only ; but as of the functions, so the very
name aTr6<7TO/lof, apostle, was withholden from them. Like the
keys of Peter, the name and functions apostolic were carried to
heaven with them ; and, when shall have arrived " the times of
restitution of all things which God hath spoken by the mouth of
all his holy prophets since the world began ;"' then, the identifica-
tion of the " SIGNS" of their apostolicity with the trophies of their
ministry while on earth, will constitute their passport to the
" twelve thrones" on which they " shall sit," as judges of " the
twelve tribes of Israel."*

Nevertheless, to the intent " that no flesh should glory in his
presence," God has ordained that creatureho^od, under every dis-
pensation, should be subjected to a test of their integrity. Indeed,
this feature of the moral government of God reaches to all orders
of created intelligences. It involves, in all, the existence of a
principle, which, for the sake of distinction, we shall denominate
an innate lust for "the pre-eminence." In other words, it is a
propensity in the creature to aspire after self-deification — " to
exalt himself above all that is called God, or that is worshiped."^
It is " tlie mystery of iniquity^''^ in antagonism with " the mys-
tery of godliness. ''^^ And, without stopping now to argue the con-
sistency of this propensity as existing in all orders of creature-
hood, angelic and human, with the divine benevolence, we re-
mark, that, wheresoever and whensoever it has been developed, it

(1) 3 John r. 9. (2) Mark 9 : 34. (3) Acts 3: 21. (4) Matt. 19 : 23. (.5) 2 Thess. 2 : 4. 16) 2 Thess.
2 : 7. (7) 1 Tim. 3 : 16.

* See p. 97. t See pp. 156-158.

174

has been actuated by one undivided purpose, namely, that of de
fcating God's design from eternity to unfold, promote, and secure
his own declarative glory, through the medium of self-manife sta-
tion in the PERSON of his eternal, only-begotten, and well-be-
loved son, Jesus Christ — " Gon manifested in the flesh." In the
angelic order, this lusting for " the pre-eminence" manifested itself
on the occasion of their revolt against the revelation of God's pur-
pose to unfold his divine glory through a nature other than their
own. They, in other words, refused to stand in him — Jesus
Christ — by and for whom' they were created as subordinates.
Hence the record respecting them : " tliey abode not in the
TRUTH." "^ So, of man, first, in innocence. Created in the
inxage, and after the likeness of God^ — that is, as he is revealed
through Christ, who is the declared "express image of his per-
son"^— and invested with earthly dominion ;* yielding to Satanic
influence, the same propensity exhibited itself in his decision not
to hold his prerogatives under another. His resolve was, ^^we will
he as Gods, to knovj good and evil ;"° thus aiming to supplant
Him who was " set up from everlasting, or ever the earth was,"'
from his rightful relation to the eternal God as his co-equal and
co-eternal son. The same of man, second, in his fallen state. The
degenerate Cainite antediluvian race, inheriting the spirit of their
infidel ancestor, proudly rejected the doctrine of piacular or expia-
tory sacrifice for sin, through the promised seed of the woman.*
And, the nation of Israel, called out and separated from an idola-
trous Avorld as God's peculiar people, with every blessing vouch-
safed them which heaven could bestow or they enjoy, and secured
to them by a "covenant ordered in all things and sure;"' yet,
they gave the precedence to that "bondage'"" which followed their
choice of the Hagar or Sinai covenant of worJcs^ over that of
grace, as the ground of their justification before God, not only;
but, prompted by the emotions of a fretful impatience, they first
place an earth-born usurper on that throne occupied by God him-
self as their king," and then follow up that act by their relapse
into an idolatry deeper and darker, and more revolting, than that
of their Gentile neighbors,'^ until at length they fill up the mea-
sure of their iniquity, by imbuing their hands in the blood of
their Messiah.''

But, this is not all. The preceding memorials of creaturehood
instability were to be followed by yet another. The Church op
Christ, as reconstructed under the new dispensation, was also to
be subjected to a fiery ordeal, as a test of her integrity to her great
and glorious Head. Yes. That model of the Church as reconsti-
tuted by Divine appointment, in her doctrines, ordinances, minis-
try, government, and discipline ; and which, from their transcend-

(1) Col. 1 : 16. (2) John 8 : 44. (3) Gen. 1 : Q6, 27. (4) Heb. 1 : 3. (5) Gen. I . 28. (6) Gen.
3:5. (7) Prov. 8 : 23. (8) Gen. 3 : H. (0) 2 Sam. 23 : 5. (10) Gal. 4 : 24 ; Heb. 2 : 15. (11) 1 Sam.
12 : 12. (12) 1 Kings 16 : 25 ; Jer. 7 : 26. (13) Acts 2 : 23.

175

ent simplicity and fraternity of character, were so eminently calcu-
lated to preserve and promote the " unity of the faith in the bonds
of peace,'" by fixing her eye on Christ as " Head over all things
to the Church" "till he come," has nevertheless been made to sub-
serve the purposes of the most flagitious perversions of truth, and
to gratify the wildest ambition known in the annals of time.
And — awful tjiought ! — with the same design with those acts of
revolt and apostasy from Christ commenced in heaven, and con-
tinued on earth, which preceded it — that of an attempt to rob
God of Ms glory^ hy the dethronement of Christy as the divinely-
constituted Heir of all things.'''''^

Some, doubtless, there are, who would denounce the sentiment
here uttered not only as a breach of Christian courtesy and charity,
but as absolutely libelous, even if confined, in its intended appli-
cation, to those implicated in the upholding of that stupendous
apostasy, called Popery; yea, and that too, with the admonitory
prediction of Paul before their eyes, " Let no man deceive you by
any means : for that day (the day of Christ's second appearing)
shall not come, except there come a falling away firsts and that
man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition ; who opposeth and
exalt£th himself above all that is called God ^ or that is worshiped ',
80 that he^ as God^ sitteth i?i the temple of God, showing himself
that he is God^^

But, to this diluted, though, it may be, well-meant liberality,
we oppose the motto, Veritas est maxij^ia cakitas — " Truth is the
greatest charity^ No one admitting the canonicity of the New
Testament Scriptures, will venture to impugn the inspiration of
the above Pauline prophecy. We appeal then, whether it be in
the power of language more vividly to portraj' the nature, charac-
ter, and aim, of what was to constitute the great antichristian
apostasy : that it was to consist of an attempt, as we have said, to
rob God of his glory by the dethronement of Christ from his
rightful position in the universe, as the divinely constituted " Heir
of all things." The predicted "falling away," as above, was to
eventuate in the enthronement, " in the temple of God," of " the
man of sin ;" in which temple^ he should " exalt himself above all
that is called God, or that is worshiped; so that he as God,"
would "show himself that he is God" !

Now, what, we ask, is this, if it be not a self-deification of
creaturehood under the Christian Economy and m the Christian
Church ?

But in addition to the above, we add, that the same apostle had
before spoken on this wise : "For I know, that after my departing,
shall grievous wolves enter in among you^ not sparing the flock.
Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things,
to draw away disciples after them.''^ And on another occasion,
thus : " Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times

(1) Eph. 4 : 3. (2) Heb. 1 : 3. (3) i Thess. 2 : 3, 4. (4) Acts 20 : 29, 30.

176

some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits,
and doctrines of devils; speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their
conscience seared with a hot iron ; forbidding to marry, and com-
manding to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be re-
ceived with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the
truth.'"

Then, in the next place. Eegarding the mode of i^anifestation
of the above self-deiiied antichristian apostacy, the apostle thus
speaks : " Ilis coming," says he, " is after the working of Satan,"
— (the first, and hence, the leading^ aspirant, to the Godhead of
Christ, and he in whom is to be headed up the personal antichrist
of the last days)—" with all power, and signs, and lying wonders,
and with all deceivableness of unrighteousness."'

Finally, his liarhingers were the " wolves," " men," who should
"depart from the faith," etc. spoken of in the preceding prediction.
For, whether they should appear in the capacity of heresiarchs,
who should " bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord
who bought them,"'' or assume a more evangelic garb, and under
the covert of " good words and fair speeches" " speak perverse
things ;"' the apostle, having affirmed of " Satan," that, to accom-
plish his designs against Christ, he " transformed himself into an
angel of liglit^'' he argues: "It is therefore no great thing if Mb
ministers he also transformed as the ministers ^^ righteousness^''*
And, that these, one and all, might be known throughout all
time, the apostle, in addition to their acts^ affixes to them an xm-
mistakable title. They were to " transform themselves into the
APOSTLES of Christ."* The apostles, as we have seen, were en-
dowed with miraculous powers, as the " signs" of their apostleship.
But what were these to those who assumed the functions apostolic,
without their title ? They knew well, and appreciated, the value
of a name, as denotive of official rank, and as a ready passport to
popular favor. Under the name, they relied to escape detection,
as " false apostles, deceitful workers,"' — the iiarbestgers, as we
have said, of the great antichristian apostasy. And, the subtlety
and success of their imposture, may be inferred from the fact of
their prevalence, in Paul's day, in the Church which was scattered
through " the regions of Achaia."' Nor did the sig7is of his
apostleship, which had "been thoroughly made manifest" in all
the Corinthian churches throughout Achaia, as proofs of the
falsity of their claims," succeed in their extermination. The apos-
tle John's commendation of the Ephesian Church, for having
" tried those who said they were apostles, and were not, but were
found liars,'"" furnishes evidence of their existence in the Church
at the close of the first century.

Now, it is to the " deceitful" workings of this " false" apostoli-
city, that we are to trace the origin of that " mystery of iniquity"

(1) I Tim. 4 : 1-3. (-2) 2 TlicsB. 2 : 9, 10. (3) 2 Pet. 2 : 1. (4) Acts 20 : 30. (.5) 2 Cor. II : 14, 15
(6) 2 Cor. 11 : 13. (7) 2Cor. 11 : 13. (8) 2 Cor. 11 : 10. (9) 2 Cor. H : 13. (10) Rev. 2 : 2.

177

which, commencing in apostolic times and on apostolic ground, has
at length well nigh attained the fullest expansion of the great anti-
christian apostasy. It is an emanation of that lust for "the pre-
eminence," which, as we have shown, is common to all orders of
creaturehood. Its process of development was gradual. In the
full blaze of light afforded to the New Testament Church by the
admonitions of Christ to his apostles, warning them against indul-
gence in a spirit of unholy emulation to "lord" it over God's
" heritage" or over one another ; and of the apostolic injunctions
upon all to preserve "the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace;"
and especially of their exposures of the false pretensions of those
who in their day laid claim to apostolic prerogatives ; it is not to
be supposed that the transition from primitive simplicity in doc-
trine, ordinances, worship, government, and the ministry of the
Church to a system of will-worship, superstition, and spiritual
tyranny, could be the work of a day.

This lusting after " the pre-eminence," so far as definitely de-
veloped during the apostolic age, is illustrated in the conduct of
Simon Magus in coveting apostolic prerogatives ;' and in that of
Diotrephes,^ who arrogated ecclesiastical superiority over " the
brethren" of the presbyterate.* These two facts taken together,
serve to show the strength of the propensity of fallen creaturehood
of which we have spoken, to aspire after primacy and supremacy
"in the Church of Christ. It betrayed Simon the sorcerer into the
presumptuous attempt to purchase the ^^ power^'' apostolic, with his
ill-gotten gains.' And, impelled by the same propensity, what
this apostolic aspirant failed to obtain by a bribe, Diotrephes re-
solved to USURP !

And thus, we now observe, has it come to pass, that through
the craft and subtlety of the ecclesiastical aspirants of after ages,
the divinely-appointed ordinary and perpetual ministry of the
Church, — a ministry so signally marked by its simplicity and fra-
ternity of character — a ministry so admirably adapted to preserve
unity in the body of Christ, — has been so far invaded, as iinally,
and for a long period, to have been almost universally supplanted,
by that most stupendous and terrific system of ecclesiastico-politi-
cal and spiritual despotism, THE PAPACY : — that " infernal de-
vice, that deepest conception and mightiest achievement of Satan,
into which he hath admitted the whole canon of truth, and yet
contrived that it should teach only error ; into which he hath ad-
mitted the whole revelation of light, and yet contrived that it
should breed only foul and pestilent darkness. Oh, it is an ample
net for catching men ; a delusion and bondage made for the world,
as the Gospel was a redemption made for the Avorld. No partial

(1) Acts 8 : 18, 19. (2) 3 John, comp. v. 9 with vv. 5-8. (3) Acts 8 : IS, 19.
* Else, icho, and what were they ? The apostles, as such, are never thus designated.
Or if "the brethren" were apostles, then Diotrephes must have claimed to be their Pri-
mate! This would have been to OM^Pe^er Peter! (See Pt. II., pp. 115-123.) What
then, on the Romish hypothesis, becomes of Peter's Primacy ?
12

178

error, but a stupendous deception, and universal counterfeit of
truth, which hath a chamber for every natural faculty of the soul,
and an occupation for every energy of the natural spirit, pennitting
every extreme of abstemiousness and indulgence, fast and revel-
ry; melancholy abstraction and burning zeal; subtle acuteness
and popular discourse ; world-renunciation and worldly ambition ;
embracing the arts and sciences and the stores of learning ; adding
antiquity and misrepresentation of all monuments of better times,
and covering carefully with a venerable vail that only monument
of better times which was able to expose the false ministry of the
infinite superstition, and overthrow to the ground the fabric of this
mighty temple, which Satan had constructed for his own glory,
out of those materials which were builded together for the glory
of God and of Christ!"

179

CHAPTER n.

EXAMINATION OF THE PRELATICAL DOGMA ROMISH, TRACTARIAN,

AND HIGH AND LOW CHURCH — OF AN ALLEGED UNINTERRUPTED
SUCCESSION FROM THE APOSTLES, BY SEMINAL DERIVATION.

SECTION I.

Preliminarj' remarks. — Prelacy. — Its diversified forms. — Substantially the same. — Con-
sidered as a question of fact. — Four stand- points regarding it, as landmarks in the
discussions which follow. — Protean character of the Prelatico-Episcopal theory. — If
true, must be shown — 1st: To be derived directly from Christ himself — 2d : Must
exercise all the functions Apostolical, especially that of conferring the 'gift of the
Holy Ghost" — 3d : Must prove that they were appointed to complete what the
Apostles left in an unfinished state.

The Papacy, then, as described in the closing paragraph of the
last section, in its ministrj^, doctrines, ordinances, rites and ceremo-
nies, etc., we hold to constitute that grand defection from the min-
istry, doctrines, and ordinances of Divine appointment, predicted
by Paul.

That grand Papal apostasy we believe to be the result of a usur-
pation of the original Heaven-appointed but untransferable func-
tions of "the twelve apostles of the Lamb."

But, what we allege, as above, to have been a usurpation,

modern prelacy or episcopacy affirms a warrant — -jure divino — for

the continuance of the apostolic office and functions to the end of

world. Hence the dogma of an unhroke^i apostolical succession

from tJie JSfew Testament times d/)wnto this day.

We must here note as of importance in the premises, that, with
the exception of the differences which have obtained among the
various prelatico-episcopal sects regarding the number of orders
and the variations of mode in the exercise of their functions, the
above dogma of an unbroken apostolical succession as advocated
by Romanists, Tractarians, and by High and Low Churchmen, is
substantially the same. The evidence of this will be forthcoming.

We have now to do however with a question of fact. We ask
then, Were there, or were there not, true successors to " the
twelve," as well as " false" pretenders., during and subsequently
to, the New Testament age ?

180

In reply, we shall assume the four following propositions as
stand-points for proof, to be adduced in the sequel, as derived from
"Holy Scripture and ancient authors," etc., namely :

I. That there is not, in the entire records of the New Testa-
ment, the shadow of evidence, that either one of "the eleven"
apostles or Paul, ever transferred his functions as deri/ved from,
Christy either in whole or in part ^ to another.

II. That " the false ministry of that infinite superstition" called
the papacy, sprung up from, and has been nurtured and sustained
by, those who, fi'om apostolic and primitive times to the present
day (under Avhatever sectarian designation known), have claimed,
or do now claim, apostolical prerogatives. And, consequently,

III. That, inasmuch as, inherent in the very texture of pre-
latical episcopacy is the germ of the papacy, the early ^o^^apos-
tolic episcopacy having produced that " infinite superstition ;"
modern episcopacy., even in its mildest form., preserving the ele-
Tnents of^the original germ^ has the same tendency Romiswaed, as
that of the magnetic needle to the body which attracts it.

These several propositions sustained, it will follow,

rV. That the numerous recent and continued defections, cleri-
cal and lay, from the communion of the Anglican and American
Episcopal Churches to that of Rome, follow in the relation of cause
and effect. Pkotestant Episcopacy, the leaven: Romanism, the
lump.

Impressed with a conviction of the claim to my belief, of the
sentiments involved in these stand-points — the result, I may say,
of a protracted, laborious, and, I trust, prayerful investigation of
the subject in all its parts and bearings (a,nd of which this
Treatise is the fruit), it was from a solemn sense of duty, that I
withdrew m}- connection from the Protestant Episcopal Church.

This act was induced under the persuasion, that, for myself, at
least, there was no safety but in leaving a road which, though
varying in width from, yet at all points shelved off towards, a
fearful precipice — the papacy.

It is not our purpose to take up the stand-points assumed in the
preceding section seriatim. They are designed simply as land
marks upon which to fix the eye in our progress along a path of
unparalleled intricacy. Nothing is more obvious than that the sys-
tem of Prelacy, though claimed by its advocates to form the focus
of UNITY to the Church, and that it is so clearly taught as to be
" evident unto all men reading holy Scripture and ancient au-
thors," yet present almost as many theories regarding its origin,
^ature, orders, powers, etc., as there are writers in its defense.

181

Polemically, we affirm that there is no other system of so Protean
a character. Under its quadrupled forms, Romish, Tractarian, and
High and Low Church, we know of no two writers of either school
who will unite in furnishing a reliable definition of their own
scheme respecting it. Rome has never yet decided ivhere or in what
consists the seat of its power. And, of the other episcopal sects,
their mutual denunciations of each other and of their respective
systems through the medium both of the pulpit and the press, in
book, and pamphlet, and periodical form ; and their variations in
those ceremonials and deviations from the so-called " form of
sound words," so long and so oft the loud boast of a uniformity
which bids defiance to innovation, sufficiently attest the truthful-
ness of the view here exhibited of it. With the promise, how-
ever— in the proper place — of such a definition of Episcopacy as
its current nomenclature will be shown to warrant, we proceed
now, as preliminary, to a discussion of the main subject, to a state-
ment of several considerations as illustrative of what is absolutely
fundamental to a consistent theory of the dogma in question. We
remark, then,

1. That, fundamental to such a theory is the derivation^ directly
from Christ himself of the commission to exercise apostolic powers.
That this is true of the original " twelve," none will deny. So,
on this subject, we claim to have furnished evidence the most irre-
fragable, in our vindication of Paul's right to the apostleship as
one of " the twelve," over that of Matthias.* In the appointment
of a successor to Judas, it was shown that that of Matthias was
defective. For, besides the fact that his election over his compe-
titor, Justus, was decided by " lot" — an equivocal, and, as was
proved, unauthorized mode of procedure in a matter so solemn,
momentous, and responsible — it was founded in a premature act
on the part of the " hundred and twenty" disciples, instigated by
a well-meant though mistaken view of duty as urged by Peter, he
leaving received from Christ's own lips a prohibition to perform
that act not only, but any and every other, until endowed " with
that power" from on high, which awaited the descent of the Holy
Ghost at Pentecost. On the other hand, Paul's language is, I am
" an apostle (not of nian^ neither hy man^^ — either by " lot" or
otherwise — " but by Jesus Christ, and God the Father, who
raised him from the dead").' And again: "But I certify you,
brethren, that the Gospel which was preached of we" (and which
is equally true of his compeers in office), " is not after men,
neither icas I taught it^ hut by the revelation of Jesus Christ.'"
Now, evidently, if there be any meaning in language, the apostle,
in the above passages, must be understood by implication to affirm,
first, that none either were or could be apostles, but those who de-

(1) Gal. 1 : 1. (i) lb., V. n. 12.
* See Part II., pp. 133-136.

182

rived their commission and authority directly from Christ himself.
Second, that the Gospel which they preached as such, was derived
from the direct revelation of Jesus Christ. And hence, third, that
any whose apostleship is human merely, that is, which is after
man, or of man, or hy man, whether 5(?Z/'-derived or obtained from
another, is a USURPATION! and, hence, "FALSE"!! And
then, as fundamental to the validity of the claims of such to the
apostleship, it is indispensable,

2. That they possess and exercise^ whole and entire^ whatever
constituted the original apostolical functions^ pre-eminent among
which was their power to confer on others the gift of the Holy
Ghost.

By referring to Part II., page 108, the reader will see in what
consisted the qualifications and endowments of the original
" twelve." Now, of these endowments, their power to confer on
others the gift of the Holy Ghost constituted the principal badge
of their apostleship. He who exercised this power, therefore, was
necessarily endowed with every other function peculiar to their
office. The Evangelist Philip, though he wrought many miracles,
for example, casting out devils, and healing the leprous and the
lame,' etc., yet could not confer the Holt Ghost on those who be-
lieved. Hence, Simon Magus, possessing the sagacity to discover
this difference in the distribution of miraculous powers in the pri-
mitive Church, and knowing that could he but possess himself of
the greater power of the Apostle Peter, he could exercise also all
the lesser functions of the Evangelist Philip, made a bold push
for the apostleship. His whole procedure demonstrates that what
he aimed at was, the possession of what lay heyond the functions of
the inferior orders,* viz., THE POWER TO CONFER THE
HOLY GHOST. The same, with those who in Paul's and
John's times usurped those apostolic functions which Simon failed
to obtain by a golden bribe. " Transforming themselves into the
ministers of righteousness," as the " false apostles and deceitful
workers" of those times, they well knew that a failure to furnish
a counterfeit to each, and all the " powers and signs and wonders"
Avrought by " the twelve," could not fail to expose their imposture
and subject them to merited infamy. Their success in their en-
deavors to " deceive if it were possible the very elect," depended
on this circumstance alone. To " 5«y that they were apostles,"
while they professed inability to do the work of apostles, had been
with them a contradiction and an absurdity. And, that they
actually wrought miracles in attestation of their alleged claims as
the representatives or successors of " the twelve," lays our credii-
liiy under no greater contribution, than in the case of those re-
corded of the Egyptian magicians in the days of Moses.

(1) Acts 8 :6.
* See Part II., pp. H7, 148.

183 >

We hence argue, that, if these " false apostles and deceitful
workers" of the New Testament age, thus " transforming them-
selves into the apostles of Christ," arrogated the possession and
exercise of all the prerogatives of " the twelve ;" then, surely,
those who since their times claim to be of the true apostolical
succession in a line of unbroken continuity, must possess similar
functions, or, whatever else they may be, they " are not apostles,
but are found liars."

To the preceding, we add,

3. That, admitting, for the sake of the argument, that the apos-
tolic office and functions as above described were intended to be
perpetual, it follows, that the end or design of their continuance
must have been the same with that for which they were originally
given : in other words, that the same necessity which then existed
for their exercise, now exists : at least, that they are continued in
the Church in order to complete what the first apostles left in an
unfinished state, — or, that the model Church-apostolic, though
constructed in all its parts according to the pattern revealed by
the Holy Ghost, in her constitution, ministry, doctrines, ordinances,
etc., was not adequate to " ih.Q perfecting'''' of the mystical body of
Christ, " the Church," which " should after" — that is, through all
succeeding generations — " believe on him to life everlasting," till
she should attain " unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the
stature of the fullness of Christ" ; — the very basis, this, we affirm,
of that Scripture-detracting, God-dishonoring, soul-ruining dogma
of Rome, so zealously supported by her modern German panthe-
istico-neologic and prelatico-semi-papal allies — the doctrine of
Development : a dogma — rather the dogma, which involves a de-
nial of those two grand principles — the pillars upon which rests
the entire structure of our Protestant Christianity — first, the abso-
lute sufficiency and supremacy of " holy Scripture" as the rule of
our faith and as the standard of appeal ; and second, ministerial
equality.

184

SECTION n.

The only modes of escape from the above hypotheses — 1st: Positive evidence that
Christ delegated to others the authority to propagate said succession — 2d : Also of
the persons by whom and on whom, and the time when and the place where, said
apostolic office and functions were conferred. — The system defined. — Exami-
nation of the alleged evidence in support of — namely, " holy Scripture and ancient
authors." I. "Holy Scripture" — prelatical arguments from — (1.) " Lo, I am
with you al way," etc. — ;2.) "As my Father hath sent me," etc. — (3.) "No man
taketh this honor," etc. — Bishop McCoskrey on — Remarks on. — Necessity of
exhibiting the system as it is. — Proof that, cardinal to said system is its perpetual
priestly and sacerdotal character with vicarial functions.

Now, from the first two conditions mentioned in the preceding
section, as fundamental to a consistent theory of an unbroken apos-
tolical succession, namely, first, that the office and functions of
each and every link in the chain be derived directly from Christ ;
and second, that they possess and exercise all the functions of "the
twelve ;" remain the only following modes of escape, to wit : —

1. To adduce the evidence of an explicitly authenticated dele-
gation^ hy Christ himself to others^ of authority to jp'ropagate said
office, together with an explicitly authenticated account of the per-
sons hy whom, and of the circumstances of time and place, and
of the persons on whom, said office and functions were conferred,
from the apostle's times down to this day. And,

2. To adduce Scriptural authority to show, that the original
functions apostolic were partly extraordinary, partly ordinary ;
and, that their office as apostles, consisted of the latter only, and
hence, that this office^ as constituted of their ordinary functions,
was THE THING to be transferred to their alleged successors.

We now proceed to show, that the above two hypotheses form
the basis of the tnodern prelatico-episcopal theory of an unbroken-
apostolical succession.

Eeduced to the form of a definition, the current nomenclature
of the standard authorities and advocates of this theory, is as fol-
lows. Alleging that the apostolical is merged into the prelatico-
episcopal office, and that it is in all respects identical with it ; it
adopts a course of reasoning which makes the Church to exist
SEMINALLY in the apostolic, that is, the now Episcopal, orders,
and of which the following is the substratum of the system : —

^^MuUa ecclesia sine episcopo^ "Without a Bishop, there is
NO Chukch."

Our first business now is, to review the evidence adduced in sup-
port of the prelatico-episcopal hypothesis of a delegated authority
from Christ to others, to propagate the apostolic office. This evi-
dence is of two kinds. Scripture and Tradition. Let us attend to
the evidence as alleged,

185

I. — From " Holy Scripture." Of this class, are the three fol-
lowing passages. " Lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end
of the world." " As my Father hath sent me, even so send I you."
" No man taketh this honor unto himself, but he that is called of
God, as was Aaron." These three passages collectively, it is
affirmed, set forth, the first, the Divine purpose to continue the
apostolical office and functions in the Church to the end of the
present dispensation. The second, the fact of authority delegated
by Christ to his apostles to that end. The third, the same fact re-
asserted, together with a declaration of the nature and character of
their functions : — " Called of God, as was Aaron !"

The argument, as predicated of these passages, is, that as the prom-
ise of Christ's continued presence with his apostles in the first pas-
sage could not relate to them perso7ially^ — they being short-lived
like other men, — it must refer to their office : that this office,
accordingly, as perpetuated by the authority with which the apos-
tles and their successors are invested in the second, furnishes the
only evidence of the existence, in the Church, from the apostles's
times of " the ministry of reconciliation ;" and, that, as in the
third, all orders and ministrations are invalid, null, and void, ex-
cept as derived from those who are alleged to have been " called
of God, AS WAS Aaron." Take the following quotations in illus-
tration. Of the

First, " Zo, / am with you oXway^'' etc.. Bishop McCoskrey
says, — " This passage, must have at once satisfied the minds of the
apostles, that the office they had received from the Savior, was not
to cease — that it was to continue until the glad tidings of salvation
had been conveyed to the ends of the earth. They could not live
to this period, and therefore all doubt as to their right of transfer
must have been removed from their minds."* Of the

Second, " As my Father hath sent me," etc., he says, — that
Christ " ^v^an.^/e?Tec^ the power he received from God his Father,
the words of the text most fully declare."f Again. " This point
then is clearly settled ; that the apostles held the only ministry
which was of Christ. Not only the power to rule and govern the
Church, but of course it must follow, to continue the same 'power.
If not, there never has been any authorized ministry in the Church,
and all who profess to be commissioned as ambassadors of Christ,
are gross impostors. There can be no escape from such a conclu-
sion."j: Of the

Third, " No man taketh this honor^'' etc., the Bishop argues, that
as Christ glorified not himself to be made a high priest," but was
anointed for his office as a public teacher by the descent upon him
of the Holy Ghost ; so, " the apostles were admitted to the exer-
cise of this power in the same manner." And, "in this transac-
tion," says he, " they were raised up to the very same office which

* Sermon : Episcopal Bishops the Successors of the Apostles, p. 14. t lb. p. 7.

% lb. p. 12. The Italics are ours.

186

Christ himself held."* Then, having spoken of Christ as a High
J^riest, and that, as "there were three grades in the ministry under
the Jewish dispensation," namely, the High Priests^ Priests^ and
Levites ; and in analogy with which during his ministry, were Ilirti-
sdf^ as '• the High Priest ; the ajpostles — the priests ; and the
seventy — the Levites ;" so, " immediately preceding his ascension,
he transferred it," i.e. the HIGH PEIESTHOOD, " to the apos-
tles." * * * '* They then stood as his representatives, and
arranged the ministry after the model which he himself had fol-
lowed, namely, in accordance with the ministry of the Church as
IT EXISTED PKioK TO uis COMING ;"f namely, the AAKONIC
PRIESTHOOD.

It were an easy matter to fill pages with similar quotations from
the standards and other writings, explanatory and in defense of
Protestant prelacy. The above, however, will suffice for our
present purpose. We proceed now respectfully to demur to the
tone of assurance, if not indeed of infallibility, indicated in the
above passages. We cannot concede the ex-cathedra statements
of the learned Bishop of Michigan, that the points involved are so
" clearly settled," as " that there can be no escape from" the " con-
clusion" to which he has arrived. In regard to

The first passage. We are not so sure that Christ's promise to
" the twelve" to be " with" them " alway," etc., " at once satisfied
their minds that the ojflce they had received" from him " was not
to cease." In the first place, as the phrase itself, " I am with you,"
is susceptible of at least four different meanings — I am with you
personally, providentially, graciously, or with miraculous power;
it is clear that Christ's personal presence could not have been in-
tended, for he was just about to leave them ; nor yet his providen-
tial and gracious presence, for these being common alike to all be-
lievers, there was no occasion of a special assurance of the continu-
ance of either to them. It follows, that our Lord could only have
meant to be with them in a miramilous manner. The promise in
this sense was fully verified to them. For, as well aftei\ as before,
the ascension, it is recorded of them that " they went forth every
where, the Lord worMng loith them., and confirming the word
with SIGNS following." Nor is it, we remark further, quite so cer-
tain as his Kight Reverence would intimate, that the apostles did
not understand the language of their Divme Master according to
its literal and grammatical sense, "Z(9, 1 am with you alway ^^^ etc.
And if so, then their office was to terminate with theynselves. As
"the WITNESSES of Christ's resurrection," their commission was,
" Go ye into all the world," etc. They did so. " They went
forth everijwhere ;" and, in conjunction Avith the subordinate
orders which God had " set in the Church" to co-operate with
them " for the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the minis-
try, and for the edifying of the body of Christ," — " prophets,

* Sermon : Episcopal Bishops, etc. f lb pp. 10, 12.

187

evangelists, pastors and teacliers,'" — they preaclied that gospel "^o
every creature T Hence the following testimony of Paul, " Veri-
ly, their sound went into all the earthy and their words unto the
ENDS OF THE ^^'■ORLD."^ By preaching and teaching, by word
and by epistle, their divinely commissioned work was to continue,
accompanied with the miraculous presence of Christ "working
with them," " until" (|tie%pt, Greek, donec^ Latin, adverbs denoting
the time how long) believers had " come into the unity of the faith,
and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man :"^
and, as elsewhere shown,* with this agrees the li7nit of tJie j?romise
of Christ to the twelve, as set forth in the words, ecjg rrjg awreXetag
rov aloovog, 'TILL the conclusion of this age or stately assigned to
you my apostles, for the ingathering and planting of the Church.

"We submit then, that prelatists must either adopt the view here
advocated, or else prove (what we deny) that Christ has heen with
the ministry of the Church after a miraculous manner^ from New
Testament times down to the present day. Of this subject, how-
ever, more anon. Of the

Second passage, we remark, that it is clearly a petitio principii
— a begging of the question — to affirm that it admits of no other
construction, than " that Christ transferred the power he received
from his Father" to his apostles. Why, we ask, may it not be un-
derstood to set forth the equality of prerogative of Christ with the
Father, in the matter of dispensing commissions to others. That
this is the sense of the passage, we thiuk is clear from our Lord's
having preceded the commission given to " the twelve," " Go ye
therefore into all the world," etc., with the announcement, " All
power is given to me in heaven and in earth."' We affirm that it is
that '■^ all poioer''^ to which the passage under consideration looks,
as the source of the great apostolic commission. The passage
treats of a comjyarison of powers. " As" Christ's commission as
the " sent'" of God, " set up from everlasting" as the Great Media-
tor, emanated from the Father, who holds the relation of rectoral
Head in the plan of human redemption; " even so,^' the commis-
sion of the twelve as the senf" of Christ, emanates from that au-
thority with which He is invested, in virtue of His "finished"
work on the cross and in the grave, as our Eedeemer. We only add
now, that, on the other hypothesis, as we shall have occasion to
show in another place, is involved more than a mere transfer of
Christ's 2?riestly office.

The third and last of the three above named passages, as we
have said, is employed by the advocates of prelacy as denoting
the scriptural nature and character of the official functions apos-
tolic, which, thc}^ allege, " the twelve," as the delegated " repre-
sentatives" of Christ on earth, were authorized to transfer to others.

(1) Eph. 4 : 11, 12. (2) Rom. 10 : 18. (3) Eph. 4 : 13. (4) Matt. 28 : 18. (5) John 5 : 30,
(6) John 20 : 21.

* See Part II., pp. 138-140.

188

" No man taketJi tJiis honor unto hiriiself^ hut he that is called of
Gody AS WAS Aaron."

The importance of this subject, and its bearings on the ques-
tions at issue, will justify the space appropriated to it in these in-
quiries. We have at length arrived at that point in our progress,
where we must look the prelatico-episcopal system in the face,
AS IT IS. The subject of its alleged uninterrupted perpetuity
as seminally derived from the apostles, as a question of fact, will
be duly considered in its proper place. What now concerns us is,
to determine, in the light of "holy Scripture and ancient authors,"
together with what is claimed in its behalf by its modern advo-
cates, what is its true nature^ character and tendency^ as a whole.
To do this effectually, it must be stript of all meretricious appen-
dages, and be drawn from the cloud of dust and smoke into which
it is enveloped, whether by the arts of an insidious sophistry, or
the ignorance of a blind and mercenary zeal. Our own deliberate
persuasion is, that the mass who have been reared from the cradle
under its influence, and the many who are seduced by its blan-
dishments from "the old paths and the good way" of simple
primitive truth and order, do not understand it. How can it be
otherwise, while trusting to the Babel -tongued teachings of its self-
interested advocates ? Under its Protestant guise, what stores of
learning, and what pov.^ers of eloquence are employed — but, as we
shall show, without success — in shielding it as a system from the
imputation of its Romexoard tendency ! As a system, our firm con-
viction is, that, but for its advocacy by, and the support which
it receives from, the so-called Evangelical Low Church party in the
Anglican and American Churches, such a thing as Pkotestant
Episcopacy, as we said, would soon be numbered among the things
that were !

Cardinal to the system of episcopacy, then, we af&rm, is its
alleged perpetual priestly or sacerdotal character, with vicarial
powers : to which subject we shall direct the reader's attention in
the following section.

fi 189

SECTION m.

name — Is identical with the High Church, Tractarian, and Romish theories of. —
Consequences : contentions, strife, divisions. — Dilemma of the Low Church party. —
Must place their system on the platform of expediency alone, or admit its priestly
character. — Mode of their attempt to escape from. — The reader admonished. — Trac-
tarians, etc. the most consistent.

Proceed we now to an examination of the arguments in support
of the prelatical theory, as alleged to be founded,

I. In the typical character and consequent analogy of the Chris-
tian ministry with the Aaronic priesthood. And,

II, In the alleged perpetuity of said ministry in the line of an
unbroken succession from the apostles's time.

I. Episcopacy, as a system, is founded on the hypothesis, that,
as the Aaronic priesthood, which originated in express Divine ap-
pointment, was ti/jrical, it must refer to, and can only be realized
in, a corresponding ministry under the Christian disj^ensatioti, as ap-
pointed by Christ. Such a ministry only, "is called of God, as was
Aaron."

We shall proceed at once to lay before the reader quotations
illustrative of this point from the writings of the various sects who
bear the name. And,

1. The lioMiSH theory. The Eoman Pontifical is the exponent
of the Eomish dogma in this matter. In giving directions for the
manner of " conferring holy orders" in the ordination of deacons,
the bishop is instructed to speak to them as about to be introduced
into the I^evitical order, saying, " In the old law, the one tribe of
Levi was chosen from out. of the twelve, which should serve the
tabernacle of God, etc. — whose name and office, beloved sons, you
hold, hecaicse you are chosen into the Levitical office, for the min-
istry of the tabernacle of witness — that is, the Church of God."
And, in the ordination of priests, the bishop prays, that, like the
seventy elders, and like Eleazar and Ithamar, sons of Aaron, they
may be endued with the Spirit, etc.*

2. The Tractarian theory. Take the following in illustration :
"The priests of the sons of Levi shall come near ; for them hath
the Lord thy God chosen to minister unto him," etc. ; (Deut. 21:

* Roman Pont. Tom. VIII. ^ 4, 12.

190

5.) " Now, my lord, this is what we mean by the authoritative ad-
ministration of the Christian clergy, whether they be by way of
benediction, or of any other kind."* "It was on account of Christ's
words to his apostles, 'as my Father hath sent me,' etc. that
Ignatius, Cyprian, and others, represent the whole college of bish-
ops throughout the whole world as one person, sitting in one chair,
attending one altar, and that, therefore, is the one Eucharist which
is celebrated by this one pkiesthood," etc.f " Whoever is asso-
ciated in the priesthood of Christ, ought" etc. — " Bishops and
priests," saith St. Ambrose, " are honorable on account of the sac-
rifice they offer.":]: " If we would guard against popular mistakes
in the subject at large, it will be necessary to examine first, what
the Church Avas under the Old Testament^ for there we find its m^igi-
not establishment, its form, its authority, its ministry, its unity and
uniformity, its maintenance, its independence, which things being so
particularly laid down, no new establishment is to be found in the
Epistles or the Gospels of the New Testament, but the ancient con-
stitution is referred to, to show us, in certain cases, what ought to
be from what has been."§ "As the Church of God hath always
been the same in its nature, it hath likewise preserved the same
form in its external economy, the wisdom of God having so or-
dained, that the Christian Church under the Gospel should not

depart from the model of the Church under the law There

were then three orders of priests in the Jewish Church : there was
the high priest, and the sons of Aaron, and the Levites. In the
Church of Christ, there were the order of the apostles, the seventy
disciples, and last of all the deacons, etc. The same form is still
preserved in every regular Church of the world, which derives its
succession and authority from the Church of the apostles," etc. I
" Can you, Sir, when you consider that bishops are appointed to
succeed the apostles, and, like them, to stand in Christ's place,
and exercise their kingly, priestly^ and prophetic office over their
flocks," etc.t

(3.) The High Church theory. Bishop Hobart. " From the
first, there have been three grades in the ministry. Under the Jew-
ish dispensation, there were the high priests, priests, and Levites,
When Christ appeared to establish the Gospel dispensation, there
were subordinate to him as the great High Priest of our profession,
the apostles, and the seventy. After his ascension, we find the
ministry constituted under tne three grades of apostles, elders, or
presbyters, sometimes called bishops and deacons. In the churches
which the apostles founded, we still discover three grades. In
Ephesus and Crete there were Timothy and Titus (apostles), elders

* Law's second leller to Bishop of Bangor. (Tracts for the Times, Vol. III. p. 156.)
+ Johnson, on Unbloody Sacrifice. Part II., Chapter 3. (Tracts, etc., p. 157.)
X Bishop Wilson, Private Thoughts. (Tracts, etc., p. 161.)
■ § Bishop Home, Diocesan Charge. (Tracts, etc., p. 166.)

II Jones, of Nayland, Lecture on Hebrews 3. (Tracts, etc., p. 169.)

i Bishop Hicks, Treatise on the Episcopal Ordination. (Tracts, etc., p. 155.)

19i

or presbyters, sometimes 'called bishops, and deacons."* Bishop
McCosKKEY. " So long as the Savior exercised the office of high
priest, and before he transferred it to the apostles immediately
preceding his ascension, there were three grades in the ministry, as
Avas the case in the Church under the Jewish dispensation. Christ,
the high priest ; the apostles, the priests ; and the seventy, the
Levites. The apostles did not reach the highest grade, so long as
the Savior exercised any ministerial authority on earth, hut were
raised up to it as he was about returning to heaven. They then
stood as his representatives, and arranged the ministry after the
MODEL which he himself had followed, viz., in accordance with the
ministry of the Church 05 it existed prior to his coining y\

(4.) The Low Church theory. Bishop Grriswold. "The law
given by Moses was a shadow of good things to come ; it in all
things typified the Oospel state^ and is called ' a schoolmaster to
bring us to Christ.' And, accordingly, it had the three orders of
the ministry — the high priest, the priests, and the Levites — with
different and distinct powers and duties." He then adds, " these
facts prepare us to expect that the like number of grades in the minis-
terial office would he continued in the Chzirch,^^ etc. " Thus, it appears
that, during Christ's ministry, there were three different orders or
grades of preachers. First, Himself, acting as the high priest, or
bishop, in his own person, and governing the Church ; secondly,
the twelve ; and thirdly, the other seventy." " After he ascended
into heaven." This appears from the " two" following facts :
" First, that Christ, immediately before he left the earth, advanced
his apostles to that rank in the Church which he was leaving. ' As
(he says) my Father hath sent me, even so send I you.' " And
a little further on, the bishop adds, that Christ " appointed them
to the office that he was leaving." " The other fact is, that not long
after, ministers of a new order were ordained by the apostles,
called deacons.":]: Finally,

(5.) The Book of Common Prayer will be found to inculcate the
same theory. For example : In the "form and manner of order-
ing priests," in presenting the candidates to the bishop, occurs the
following: "Reverend Father in God, I present unto you these
persons present, to be admitted to the order of priesthood^ Then
the bishop says, " Good people, these are they whom we purpose,
God willing, to receive this day unto the holy office oi priesthood "
etc. In the collect, thus : " Almighty God, Giver of all good
things, . . . mercifully behold these thy servants, now called
to the office of priesthood,^^ etc. In laying on of hands, thus :
" Receive the Holy Ghost for the office of a priest in the Church
of God," etc. And so, in reference to the altar. In the office

* Hobart's Apol. for the Apost. Ordn., pp. 144, 145.

f Episcopal Bishops ; the Successors of the Apostles. A sermon, etc. 1S42. p. 12.
t Bishop Griswold on the Apostolic Succession, p. 5. Tracts on the Church. No.
I. Boston. 1843.

!lr92

of institution, the rubric directs, "then "shall the instituted minis-
ter kneel at the altai- to present his supplication for himself," in
this form: "O Lord, my God! I am not worthy that thou
shouldest come under mj roof; yet thou hast honored thy servant
witli appointing him to stand in thy house, and to serve at thy
holy altar,^^ etc. And, in the communion service, the act of conse-
cration of the elements is denominated " the oblation," or sacri-
fice, celebrated and made before the " Divine Majesty," etc. We
also remark by the way, that in the rubrical directions given for
the administration of said communion, the term " priest" occurs
seventeen times !

In the view, and on the authority, then, of these statements, we
affirm that, cakdinal to THE SYSTEM OF EPISCOPACY, is

ITS PRIESTLY OR SACERDOTAL CHARACTER. As We havC Said, it

starts on the hypothesis, that the Aaronic priesthood, being
typical, could refer to, and be realized in, none other than a corre-
sponding ministry under the Christian dispensation ; and hence
affirms that such a ministry was actually established, first, by
Christ himself, and second, by the apostles, in virtue of power
derived from Him.

True, this sequence is denied by some of the advocates of the
system, who plead for and justify its adoption on the ground of
expediency alone; the ground, the highest ground, and (as we
shall show in the sequel*) the 07ily ground on which it was placed
during the early post-apostolic age, not only, but also at the com-
mencement of the Anglican Eeformation.f

The above statements, however, clearly indicate that, inherent
in the system even in its most diluted form, is the assumption of
official prerogatives, the possession and exercise of which it were
preposterous to defend on the ground of expediency alone. The
reader need not be told, that the veriest shadow of a shade of the
prelatical scheme claims in its behalf, that it is the only legitimate chan-
nel by and through Avhich has been and can be perpetuated in the
Church, a valid ministry and ordinances ; a hypothesis obviously
■incompatible with the princi|)le of expediency, which, if offered in
jusiilication of one, is equally eligible in behalf of a dozen con-
flicting systems ; a fact, we observe, that, at an early period of
the existence of episcopacy during the post-apostolic age, and again
at the period of the Anglican Eeformation dating from the time
of Laud, induced its removal from off so precarious a, basis, and the
placing it on a footing of authority, jure divino, analogous to that
of the Aaronic oi-ders. Again,

This point attained, and a similar process follows the discovered
insufficiency of the argument for Episcopacy, as founded in the
alleged analogy of its three orders of Bishops, Priests, and Dea-
cons, with those of the Levitical Priesthood. To clothe the triple

* See Chap. IX., Sec. I. of Part III. t See Introduction, pp. 15-18, 21.

193

Christian orders witH ajDpropriate fiiiictions, tliey must not only be
considered as analogous to, but as the antitype of, the Aaronic priest-
hood ; and hence, that it becomes the legitimate inheritor of the
dignity, privileges, and duties, which inhered in the type.

We repeat, therefore, that the prelatico-episcopal theory in-
volves the dogma of an unbroken apostolical succession, with
VICARIAL POWERS. It is a Judaico-christianized priesthood. Yea,
more. As the offspring of a time-serving expediency, it was the
Papacy in embryo ! In evidence, it is sufficient to take a view of
its practical workings in the time of Laud, and of those of our own
day. These demonstrate that, under whatever pretense it may be
put forward, it is to the Christian Church what the ancient king-
ship of human device was to the theocracy of the Hebrew com-
monwealth. As that aimed at the dethronement of the Christ of
God as the only legitimate KiXG of Israel ; so this seeks to usmy
those prerogatives which, as we shall presently show, belong alone
to Christ as ''the Shepherd and Bishop of our souls" and "the
Head over all things to the Church."

We have spoken of the practical workings of this theory, and
of its removal from off the quicksand basis of expediency, for that
alleged to be founded in divine right. Its nature, character, and
tendency, from this jDoint^ are developed in the quotations given
under the four classes of its advocates, Romish, Tractarian, and
High and Low Church, as above. Now, invert this order, and you
are furnished with an illustration of the process by which this un-
scriptural and antichristian system, conceived and brought forth
under the specious guise qf expediency, grows to the full maturity
of that "infinite superstition, the Papacy."

This system, as we have seen, claims to be a priesthood^ the anti-
type of the Aaronic, not only, but of that of Melchisedek. Take,
now, the argument advanced in support of the theory of Pro-
testant episcopacy. It assumes,

First, that Christ was an High Priest. Admitted. And, on the
basis of this assumption, it alleges.

Second, that Christ, prior to his ascension, transferj-ed this priest-
hood from himself to his apostles, " As my Father hath sent me,
even so send I you."

Let us now turn to Bishop Griswold, the leader of the party and
the advocate and interpreter of the theory of Low Churohism for
about half a centur3^ He tells us that " the law of Moses," " in
all tilings typified the gospel state f and that, inasmuch as
" it had the three orders of the ministry — the high priest, the
priests, and the Levites — with different and distinct powei-s and
duties ;" so Christ, " acting as the high-priest, . . . immedi-
ately before he left the earth, advanced his apostles to that rank,"
or "he actually did give them" that "ministry" which "the Fa-

194

tlier had given him ;" that is, " he appoints them to the office which
he was leaving^ *

It must here be borne in mind, that we are now treating of the
priestly or sacerdotal character of Protestant Episcopacy in the
abstract. Of its other powers, we shall have occasion to speak
hereafter. We now remark, that you look in vain through the
higher developments of the system, — Bomish, Tractarian, and
High Church — for a fuller and more explicit statement of that
feature of it of which we now speak. Indeed, of those who rank
among the High Church party, we know of no writer who gives a
fairer picture of the s_ystem, as it is. And, to it the Tractarian
party subscribe their hand and seal, the only difference between
themselves and their coadjutors, consisting in the variations iVi the
mode of its exhibition. To this circumstance alone, are to be traced
the heart-rending "contentions, and strife, and divisions,"' which
are now rending the body Episcopal, in both hemispheres. The so-
called Evangelicals of the Low Church school, unquestionably oc-
cupy in this controversy no- enviable position. Consistency f de-
mands of them as the condition of a longer tenure of their beloved
theory, either that they retain and advocate it on the simple ground
of expediency alone, or that they admit its priestly or vicarial cha-
racter. Their choice is, by an adroit use of equivoxial terms and
phrases, to evade both horns of this dilemma. In this, they see
their account. While Episcopacy, arrayed in their ambiguous
drapery, to a superficial observer, appears^ on the one hand to
claim his regard as founded in divine right : on the other, the marks
of its identity with its higher forms of development, are, to say the
least, greatly obscured May I here be permit-
ted a moment to pause, while I caution the reader? "Beware,"
then, "of men,'"* and of that class in particular, of whom I am
now speaking — those who " say they are apostles^ and are notJ^ E.e-
member, it is "by good words and fair speeches'':|: — equivocal
terms and phrases — ambiguous drapery, that such seek to " de-
ceive''^ the unwary.

On the other hand, the Tractarian affirms, tliat, take away from,
episcopacy its sacerdotal character, and the whole system at once

(1) 1 Cor. 1 : 11 ; 3 : 3. (-2) Matt. 10 : 17.

* Bishop Griswold on the Apostolical Succession, pp. •'), 6. Tracts on the Church,
No. I. Boston, 184.3. The writer is here reminded of a conversation which passed some
years ago between himself and Dr., now Bishop, Eastburn, the successor of Bishop Gris-
wold in the diocese of Massachusetts, on the subject of Episcopacy as analogous to, and
the antitype of, the Jewish Priesthood. On that occasion, said the Right Rev prelate,
under whose imprimatur the above Tract, as the first of a series in defense of the eccle-
siastical polity, doctrines, etc. of the Protestant Episcopal Church is issued, stiongly re
pudiated the resting its claims on any other ground than that of k.xprdiency alone : and
hence, denied all resemblance between the two, whether of analogy or of type. The
circumstance is here alluded to, simply to illustrate and confirm what we have said of
the impossibility of upholding said theory on the expediency principle alone, and, we
might perhaps add, especially when subjected to the external pressure of a miter I

t See Introduction, pp. 33, 34

X See article •' Beware of false doctrine," p. vi., of this Treatise.

195

falls to tlie ground. He contends that, modify and mould it as
you may, you cannot annihilate the virus which warms its heart,
and courses through its veins. And, with a zeal worthy of a
better cause, he exclaims — consistency my course, if my final des-
tiny be EOME.

And, if it be true, as the above-named patriarch of Low Church-
ism affirms, viz. : that Christ, as the antitypal fligh Priest of the
old law, did transfer His official rank to his apostles, then the Trac-
tarian is right. There is no alternative : Geneva or Rome !

SECTION IV.

Arguments aemonstrative of the fallacy of the alleged typical analogy of the Christian
ministry to the Aaronic priesthood — 1st: The two compared — 2d: Christ himself
the only antitype of the Levitical priesthood and sacrifices — 3d : No resemblance
between the orders of the two — The test applied — (1.) to the Anglican episcopacy
— (2.) to the Romish. — 4th : Further proof, derived from the absolute perfection of
the antitypal sacrifice of Christ — 5th : No evidence of the transfer by Christ to
others, of His priestly office and functions. — Conclusion. — The Romish and Trac-
tarian theories the most consistent. — Unfortunate dilemma of Low Churchmen.

Proceed we now, however, to a series of scriptural arguments,
demonstrative of the fallacy of an alleged episcopo-priestly Christian
ministry, as antitypal of the Aaronic orders. \Ve affirm, then,

1. — That the Aarom'cal priesthood luas in no sense typical of the
Christian ministry. The ministry of Christ himself, from his bap-
tism to his crucifixion, was not that of a sacrificing priest, but of
the '■'■great Prophet'' and " Teacher""' sent from God. And, surely,
there was nothing in this analogous to, or antitypal of, the Aaronic
priesthood. Then, too, what Christ communicated to his apostles
both of doctrinal and practical Christianity during that period, he
commanded them to "teach" to " all nations."' True, the things
taught by Christ included the great doctrine of piacular or expi-
atory sacrifice for sin, and the sacrifices, etc. under the law pointed
to himself as " the Lamb" to be " slain" for the sins of the world.
But to show that his ministry was strictly prophetical^ he abstained,
during its exercise, from all invasion of the priesthood of the tem-
ple, not only, but deferred, till a little prior to his crucifixion, the
disclosure of the fact to his disciples, that He was to die, as a sa-
crifice for the sins of the people. ^ And that, for the simple
reason,

2. — That^ in Himself o-s the antitype, centered all the typps and.
shadows of the Priesthood under the law. Their office, the aj^ostle
tells us, was to " serve unto the example and shadow of heavenly
things.''^ * Their design, then, may be gathered from the following.

(1) John 3 :2. (2) Matt. 2S : IP, 20. (3) Matt. JG : 1 .3. (4) Heb 3 : 3.

196

" Every "high priest," continues he, " is ordained to offer gifts and
sacrifices." ' And again, " Every high priest taken from among
men, is ordained for men in things pertaining to God, that he may
offer both gifts and sacrifices for sins. lie ought, as for the peo-
ple, so also for himself, to offer for sins." ' To offer sacrifice
for sins — to make intercession for the people, therefore, and not to
distinguish between mere grades of office, was the province of the
Type.

Now for the Aniitype. Of the incarnate Jesus, says the apos-
tle, " in all things it behooved him to be made like unto his breth-
ren, that lie might be a merciful and faithful high priest in things
pertaining to God, to maize reconciliation for the sins of the ^)eopZe." '
Now, under the law, this work was parceled out among the
different orders of the priesthood. While the lower orders of priests
offered the sacrifices in the outer court, it was the province of the
high priest alone to enter into the holy of holies with the sprink-
ling of blood, to intercede for the people before the mercy -seat.
But Christ, as the antitype, merged in his own person the work
of both. " Once, in the end of the world," says the apostle, " hath
he appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself" ■* This
he did when he suffered death upon the cross " without the gate."'
The other act was fulfilled in Him, " when he entered, not into
the holy place made with hands, but into heaven itself, there to
appear in the presence of God for us."' It hence follows, that in-
asmuch as the sacrifices of the priests in the outer court were un-
availing, if separated from the intercession of the high priest in
the inner sanctuary ; so, of the antitype. Christ's sacrifice on the
cross, separated from his entering into lueaven itself with blood, as
our priestly intercessor, had left the sinner without hope.

The type, therefore, we insist, first, adumbrated Christ's sacrifice
of himself on the cross without the gate ; and second, his priestly
office in our behalf in the heavens. What language can be more
emphatic on this subject than the following : " If he (Christ)
were on earth^'' says the apostle, "he would not be a priest, see-
ing that there are priests that offer gifts according to the law." '
And he makes it the ground of our assurance, that " we have a
great high piiest that is passed into the heavens, Jesus, the Son
of God:"* and that, "because he continueth" there "ever, hath
an unchangeable priesthood ;" not, be it observed, after that of
Aaron, but "after the order of Melchisedec :^^* a High Priest,
" who is holy, harmless, undefiled, separate from sinners, and made
higher than the heavens." '" Query. If, according to the above
reasoning of the apostle, the cii'cumstance of Christ's own presence
on earth, would nullify his priestly office, how coidd he, as is af-
firmed by prelatists, transfer that office to mere mortals, with
authority to perpetuate it to the end of time ? Would he, could

(5) Heb. 8 : 3. (2) Heb. 5 : 1-3. (3) Heb. 2 : 7. (4) Heb. 9 : 26. (5) Heb. 13 : 12. (6) Heb. 9 :
24. (7) Heb. 8 : 4. (8) Heb. 4 : 14. (9) Heb. 7 : 21. (10) Hob. 7 : 24-36.

197

he, authorize them to do what he could not do himself f How idle,
how preposterous, then, to pretend the perpetuation of an epis-
copo-priestly ministry on earth, antitypal to that under the law !

But, as further evidence of the fallacy of this pretense, we re-
mark,

3. — That there is a total absence of all analogy between cither tlie
orders or iJie functions of the Christian ministry^ and that of the
Aaronic priesthood. We shall apply this test,

I. To the Episcopacy of the Anglican Church.*
First, its Orders. These are divided into two degrees, the
higher^ that of bishop and archbishop ; and the lower^ that of
canon, prebend, dean, and archdeacon. But the rite of ordination
being confined to the three orders of bishop, priest, and deacon,
the analogy, so far as number is concerned, has the merit, at least,
of a correspondence to that of the Aaronic priesthood, thus : — ■

BEFORE THE CRUCIFIXION. AFTER THE CRUCIFIXION.

Jewish. Christian.

High Priest, . . Jesus Christ. High Priest, . . Apostles.

Priests, . . The Twelve. Priests, . . Priests.

Levites, . . Tlie Seventy. Levites, . . Deacons.

But beyond this, in the very point most essential to the support
of the dogma of apostolical succession attempted to be built upon
said theory of analogy, there is a total failure. The high priest,
under the law, was the only one of his order. He stood alone
during his natural life. Where then the analogy between that
order and " the twelve apostles of the Lamb," together with the
myriads upon myriads who, since their day, have said, and still
" say, that they are apostles" ? In regard to the other orders, it
were a waste of time and paper further to pursue this subject of
analogy; and especially, since Bishop Griswold has omitted to
supply, in his statement, an antitype answerable to the second
order of the alleged type ;f while Bishop McCoskrey throws out
of the account the seventy disciples, upon the ground that "their
commission had expired prior to the crucifixion of Christ.":]:
Query, How will prelatists 7-epair this chasm ?

Perhaps, however, the antitype will share a better fate, when
put to the test of a resemblance between.

Second, their functions. Bishop G-riswold, in treating of the
subject of the type, not only speaks of the three orders of that
priesthood, but of their " different and distinct powers (or func-
tions) and duties."! ^7 ^^^^ we are of course to understand, that
the things foreshadowed therein hold good in respect to the alleged

♦ The same, of course, will apply equally to the Episcopacy of the American
Church.

t Bishop Griswold's Sermon, p. 5.

J Sermon. Episcopal Bishops the Successors of the Apostles, etc. p. 12.

j Bishop Griswold on Apostolic Succession, pp. -5, 6.

198

antitype. Now, that Christ, as the great antitypal High Priest,
verified in his own person both the orders and the functiotis of the
type, there can be no dispute. But the theory of analogy as
above, alleges the transfer by Christ to the apostles prior to his as-
cension, of the very order and functions with which IIe had been
invested of the Father. Thus, Bishop Griswold, Christ " appoints
them (the apostles^ to the office which he was leaving."* Bishop
McCoskrey. " Tne Savior," says he, " exercised the office of
HIGH riiiEST," and "he transferred it to the apostles," who " were
raised up to it as he was about returning to heaven. They then
stood as his representatives^ and arranged the ministry after the
model which he himself had followed, viz., in accordance with the
ministry of the Church, as it existed prior to his coming ;"f that
is, as the antitype of the Aaronic priesthood, in its orders and
functions. An hypothesis this, we repeat, which, as its sequence,
makes the orders and functions of the Christian ministry strictly
priestly — a priesthood, after the order of Aaron, Episcopacy —
our Low Church brethren being judge, — episcopacy is nothing with-
out it. Take away its priestly character, and it topples to the
ground. It is its life, the mainspring of all its workings.

But, the two ministries, " In what do they resemble each other ?
"Did the high jjriest ordain the priests? No. Did he confirm the
people ? No. Had he the exclusive right of government ? No.
On the other hand : Do the bishops discharge any duty analogous
to the offering up of the yearly sacrifices on the great day of
expiation? No. Have they the peculiar privilege of entering
into the immediate presence of God ? No. Is the order of God
attached to their persons ? or have they any special right of de-
claring the divine will? No. He who has sagacity enough to
detect, in the appropriate functions of the high priest, anything
tliat deserves to be called a type of the functions of a Christian
bishop, can never be at a loss for types and antitypes, so long as
any two objects remain within the Bible or without it. Their
prerogatives and offices are so absolutely dissimilar, that to make
one tlie image of the other, is to pour overwhelming ridicule upon
the whole system of typical ordinances. The success will not be
much better, if we go down to the second or third grades of the
priesthood. If the reader has an hour which he cannot employ
more prolitabl}^, he may throw it away in hunting for likenesses
between the priests of the Law and the Gospel, between the Levite
and the episcopal deacon.":}: Thus argued that distinguished divine.
Dr. Mason. His reasoning has never yet been answered. Pass
we now to an application of the above test,

11. To the Episcopacy of the Romish Church. And,

* Bishop Griswold on Apostolic Succession, p. 6.

t Sermon. Episcopal Bishops the Successors, etc. p. 12.

X Christian Magazine. Vol. I. p. 320. Edited by Dr. Mason.

199

First, its Orders. These are seven in number, and are divided
into minor and greater. Of the minor are the four following, viz.,
porter, reader, exorcist, acolyte. The three greater are, the sub
deacon, the deacon, and the priest. But the Council of Trent,
which determined the number of the orders, in its catechism
dilates the highest order, that of the priest^ dividing it into the five
following degrees, viz., priests, bishops, archbishops, patriarchs,
and THE SOVEREIGN PONTIFF, whom Cj'ril, Archbishop of Alex-
andria, denominated in the Council of Ephesus, " The father and
patriarch of the whole world" !

But, agreeably to the declaration of the Council of Trent, that
" the order of the priesthood," though of " different degrees of digni-
ty and power," is, nevertheless, " essentially one :" in point of
consistency^ has the decided advantage in the matter of analogy in
this particular over that of the Protestant theory ; the Pope, as
the vicegerent of Christ upon earth and the only Head of the
Church, answering to the one only High Priest. Speaking of the
other theory, a recent writer has well and truly observed : — " The
high priesthood must have but one incumbent, and the bishop's
order must have more than one ; and if so, how could the former
be the type of the latter ? There is no getting rid of the difficul-
ty which this Adew presents. If a type and antitype must resem-
ble each other at all, then it is not possible, that the one high
priest of the Mosaic economy was intended to prefigure the hun-
dreds of bishops, who are in ofiice, at the same thne, in the prelat-
ical system."" It is no marvel, therefore, in tracing the practical
workings of this theory, to discover, under its Tractariun form,
the adoption, whole and entire, of the Komish claim. Hence their
(the Tractarians) quotation from Johnson on Unbloody Sacrifice,
who says that " Cyprian, and others, represent the whole college
of bishops throughout the world as one person, sitting in one
chair, attending upon one altar,^^-[ etc.

It needs no argument to prove that the Romish Church claims
for its ministry,

Second, pnestly fmict ions. Of this fact, there is no attempt on
the part of the papist at concealment or evasion. " He makes the
terms priest, altar, sacrifice, as fully significant when applied to
the New Testament ministry, as they were when used to denote
the Jewish. The Council of Trent have not accommodated the
meaning of the words — retaining the name and discarding the
substaiice^' — the Jesuitism, we affirm, of Pjrotestant Episcopacy ;
— " but boldly, affirmed, that there is no real difference between
the sacrifice of Christ on the cross, and in the mass — the difference
being only circumstantial, the one an offering made by himself, the
other by the ministry of the priest.":j:

■* SnodgTuss on the Apost. Succ, p. 148. t f'ee p. 190.

X Hist, of Councils, Lib. 6, p. 455, as quoted by Duffield oj Episccopacy, p. 60.

200

To the preceding, we add another argument, as further demon-
strative of the futiUty of this theory of analogy. It is founded

4. On the absolute perfection of the antitypal sacrifice of Christ.
Hear Paul on tliis subject. " Every high priest" of the Aaronic
order " standeth daily ministering and offering oftentimes the same
sacrifices, which can never take away sins : but this man," Jesus
Christ, "after he had offered one sacrifice for sins, forever sat
down on the right hand of God ; from henceforth expecting, till
his enemies be made his footstool ; for ly one offering he hath per-
fected forever them that are sanctified^'

Now, the argument here is, that, though our blessed Lord took
not the " honor" of his priestly ofiice " unto himself," but was
" called of God as was Aaron;"'' yet, inasmuch as "perfection"
was not " by the Levitical priesthood," (it being " evident that our
Lord sprang out of Juda., of which tribe Moses spake nothing con-
cerning priesthood),"^ there was a needs-be " that another jDriest
should rise" after another order than that of Aaron, whose priest-
hood, though perpetuated by succession, was nevertheless limited.
The functions of Christ as our "High Priest over the house of God"
" in the heavens,"^ must necessarily be perpetual. Another " simil-
itude" than that of the Aaronic priesthood, therefore, is employed
by the Holy Spirit to denote it, even that of "Melchisedec," who,
being " without father, without mother, without descent, having
neither beginning of days, nor end of life ; but, made like anto the
Son of God, ahideth a priest continually T'" Yes, Jesus Christ,
" who is made" a High Priest, " not after the law of a carnal com-
mandment, but after the power of an endless life,"" required such
a " similitude to denote it. Hence " He testifieth. Thou art a
priest /ivrey*?/", after the order of Melchisedec."' Christ, therefore,
" because he continueth ever., hath an unchangeahle priesthood."'
And, in this consists its perfection. Finally, on this subject, we
add,

5. That there is a total absence of all scriptural evidence^ that
Jesus Christy as is alleged^ ever did transfer his priestly office and

fmctions to his apostles., with power to transmit them to others as
their successors to the end of time. If what the Scriptures affirm
of the nature and end of the office and functions of Christ, as the
antitypal " High Priest of our profession" as shown above, be true,
— that though, as connected with His expiation of human guilt by
the sacrifice of Himself " without the gate," His work commenced
on earth, yet that the sphere of its exercise is confined to " the
heavens" as our Intercessor at the right hand of God; and also,
that the " one sacrifice" which He offered " for sin" was in itself
complete, " perfecting forever them that are sanctified," and there-
by constituting Him " the author and finisher of our faith ;"
then, it is not possible that He could have delegated that office and

(1) Hch. 10 : n-14. (2) Heb. 5 : 4, 5. (3) Heb. 7 : 14. (4) Heb. 10 : 01. (5) Heb. 7 : 15 ; and v. 3.
(6) Heb. 7 ; 16. (7) Heb. 7 : 17 ; 5 : 6, 10 ; 7 : 11, 21. (8) Heb. 7 : 24.

201

those functions to any mere mortals. We look in vain for any
such evidence in the terms of the commission given by Christ to
his apostles. And, if we look heyond that commission, where, we
deferentially ask, is to be found in the New Testament any, the
least, allusion, to the existence of " priesthood and of priest, of
altars and of sacrifices," or "any sacrificial language and ceremo-
nies pertaining to divine worship and the sacraments," as that ad-
vocated on the hypothesis either of the Romanist, the Tractarian,
or the High or Low Churchman ? The Church of Christ has, in-
deed, her altar, and sacrifice, and priesthood. But, this priesthood
slays no victim. It is " an holy priesthood, to offer up," on the
altar of faith, " spiritual sacrtfia-s^ acceptable to God by Jesus
Christ."' And, it is a priesthood common to the whole body of
the called and sanctified in Christ Jesus, who, " as lively stones,
are built up a spiritual house."* Our blessed Lord, having "once
in the end of the world appeared, to put away sin by the sacrifice
of himself," " there is no more offering for sin."' He retains, «Vi
Ms own person, the everlasting sacerdotal order of Melchisedec ;
and has given to his Church, not a new order of sacrificing priests,
but an order, which, as we have shown, from its very structure,
was every way calculated, as it was evidently designed, to guard
those holding it from an invasion of his immutable bights.

In conclusion, then, on the subject of this alleged correspondence
between the Christian ministry and the Aaronic priesthood as its
type, we are compelled to accord to the Romish theory, the merit
of the greater consistency. In that form, it is JUDAISM, meta-
morphosed into, and baptized b}^, a Christian name ! Her priestly
orders, arrayed in their gorgeous vestments, and offering upon the
summit of her altar the unbloody sacrifice of the mass, and the
salvation which she claims to dispense to the faithful in virtue
thereof, is but the higher form of development of that system of
episcopacy, originally introduced on the ground of expediency
alone. While, therefore, we sympathize with, we cannot but admit
that our Low Church brethren render themselves justly liable to,
that imputation of inconsistency .^ so liberally cast upon them by
their Tractarian and Romish allies. To illustrate this matter. The
evangelical advocates of prelacy in both hemispheres, aware that
the genius of the Judaic system consisted in its elevating the ex-
ternal ordinances and rites of the Church above and beyond their
original design, teaching, as in the case of the Judaizing corrup-
ters of the faith in the Galatian church, that, " except a man be
circumcised and keep the law of Moses, he cannot be saved :"*
stro'ngly inveigh, against the introduction into "the Church" within
the last twelve or fifteen years, by the Oxford Tractators, of an
order of things, calculated, as they are designed, to unpkotes-
TANTizE the Church; for example, unduly elevating the sacra-
ments— baptism and the holy eucharist — by investing them wdth

(1) 1 Peter 2 : 5. (2) 1 Peter 2 : 5. (3) Heb. 10 : 18. (4) Acts 15 : 1.

202

an opus ojperatmn as channels for the conferment of saving grace,
and the consequent inculcating the heretical dogmas of baptismal
regeneration, transubstantiation, priestly absolution, etc. etc. together
with the revival of numerous Komish ceremonials, customs, and the
like.

Now, in these protestations, accompanied, as they have been and
still are, witli the most commendable efforts to arrest their progress,
these brethren share in our deepest sympathies. But, the retoi't
courteous^ from both sides of the Atlantic, we are constrained to
say, has been as consistent as it is emphatic.

Episcopacy, say the Tractators, being founded in its analogy to
the Aaronic orders, and as such, engrafted, by Christ himself, into
the constitution of the Church as modeled by himself and his apos-
les, is, in all its essential features, a priesthood. And, they thence
argue, that the analogy, to hold good, involves the perpetuity of
priests, altars, sacrifices, etc.

But, that argument, as we have shown, is advanced as the hasis
of prelatical episcopacy alike by the Low Church or Evangelical
party, as by those of the High Church and Tractarian schools.

Hence their demand of their Low Church brethren, the follow-
ing tribute to consistency — either, first, an adherence, as good
Churchmen, to ALL the principles involved in an application of the
type to the things signified ; or, second, a surrender of the argument
of analogy in its defense.

This, however, would be to surrender the entire Episcopal
scheme, and would place them on the platform of that simply fra-
ternal and pastoral system of ecclesiastical polity, presbytery,
the antipode of its sacerdotal claims. Between these, as we have
said, there is no via media.* We must insist that episcopacy, on
the ground of expediency alone, is utterly indefensible. f We
must also insist, that, to retain episco23acy as founded in its anti-
typal correspondence to the Aaronic orders, and avoid the danger
of a collapse into the Judaico- Romanic system, is as consistent
as to hope for the preservation of sound health in the midst of
a pestilential atmosphere. Between it and "pure Protestantism,"
there is not one congenial element. The four antagonistic theo-
ries of it as exhibited above, viewed controversially in its unnatu-
ral alliance with pure Protestantism, is a gordian knot which never
can be untied ; it must be CUT. Those earthquake commotions
which, superinduced by this unnatural alliance, have so repeatedly,
since the time of Archbishop Laud, shaken the Anglican hierarchy
and her adopted daughter in America to their center, furnish the
evidence that nothing short of a total divorcennent of the two, can
ever restore quietude within her distracted pale.

Our sincere regard for their spiritual welfare, and their speedy
relief from this uncomfortable dilemma, induces the utterance of the
prayer in their behalf — May the Lokd " hasten it m his time 1"

* See Introduction, pp. 4-6, 35.

t See, on this subject, the section next following.

208

CHAPTER ni.

OF THE ALLEGED POWERS OF THE PRELATICAL PRIESTHOOD.
SECTION L

The apostolical powers, if continued, must be exercised whole and entire. — Division of
their functions by prelatists into extraordinary and ordinary. — Bishops Taylor
Griswold, and Mcllvaine on. — Design of. — Fallacy of. — Dr. Barrow and Cardinal
Beliarmine on. — Prelatical dilemnia. — Though they deny the continuance of the ex-
traordinaty functions apostolic, yet claim to exercise the highest of their miraculous
powers, namely, that of conferring " the gift of the Holy Ghost." — Proofs, quotas
tions from — 1st : The Romanists— 2d : Tractarians — 3d : High Church ; Bishop
Jeremy Taylor — 4th : Low Church ; Book of Common Prayer, (Ordinal of Or-
dination.)— Discretionary form of. — Remarks on. — Bishop Mcllvaine. — Policy of
the above scheme.

From the evidence furnished in the preceding section, of the
IDENTITY of the Prelatico- Episcopal theor\^, Romish, Tractarian,
and High and Low Church, at least, in all its essential features as
a Christianized sacerdotal priesthood ; we leave the reader to de-
cide upon the merits of our arguments, demonstrative of its
fallacy.

This, however, is but one feature of the system. We have thus
far only considered its alleged sacerdotal character in the ahstract.
We have now to lay before the reader, what the same classes of
advocates respectively claim in behalf of

THE POWERS OF THAT PRIESTHOOD.

We have assumed, as indispensable to the support of the prelati-
cal dogma of an unbroken apostolical succession, the proof of its
possession, lohole and' entire^ of whatever constituted the original
apostolical functions, pre-eminent among which, was their power
to confer on others the

GIFT OF THE HOLY GHOST.*

Now, we are aware, that, in order to evade the above sequence of
this theory, some of its advocates institute a distinction between
the original functions apostolic, alleging, that some were extraordi-

* See pp. 182-183.

nary, some ordinary; and, that the latter only^ constituted the
OFP'iCE apostolic which was transferred to their successors.* Thus
Bishop Jeremy Taylor : " In the extraordinary privileges of
the apostles they had no successors, therefore of necessity a suc-
cessor must be constituted in the ordinary office of apostolate.
Now what is this ordinary office ? — Preaching, baptizing, conse-
crating, ordaining, and governing. "f Bishop Griswold : "• Christ
did not promise that the working of miracles should continue to
the end of the world, but that he would always be with the office.
Working miracles was not their office. — It was to preach, to bap-
tize, to lay on hands, and to govern the church.":}: Bishop Mcll-
vaine : " The essential office of the apostles, sent to subdue and
establish, and rule, as ambassadors of Christ," the Bishop argues
at considerable length, must not "be confounded with those extra-
ordinary endowments, and all that striking array of miraculous
powers with which they were famished for their enterprise."
Speaking of these latter, he says, " Essential to its success in those
days, they undoubtedly were ; bat essential to its nature, they cer-
taiulj" were not. We must not confound authority to act, with the
means of acting successfully," etc. And, he tells us, that " the
authentic voucher of office is the commission," etc.§

A convenient door of escape, this, from the responsibility of
performing some acts apostolic — for example, that of speaking with
tongues, healing the sick, raising the dead, etc. By thus summa-
rily disposing of these, as mere temporary appendages of the origi-
nal office, they furnish a plausible pretext, to say the least, on which
to assume that the system of Prelatical Episcopacy stands on a
level with the apostolic office — in other words, that bishops are to
be regarded as apostles. Others, it is said, wrought miracles be-
sides the apostles. " Even laymen did that."|| It is hence con-
tended, that " as we cannot argue there are no presbyters, and
deacons, and private Christians now, because they have no longer
power to work miracles as they are recorded once to have done ;
so neither can it be argued there are no apostles noio^ because they
possess no longer the supernatural poAvers which distinguished the
original apostles."

But, we ask : Of those acts which prelatists admit to have con-
stituted the ordinary office of the apostles ; did they preach, speak,
write, baptize, ordain, govern, etc. as ordinary men? This must
be conceded, or, on the hypothesis of an alleged transfer of their
OFFICE as constituted of these functions, their so-called successors
must inherit from them the same inspiration — a miraculous en-
dowment— under which the}^ preached, etc. ; otherwise, there is no
ministry in the Church noio^ because men no longer preach, etc. by
inspiration,

* See p. 184. f Episc. Assert, p. 14, etc.

X Griswold on Apost. Sure. Tracts on the Church, No. I., p. 7.

\ The Argument for the Apost. Succ. By Bp. Mcllvaine. Albany, 1843. pp. 4, ^, etc.

II Griswold's Apost. Succ. Tract No. I., p. 7.

206

It had been -well for prelatists, who display so much ingenuity
in distinguishing between things which do not differ, had they dis-
covered another distinction : that, we mean, between the nature
and extent of the miraculous powers apostolic, and those of pres-
byters, deacons, and private Christians. With the former, super-
natural endowments were conferred as the signs of their apostle-
ship. They were therefoi'e conferred for the express j^urpose of
confirming the inspired teachings and other acts apostolic. They
were the proofs of their inspiration. They hence formed a part,
not only, but, as we have elsewhere said,* they constitute the very
basis of the apostolic commission. Without these poavers they
WERE NOT APOSTLES. What, " the commission,'' (Matt. 28 : 18, 19,
20,) independenth^, " the authentic voucher of office ?" The Lord
Jesus Christ has decided otherwise. " If a man bear witness of
himself, his mtness is not true.'" " The commission," therefore,
we affirm, proclaimed by the apostles by the word of mouth or ex-
hibited on a piece of parchment, unaccompanied by an " authentic
voucher," had forever remained a dead letter. The ajjostleslivp of
Peter and his compeers, as predicated of this commission as given,
Matt. 28 : 18, 19, 20, we have shown, so far as connected with the
instance of his and of their agency in the appointment of Mat-
thias, f was null and void^ for the simple reason that their official
functions were incomplete^ till the descent upon them of the Holy
Ghost on the day of Pentecost. Before the crucifixion, the official
functions apostolic embraced, in common, those of preaching^
teacliing^ baptizing^ and the worhing of miracles. " And he or-
dained twelve — that he might send them forth to preach, and to
have power to heal sickness and cast out devils."' Thus Mark; so
also Luke : " And he called the twelve disciples together, and
gave them power and authority over all devils, and to cure dis-
eases, and he sent them to j)reach the kingdom of God." Accord-
ingly "they went through the towns, preaching the gospel, and
healing everywhere.'" After the resurrection, Christ expressly
" commanded them that they should not depart fi-om Jerusalem,
but WAIT for the promise of the Father" in reference to their fidl
endoioment of official "power," by their being ^^ baptized with the,
Holt Ghost."* And, this official " power" conferred, and, pre-
eminent among the signs of their apostleship, Avas their " power"
to confer on others, not, mark, the official " power" itself, which,
as we have elsewhere shown, was absolutely incommunicable,:}; but,
THE GIFT OF THK HoLT Ghost. Truc, this gift, upou whomsocvcr
conferred, as in the instances of the Samaritan converts by Peter,'
and of the disciples of Ephesus by Paul,* included miraculous en-
dowments. But, being derived from, they were inferior to, the
" power" which bestowed them.

(1) John 5 . 31. (2) Mark 3 : 14, 15 : see also chap, f) : 7-13. (3) Luke 9 : 1-6. (4) Acts 1 : 4, 5.
6 (5) Acts 8 : 14-17. (6) Acts 19 : 1-7.

* See Part II., pp. 111-116. t See Part II., pp. 133-138. t See pp. 107-114.

206

If, then, the fact that those who preached, baptized, ordained, etc.,
in virtue of authority which they derived from the apostles, clothed
them with apostolical functions, it follows from the above reasoning,
(and in regard to which we challenge refutation,) that those, yea,
even private Christians not excepted, who derived the power to
work miracles from the same source, ar'e also apostles. Surely,
prelatists need not be at a loss after this, for materiel out of which
to coin New Testament apostles !

We must, in passing, beg to introduce to the reader's notice the
following on this subject, from the learned Dr. Barrow. In his
work on " the Pope's Supremacy," (of standard authority with
Episcopalians,) speaking of the nature, design, and end of the
apostolical office compared with that of a bishop, he says, " The
OFFICES of an apostle and a bishop are not well consistent, for
the apostleship is an extraordinary office^ charged with the in-
struction and government of the whole world, and calling for an
answerable care" — " but episcopacy is an ordinary charge, affixed
to one place," etc. And again : " The apostolical office, as such,
y{2L^ personal and temporary^ and therefore, according to its nature
and design, not successive and communicable to others in per-
petual descendance from them. It was, as such, in all respects
extraordinary, conferred in a special manner, designed for special
purposes, discharged by special aids, endowed with spjecial privi-
leges, and was needful for the propagation of Christianity and
founding of churches," etc. Then follows his enumeration of what
constituted the marks of an apostle. These may be found in this
Treatise, Part II., p. 109. He then adds : " Now, such an office,
consisting of so many extraordinary privileges and miraculous
powers, which were requisite for the founding of the Church and
the diffusion of Christianity, against the manifold difficulties and
disadvantages which it must needs encounter, was not designed to
continue hy derivation^ for it containeth in it divers things w^hich
apparently were not communicated, and which no man without

GROSS imposture AND HYrOCRISY COULD CHALLENGE TO HIMSELF,"

"Neither," he adds, "did the apostles pretend to communicate it :
they did, indeed, appoint standing pastors and teachers in each
church ; they did assume fellow-laborers, or assistants, in the work
of preaching and governance, but they did not constitute apostles
equal to themselves in authority, privileges, or gifts, for, who
knoweth not" (saith St. Austin) " that principate of apostleship is
to be preferred before any episcopacy." And he then quotes from
the Romish Bellarmine the following, on the same subject : " The
bishops have no true apostolical authority. Wherefore, St. Peter,
who had no other office mentioned in Scripture, or known to anti-
quity, beside that of an apostle, cotdd not have 2)TopeTly and ade-
quately any successor to his office : but it naturally did expire

WITH his person, AS DID THAT OF THE OTHER APOSTLES !"*

* Dr. Barrow, on the Pope's Supremacy, pp. 63, 64, 65, New York edition. '84.'i.

207

We leave the advocates and admirers of prelacy to reconcile
Bishops Taylor, Griswold, and Mcllvaine, with Dr. Barrow and
Bellarmine, on this subject, as best they may. We repeat, that the
apostles, aware of the nature, design, and limits of their official
functio7is^ whatever other offices they instituted as connected with
" the work of the ministry," yet never conferred on others that
" power" in which all their functions, like the rays of light to the
sun, concentered, the power to confer on others the GiFr of the
Holy Ghost.

Yet, strange to say, the divorcement^ as above, of the miracu-
lous powers from the other functions apostolic, as a mode of escape
(adopted by the above writers) from the consequences to which we
have alluded, as following the admission that they formed a part
of the original office, to the contrary notwithstanding, the prelati-
co-episcopal s^ystem advocated by them, invol.ves, in the exercise
of their so-called ordinary apostolical functions, what all must ad-
mit to have constituted the HIGHEST MIRACULOUS ACT
ever put forth by the original apostles themselves — that, we mean,
of conferring the gift of the Holy Ghost!

Yea, and that, as we shall now proceed to show, holds equall}'
true of the four phases of the system, Romish, Tractarian, and
High and Low Church.

1. The Romish. The fourth section of the fourth Canon of the
Decrees of the Council of Trent, is as follows : " Whoever shall
affirm that the Holy Spirit is not given by ordination, and therefore,
that bishops say in vain, 'Receive ye the Holy Ghost;' or
that thereby a character is not impressed ; let him be accursed."

2. The Oxford Tractarian, or Puseyite Scheme. " We have
confessed before God our belief, that through the bishop who or-
dained us, we received THE HoLY Ghost, the iMioer to bind and
to loose, to administer the sacraments, and to preach."*

• The Bishop of Exeter (Phillpotts), in commenting on the " Pre-
face" to the Form and Manner of " making, ordaining, and conse-
crating of bishops, priests, and deacons, according to the order of
the Church of England," holds the following language : " Of im-
position of hands, here declared to be necessary to valid ordination,
it is not easy to conceive Avhy the Church should thus declare it
to be necessary, unless because it holds, in common with all
acknowledged branches of the Catholic Church to the time of the
Reformation, that the same form of ordination, in other words,
the giving the Holy Ghost for the offices of the Christian ministry,
which was observed by the apostles themselves, was also, under
the direction of the Holy Ghost, transmitted by them for the per-
petual observance of the Church," etc.f

3. High Churchmen. Bishop Jeremy Taylor. " The summe

* Tracts for the Times. No. I. p. 2, etc.

t Episcopal Charge, etc., by the Bishop of Exeter. 1839. Bricknell's Judgruent
etc. p. 277.

208

of all is tills, that Clirist, to tlie apostles, gave a plenitude of
power, for tlie wliole commiasmi was given to them in as great and
comprehensive clauses as were imaginable, for by vertue of it,
they received a ijower of GIVING THE IIOLY GIIOST in conjirmatixm^
and of giving his grace in the collation of holy orders^'''' etc.
" And his power," he adds, " was not temporarv, but successive
and perpetuall, and was intended as an ordinary office in the
Church," etc.*

4. Low Churchmen. These, in their adoption and use of "the
Book of Common Prayer" of the Anglican and American Epis-
copal Church, adopt with it the stereotyped "form and manner of
ordering priests," etc., as therein set forth. K"ow, in that form, the
bishop, in the act of imposing hands on the head of the candidate
for priest's orders, says thus: "Receive the Holy Ghost ^or the
office and work of a priest in the Church of God^^'' etc.

True, in the compilation of the American Prayer Book from the
Anglican liturgy, the following modified "form" was appended
for the discretionary use of those who might prefer it : " TaJce
thou authority to execute the office of a priest in the Church of
God," etc., an addition,f we observe, effected through the influence
of Bishop White, Bishop Seabury finally consenting, though with
great reluctance.:}:

Now, this modified discretionary " form," when contrasted with
the other, at first sight one w^ould suppose was the offspring of a
Presbyterian adviser ! But, we ask, in the first place, how often is
it used as a substitute for the other? The Avriter, who has wit-
nessed the ordinations of many priests by different bishops, does
not recollect a single instance. And, that it is considered as a
mere dead letter, we think may be safely inferred from the fact,
that, in "the form of ordaining or consecrating a hishop^'' the
above discretionary " form" is not inserted! But, if necessary in
the ordination of a priest, why not in the consecration of a hishop ?
If, in the use of the first " form," when ordaining a priest, there
were grounds to apprehend the exercise of a function imicarranted
by the " power" claimed to have been derived from the apostles,
by what rule is the exercise of that power justified when conse-
crating a bishop ?

Bishop Mcllvaine, however, has settled the matter for us. In a
recent sermon, preached at the consecration of Dr. Upfold as
Bishop of Indiana,§ founded on Eph. 3:8, " Unto me who am
less than the least of all saints is this grace given, that I should
preach," etc., he remarks : " There is no objection to the supposition
that in these words he (Paul) referred partly to his office of apostle-
ship as a grace. In receiving it (that is, the ojice of apostleship),

* Bishop Taylor's Episcopacy Asserted, p. 46. Oxford edition. 1642. Small 4to.
t An addition to, we observe, not an alteration of, the Anglican form. The American
Prayer Book still retains that form.

t Bishop White's Memoirs of the Church, p. 203. Philadelphia edition. 1820.
§ Reported in the Protestant Churchman of March 9th and 16th, 1850.

209

he in a certain sense received the Holy Guost, since all authority
to minister in the Gospel is of the IIolj Ghost," And then, in a
note appended to said sermon, he sajs, " nothing more than this
is meant by the language of the office for the consecration of
bishops, ' Receive the PIoly Ghost for the office and work of a
bishop,' " etc. " Nothing more." What higJie?- meaning, pray, could
be attached to said language? The " ojice of apostleship" was now
about to be conferred on Dr. Upfold through the ^^ grace'" or "gift
of THE Holy Ghost," by the imposition of hands of three con-
secrators in unbroken succession from Paul, from whom the
"power" of "conferring" said " grace" was especially derived, and
of whom my very worthy and learned friend. Bishop Mcllvaine,
was one. The occasion required at his hand, a vindication of the
act. Suffice it to say, that that vindication is complete. In the
same note, the bishop tells us that the " substitute'^ allowed to be
used in the ordination of priests is of similar import with that of
the original form — "Eeceive the Holy Ghost," etc.

It is clear, then, that the system of prelacy, though it disclaims
miraculous powers apostolic in behalf of their alleged successors,
on the ground that they, being extraordinary, were hence tempo-
rary, and therefore formed no part of their office, yet nevertheless
claims to exercise the highest miraculous prerogative of the apos-
tolic college !

And, we submit, whether, to a thoughtful mind, the reason is not
obvious. It were absurd to assume the 7ia7ne without the thi?ig* —
the office without the functions. Why it is then, that, disclaiming
the lesser^ the advocates of prelacy at the same time arrogate the
exercise of the greater^ of the functions apostolic, can, so far as
we know, be accounted for on no other principle than that found
in the difference of their nature, modes of operation, and effects.
The former have to do with the physical world, and hence are tan-
gible to the senses. The latter, with the spiritual world, and hence
is addressed to man's faith. The assumption of the apostolic pre-
rogatives, %ohol& and entire^ therefore, must be authenticated by
their casting out devils., speaking with tongues, curing diseases,
raising the dead, etc., or, in the event of their failure to do so,
work out a tangible demonstration that they " are not apostles."
Creaturehood proneness to credulity and superstition, on the other
hand, has rendered man a more ready dupe to the assumptions of
a power purely s])iritual. It results, that, under a covert denial
of the continuance of miraculous powers in the Church, that as-
cendency has been obtained over the credulous by limiting their
claims to the possession of this latter power, which similar preten-
sions to the former had defeated.

* See Part II., pp. 146-148.

SIO

SECTION n.

The same subject continued. — On the extent of the alleged powers apostolical, as
claimed in behalf of their successors. — Preliminaries. — Substratum of the prelatico-
episcopal theory. — Principle involved, namely, Prelacy, as essential to the being of
the Church. — Argument for, not the name, but the acts, etc. — Bishops Griswold and
Mcllvaine. — Essential to the support of. — Fallacy of. — The name apostle, retained
by BLshop Mcllvaine. — Equivocal and contradictory use of. by prelatists. — Bishops
Mcllvaine and H. U. Onderdonk compared. — How used in the time of Ignatius.

But, we have thus far spoken of the priestly character of the
prelatico-episcopal system simply in the abstract. We come now
to treat of

THE EXTENT OF THOSE POWERS,

claimed in its behalf by its respective advocates, Eomish, Tracta-
rian, and High and Low Church.

Preliminary to an exhibit of these alleged powers, we must beg
to call to mind our declared belief, that episcopacy, as adopted on
the ground of expediency at an early period of the post-apostolic
age, containing within it the germ of the papacy, finallj^ attained
to the full maturity of that "infinite superstition" as it now exists ;
and also, that, under its various Protestant forms, it has the same
tendency Eomeward as that of the magnetic needle to the body
which attracts it.*

As a stand-point under which to exhibit the nature and cha-
racter of these alleged powers, we shall, for the benefit of the
reader, introduce in this place what may be termed the suhstratum
of the whole system. It is this : — ■

" Nulla ecctesia sine episcopo''' — " "Without a bishop, there is no
Church :" in other words, Episcopacy is essential, to the being of
THE Church.

This hypothesis calls for remark regarding the two following
particulars : — the mode or criterion of recognition, and the extent
of the powers or functions of the Episcopate.

I. First, then. The mode or criterion of recognition of the
Episcopate. What is it ? Prelatists, discarding the names or titles,
tell us that the successors of the apostles are to be known by
their acts. Instance the following : Bishop Griswold says,
" The name of apostle was not long continued." — '' This circum-
stance," he adds, "has led some to suppose, that the apostolic
office ceased with those who first bore the name. To decide this,
you have only to consider what was their ojice.^^-f And so. Bishop

* See p. 180. t Bishop Griswold, on Apostolical Office, p. 7.

211

Mcllvaine. " What was the peculiar nature of the supervision, or
episcopate exercised bj the apostles, that name^ of itself, does not
indicate."* Others, it is argued, were called apostles, who were
not such in the same sense with "the twelve," therefore, the name
can decide nothing !

But we ask. For what purpose are names given ? Certainly, to
distinguish between persons and things that differ. Why then
divorce the name from the thing designated by its use? Evi-
dently, the name and thing — office — must in every case be taken
together, a condition indispensable in discriminating, and under
which alone we can discriminate between the official acts of a supe-
rior and an inferior dignitary bearing the same name.

Viewed, however, in connection with the prelatical theory, the
above divorcement of the name from the office forms an essential
element in the argu^ient for the apostolical succession. It is predi-
cated, and is necessary to the support of, the distinction as alleged
by prelatists, between the extraordinary and ordinary functions
apostolic. Bishop Griswold being judge, "the name of apostle
was not long continued." — Hence, " after their death., their suc-
cessors in office, in honor of the first apostles, modestly, by general
consent, assumed the name of bishop."t The only criterion there-
fore left us, to decide whether or not they are successors to the
apostles, is to look, not at their names, but at their acts. The
apostles preached, baptized, ordained, governed the Church,, etc.
Bishops do the same. Therefore, bishops are successors to the
apostles. To bishops was transferred the apostolic office.

" Modestly, by general consent, assumed the name of hishofP
What an act of modesty ! — to claim the office or functions^ and
discard the name which designated them. The great Dr. Barrow
has decided in reference to this office apostolic, that, " no man.,
without gross imposture and hypocrisy," can " challenge it to him-
self" We may be excused therefore if we add, that the history
of the Church of Christ from the second century, forms one con-
tinuous line of evidence of the deep hypocrisy of this pretense. I
submit it to the sober decision of the reader. Let it be supposed,
that, " in honor of the first apostles," the name., rather than the
office, of the apostles, had been the thing selected by their so-called
successors. What had been the result? This may be inferred
from the c^tiovs, powerlessness of a mere name for evil, compared
with \kiQ, jpotency of powers assumed by those for whom they were
never intended. The unchecked ambition for " the pre-emhstence"
which the choice of the latte/r has produced, has brought down
upon Christendom the dark cloud of Paul's predicted apostasy
from the faith, and drenched the world in blood!

But, do prelatists discard the name., apostle ? Bishop Mcllvaine
scouts the idea of any " arrogance" or " presumption" in retaining

♦ Argument for the Apostolical Succession, p. 5.
t Bishop Griswold, on the Apostolical Office, p. 7.

212

it, any more than in setting up a claim to the oflfice. Being termed
" successors of the apostles," that is, in name, and having " suc-
ceeded to the apostolic office," " whether it be arrogant or not,"
says he, " depends entirely upon whether it be true.'''' lie assumes
that it is true. Yea, more. As though to refute the plea of
modest}^ as above alleged by Bishop Griswold in substituting the
name of bishop for that of apostle as a mark of " honor" to "the
twelve apostles of the Lamb;" this pious and humble prelate con-
tends that, the names of apostle and bishop, being used inter-
changeably to denote the same office, the successors of the apostles
are entitled as well to the one name as the other. In answer to
the question, " What was the peculiar and characteristic nature of
the apostolic office ?" He replies : " They themselves applied to
it a name which will aid the answer. Peter, in addressing his
brother apostles concerning the filling of the vacancy caused by
the death of Iscariot, expressly styles the office which the traitor
had vacated, Ms hlshopriG, or his e'piscopate^ as the original* reads.
The same is also called, in the same transaction, his ajjostleshijj.
Hence, in the writings of the Fathers, the names of apostle and
hishop are used as pertaining essentially to the same office.'''' (And
he quotes Cyprian and Hooker in his support).f Just precisely
what vje affirm. Wayne and office go together. The former, as
expressive of " the peculiar and characteristic nature of" the lattei:
We must, however, rely upon the Bishop's generosity, to reconcile
the above statement, with that already quoted from page 5, of his
argument. " What was the peculiar nature of the supervision, or
episcopate" — that is, office, '* exercised by the apostles, that name,
of itself, does not indicate."

One other instance, as a further evidence of the equivocal and
contradictory mode of dealing with this subject by prelatists. It
occurs in connection with the names, " Angel" and " Star," as de-
notive of official ministerial rank. In reference to these, one writ-
er " stakes the cause of prelacy upon the fact, that the angels
were called lishops.''^ While another "is at no loss to assign a
sufficient reason why they were not called bishops." Take the fol-
lowing in illustration.

* impD, PEKUDDATHo, Psalm 109:8; ETritTKiTriV, Episcopen, Acts 1:20; signifies
charge, employment, oversight, or office, as a ivhole, It is to be borne in mind, that this
is the only instance in which this name is applied by the apostles to themselves ; and
that, as a synonym of the name apostle, it is never, in the New Testament, applied to
others. Paul, as we have shown, (p. 159,) uses it interchangeably with the name TptajJvTtpos,
elder, in Acts 20 : 17, 28 ; Titus 1 : 5, 7, an office inferior to the bishopric of the apostles

t Argument for the Apost. Succ. pp. 4, 5.

213

Bishop Mcllvaine says, that to these Bishop H. U. Onderdonk says,

angels " was appropriated, during their " These ' angels' were addressed just at

lifetime, the title of bishops, as a dis- the time, when, as we learn from other

tinctive title of their special office." sources, the name of apostle was about

This, he says, " is not disputed ;" and being relinquished by those individuals

he quotes Ignatius as evidence. "Ig- so called in Scripture, and the name of

natius. Bishop of Antioch, who person- bishop was in transitu from the second

ally knew and conversed with St. order to the first ; the former title was

John, writing to the Church of Ephe- losing, or beginning to lose, its more

BUS not more than twelve years after general application ; and the latter

St. John had addressed the angel of had not yet acquired its final appropria-

that church, in the book of Revelation, tion."— "The dignitaries in question,"

expressly says that Onesimus was then i.e. the ' angels,' were addressed, when

its bishop, — ' who,' says he, ' according it was somewhat too late to call them

to the flesh is your bishop.' "* apostles, and too soon to call them

bishops."

Here, then, the terms 'angel' and 'star' being symbolic, f we
have seven alleged successors of the apostles, for a period, at least,
without a name.

Eespecting the above, we shall only remark, first, that Ignatius
was right in one thing. He says of these bishops, that they were
such '■'■ according to the flesh;" which, admitting that the docu
ment is authentic, furnishes proof that they were not such accord-
ing to the Spirit : that they were of man and ly man : 7iot bv
Jesus Christ and God the Father. Second, at the time of which
both these bishops speak, that of Ignatius, it "is confessed on all
hands," that the name, bishop, was the title, not of a prelate, but
of a parochial pastor : it was used interchangeably with that of
elder, or presbyter, to denote the same office. If, then,^ according
to Bishop Mcllvaine, these angels were then called " bishops," as
" the distinctive title of their special office," it follows, that they
" were not prelates, but parochial pastors." We leave it with
Bishop Mcllvaine to evade " this logic" as best he can.

* Argument for the Apost. Succ, pp. 10, 11.
t See p. 130.

214

SECTION III.

The subject continued. — Extent of the alleged prelatical functions. — Their incongruous
and discordant views of. — The subject applied — 1st : To the nature, character, and
powers of "the twelve" — Alleged Headship of Christ transferred to them — Bishops
Griswold and McCoskrey — Absurdity of — 2d : Its transfer by the Apostles to others
— Bishops Griswold and McCoskrey — Whole and entire. — Contradicted by the dis-
tinction made by them between the extraordinary and ordinary functions apostolic.
— Continuance of miraculous powers in the line of prelatical bishops, positively
affirmed by Maurice. — Made to depend, however, on their faithfulness. — By others,
denied. — Quotations from " Tracts for the Times," Bishop Mcllvaine. — Rev. Mr.
Melville. — Taken together, the system is complete.

But let us see whether less of incongruity attaches to the views
of these writers, in regard to what they allege,

II. — Of the extent of the powers or functions of the apostolate,
as alleged to have been derived, first, from Christ personally to the
apostles ; and second, from the apostles to their successors.

"We will here venture the afiirmation, that the above exhibit of
the discrepancies of prelatical writers regarding their use of the
name, apostle, etc., will sink into insignificance beside the univer-
sally discordant and incongruous views which they present on the
subject of their alleged transferred office.

1. First. Of the nature^ character, and extent of the powers or

functions apostolic, as relating to "the twelve."

Bishop Griswold. " Christ, immediately before he left the earth,
advanced his apostles to that rank which he was leaving." And
again : " He (Christ) appoints them (the apostles) to the office
which he was leaving."*

Bishop McCoskrey. " Everything that could be possessed by a
mere human being, was given to them (the apostles) by the Savior.
He was, as the apostle declares, the head of the body, consequently
this headship was transferred," etc.f

The ^'■rank^'' " oy^ce," and " /«eacfe/wy of Christ, transferred to
his apostles !

We here deferentially ask : Will prelatists venture to institute
a distinction in reference to the functions which merge in the
" rank," " office," and " headship" of Christ, similar to that urged
in reference to his apostles? We think not. It would hence
follow, by parity of reasoning, that the apostles were placed on a
platform of equality with Christ Himself. The streams are equal
with the fountain whence they emanate. As the office of Christ is
only to be known by His acts ; and as, in view of His inherent

* Bishop Griswold on the Apostolic Office, p. .5»

t Bishop McCoskrey's Sermon on Apostolic Bishops, p. 7.

215

possession ot the Spirit without measure, He "spake as never man
spake,'" healed the sick, cast out devils, raised the dead, etc., so,
of course, of X}ie Junctions^ inherent in the "rank," "office," and
" headship" delegated by Him to his apostles. Otherwise, Christ
is divided! But, so far from this, the bishop, though he explains
Christ's headship to " mean that which belonged to him in his
human nature, as Head and Governor of the Church,"* yet reiterates
some half dozen times, that Christ, " as he was about returning to
heaven," transferred his office as high priest, to his apostles, not
only, but with it, " the power which he received from the Father;'"
that, " in this transaction, they were raised up to THE VERY
SAME OFFICE which Christ himself held." " In short, that
they were empowered to "do everything which Christ would have
done, had he continued on the earth !"f

We here ask, by the way : Had Christ " continued on earth,"
would he have been a ^ne5^ .^ Let Paul answer: "For if Christ
were on earth, he should not be a priest."

But Christ is a priest, yea, even that "high priest after the order
of Melchisedek," who hath an unchangeable priesthood."

But if unchangeable, it must now be in exercise. And, as we
know that it is not continued by Christ personally on the earth, it
must be continued "m the Jieavens^ "This man, after he had
offered one sacrifice for sins," as a " high priest forever, after the
order of Melchisedek," "forever sat down at the right hand of
God."

It happens, after all, that Christ IS divided. "His "rank,"
" office," " headship" — his high priesthood, together with all " the
power which he received from the Father," transferred to his apos-
tles, who thereby became his "representatives," or "permanent
rulers and heads on earth. ":{;

The Holy Ghost has decided otherwise. The impossibility of
such a transfer, in whole or in part, is manifest from the very na-
ture of the great mediatorial work. For, while, "for the suffering
of death" in expiating human guilt, "it behooved Christ to be
made like unto the brethren ;" the efficacy of that atonement, etc.,
is available in our behalf only in virtue of the union of the
divine with the humcni nature. That the " all power in heaven and
in earth" given by the Father to Christ, therefore, is absolutely incom-
municable^ will appear from the fact that the transfer by Christ to
his apostles of his human nature only, while, in Himself, the union
of the divine with the human nature was indispensable to the effi-
cacy of His work as mediator, had been but to render inefficacious
and void his official and priestly functions, as put forth by man.
And yet,

(1) John 3 : 34. (2) Matt. 28 : 18.

* Sermon, etc., p. 10. f Sermon, etc., pp. 7, 8, 10, 12, 13, etc.

t Sermon, etc., pp. 8-12.

216

2. These powers or functions, as alleged to have been received
bj the apostles from Christ, are declared to be transferable. Thus,

Bishop Griswold. " Christ promised to be with them (his apos-
tles) even to the end of the world, evidently meaning them and
their successors in the same qi/ice.^^*

Bishop McCoskrey. " This point then is clearly settled: that
the apostles held the only ministry which was of Christ. Not
only the power to rule and govern the Church, but of course it
must also follow, to continue the same office. If not, there has
never been any authorized ministry in the Church, and all who
profess to be commissioned as ambassadors of Christ, are gross

IMPOSTORS."t

We would respectfully remind Bishop McCoskrey, that he is
sadly at issue with the learned Barrow on this point. :^

Well. These powers or functions : Were they to be transferred
in whole or in pay-t ? The apostles, undeniabl}', besides being in-
spired men, were endowed with miraculous powers. Allowing,
then (in the sense of a logical deduction of), the statements made
respecting them by the above writers, the sum of the matter is
this:

The apostles were advanced by Christ himself to the same rank,
office, or headship in the Church which he was leaving, with au-
thority to transfer " the same power''' to their successors.

Bnt, this rank, office, or headship apostolic, included the func-
tions both of inspiration and of miraculous powers.

Therefore, the successors of the apostles, receiving from them
"the same powers" which ih.ej received from Christ, are endowed
with mspyiration and miraculous functions !

And thus, as the reader casts his eye along the alleged unbroken
line of succession from Peter, or Paul, or both, in addition to those
of the Papal line, prominent among the continuous links, he finds
Apostle alias Bishop H. U. Onderdonk, of Pennsjdvania ; Ap>ostle
alias Bishop B. T. Onderdonk, of New York ; Ap>ostle alias Bishop
S. A. McCoskrey of Michigan ; AjMsile alias Bishop C. P. Mcllvaine,
of Ohio ; Apostle alias the would-be My Lord Bishop C W. Doane,
of New Jersey, etc., etc., some of whom, at least, it must be ad-
mitted, have been marvelously inspired, and have performed many
marvelous wonders ; but, with what evidence that they were of the
same nature and character with those of the onginal functions apos-
tolic, we leave others to decide.

At this point, however, we are admonished not to bear " false
witness against our neighbor." Protestant prelatists remind us'of
the distinction on which they insist, between the extraordinary
powers and the ordinary functions of " the twelve ;" and, that the
"rank," office or " headship" transferred by them to their successors

♦ Bishop Griswold on Apostolic Office., p. 6.

t Bishop McCoskrey's Sermon on Apostolic Bishops, p. 12. ^

t See p. 109.

217

relate exclusively to the ordinary powers apostolic. We refer
the reader to our quotations on this subject (page 204) from the
writings of Bishops Taylor, Griswold, and Mcllvaine. And, in
addition to what we have there offered, to show that the above is
a distinction between things which do not differ, — miraculous
powers, under the first two commissions, as proved from Mark 3 :
14, 15 ; 6 : 7-13 ; and Luke 9 : 1-6, forming the components of
the same official functions ; also, the error of this class of writers
in overlooking a real distinction, — that, we mean, between the
nature and extent of the original powers apostolic and those which
were derived from them ; and, finally, the fact that the name
apostle (Bishop Mcllvaine being judge) is given to define "the
peculiar and characteristic nature of the apostolic ofl&ce,"* and
that, hence, both must go together ; we now add, that, while they
retain in their liturgy the present stereotyped form for the ordina-
tion of priests and the consecration of bishops, — that of claiming
the exercise of the highest act of miraculous power apostolic, viz.,
the conferrmg the Holy Ghost by the imposition of hands : we can-
.not but view the argument as founded on this plea as utterly
incongruous, futile, and vain. To the reply of Bishop Mcllvaine
to the question : " Were these miraculous gifts so connected with the
apostolic oflftce as to constitute in any sense its distinguishing
characteristics ?" viz., that " they are not mentioned in the com-
mission" (referring to Matthew 28 : 18, 19, 20) : it is sufficient to
say, that every commission comprehends three parts : 1st, Qualifi-
cations for acting; 2d, Authority to act; and 3d, Directions how
to act. The first, however, is the measure of their official func-
tions. Their office is known by their names and by their
acts. Christ, in the exercise of his office, not ovly taught, preached,
etc., but wrought miracles. His apostles did the same It were
as consistent, therefore, to apply the above distinction to Christ as
to his apostles. Query. Will these writers condescend to recon-
cile this divorcement of miraculous powers from the function of
preaching, etc., with the following passage regarding the official
powers of our blessed Lord, as the elect " high priest of our pro-
fession" ? " The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he hath
anointed me \o preach the Gospel to the poor ; he hath sent me to
Ileal the broken-hearted ; to preach deliverance to the captives,

AXD RECOVERING OF SIGHT TO THE BLIND" ?'

Eelief fi-om the dilemma involved in this indefensible hj^pothesis,
however, is at hand. It affords, we affirm, the only possible es-
cape therefrom. That redoubtable champion of Prelac}^, Maurice,
" whose praise is in all the Churches" Episcopal, speaking of these
very powers apostolical as derived from " the twelve," says, " that,
according to the doctrine which has always prevailed in the
Church, the Episcopate does contain in it the administration of the

(1) Luke 4 : 18.
* See Sermon, Argument for the Apostolic Succession, p. 4.

218

sacraments, the delivery of absolution, the preaching of the gospel,
the ministering to the sick and poor, — all the functions, in short,
which were at any time committed by our Lord to his immediate
disciples ; and, tliat the BISHOPS HAVE, AND OUGHT TO
BELIEVE THEY HAVE, all needful powers to perform

THESE functions " !

The above, the learned author designs as a reproof to the de-
luded Irvingites, as the expectants of a restoration, to the Church,
of the original office apostolic with miraculous powers, as though,
says he, " there be any reason to expect that an order will be in-
troduced by SIGNS and wonders, which seems to be ALREADY
IN BEING"!!*

To this, however, it may be objected, that the learned Maurice
intimates that though "Christ is still present in the Church," the
continuance of the original functions is made contingent on the
faithfulness of their successors. Christ, he says, "would still
communicate actual powers to his ministers, if their faithlessness
did not interfere'''' !\ Have, then, the "actual powers" apostolic
been forfeited by the " faithlessness" of their successors ? Where,
then, pray, are we to look for the office ? An office without func-*
tions ! The above admission would work inevitable ruin to the
stand-23oint — the substratum of the Prelatical theory, — " Nxdla ec-
clesia sine episco'poi!'' We should then have " a church without a
bishop " !

But, no. Prelatists have no idea that the perpetuity of apos-
tolical successors and the consequent existence of " the Church,"
should be thus suspended upon the precarious basis of an " IF,"
predicated of the personal unfaithfulness, etc. of those who form
the connecting links. That the " actual powers" apostolic, —
though " transmitted through corrupt channels," — for example,
" traitors," like Iscariot, or the " deficient and untaught," even
though they teach " falsehood" and administer "sustenance little
better thau poison," — cannot be vitiated or destroyed, we refer
the reader to the following prelatical gems : —

" Nor, even though we admit that many of those who formed
the connecting links of this holy chain were themselves unworthy
of the high charge reposed in them, can this furnish us with any
solid ground for doubting or denying their power to exercise that
legitimate authority with which they Avere duly invested, of trayis-
mitting the sacred gift to worthier followers." — " The very question
of worth, indeed, with relation to such matters, is absurd. Who
is worthy ? Who is a fit and meet dispenser of the gifts of
the Holy Ghost?" — "And, be it remembered, that the apostolic
powers, if not transmitted through these, in some [manj- ?] in-
stances corrupt channels, had not been transmitted to our times at
ally — " The wn/worthiness of man, then, cannot prevent the good-

* Maurice's Kingdom of Christ, pp. 379-382. f Ibid. p. 381.

219

ness of God from flowing in those channels in which he has des-
tined it to flow." *

Bishop Mcllvaine, speaking of " the prejudice" " as to personal
character and fitness" "of the modern successors with the first in
the chain," " occupying, individually, just that relation to the pre-
sent Church which the apostles, by virtue of the essential features
of their office, sustained individually to the Church of their day,"
by way of exposing its unreasonableness, says : "Be it remem-
bered that Judas Iscariot was numbered with the apostles by the
Savior himself, and Judas was a traitor." f

The distinguished Mr. Melville, of London, expressly affirms :
" If, whensoever the minister himself is deficient and untaught, so
that his sermons, exhibit a wrong system of doctrine, you will not
allow that Christ's Church may be profited by the ordinance of
preaching ; you clearly argue that Christ has given up his office,
and that he can no longer be styled the ' minister of the tabernacle.'
When every thing seems against the true followers of Christ, so
that, on a carnal calculation, you would suppose the services of the
Church stripped of all efficacy, then, by acting faith on the Head
of the ministry, they are instructed and nourished, though in the
main, the given lesson he falsehood, and the proffered sustenance he
little better than poison " !

Thus, then, while Maurice steps forward to the relief of his
brethren from the sequence of their distinguishing between things
which do not differ ; they again return the compliment, by point-
ing out to hira how quite unnecessary it is that he should shrink
from his former declaration, that " according to the doctrine that
has always prevailed in the Church, the Episcopate "has been sig-
nalized "by signs and wonders already in heing."

This, we again repeat, is the only consistent and legitimate de-
duction flowing from the prelatical hypothesis of a ministry de-
rived from the apostles, and endowed with those " same powers"
in unbroken continuity to the present day, which they affirm to
have received from Christ. Bishop Seabury, therefore, was right
in ojpposing the introduction as a substitute for the original, of a
form for the ordination of priests and the consecration of bishops,
of an equivocal character. Equivocal ? 0, no, sa3'S Bishop
Mcllvaine. The substitute, " Take thou authority to execute the
office of a priest in the Church of God now committed to thee by
the imposition of our hands," etc., " expresses the interpretation of
the Church as to the words of the other : ' Receive the Holy
Ghost for the office," etc.:}: Then they are of equivalent import.
Else, where the consistency of allowing the use of either indif-
ferently, at the discretion of the ordaining bishop ?

* Tracts for the Times, No V., pp. 9, 10, 11, 12.

t Sermon, Argume nt for the Apostolical Succession, p. 8.

X See Sermon, Protestant Churchman of March 16, 1850.

220

SECTION IV.

Aggregate powers of the prelatico-episcopal priesthood, as advocated by, 1st, The Ro-
manists.— (1.) Of the priesthood generally. — (2.) Of the popedom in particular. —
(a.) Immaculate. — (b.) Infallible. — (c.) Their spiritual powers. — (d.) Their tem-
poral powers. — (e.) Their supremacy, absolute and universal. — (3.) The Romish,
" the mother and mistress of all chyrches." — Means employed for her extension
and support. — 2d. Protestant prelatists, Anglican and American. — (1.) Of the
ministry as a Christian priesthood.— (2.) Of their official powers. — Bishops Gris-
wold and McCoskrey. See p. 191. — (a.) Immaculate. — (6.) Infallible. — (c.)
Their spiritual powers. — Absolution. — Mediation. — Dr. Dodwell. — Bishops Gris-
wold and Mcllvaine. — Inference.

Come we now,

III. To exhibit a condensed view of the aggregate powers of the
prelatico-episcopal priesthood, as alleged to have been derived from
Christ through the apostles, as set forth,

1. In the EoMiSH theory of that system.

The extent of the " all ministerial power" of the Church of Rome,
may be collected from her almost numberless canons, bulls, decre-
tals, and rescripts, issued from time to time by her popes and coun-
cils, one and all of which, claiming to be of equal authority with
holy Scripture, are held to be infallible. The following extracts
will illustrate her claims :

(1.) In behalf of her ministry as a Christian priesthood. This
ministry she affirms to be, not only the antitype, but that it is actu-
ally identical with, the jDriesthood of the old world, as existing even
anterior to that instituted by Moses. The decretals authoritatively
announce, that " the institution of the papacy began in the Old Tes-
tament, and was consummated and finished in the New."* — " The
greatness of the Pope's priesthood began in Melchisedek, was so-
lemnized in Aaron, was continued in Aaron's sons, was made per-
fect in Christ, was represented in Peter, was exalted in the ponti-
fical universal jurisdiction, and was manifested in Sylvester and
his successors."! " The order of the New Testament priesthood
first began in Peter ^X

(2.) In behalf of the stupendous powers alleged to inhere in this
pontifical priesthood. In a general way, they are thus expressed :
"As the authority given to Peter belongs to his successors, who
therefore, in all the world, ought not to be subject to the pope's
decrees, which have such power in heaven, in hell, and upon
earth, with the quick (or the living), and also the dead."§ But,
we must descend to particulars. They are declared to be,

* Distinct. 12, C. Decretis. t Antoninus, Summa Majoris, Pars 3.

\ Distinct. 21, C. In novo.

§ Distinct. 21, C. Decretis.— ifo. Dist. 19, C. Ita Dominus. Nklvdas. Dist. 22, C.
In tantum.

221

(a.) Immaculate. "The popedom Latli neitlier spot, nor wrinkle,
nor any such thing,"*

(5.) infallible. " The pope, who is judge of all, can be judged
of none; neither emperor, nor priests, nor kings, nor people. Who
hath power to judge his jadger The pope has power over coun-
cils, but councils have no power over the pope, on account of his
PRE-EMiisrENCE."f " God hath reserved the pope from the judg-
ment of man to his own judgment/':}: " Tlie pope is free from all
laws, so that he cannot incur any sentence of irregularity, suspen-
sion, or excommunication, or penalty, for any crime." The pope
is to be presumed to be always good and hol}^ and though he be
not holy, and be destitute of merit, yet the merits of Peter, his pre-
decessor, are sufficient for him, who hath bequeathed a perpetual
inheritance of merits and dowry of innocence to his posterity, so
that, although the pope be guilty of homicide, adulter}-, and all
other sins, he may be excused, by the murders of Samson, the
thefts of the Hebrews, and the adultery of Jacob. § Hence, " the
Court of Eome never was found to slide or decline from the faith
of apostolical tradition, or to be entangled with any novel heresy '"|
"As the primacy of Rome hath not been preserved by any general
council, but was obtained by the voice of the Gospel and the mouth
of the Savior, "*j[ therefore he is declared to be " infallible without
defect^'"' "upon every point of revelation," and that he "pro-
nounces sentence clearly, distinctly, and with certainty infallible ;"
and that to the extent that it involves the '■'• plenary poioer^ First,
to determine upon the canonical authority of the sacred Scriptures,
and demand the belief or rejection of them in conformity with the
papal decision. Second, to authorize the knowledge of the sacred
volume for us. Third, to expound the sense of the Holy Oracles,
and with all that certitude, that every Christian without scruple
can believe it. Fourth, to decide peremptorily upon the additional
doctrines and duties which are indispensable to salvation, and to
supply, as emergencies require, from tradition and expediencv, the
deficiencies which they avow are obvious in the Scriptures of truth.
And Fifth, to decide all controversies without reference to Scripture,
conscience, or any other tribunal."**

(c.) Their spiritual powers. "The pope is, by divine right," in
matters spiritual, declared to be " the sovereign head, supreme
judge, and lawgiver in all things relating to religion, whether as to
faith, manners, or discipline." " The pope is all in all, and above
all, so that God and the pope, the vicar of God, are but one con-

* Pelagius. Distinct. 21.

t Innocent. Caus. 6, Qu. 3, C. Nemo. Gelasius. Caus. 9, Qu. 3. C. Cuiicta.

t Symmachus. Caus. 9, Qu. 3, C. Aliorum.

§ Distinct. 40, C. Si papa. — Thomas. Qu. 3, C. Per principalem. Hugo, Dist. 40,
C. Non nos ; Glossa. — Causa 12, Qu. 3, C. Absis.

II Pope Lucius. Dist. 24, Qu. 1, C. Enim vero.

i Pelagius. Dist. 21, C. Quamvis.

** Innocent. Elect. C. Venerabilem. Zachary. Caus. 15, Qu. 6. C. Alius. Gregory
VU. Clement. C. Pastoralis, etc. (See Fox's Acts and 3Ionuments.)

222

sistorj, for he is able to do almost that God can do, cla/ofi non
errante., Avithout error."* " God, not man, separateth that which
the pope dissolves ; therefore, what can you make of the pope but
that inc IS God ? — Wherefore the pope has power to change times,
to abrogate laws, and to dispense with all things, even the preceptii
of Christ,"f in regard to war, marriage, divorce, revenge, swearing,
usury, homicide, perjujy, and uncleanness" !:{: "Thus the pope-
hath all power in earth, purgatory, hell, and heaven, to bind, loose,
command, permit, elect, confirm, depose, dispense, do and undo.
Therefore, it is concluded, commanded, declared, and pronounced,
to stand ii^on necessity of salvation, for every human creature to
be subject to the pontiff of Rome."§

(d) Their temporal powers. " The power of the keys is given to
the pope immediately from Christ. By the jurisdiction of which
keys of binding and loosing, and dominion, the fullness of papal
power is so great, that even emperors and all others are subjects
to the pope, and ought to submit their acts to him." || " There are
three kinds of power on earth : Immediate ; which is that of
the pope from God : Derived ; to other prelates from the pope :
Ministering ; belonging to emperors and princes to minister for
the pope."^ Hence, in virtue of this alleged divine right, one
pope translated the empire froni the Greeks to the Romans ;
another put down Childeric and set up Pepin ; another appointed
the king of Sicily ; another stirred Rudolph against Henry IV. :
another made Henry rebel against his father the emperor ; another
forced Henry II. of England to go barefoot to the tomb of Becket ;
another caused John to kneel and offer his crown to Pandulph the
Legate ; another prostrated Hugo of Italy, and absolved his sub-
jects from their allegiance ; another excommunicated Henry V.,
and obtained all his rights ; another placed England under inter-
dict ; and another put his foot upon the neck of the Emperor
Frederick, and reproved him for holding the wrong stirrup of the
horse he was mounting.** In addition to the above, their powers
are declared to be,

(e.) Universal. " All the earth is the pope's diocese ; and he has

* Hostiensis, C. Quanto de translat. preb. — Baptist Summa Casuum.

t Decret. de translat. Episc. C. Quanto.

j Nicholas. Caiis. 15, Qu. 6, C. Auctorit. Martin. Dist. 14, C. Lector. Gre/^ory.
Dist. 32, Qu. 7, C. Quod proposuisti. Innocent IV. Sixt. Dec. De Sentent. Ex-Com.
C. Dilecto. Alexander HI. De decimis. C. Exparte. De Elect., et Elect. Protestate.
C. Significasti ; Glossa. Bap. de Sumcas. Innocent IF. De Elect. C. Veni-rabilem.
Extravag. de Jurejurando, C. Venientis. Martin V. Extravag. C. Regimini TJnivers.
Eccles. Urban II Cans. 23, Qu. 3, Excom.

f) Sixt. Decret. C. Felicis. Glossa. Boniface VIII. Extravag. De Majorit. Et Obed
C. Unam Sanctum.

II Dist. 19. C. Si Romanorum. Gab. Biel. Lib. 4.— Dist. 19.— Pet. de Palude —
Dist. 19. Innperator. *

^ Sum. Mag. Pars 3. Antonini. Innocent III. Sac. Unci. C. Qui Venisset.

** Innocent. Elect. C. Venerabilem. Zachary. Caus. 1.5, Qu. 6, C. Alius. Gre-
gory VII. Clement. C. Pastoralis. Platina. Nauclerus. — Polydore Virgil. Urban.
Caus. 15, Qu. 6, C. Juratos. Alexander III Spons. et mat. C. Non Est. Adrian.
Vit Rom. Pont. Bulla Adriani. — (See Fox's Acts and Men.)

223

the authority of the King of all kings over their subjects."* And
this upon the following ground : Melchisedek was king as well as
priest. The priesthood of Aaron was an ecclesiastico-polilical sys-
tem. Christ was King as well as Priest. Peter wielded the sword
as well as the spirit, and dealed out death and damnation to the
covetous Ananias and Sapphira. Therefore, " the pope is head of
the Church of Rome, as a king over his judges; for he is Peter's
vicar and successor ; vicar of Christ ; rector and director of the
universal Church ; chief magistrate of the whole world; head and
chief of the Catholic Church ; universal pope and diocesan; most
mighty priest — neither God nor man, hut between both, the admira-
tion of the universe, having both swords of temporal and spiritual
jurisdiction, " etc.f

And so, " THE PAPACY" is declared to be " the mother and.
mistress of all other Churches of Christ ; from whose rules no per-
sons should deviate ; but like as the Son of God came to do the
will of his Father, so must you do the will of your mother the
Church, the head whereof is Rome.":}: "Be it known to all men,
that Rome is the prince and head of all nations ; the mother of
faith ; the cardinal foundation whereupon all Churches do depend,
as the door upon the hinges ; the first of all seats, without spot or
blemish ; the lady, the mistress, and instructor of all Churches ;
and a glass and spectacle to all men, to be followed in every thing
which the Roman pontiff observes and ordains."§

The meaiis employed, to uphold and promote this " all ministerial
power" II of the Papacy. They are, 1st, The elevating Traditiois"
not only on a level with, but above, " Holy Scripture ;"*f 2d, De-
nying the Scriptures to the laity ; 3cl, Trampling on the con-
sciences and the rights of men ; -ith, Clerical celibacy ; 5th, Im-
posing the doctrine of sacramental grace, — baptismal regeneration
— transubstantiation, etc. ; 6th, Image worship ; 7th. The Con-
fessional ; 8th, Pilgrimages and Penances ; 9th, Monasticism ;
10th, The Inquisition ; 11th, Purgatory.

* Dist. Caus 11, Qu. 3. Si inimicus. Glossa.

t Bulla Doiiationis, Dist. 96. C. Constantine. Paschalis. Dist. 63. C. Ego. Cle-
ment V. C. Romani. Glossa. Bonif. VIII Sixt. Decret. C. Ulbi. Boniface. Pro-
hem. C. Sacrosancta. Anadetus. Dist. 22. C. Sacrosancta. Bonif. IV. Sixt. Decret.
De Penit et Remis. C. -5. Glossa. Alexaiid. IV. Sixt. Decret. C. 4. Glo.«sa. Hilarius,
Dist. 2-5. Qu. 1. Nulli.— Sixt. Decret. C. Ad Arbitris. Glossa. Boniface. Sixt. De-
cret. De Const. C. Licet. Innocent III. De trans. C. Quanto. Prohem. Clement
Glossa. " Papa Stupor mundi. Nee Deu.s, nee homo, quasi neuter es inter utrumque."
Boniface. Extravag. De Majorit. et Obed. C. Unam. Dist. 22 C. Omnes.— Sixt. De-
cret De Senten. et Rerum. C. ad Apostoli, and the Glossa.

t Lucius. Dist 24. Qu. 1. C. Recta.— Co/i'ar^us. Dist. 12. C. Non decit. — Innocent. Dist.
11. C. Quis.

§ Caus. 2. Qu. 7 C. Beati. Nicholas. Dist. 22. C. Omnes. Jnacleius. Dist. 22. C.
Sacrosancta. Pelagius. Di.st. 21. C. Quamvis. Nicholas. Dist. 21. C. Denique. Ste-
phen. Dist. 19. C. Enim Vero.

II See Part I. of this Treatise.

'^ Bishop McCoskrey's Sermon, Episcopal Bishops the Successors, etc., p. 13.

224

Thus mucTi, then, respecting " the false ministry of this infinite
superstition." And, though the arrogant and blasphemous as-
sumptions of the system as here exhibited by modern Jesuitical
artifice, are sought to be palmed upon the credulous and unsus-
pecting under a more modified and equivocal guise ; yet " it should
be remembered that not one jot or tittle of the whole farrago of
impiety and despotism has ever been denied or rescinded ; and
that the whole is uniformly taught by every Romnu priest to his
votaries, and constantly exacted in all places and ] >eriods, when it
can be done with certainty of success." Of this, the anomaly of
the so-called French Eepublic, in her recent unholy crusade against
the Italian Triumvirate, in their struggle for a divorcement of the
Papal sword from the miter, and the conduct of his Holiness Pius
IX. since his restoration, furnish ample proof.

We shall now proceed to compare with the above, the aggre-
gate powers of the Prelatico-Episcopal priesthood, as set forth,

2. In the Protestant theory, Anglican and American, of that
system. And,

(1.) Of its claims in behalf of the ministry as a Christian priest-
hood. The sources of information defining their powers, lie scat-
tered through the standard writings of their advocates, their re-
spective rituals, and the records of dioceses, prelates, parliaments,
kings, etc. Regarding their views of the Christian ministry as a
" priesthood," we must refer the reader to our quotations from the
writings of the Oxford Tractate rs and of the High and Low Church
parties, etc., as given on pages 189-192, inclusive.

(2.) Of the official powers alleged to inhere in this priesthood.
These are declared to be "the same" with the "rank," "office,"
and "headship" of Christ, — even all " the power which He re-
ceived from the Father," so that they are enabled to '■^ do every
thing which He would have done, had He continued on earths* But,
Christ was both immaculate and infallible. Therefore Episco-
pacy is,

{a.) Lnmaculate. We say. Episcopacy. Individual bishops
may be "traitors," " deficient and untaught," " corrupt," " unwor-
thy," etc. But inasmuch as we are informed " that Ignatius,
Cyprian, and others," have decided that " the whole college of
bishops throughout the whole world" is " ONE PERSON, "f etc.,
in other words, that Episcopacy is ubiquitous ; its inherent purity
cannot be vitiated, though " transmitted through — some," 3^ea,
even " many, corrupt channels.":}: Thus reasons Rome.§

(J.) Infallible. Bishop McCoskrey, when speaking on the

* See quotations on this subject, pp. 214, 215, etc.
t See quotation, pp. 189, 190.
X See quotations, pp. 218, 219.
S See quotation, pp. 220, 221.

225

subject of the transfer of the apostolic powers to their successors,
and of their knowledge of duty in regard to it, says that " mistake
on this subject was impossible ;" for, sa3^s he, " the Holy Ghost"
was given to them " to keep tliem from any act •wliicli would he
wrong^'''* etc. " Nor," says he, " has the power (given by the
Savior) been taken back. On the contrary, it is to continue to the
end of the world."f True, "the individuals who hold the office
thus given," says he, " may and do change ; but the office creat-
ed [Episcopacy] has not, nor can it clia'nge^''X etc. And, in con-
firmation of this point of apostolical infallibility, he refers us to
the appointment of Matthias by the apostles ; who, he says, " under
the guidance of the Spirit" {i.e.^ as bestowed on them " on the day
of Pentecost") "which was to lead them into all truth," " could not
err in a matter which would forever after give character to the
Church of Christ."§ Indeed, infallibility is an inseparable adjunct
of Episcopacy. Prelatists tell us, that the system, not being posi-
tively set forth in, or even strictly deducible from, the New Testa-
ment Scriptures aJone^ must depend upon evidence superadded to
Scripture. But, this superadded testimony, alias^ tradition, un-
less autJioritative^ is valueless, when offered as evidence of the un-
broken transmission of an office claimed to be founded in divine
ri(j 'i t. To be authoritative, it m ust he inspired. You have then but to
truce til is superadded testimony to its source — the apostles, and
their successors. Hence the infallible apostolic traditions,]] etc.
Referring tlie reader to what we have offered on the subject of
apostolical infallibility, as connected with the alleged apjDointment
of Matthias as the successor of Judas, *][ etc., we pass to an ex-
hibit

{c^ Of their spiritual powers.

First. Of episcopo-priestly absolution. On this sub-
ject, one of the most distinguished prelates of the American Epis-
copal Church holds the following language. " It is the explicit
sense of our Church, that the power of remission and retention of
sins is as permanent as the ministry, and is an essential preroga-
tive of the sacerdotal office." And, he adds, — "to 7'emit sins, is
to be understood in its literal acceptation : such was the under-
standing of our Church when the Liturgy was prepared."'^* No
doubt, Bishop Ives. You are right. In this matter, Ave hold that
you are more sinned against than sinning. Your only crime, in
our view, is, an honest and fearless exposition of your own stand-
ards. All attempts to evade the " soft impeachment" of the abso-
luteness of this " prerogative" are vain, so long as the form of ab-
solution in the morning and evening service of the Book of Com-

* Bishop McCoskrey's Sermon, Episcopal Bishops Successors of the Apostles, p. 14.

t lb., pp. 8, 9. t lb., p. 8.

§ lb., pp. 15, 16, 17.

II See Part I. Preliminary Essay on Tradition, pp. 16, et seq.

^ See Part II.. pp. 133-137. Part III., pp. 181, 182.

** Bp. Ives's Sermon before the Convention of the Diocese of North Carolina, 1843.

226

mon Prayer is headed by the rubric following, namely : " The
declaration of absolution, or remission of sitis; to be made by
the priest alone, standing, the people still kneeling." And hence,
/Second. Of episcofo-priestly mediatoiiship, " None but
the bishops" says Dr. Dodwell, "can unite us to the Father and
the Son." " Whoever is disunited from the visible communion of
the Church on earth, — must consequently be disunited from the
invisible communion of the holy angels and saints in heaven, and
what is yet more, from Christ and from God himself It is one of
the most dreadful aggravations of the condition of the damned,
that they are banished from the presence of the Lord," etc. " The
scmie is their condition, also, who are disunited from Christ, by
being disunited from her visible representative, the bishop."*
And hence, the importance with which this theory is invested by
all classes of its advocates. Speaking of the apostolical succes-
sion, " it is a question," says Bishop McCoskrey, " involving the
eternal mterests of millions, ^^f etc. Bishop Griswold tells us, " if
differing denominations of Christians are ever brought to strive
together for the faith of the Gospel, it will be by their uniting in the
government, (whatever t/iej/ may decide it to be) which God has
set in his Church,":}: i.e., bishops. And so, Bishop Mcllvaine :
*' But where shall we find these officers, of whom it may be said
without arrogance, — they are the successors of the apostles ?
Where are they ? The question we have no right to treat as un-
important."— It is "by no means of a merely incidental conse-
quence ; but on the contrary, of vital connection with the perma-
nent interests of religion,"§

- Episcopacy, — " vital" to the " interests of religion ;"— " involv-
ing the eternal interests of millions," JVo " striving together
for the faith of the Gospel" without it. And these, the avowed
sentiments of tv/o of the most distinguished prelates and powerful
advocates known in the ranks of the so-called Evangelical or
Low Church party. No. " None but the bishops can unite us to
the Father and the Son." Like the Pope of Eome, they are
" neither God nor man, hut hetween hotJi.''^ On this subject, we
would ' nothing extenuate, nor set down aught in malice.' " God
forbid." But we deferentially ask, what else, what less, than the
assumption of a mortal mediatorship between God and the souls of
men, is the fair inference from these statements ? It is the sup-
planting Jesus from his rightful place in the great plan of human
redemption, as the " one Mediator between God and man."'

(1) 1 Tim. 2 :5.
* Dodwell's Lectures on the Apostolic Succession, p. 105.

t Bishop McCoskrey's Sermon, Episcopal Bishops Successors of the Apostles, p. 7.
X Bishop Griswold on Apostolic Succession. Tracts for the Church, No. I., p. 17.
§ Argument for Apostolic Succession, etc.

227

SECTION V.

Episcopo-priestly arrogance, exclusiveness, etc., in regard, 1st. To the ministry. — Re-
marks on. — Protestant Prelatists. — Dodwell. — Bishops Griswold and McCoskrey. —
Book of Common Prayer and Rev. S. H. Tyng. D.D.— 2d. The Church, Anglican
and American, identical. — Rev. Mr. Palmer, Bishop Hobart, Fowler's Catechism,
and Bishops Brownell and Griswold. — Of the Episcopal theory of the Church. —
(1.) Spiritual. — (2.) Ecclesiastico-political. — Anglican. — Her union with the State. —
Henry VIlI. declared the supreme head of, in Spirituals and Temporals. — Absolute
and unlimited. — Continued under Edward VI. — Restored under Elizabeth. — Re-
mains in force to this day.

Third. Of episcopo-priestly Arrogajstce and exclusiveness.
And that in reference,

1st. To the Ministry. ^

We would simply here note, by the way, what Romanists offer
on this subject. " Such privileges were granted by Christ to the
court of Rome, that unless prelates and ministers of every country
take their origin and ordination from the Pope, they are not
counted of the true church,"* " Whoever shall affirm that all
Christians (that is, ministers not Romish) have power to preach the
word, and administer all the sacraments, let him be accursed."f

Turn now to the voice of Protestant prelacy. " None but the
bishops can unite us to the Father and the Son.";}: " Those who
profess to be ministers of the Gospel, without having received
Episcopal ordination, possess no more ministerial authority than
any private Christian."§ Bishop Griswold makes Christian union
depend upon the adoption by " differing denominations of Chris-
tians,"— that is, Presbyterians, Reformed Dutch, Congregationalists,
Methodists, etc., — of the Episcopal ministry or " government,"
which, he declares, is the only ministry " which God has set in his
Church."! Bishop McCoskrey, speaking of the apostolical succes-
sion, affirms that " if " it has not been continued in the Church
down to the present day, then " there never has been any author-
ized ministry in the Church, and all who profess to be commissioned
as amijassadors of Christ, are gross impostors." " Then all who
call themselves ministers of Christ are not only deprived of all
right to preach, but also the only comfort which could sustain and
cheer them in tiieir arduous and oftentimes thankless office — the
presence of the Savior," etc.^f In the Book of Common Prayer,
the preface to the form of " making bishops," etc., declares, "It is
evident unto all men diligently reading Holy Scripture and ancient

* Dreido de Dogmat. Var. Lib. 4.
t Council of Trent, Session 7, Canon 9.

I Dr. Dodwell on Episcopacy, p. 105.

\ Rev. Palmer Dyer, of Whitehall. Work on Episcopacy.

II Bishop Griswold's Sermon on the Apostolic Office, p. 17.

l Bishop McCoskrey's Sermon, Episcopal Bishops the Successors of the Apostles, pp
12, 13. ^

228

authors, that from the apostles's time, there have been these orders
of ministers in Christ's Church, — bishops, priests, and deacons," —
and "that no man might presume to execute any of them, except
he were approved and admitted thereto by lawful (that is, Eim-
copal) " authority." And the Kev. Dr. T3aig, speaking of the op-
position which the advocates of Episcopacy " suffer, from the mul-
tiplied Protestant denominations around" them, " Avho renounce,
and not unfrequently revile," their " episcopacy ; or from the
liomish Church, which denies their ministry," etc., says, " Let
God be praised, — there is but little variety of judgment, and no
readiness of concession^ among any of our ministers."*

And thus, all who are not Episcojpally ordained, are reminded of
the analogy which they hold to the schisraatical and rebellious
company of Korah, Dathan and Abiram in the camp of Israel,
and, hence, that they are doomed to share a corresponding fate !
But from this let us turn to an exhibit of their views,

2d. Of the Church.

In the first place : " Nulla ecclesia sine episcopo.'''' " Without
a bishop there is no church." In other words, " None but the
bishops," being of the essence of the Church, " can unite us to the
Father and the Son."

In the next place : " The Church," as thus subsisting in, and
dependent for its perpetuity on. Episcopacy.^ we pass to speak of
the identity of the Protestant Anglican and American branches of
it. Both bear the same title, the latter sustaining to the former
the relation of a daughter to the mother. We shall, therefore,
treat them as one — •' The Church." Of this, prelatists will not
complain. In consistency with the current nomenclature of their
writers on this subject, they appropriate to their communion the
epithets, "Holy Catholic Church" — " Holy Mother"— "The
Church"—" The Apostolical Church of Christ," etc. Take the fol-
lowing as a few of the numerous extracts which might be given,
in illustration,

(1.) Of her arrogant^ proscripiive, and denunciatory claims.
Palmer, in speaking of the rejection of episcopacy by the Presby-
terians of Scotland, says, " All the temporal elements and powers
of the whole world could not cure this fault, nor render them a
portion of the Church of Christ." " They are 7io part of the
Church of Christ." " They are human societies." " They and
their generations are as the heathen; and, though we may have
reason to believe that many of their descendants are not obstinate
in their errors, still, it seems to me that we are not warranted in
affirming absolutely t/iat they can he saved.^^-f Bishop Hobart :
" But where the Gospel is proclaimed, communion with the Church
(Episcopal), by the participation of its ordinances, is the indis-
pensable condition of salvation.":}; " As there is but one hoiy

* Plea for Union. A Sermon, by S. H. Tyng, D.D., Philadelpnia, 1844, p. 15.
t Palmer's Treatise on the Church, Vol. I., pp. ] 10, 309, 407.
X Hobarl's Companion to the Altar, p. 202.

229

Catholic or universal Church, — that is, " the Protestant Episcopal
Church," — " we, who are called, have no hope of salvation, l)ut as
being faithful members of tY."* Bishop Brovvnell, of Connecticut,
speaks of " the Protestant Episcopal Church as an oasis in the
desert," which is but the echo of Dr. Hook, of Leeds, England,
who, in speaking of the Church in the United States, uses the fol-
lowing language : " There you may see the Church, like an oasis
in the desert, blessed by the dews of heaven, and shedding heavenly
blessings around, in a land, where, because no religion is estab-
lished, f if it were not for her, nothing but the extremes of infi-
delity and fanaticism would prevail.":}: And, finally. Bishop Gris-
wold, in his exposition of the apostolical office, as already quoted,
says : " Indeed, if differing denominations of Christians are ever
brought to strive together for the faith of the Gospel, it will be
by their Jirst uniting in the government (Episcopacy) which God
has set in his Church." So,

(2.) Of the Episcopal powers of the Church.

(a.) Spiritucd. A recent writer, in speaking of our standard ver-
sion of the Bible as the gift to us of " the Church of England," says
of her, that " she must preach to you the word, and nothing else —
she must administer to j^ou, according to the record of her testi-
mony, which you hold in your hands. Within her prescribed
boundaries, her power is absolute over you, so long as you remain
in her communion — a communion which you cannot renounce,
except at the p)eril of your salvation !"§

One of the Oxford tractators affirms: "Our people, by separating
themselves from our communion, separate themselves not only
from a decent, orderl}^, useful society, but from the only Church in
this realm (England) which has a right to be quite sure that she
has the Lord's body to give to his people."!

Dr. Henry, the American editor of the "Tracts for the Times,"
says, " it is now almost universally believed, that God communi-
cates his grace only through faith, prayer, spiritual contemplation,
communion with God," etc. But, to show how exceedingly hereti-
cal all this is, he adds: "It is the Church and her sacraments,
which are the ordained, direct, visible means of conveying to the
soul that which is invisible and supernatural. "^

There is, however, yet another feature of this system of Protes-
tant prelacy, which we must not overlook. We allude to Episcopacy,

{I).) In its eGclesiastico-political aspect. Let not the reader be
startled at this. Our business is, to look Episcopacy in the face as

* Fowler's Catechism.

t Attached to the title of the Anglican Church is the phrase, "As by law estab-
lished ;■' which phrase is omitted in that of the American branch. How far the latter
differs from the former in its f]nrit and inteyit, will form a subject of future remark.

X Quoted in Episc. Exam, by Chor. Episcopi, p. 70, Utica,'l8'19.

§ Quoted by Dr. Snod^ras.s, on Apostolical Succession, p. 24.

II Tracts for the Times, No. IV., p. 5.

\ Tracts for the Times. Advertisement, Vol. II., edited by Professor Henry, cf the
New York University.

230

IT IS, not only, but to exhibit it as such, to others. We shall then,
dash right on, in medias res.

The evidence of the ecclesiastico-poHtical character of the Angli-
can Church, is, her union with the State. Whence arose it?
Henry VIIL was seated on the English throne, April 22, 1509.*
The reader need scarcely be informed, that England was at that
time subject to the see of Rome. The ecclesiastical prerogatives
of the crown, which, for a long period, consisted in "the inves-
titures of bishops and abbots," were finally wrested from its grasp,
and for more than three centuries were merely nominal.f Under
this crafty and aspiring monarch, however, the tables were soon
turned. A lover of learning, and, in the early part of his reign,
a zealous devotee of Rome, his reputed book against Luther pro-
cured for him, at the hand of Leo X., the title of " Defender of the
Faith.":}:

But, notwithstanding his acknowledgments, and fulsome adula-
tions, of the pontifical authority, spiritual and temporal, in that
work, he converts the papal bull of excommunication issued against
him by Pope Clement VII. for peristing in his divorce from
Queen Catharine, into a stepping-ladder for the assumption, him-
self, of similar powers.

Nor was he wanting in agents to second his designs. The first
blow struck at the papal authority in England, was the king's in-
dignant refusal to appear before the tribunal of Rome, upon the
citation of the pope.g This was followed, soon after, by his twice-
repeated abolition of the papal power in England.| The bishops
and clergy meanwhile co-operating with him, he finally, upon the
strength of arguments adduced by the former against the papal
supremacy in England, as alleged to be drawn from Scripture and
tradition, and the decrees of councils, on the one hand, and in
support of the spiritual and temporal supremacy of the king, as
alleged to be founded in Scripture, the practice of the primitive
Church, and as drawn from reason and the laws of England, on
the other : and, having procured from the latter a declaration
against the pope's supremacy, he was at length, first, by the con-
vocation of Canterbury, and subsequently by act of Parliament,
declared to be " The Piotector and Supreme Head of the Church
and the Clergy of England; "or, " That the King was the Supreme
Head in earth, of the Church of England," which was, accordingly,
annexed to his other titles.^ True, upon the presentation of the
first petition before the convocation, it was moved by some to add
these words to the title, to wit: "in so far as it is lawful by the
law of Christ." But Parker says, the king disliked that clause,
since it left his power as " supreme head" of the Church on
"earth" still disputable; therefore, it was cast out, and the petition

* Burnet's History of the Reformation, Vol. I, p. 1. f lb-, P- 18.

X lb., p. .31. (j lb., p. 125.

II lb., pp. 223-23.3, 340, T lb., pp. 182, 183, 256.

231

was carried as it was first brouglit in.* Hence, agreeably to the
letter and spirit of the powers, temporal and spiritual, vested in
the English monarch under the above title, one of the last statutes
enacted by him is the following : — that

^'"Archbishops^ hishqps, archdeacons^ and other ecclesiastical
persons^ have no manner of jurisdiction ecclesiastical^ hut by,
under ^ andfrom^ his royal majesty ; and, that his majesty is the

ONLY SUPREME HEAD OF THE ChDECH OF EnGLAND AND IRELAND ;

to whom^ by Holy Scripture^ all authority and power is wholly
GIVEN, to hear and determine all manner of heresies^ errors^ vices,
and sins ivhatever, and to all such persons as his majesty shaU
appoint thereunto?''^

It is here to be particularly noted, that the above ecclesiastico-
political system of the Anglican Church remained in fall force
under Edward YI., and that, though supplanted under the
bloody Mar}'- by the restoration of the papal supremacy, yet it was
again revived under Elizabeth, by act of Parliament. And so,
says Mr. Isaac Taylor, the author of "Spiritual Despotism" (himself
an Episcopalian), ^Ho the present day (1835), the English establish-
ment has not relieved itself of the humiliations that resulted from
the surrender it at first made, of its independence to the civil
magistrate.":}:

SECTION VI.

Hence the surrender, by the Anglican Church, of her independence to the Civil Magis-
trate.— Henry VIH. the fountain of the English Apostolical Succession. — See the
King's commission to Cranmer — Renewed under Edward VI. — The American
Episcopal Church at the period of the Revolution. — Bishop Seabury, of Connec-
ticut.— Derivation of American Episcopacy. — Obstacles. — How removed. — Ap-
proximations, in spirit and in form, of the Ecclesiastico-political character of the
American to the Anglican Hierarchy. — Her unprotestantizing tendencies. — ^The
British Critic. — The New York Diocesan Conventions of 1839 and 1843. — Rev.
S. H. Tyng, D.D. — Objections. — These are but individual opinions, etc.— Reply. —

Hobartian sentiment of Charity towards Anti-Episcopalians. — Fallacy of Six

inferences from the above. — Conclusion.

By the surrender of the independence of the Anglican Church
to her ruling monarch, as above represented, he became, as we
shall now show, the rouNTAiisr whence flowed the Apostolical
successions of the Anglican and American Episcopal Churches.
Hence the following, as the king's commission, authorizing the de-
signation of bishops, etc., to their office. " Since all jurisdictions,
both ecclesiastical and civH, flowed from the king as supreme head,

* Burnet's History of the Reformation, Vol. I., p. 183.
t Henry VIII.. statute .37, chapter 17.
t Spiritual Despr.tism, p. 270.

232

and he was the foundation of all power, it became those who exer-
cised it only {pj'cecaHo) at the king's courtesy, gratefully to acknowl-
edge, that they had it only of his bounty, and to declare that they
would deliver it up again, when it should please him to call for
it," etc.* Then, too, compare the following, as declarative of the
ahsoluUmess of the supremacy here set forth, with that claimed
by the Roman PontifF.f " Howbeit the power of the magistrate
be limited, and their office prescribed by God, and that they may
likewise fall into great offences ; yet it is no where permitted to
subjects to call their pinnces in question y or to make insurrection
against them^ God having reserved the punishment of princes
TO niMSELF.":}:

We will leave it for others, better versed in the science of hair-
splitting than we, to decide between the merits of an ecclesiastico-
political system, founded in an alliance of the regal with the sacer-
dotal powers by a so-called spiritual head of the Church, and a
system having for its basis, the assumption by a temj^oral prince,
of absolute ecclesiastical and spii'itual prerogatives.

So far, then, as regards the Anglican Church, suffice it to say,
that Cranaier's bishopric originated under this commission during
the reign of Henry VIII., and that after Henry's death he refused
to exercise his functions as such until it was renewed under
Edward VI.§

Of the American Church, we now remark, that, by the Eevo-
lution, the Episcopal churches of the colonies were severed from
the crown and Church of England, and were left without a head.
It is scarcely necessary to advert to the well-known expedient of
Dr. White, of Pennsjdvania, to supply this defect, which was, by
a consolidation of all the Episcoj)al churches throughout the
United States into one body, under a system of ecclesiastical
regimen, which, in all its features, was essentially Presbyterian.
That this plan met with opposition, is true.|| It is also true that
the necessity urged by Dr. White in justification of the above
measure, was finally superseded by the procurement of the Epis-
copate for the American Church, by the consecrations of the Rev.
Drs. White, ]\fadison, and Provost.

It is necessary here, however, to advert to the fact, that, pending
the state of things just adverted to, Connecticut had supplied her-
self with a bishop — the Rev. Samuel Seabury — whose consecration
was derived from the non-juring bishops of Scotland. But this
consecration was by many pronounced invalid^ which circumstance
resulted in the determination to seek for the succession through
the English channel.

* Burnet's History of the Reformation, Vol. I., p. 429.
t See p. 220.

X Burnet's History of the Reformation, Vol. III., p. 429.
\ lb., Vol. I., pp. 4-29. 430 ; and Vol. 11., p. 8.

II See letter of Rev. A. C. Jarvis to Mr! White, March 25, 1783. Essays on Epis-
copacy, etc. T. & J. Swords, New York. 180G.

233

In the very outset, however, the candidates for the American
Episcopate were called to encounter a barrier, which no power could
remove, save by a special act of king and parliament. "By the
law of the realm," as we have seen, the king was declared to be
" the protector and supreme head of the Church and clergy of
England and Ireland." "Archbishops, bishops," etc., had "no
manner of jurisdiction but by, under, and from, his royal majesty."
Prelacy, created by the state, was under the absolute control of the
state. No bishop could, if he would, move hand, or foot, or
tongue, hut by the sufferance of the croivn. Their consecration, there-
fore, was, to all intents and purposes, subject to, and dependent
on, the capricious will of England's ecclesiastico-political head.

We repeat, the capricious will. For, there M'ere difficulties in
the way. First and foremost, were the prej udices to be surmounted,
in order to the extension of the royal clemency toward the sub-
jects of a government which owed its origin to the abjuration of
British misrule. Another obstacle arose from the exactions of
" the oath of allegiance" to the crown of Great Britain, and of
"the supremacy of the king as head of the Church," and also of
"the oath of due obedience to the archbishop," all of which were
indispensable in the case of the applicants as foreigners.

A compromise^ however, was finally made, by the enactment of
special laws to meet the case of " divers persons, subjects or citi-
zens of countries out of his majesty's dominions," who, having
adopted the doctrines and liturgy of the Church of England, desire
to provide themselves with "a regular succession of ministers for
the service of their Church, according to the form of consecration of
the Church of England." That law provided — First, " That no
person" (that is, no foreigner) " shall be consecrated bishop in the
manner herein provided, until the archbishop of Canterbury or of
York, for the time being, shall have first applied for and obtained
his majesty's license^ by warrant under his royal signet and sign
manual, authorizing and empowering him to perform such conse-
cration," etc. Second, " That no person or persons consecrated to
the office of bishop in the manner aforesaid, nor any person or
persons desiring their consecration from and under any bishop so
consecrated, nor an}" person or persons admitted to the order of
deacon or priest by anj- bishop or bishops so consecrated, or by
the successor or successors of any bishop so consecrated, sludl he
thereby enabled to exercise his or their respective offices within his ma-
jesty's dominions,^^ etc.

" The summe of all," as Jeremy Taylor would say, " is this :" —
The three American candidates for the Episcopate before the Bri-
tish throne, accepted coixsecration on these terms^ and they received
their miters from the hands of English prelates, the existence of
whose office and functions ecclesiastical was derived solely from,
and the exercise and perpetuity of which depended solely on, the

• 234

SUPREMACY, temporal and spiritual, male or female, OF A
WOKLDLY MONARCH!

We would, therefore, respectfully propound to American pre-
latists : Where is the difference in the origin and nature of the
Anglican and American Episcopacy ? Both were derived from
the same source. And, if it be said, it was the act of consecration
by " lawfully authorized" agents, which made them bishops ; still,
the authority to act, and upon which the validity of the consecra-
tion depended, "flowed from the king as supreme head," and as
" the foundation of all power." On this subject, the learned and
honest historian Bishop Burnet has said : " After he had taken his
commission, Bonner might have well been called one of tlie king's
hishojjs."* But so was Cranmer ; and that, from a conscientious
belief in the divine right of the king in the premises; whereas Bon-
ner submitted as a mere matter of expediency, f And, the Protestant
Episcopal Church of England " as by law established," — not by
the law of Christ, but of the crown and parliament — still holds her
episcopate under that tenure ! The same follows, of course, in re-
gard to the American " Protestant Episcopal Church."

Such, then, being the ecclesiastico-political origin of the Ameri-
can Episcopacy, it is as well, perhaps, in this place, to devote a
page or so to another matter of no small interest in these discus-
sions. It relates to,

(3.) The tendency of the American branch, to approximate, in
this particular, both in spirit and in form, to her maternal ally.
The question then presents itself: Is it so ? If not, we ask. How
are we to account for certain phenomena in the progress of those
developments of the system, of which the most casual observer
cannot but be cognizant ? Who does not know that, in consistency
with the exclusive and intolerant claims and denunciatory spirit
inseparable from the " all ministerial power" assumed by pre-
latists, the stereotyped cognomen " the Church," is placed in
designed contrast with the alleged self-constituted, irresponsible,
and schismatical conventicles of non-Episcopal bodies ; while the
style and title of each and every bishop is, — not the bishop of the
Churches in this or that particular State, but the bishops of the
States themselves ! Thus we have — the Bishop) of Pennsylvania ;
the Bishop OF New York ; etc. ; and, though last, not least, the
would-be ' My Lord Bishop of Jersey' !

We are fully aware of the fact, that the least intimation of a
tendency, in the American prelatical system, toward the erection
of itself into a National Reliyion, will be denounced as libelous.
Still, we cannot forget that, in the j-ear 1693, which marks the
first step of advance of that system to ecclesiastical distinction in
the colonies, under the auspices of "Colonel Benjamin Fletcher,
who had been appointed Governor the year before, a man of great
ardor and boldness, and warmly attached to the Episcopal Church,"

* Bishop Burnet's History of the Reformation, Vol. I., p. 429. t lb. p. 430.

235

a foundation was laid for a Church establishment in her favor : and
that, although the House of Assembly was decidedly hostile to the
measure, yet that, owing to tne untiring perseverance of the Gov-
ernor in its behalf, an act was finally passed, which constituted the
Episcopal THE National Church ! It is notorious also, that the
Episcopal Church in Maryland and Virginia, where it was much
more extensive than in this State [New York], had legal establish
ments for its support. Indeed, that the tendency of that system as
above intimated, rests not on mere conjecture, a recent writer, look-
ing, doubtless, through the State-titled dignitaries of " the Church,"
back to the time of Governor Fletcher, in speaking of the Angli-
can Church and her American daughter, says — " The two greatest
and purest national Churches, are now evidently approximating to
each other, much in spirit, somewhat in form. — The American
Churchman," he continues, " is to lay aside many of his ultra re-
publican prejudices, when looking at the Church of England. — He
is to recognize further, in its alliance of church and state, a moral
and Christian bond, as well as a legal and arbitrary one, and take
care lest his well-founded objection to the one, lead him to under-
value the inestimable blessings that flow from the other,"* etc.

'• The Protestant Episcopal Church in these United States," with
her Anglican mother, " the two greatest and purest natio7ial
Churches^

Willing to leave the reader to his own reflections and inferences
in view of these facts, we pass to an exhibit of another class of
approximations, in " spirit" and in " form," of the American
Church to her Anglican progenitor.

One significant " sign" of the above "approximating" process,
may be gathered from her zealous endeavors to divest her of her
Protestant character. The " momentous object" of the Tractarian
movement in England was declared to be, that of " UNPKOTEST-
ANTIZING" the Anglican Church. And, having commenced
the work, the " British Critic" holds the following language: " We
cannot stand where we are ; we must go backwards \i.e.^ to Gene-
-ya] or forwards \i.e.^ to Borne'] ; and it Avill surely be the latter.
It is ahsolutely necessary towards the consistency of the sy stein —
[i.e.^ of Prelacy] that truths should be clearly stated, which as yet
have been but intimated, and others developed which are now but
in germ. And as we go on, we must recede more and more from
the principles, if any such there be, of the English Eeforma-
tion."t

The very princi^Dle, this, for which we contend. We challenge
the advocates of prelacy to evade it. The a?i^i-evangelic fruits of
the Laudean system, — itself, as we insist, but the natural pro-
duct of the prelatical scheme at first founded in expediency,:}: — had
completely paralyzed the spiritual energies of the British nation.

*f The Church of England and in America compared. New York, 1841.

t British Critic, No. LIX., p. 45, 1843. % See Chap. VI., Sec. I., of this Treatise.

236

With the " form," they liad lost th-e " power" of " godliness."'
Under tliese circumstances originated, under God, the ministries of
a Wesley and a Whiteficld. The result of their ministrations was,
the diffusion, as well within as without, the pale of " the Church
as by law established," of an influence which, for a while, checked
the lioineward tendency of Episcopacy, and gave to it a Genevan
direction. Thus was it, at the time of the commencement of the
Oxford Tractarian movement. Episcopacy, under the influence of
the \Vesley and Whitefield Eeformation, had sunk to so low a
standard in the Church, that, in the estimation of these Oxonians,
its days were numbered, unless, by a vigorous effort, it be restored
to its natural and legitimate powers and immunities, This was
" absolutely necessary towards the consistency of the system."
Hence, with this movement, corresponds

The^j>^a?i for its accomplishment. Having stated, as a "fact,"
that " the progress of Catholic opinions in England for the last
seven years [ending in 1S41] was so inconceivable, that no hope
should appear extravagant;" another writer says, "Let us, then,
remain quiet for some years, till, by God's blessing, the ears of
Englishmen are become accustomed to Jiear the name of Uo^siE jrro-
nounced with reverence. At the end of this term you will soon
see the fruits of our patience."*

This prognostication of the Prophetico-Anglican Baal, how
si oiialljr verified ! Of the original leaders of this " unprotestant-
izing movement," where now is Newman, the author of Tract No.
90? Where is Ward, the author of "The Ideal of a Church"?
And where Oakley, and Faber, and hundreds of others of the
clerg}^, besides a large number of the laity of both sexes ?

So too, in the A'nierican Episcopal Church. These same " un-
protestantiziug" principles, in all their length and breadth, have
been commended to and pressed upon, both the clergy and laity
by so many clothed with the highest authority in the Church,
seconded by the co-operation both of the j^ulpit and the press, that
the leaven is now fairly diffused throughout almost the entire body.f
Attempts have even been made, sanctioned by more than one
Episcopal Chair, as we have said, to erase from their ecclesiastical
escutcheon the very name of—" Protestant." Witness the acts of
the Diocesan Conventions of New York in 1839 and 1843, on this

(1) 2 Tim. 3 :5.

* Letter of John Dobree Dalgairus, Esq., M.A., aZtas, Rev. G. Spencer, of Oxford, to
the Editor of the Univers. Bricknell's Jiidg., etc.. p. 678.

t Hence the conslant lamentations of the so-called Evangelical Low Church party in
that body, as may be seen by reference to any number of the Protestant Cliurchinan. e\.c.^
for the last eight years ; a fact, 1 submit, confirmatory of the position assumed in
this Treatise, namely : that the ground occupied by them furnishes the only prop to the
entire fabric under its present title. And, these lamentations will be found exactly to
quadrate with the fear, on their part, that, just in proportion with the discovery, by the
Evangelicals of "other denominations,'- of the Romcward tendency of the theory of
prelacy as it is, will be their loss of the prospect of building up their Church on the
ruins of others.

237

subject, "Witness also on the same subject a communication ad-
mitted into the columns of The Churchman of 18-1:3, declaring that
" the title-page of the Book of Common Prayer contained 'jyrima
facie evidence of schism," etc., " and boldly recommending a re-
union wn'n Rome, on the common basis of the authorized Decrees
of Trent," And, if further evidence be wanting, we have only to
refer to the ordination, in St, Stephen's Church, New York City,
of the young semi-papist Carey by Bishop Onderdonk in 1843,*
and of the advocacy of that Episcopal act by the Rev, Stephen H.
Tyng, D,D. ; together with the bold advocacy, by The Churchman
and other church journals for the last eight or ten years, of the
theology of the Tractarians, and particularly of Newman's famous
" Tract No, 90," in support of the monstrous proposition, that a
clergyman of the Protestant Episcopal Church might hold all the
doctrines contained in the Romish Creed of Pope Pius IV., (the
anathemas excepted) and yet, in virtue of his having subscribed to
the XXXIX Articles, continue to serve at her altars.

Nor is the cry of " peace! peace!" proclaimed from the pulpit
and through most of the religious journals of "the Chukch" in
the midst of these commotions, as a means of securing this end,
the least portentous "sign" of the future. " Coming events cast
their shadow before." To ^'"remain quiet for some years^ till, by
God's blessing (! ?) the ears of " Protestant Episcopalians in Ameri-
ca " are become accustomed to hear the name of Rome pronounced
with reverence," is the policy alike of the " unprotestantizers" of
the Church in both hemispheres. Indeed, the most zealous pro-
moters of the scheme,, are the first to decry any such intent. Take,
as evidence, a pamphlet " No Union with Rome ; an address to the
members of the Protestant Episcopal Church, — occasioned by the
unjust accusation of a tendency in our communion towards the
errors of the present Church of Rome, by the Rev, S, F, Jarvis,
D,D,, L,L.D,"f "Occasioned by the unjust accusation," etc. And
yet, the learned author of this very address, — and who, let it be
recollected, sustains to the Protestant Episcopal Church in these
United States, (and that by the appointment of the General Con-
vention) the high and responsible relation of "Historiographer"
of the Church ; — rejoices that " the truly Catholic doctrines held
by the Church of Rome" in this country "are prominently brought
forward;" and, that "those [doctrines] which, in reality, are heret-
ical, are softened and explained away ;" and, that he is "neither
sorry nor alarmed, when he hears them telling their laity, that we"

* For the edification of Low Churchmen, and the information of those of '-other de-
nominations," we respecfully refer them to •' A Letter sustaining the recent Ordination
of Mr. Arthur Carey ; By Stephen H. Tyng. D.D., Rector of the Church of the
Epiphany, and lately one of the editors of the Episcopal Recorder.'''' (D. Appleton &
Co., N. Y., 1843.) And also of an " Epistle" to him by " Washington Plens. Esq., in
which he shows, that the said Dr. Tyng carries his advocacy of the powers of the Epi.«co-
pate to such an extent, that even Dr. Seabury said he could not go the same length with
him.

t An Address, etc. H. Huntington. Hartford, Conn. 1843. (Lately deceased.)

/ ^

238

(i.e.^ of the Protestant Episcopal Church) "are advancing
TOWARDS THEM ;" and closes his address by expressing the " holy
hope, at no distant period, of being united in one holy commun-
ion," etc.*

In conclusion, then, on this subject. The scheme, it would ap-
pear, of leveling up the principles of the Protestant Episcopal
Church in her ministry, doctrines, ceremonials and polity, till they
can coalesce with the leveling doum policy of the Komish system,
is the process by which this " union" is to be accomplished. Yes.
AVhat Home deems " heretical" in the doctrines, etc., of the Angli-
can and American Protestant Episcopal Church, is to be raised,
" by little and little," to the standard of the creed of Pope Pius
IV., and those which, in the Pomish Church, " in reality are
heretical," are, "by little and little," to be ^^ softened and explained
away^^ " till, by God's blessing, the ears of [Episcopalians] are be-
come accustomed to hear the name of Rome pronounced with reve-
rence" ! Who, then, can doubt that, "at no distant period," as
Dr. Jarvis expresses it, the long-divorced Anglican branch of the
papal apostasy, with her American offspring, will be again "united
in one holy communion." And,

Finally, for this consummation, if the practical workings of a
gray-grown and almost universally prevalent theory, developed
under every variety of circumstances as to time, place, characters
concerned, etc., may be taken in evidence, that of the dogma of
an unhroken apostoliccd succession is of itself sufficient. In-
deed, all other approximating influences hold to this dogma the
relation of effect to its cause. As its natural offspring, they be-
come the faithful agents of its support and extension. Nor are
they the less tenacious in their regards for, nor less effective in
their support of, the honor, and the arrogant, exclusive and pro-
scriptive claims, of their common parent, when " softened and ex-
plained away" under the false drapery of LOW CHURCHISM" !

We are aware, however, that to the above it is objected — these
are hut the incaidiously-expressed opinions of individuals.^ and are
not therefore to be taken as exponent of the general sentiment of
"the Church" on the subject in question; and, we are reminded
of the liberal and Catholic Christianity of Episcopacy, as set forth
in the Hobartian sentiment following : " Separation from the pre-
scribed government and regular priesthood of the Church, when it
proceeds from involuntary and unavoidable ignorance or error, we
have reason to trust, will not intercept from the humble, the peni-
tent and obedient, the blessings of God's favor."f

But, the deep obligation which this exhibit of charity and Chris-
tian magnanimity imposes on yjo/i-Episcopalians, to the contrary
notwithstanding), the fact, we apprehend, of the miscellaneous
character of our quotations as above, being selected alike from the

* An Address, etc H. Huntington. Hartford, Conn. pp. 43, 44.
t Hobart's Companion for the Altar, p. 202.

239

writings of Tractarians and of High and Low Cliurclimen, both
Anglican and American, cannot other than awaken a suspicion,
that, after all, it is designed as a Jesuitical clap-trap — '* bj good
words and fair speeches," to "deceive the hearts of the simple.'"
Otherwise, how is it, we ask, that the same Bishop Hobart, in his
" Companion for the Festivals and Fasts" of the Church, in a quo-
tation from Daubeny, says — " Whoever IS in communion with the
bishop, the supreme governor of the Church on earth, IS in com-
munion with Christ, the head of it ; and whoever IS NOT in com-
munion with the bishop, is thereby CUT OFF from communion
with Christ ;" and this is declared to be a " general conclusion,"
" established" by " the uniform testimony of ALL the apostolical
and primitive writers."* Dr. Mason, in quoting this passage in
his " Essays on Episcopacy," etc., asks, " How many bow-shots are
such writers otf from the territory of ' our sovereign Lord the
pope ?' "f Will Protestant prelatical traditionists, the advocates of
the "ancient authors" of prayer-book notoriety, please answer?

No. The above extracts, when analyzed, affirm of this Angli-
can and American Protestant Episcopal Church, that she is,

1. The only " visible Catholic Church of Christ on earth ;" " an
oasis in the desert," without which "nothing but the extremes of
infidelity and fanaticism would prevail."

2. That she only, as having " the ordained, direct, visible means
of conveying to the soul that which is invisible and spiritual," is
empowered to dispense sacramental grace ; in other words, to
" give the Lord's body to the people."

3. That, as the only " Universal Catholic Church of Christ on
earth," " her power over her members is absolute."

4. That, consequent of her ecclesiastico-political origin, the two
branches, Anglican and American, of which she is composed, con-
stitute " the two greatest and purest national churches" on earth.

5. That, on the principle of "approximations," the "national"
American is rapidly advancing towards the " national" Anglican,
and both towards a union, " at no distant period," " in one holy
communion," with " the Church of Rome." And hence, and
finally,

6. That all other Churches bearing the Protestant name, are
mere " human societies ;" that their members " are as the heathen ;"
that they are " disunited from the communion of the Church on
earth," from " the angels and saints in heaven," and " from God
and Christ himself," and that communion with her " is the indis-
pensable condition of salvation."

Now, we appeal. " To unchurch," as do the above prelatical
flourishes of the pen, "all the non-episcopal denominatious under
heaven, and cast their members, indiscriminately, into a condition

(1) Rom. 16 : 18.
* Hobart's Companion for the Festivals and Fasts of the Church, p. 59.
t See '• Essays" etc., p. 31, noCe. R. Carter, New York, 1844.

240

worse than that of the vcrj- heathen ;" to declare, that " all those
glorious churches which have flourished in Geneva, Holland, France,
Scotland, England, Ireland, etc., since the Heformation ; and all which
have spi'cad, and are spreading through this vast continent — that
those heroes of the truth, who, though they bowed not to the
miter, rescued millions from the Man of siu, lighted up the lamp
of genuine religion, and left it burning with a pure and steady
flame to the generation following — that all those faithful ministers,
and all those private Christians who, though not of the hierarchy,
adorned the doctrine of God their Savior, living in faith, dying in
faith ; scores, hundreds, thousands of them going away to their
Father's house under the strong consolations of the Holy Ghost,
with anticipated heaven in their hearts, audits hallelujahs on their
lips — that all, all," in consequence of their "involuntary and un-
avoidable ignorance and error," were and are " without the pale of
the visible Church," and as such, left to " the uncovenanted mercies
of God:" andyet^ the system which, both in theory and practice,
does this, is neither exclusive or denunciatory ! " Communion
with the Church" (Episcopal) "where the Gospel is proclaimed,
by a participation of its ordinances," declared to be "the indis-
pensable condition of salvation ;" and yet, the system which de-
clares it claiming exemption from the imputations of intolerance
and proscription ! Wh}^, " the very idea of such an escape, how-
ever to be effected, is repugnant to that of an indispensable condition.
No ; if the condition be indispensable, they who reject it must
perish." For, " if they who reject it may still be saved, it is not
indispensable ; otherwise, the definition may run thus : an indis-
pensable condition is that Avhich may be dispensed with."

" The alternative then," — maugre all the pretenses of charity
toward those without the pale of " the Church," though placed
there by "involuntary and unavoidable ignorance and error;" in
other words, without any fault of their own, — the only alternative
is, " Episcopacy or Perdition."*

* Mason's Essay on Episcopacy.

241

CHAPTEE IV.

OF THE PEELATICO-EPISCOPAL THEOET OF ORDINATION, AS THE ONLY
ALLEGED DIVINELY- APPOINTED MODE OF PERPETUATING THE APOS-
TOLICAL SUCCESSION.

SECTION I.

Recapitulation of the preceding two additional points of inquiry. — Ordination, or
" the laying on of hands" by Christ, liis apostles and their successors, alleged to be
the only channel of perpetuating a valid ministry and ordinances, through " the
gift of the Holy Ghost." — Quotations from Romanists, the Anglican and American
Ordinal, Bishop Taylor, Dr. Hook, and Bishops Beveridge, Hobart, Griswold, and
Mcllvaine. — Remarks on Ordination in Part II. of this Treatise. — Fallacy of the
above theory. — Three inferences. — Prelatical and Anti-Prelatical theories com-
pared.— Proof that the Prelatical theory is borrov^ed from Rome, etc

We have now presented to the reader a view of the Prelatico-
Episcopal theory in the aspect, I., of its nature and character as
a Christian Priesthood^ founded on the alleged antitype of the
Aaronic and Melchisedekiau orders, with an exhibit of the argu-
ments for and against it. And II., of the extent of its alleged
poioers^ as claimed to have been derived, first, from Christ to his
apostles ; and second, from his apostles to their successors. And,
third, that these powers were claimed to have been transferred
whole and entire^ which was proved, fourth, by quotations from
the four classes of its advocates, Romish, Tractarian, and High
and Low Church ; and that, pre-eminent among these powers was
that of conferring the gift of the Holy Ghost — the highest preroga-
tive apostolic.

Two additional points of inquiry in this connection yet await •
us. These relate,

I. To the channel through which this divine gift is alleged to
have been conveyed ; and,

II. To the alleged fact of its uninterrupted transmission from
the apostles's times down to this d&j.

1. First, then. The channel through which this divine offt
IS alleged to have been conveyed.

Prelatists, having assumed that the New Testament apostles
were to have successors to the end of the world, allege that the
power to transfer the gift of the Holy Ghost, was imparled to them
16

242

and to their succepsors by o7-dinalion, or the laying on of hands ;
and that consequently, it is not only unscriptural but highly pre-
sumptuous and perilous, for any not Episcopally consecrated or
ordained, to exercise any of the functions of minister in the
Church of Christ.

Take the following, as expressive of the general view of this
subject. Bomanists tell us, " Whoever shall affirm that the Holy
Spirit is not given by ordination^ and therefore, that the bishops
say in vain, Receive the Holy Ghost — let him be accursed." * In
the Anglican and American Protestant Episcopal Church, at the
consecration and ordination of every bishop or priest, is used the
form following : — " Receive the Holy Ghost, for the office and
work of a bishop in the Church of God, now committed to thee
by the imposition of pur hands,^^ etc. Perceval saj's : " The suc-
cessors of the apostles are those who are descended in a direct line
from them by Ute imjjosition of hands^ f Bishop Taylor : "To the
apostles he (Christ) gave a plenitude of power" — " they received
a power of giving the Holy Ghost, in the collation of Holy Or-
ders," and their " successors had the same right," etc.:}; Dr. Hook
says : " The prelates, who at this time rule the churches of these
realms, were validly ordained by others, who, by means of an un-
broken spiritual descent of ordination, derived their mission from
the apostles and from our Lord."§ " Through the bishops who
ordained us, we received the Holy Ghost." || Bishop Beveridge
says : " The apostolical line hath been preserved entire, by virtue
of that apostolical imposition of hands, which, being begun by the
apostles, hath been continued," etc.^^ Bishop Hobart says that
" the only source of power in the Christian Church flows from its
divine source through the channel of the first of the three orders,"
namely, bishops.** Bishop Griswold says : " Ever since the apos-
tles's days, none but those who have the general oversight of all
the churches in a city, or state, or province, with poiver to ordain,
are called bishops," and that " such only are commissioned to
transact with mankind the momentous concerns of their eternal
salvation. "ft According to Bishop McHvaine, this spiritual pro-
creating apostolic " seed is in itself, after its kind," and " at
every step of the succession it is precisely the same ministry and
just as much of God, sanctioned by his authority and sustained by
his power, as if it had been received from the laying on of the hands
of Christ himself'' And, finally, that this spiritual procreating
" seed," though conveyed through a polluted conduit, — " corrupt

* Council of Trent, Ch. IV., Sec. 4, of Can. 1, p. 85.

t Perceval's Coll. of Papers, p. 12.

t Bishop Taylor's Episc. Assert. Oxford Ed., 1642. Small 4to., p. 46.

§ Two Sermons on the Church and the Establishment, pp. 7, 8.

II Tracts for the Times, No. VII., p. 2.

TT Bishop Beveridi^e's Sermons on the Church, p. 26.

** High Churchman Vindicated, p. 1 1. 1826.

tt Bishop Griswold on Apostolical Succession. Tract No. I., pp. 7, 8.

243

channels"* — " the deficient and untaught" — even " though, in the
main, the given lesson be falsehood, and the proffered sustenance
little better than poison,"f yet it cannot be vitiated or destroyed :
for, says Bishop McHvaine, " let it be remembered that Judas
Iscariot was numbered with the apostles by the Savior himself,
and Judas was a traitor !"+

In treating of this subject of ordination in Part II., || we observed,
that while some sunk it helow^ and others raised it ahove^ the scrip-
tural standard, Paul having placed it among the rudiments of
Christianitv — " the doctrine of laying on of hands" '—by which it
was erected, into a standing religious rite ; its manipulating action
bemg svmbolic, it became fundamental to an understanding of its
nature and design, to determine in what that symbolic action con-
sisted : whether it was a mere unmeaning ceremony, or, whether
it was a sacramental channel for the communication of grace from
one to another.

Our exhibit of the uninterrupted perpetuity of this rite, together
with the solemnly interesting occasions on which, and the persons
by whom, it was administered under the three dispensations. Pa-
triarchal, Jewish, and Christian, furnished sufficient evidence that
that symbolic action was something more than a mere idle form ;
and, the proof there adduced, that, when performed even by
Christ himself, the benefits conferred did not spring from any
" inherent virtue in his human hand," but from " the poicer of the
Deity mysteriously united with his humanity : and also, that the
apostles most emphatically disclaimed that it was by their " own
power or holiness," but " through /azilA in the name of Jesus," that
they dispensed the blessings of the gospel to the bodies and souls
of men, demonstrated the absurdity of the other.

Claiming, then, to have pLaced this matter beyond the reach of
controversy, three inferences follow ; namely : —

1st. That faith in Christ, and not any inherent efficacy either in
the apostles personally or by their manual impositions, is the
divinely appointed channel of communicating grace to the soul.
And hence,

2d. That ordination by " the laying on of hands," does not and
cannot convey, either the spiritual qualifications or official func-
tions, essential to a Christian minister. To which we may add,

3d. That scriptural precedents in these premises show, that
" the laying on of hands" in ordination, though the ordinary^
yet cannot be regarded as the only, criterion of a valid ministry.

In what terms, then, we ask, can be portrayed a theory of eccle-
siastical polity, claiming powers based on principles totally the
reverse of those here exhibited, of a class of men who arrogate

(1) Heb. 6 : 1, a.
* Tract No. V., pp. .'), etc. \ Afelville's Sermons.

J Argument for Apostolical Succession, p. 8, etc || See pp. 142-151.

244

to themselves a, " power and holiness," and to their ordinations
by " the laying on of hands," an efficacy hi iinjMi'tiiig hoth grace
a/nd official functions to others ? As we would temper our indig
nation against such arrogance, by the plea of a " reason to trust"
that, in many instances, such pretenses proceed " from involun-
tary and unavoidable ignorance and error," yet Ave appeal, whether,
in the light of the extracts above given, such is not true of the
theory of prelacy, as advocated by the several classes of writers
there quoted.

Briefly, then, the opposing theories — which, for our better un-
derstanding of the subject, we shall place in juxtaposition — when
analyzed, are as follows :

THE ANTI-PRELATICAL THEORT THE PRELATICAL THEORY

Makes ordination to consist in a con- Claims to confer the Holy Ghost in the

nection of the Divine Agent — the Holy acts respectively oi consecration, ordina-

Spirit — with the human, in the dispen- tinn and confirmation, " by virtue of that

sation of blessing to others ; the latter, apostolical imposition of hands, which,

as the mere giving of a definite form to being begun by the apostles, hath been

the infinite power. In other words, continued," etc., " by means of an un-

that it denotes that the instrument, broken spiritual descent of ordination,"

man, is one with God, in declaring his which "seed is in itself, after its kind,"

purposes towards others on whom some and indestructible. In other words,

special blessing is to descend, or by that the diviTic afflatus, like the electric

whom some special work is to be per- _^uid through a Leyden jar, is communi-

formed. cated in various forms, to all whose

heads are placed under prelatical hands.

And, in this consists their " all ministerial powers." For, " to
the apostles," says Bishop Jeremy Taylor, Christ "gave a pleni-
tude of j)ower^ for the whole commission was given to them in as
great and comprehensive clauses as were imaginable, for by virtue
of it, they received a power of giving the Holy Ghost in con-
firmation, and of giving his grace in the collation of holy orders,"
etc., which " power was not temporary, but successive and per-
petual," etc.*

If not mistaken, however, we can account for its origin in
another way. We denj^, either that Christ ever gave to his apos-
tles the power to transmit the Holy Ghost to others in the form
and manner above alleged, or, that they ever did thus transmit it.
We have proved from Scripture, first, that though the apostles
conferred the Holy Ghost on others by the laying on of their
hands, yet, having disclaimed that it was " by virtue" of any
"power or holiness," either of their own hands or hearts, that
they did it, but hy faith in Christ, f it follows, that that symbolical
action with them can be understood in no sense other than that of
a vailing of the bestowment of the Spirit's gifts and graces under
a visible form. And this we have confirmed by the scriptural

* Bishop Taylor, Episcopacy Asserted, p. 46, etc., ed. O.xford, 1 642.
t See Part II., pp. 144, 145.

245

proof, second, that their power as the instruments of conferring it
under that visible form, was absolutely incoinmunlcahlc.^' There
is no recorded instance in the New Testament of the bestowment
of this "gift" on others,f by those who received it through "the
laying on of the hands ot Peter ^ or John^ or Paul.

No. This Anglican and American prelatical pretense is of
JRomish origin. By a comparison of " the form and manner" of
" ordaining or conseci'ating" bishops and priests in their joint ritu-
als, with the fourth section of the first canon of the Tridentine De-
crees,:}: the reader will at once see that the former is but a copy of
the latter.

PROTESTANT EPISCOPAL. ROMISH.

Receive the Holy Ghost for the office " Whoever shall affirm that the Holy

and work of a bishop in the Church of Spirit is not given by ordination, and

God, now committed to thee by the im- therefore, that bishops say in vain,

position of our hands, in the name of ' Receive the Holij GhosW or that there-

the Father, and of the Son, and of the by a character is not impressed, etc.,

Holy Ghost. Amen." let him be accursed."

The last remaining topic on our hands, that of the alleged un-
broken apostolical succession in the line of bishops by ordination,
a subject of paramount importance in these inquiries, and the basis
on which the entire fabric of Episcopacy rests, will form the mate-
riel for the next section of our inquiries.

SECTIOlSr II.

Direct examination of the alleged fact, regarding an unbroken apostolical succession
from "the twelve" down to this day. — 1. The Romish system.-;— 2. The Tracta-
rian or Puseyite system. — 3. The High Church system. — 4. The so-called
Evangelical Low Church system. — 5. The Book of Common Prayer. — Summary
of the above. — Preliminary. — Three consecrators indispensable to impart validity
to each consecutive link in the alleged chain. — Canons, on. — (1.) Requires Episco-
pal baptism. — (2.) Ordination as deacon and priest. — (3.) Imposition of hands by
three bishops. — Apostolical Canons. — Du Pin and Bishop Griswold. — The process
of prelatical ordination illustrated- — All who are not so ordained, denounced as
"gross impostors." — Bishop McCoskrey.

"We have said, that, though the gift of the Holy Ghost was im-
parted to others by the imposition of apostolic hands, yet that in
no instance was the power vested in them to that end, imparted to
others. That " power," we re-affirm, was incommunicable.

*See Part II., pp. 145-147.

t The instance of the conferment of this gift on Paul by Ananias (see Acts 9 : 17\
cannot, at least on the prelatical hypothesis, be considered as an exception, inasmuch as
he was not an apostle. (See vv. 10, 12.)

t Chapter IV., the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy, and Ordination, Council ot Trent.
Brownlee's edition, New York, 1842, p. 85.

246
Ik. ..

'■■^ On the other hand, as we have seen, prelatists allege that that
" power" apostolic was transferred to a race of men, called their
" successors," through the same medium, namely, by the laying on
of hands. And, in proof, they assert,

II. — As A FACT, ITS UNINTEERUPTED TRANSMISSION FROM THE

APosTLEs's TIME DOWN TO THIS DAY. In evidence, take the following
extracts.

1. — The Bomish system. " Only those that can derive their
lineage from the apostles are the heirs of the apostles. — It is the
proper inheritance which they have received from the apostles, and
the apostles from Christ. ' As my Father hath sent me,' " etc.*

2. — The Oxford Tractarian or Puseyite system. " I fear we
have neglected the real ground on which our authority is built,
our apostolical descent. — The Lord Jesus Christ gave his Spirit to
his apostles ; they in turn laid their hands on those who should
succeed them ; and these again on others : — and if we trace back
the power of ordination from hand to hand, of course we shall
come to the ajjostles at last. We know we do, as a plain historical
fact ; and therefore all we, who have been ordained clergy, in the
very form of our ordination, acknowledge the doctrine of the
apostolical succession,"f etc. "As to the fact of the apostolical
succession, that is, that our present bishops are the heirs and repre-
sentatives of the apostles by successive transmission of the pre-
rogative of being so, this is too notorious to require proof Every
link in the chain is known from St. Peter to our present metropol-
itan.":]; Froude, Perceval, Keble, Palmer, and Newman, at a
meeting held. at Ariel College, August 4, 1843, agreed to main-
tain "the doctrine of apostolical succession as a rule of practice,
— that is, that the successors of the apostles are those who are de-
scended in a direct line from them by the imposition of hands ;
and that the delegates of these are the respective presbyters whom
each has commissioned," etc.§

3. — The High Church system. Bishop Jeremy Taylor : The
apostolical " power was not temporary, but successive and perpetu-
al^ and was intended to be an ordinary office in the Church, so that
the successors of the apostles had the same right and institution
that the apostles had, and though the personal mission [i.e., of
their successors] was not immediate, as of the apostles it was, yet
the commission and institution of the function was all one," etc.
Dr. Chapman : " The principle for which we contend, necessarily

* Grounds of Catholic Doctrine, p. 17.
t Tracts for the Times, No. 1., pp. 2, 3.
j Tracts, etc., No. VII., p. 2.
\ Perceval's Collection of Papers, p. 12.

247

demands an uninterrupted succession of Episcopal ordination from
the apostles's times down to our own." — " Those whom we are ac-
customed to honor as the fathers of the Church, always preserved
with the greatest care the catalogues of bishops in their respective
Sees from the beginning."* Bishop Beveridge : " The apostoli-
cal line hath through all ages been preserved entire, there having
been a constant succession of bishops in it [the Church], as were
truly and properly successors to the apostles, by virtue of that
apostolical imposition of hands, which, being begun by the apostles,
hath been continued from one to another, enicr stnce that time
down to oursr\ Bishop Hobart: "The constitution of the min-
istry in that form in which the High Churchman advocates it, sup-
poses the derivation of the authority to minister in holy things
from the only source of power in the Christian Church, its Divine
Head ; — which authority flows from its Divine Source, through the
channels oiXk^e, first of the three orders of the ministry [bishops]
which from the apostles'' s time have been in the Christian Church."^

4. — The Low Church sj^stem. Bishop Griswold : Christ
promised that " there should be continued an uninterrupted succes-
sion of such officers [apostolic] in this Church, endowed with these
ecclesiastical powers," etc. " Ever since the Ajjostlcs's days^ none
but such., ..are called Bishops."§ The Rev. Dr. Tyng : The oppo-
sition from " Protestant denominations" to Episcopacy " will grant
peace upon no terms, other than the entire renunciation of the
claims which we make to a scriptural ministry, and of our derived
right thereto, through an appointed succession from the apostles.
This is a jpoint which we can never with a good conscience yield. ''"'l
Bishop Burgess, of Maine : " The first bishops of the Protestant
Episcopal Church in the United States were ordained or conse-
crated as bishops by the bishops of the Protestant Episco-
pal Church of England or Scotland. These had been con-
secrated by bishops before them, who had also been consecrated
by others, hach to the times of the aj>ostlesy*li Bishop Mcllvaine,
having referred " us to the analogy between the new creation and
the old, in regard to origin and succession," and that vegetables
and man, though at first produced by miracle, were continued b}^
ordinary laws, each having " seed in itself after his kind," argues
thus : "I know not that a man, or an herb, is any the less a man,
or an herb, or any the less descended from the miraculous begin-
nings of creation, because the laws of growth were but ordinary,
and the intermediate agency of production was but man. And so
I know not," he adds, "that a minister of the Gospel is any the

* Chapman's Sermons on the Church, pp. 100, 101.

t Bishop Beveridge's Sermons on the Church, p. 26.

j High Churchman Vindicated : a Charge, p. 11. 1826.

§ Bishop Griswold on Apostolic Succession, Tract No. I., pp. 7, 8, 9, etc.

II A Plea for Union, a Sermon, etc. 1844. pp. 16, 17.

t " A Stranger in the Church."' A Tract. By Bishop Burgess. 1848. p. 8.

248

less a successor of the apostles, because, instead of receiving liis
authority, like them, immediately from Christ, it has come to him
by the intermediate communication OF A chain fastened, at

ITS BEGINNING, UPON THE THRONE OF GOD, AND PRESERVED

AS INVIOLATE AS THE LINE OF TUE DESCENT OF
ADAM, OR THE SUCCESSION OF SEEDTIME AND HAR-
VEST, OF DAY AND NIGHT, OF SUMMER AND WIN-
TER"!— "Its seed is in itself, after its kind," and, at

EVERY STEP OF THE SUCCESSION IT IS PKECISELY THE SAME MINISTRY
AND JUST AS MUCH OF GoD, SANCTIONED BY HIS AUTHORITY AND SUS-

t/^ined by his POWER, AS IF IT HAD BEEN RECEIVED
FROM THE LAYING ON OF THE HANDS OF CHRIST
HIMSELF"!* As the Rev. Dr. Hook, the distinguished Vicar
of Leeds, England, is thought by some to have considerably
lowered his former tone of churchmanship, we will present the
reader in this place with the following specimen from his pen :
" The prelates, who at this time rule the churches of these realms,
were validly ordained by others, who, by means of an unbroken
spiritual descent of ordination, derived their mission from the
apostles and from our Lord. This continued descent is evident to
every one who chooses to investigate it. Let him read the cata-
logues of our bishops ascending up to the most remote periods.
Our ordinations descend in a direct unbroken line from Peter and
Paul, the apostles of the circumcision and the Gentiles. These
great apostles successively ordained Linus, Cletus, and Clement,
Bishops of Rome ; and the apostolic succession was regularly con
tinned from them [i.e., the " Bishoj)s of Rome^'' which, please
mark] to Celestine, Gregory, and Vitalianus, who ordained Patrick
bishop of the Irish, and Augustine and Theodore for the English.
And from those times, an uninterru^jted series of valid ordinations
has carried down the apostolical succession in our churches to the
present day. There is 7iot a bishop, priest or deacon, among us,
who cannot, IF HE PLEASE, ti'ace his own spiritual descent
from ST. PETER and ST. PAUL."t

"We will conclude these extracts with the following.

5. From " tlte Preface^'' to the "Form and Manner of Making,
Ordaining and Consecrating Bishops, Priests and Deacons" in the
Anglican and American Book of Common Prayer : " It is evi-
dent unto all men, diligentl}^ reading Holy Scripture and ancient
authors, that, from the Ajjostles's times, there have been these orders
of ministers in Christ's Church : bishops, priests, and deacons ;

* Argument for the Apostolic Succession, by the Right Rev. Charles P. Mcllvaine,
Bishopof the Diocese of Ohio, 1813. For the benefit and consolation of the "illegiti-
mate brood of dissent," this very evangelical bishop, in the last three lines and a half of
his "argument" says: — " We have taken good care, while speaking the doctrine of our
Church, with all plainness, to avoid all reflections upon those parts of Protestant Chris-
tendom.' with which, on this head, we are sorry to differ." Q.uite cool, truly.

t Two Sermons on the Church aaJ the Establishment, pp. 7, 8.

249

which offices were evermore held in such reverend estimation,
that no man might presume to execute any of them^ except he were
first called, tried, examined, and known to have such qualities as
are requisite for the same ; and also by public prayer, with im-
position of hands, were approved or admitted thereto by lawful
authoriti/,'^ accompanied with " EpisGOjxd consecration or ordi-
nation."

Briefly, tlien, of the above extracts, this is the sum : Prelacy,
it is declared, " necessarily demands an uninterrupted succession
of Episcopal ordination from the apostles's times to our own." —
(Dr. Chapman.) " As the heirs of the apostles" (Romanists),
"every link in the chain is known from St. Peter," 'etc. — (Tract-
arians.) " It is a chain fastened, at its beginning, upon the throne
of God, and preserved as inviolate as the line of the descent of
Adam, or the succession of day and night, of seedtime and
harvest, of summer and winter," etc. — (Bishop Mcllvaine.) And
that, because Christ promised that " there should be an uninter-
rupted succession of the office," etc. — (Bishop Griswold) ; in evi-
dence of which the " fathers of the Church" have "always pre-
served with the greatest care the catalogues of bishops," etc.—
(Dr. Chapman.) This is " a plain historical fact," "too notorious
to require proof "—(Tractarians.) " It is evident unto all men,"
etc. — (Dr. Hook and the Prayer Book.) So that " there is not a
bishop, priest, or deacon" in the chain, " who cannot, if he please,
trace his own spiritual descent from St. Peter and St. Paul." — (Dr.
Hook.) " And this," says Dr. Tyng, " is a point which we can
never, with a good conscience, yield."

Before we pass to a scriptural and historical examination of the
above claims, however, there is one other point, which, on prelati-
cal principles, is fundamental to their theory. It is this: The
designation of each link in the chain^ to his office^ hy three consecrators,
each link having previously received the grace of a canonical baptism*
and of ordination to the Deaconaie and Presbyterate.

Canon I. On Episcopal Baptism. " The want of episcopal bap-
tism," that is, to the person ordained or consecrated, "is an essen-
tial defect."

Canon II. " That ordination has been judged invalid where the
person ordained bishop had not been previously ordained a deacon
and a priest ; that is, ordination per saltum does not convey the
grace."f

Canon III. To constitute a valid consecration, the imposition of
hands of at least three bishops is indispensable.

This last canon is founded on what is alleged to be the first of

* It is on this ground that consistent prelatists deny the validity of baptism as ad-
ministered by Presbyterian hands, and of which, as I have shown, the Rev. Stephen
H. Tyng, D.D., is one. Why, even the RomanisLs admit the validity of lay-baptism !

t See Dr. Field, as quoted in Smith's Lectures, p. 116 ; and Bingham's Antiq., B. II.,
sec. 12. (Duffield on Episcopacy, p. 257.)

250

the " canons" called " apostolical." In other words, that it was
enacted by the apostles themselves !

Now, on this last point, as that which principally concerns us,
it is worthy of special note, that Protestant prelatists seem more
tenacious than even Romanists themselves The learned Du Pin,
of standard authority in the Romish communion, positively denies
that these canons originated with the aj)ostles, but ascribes them
to a much later period, the whole number (eighty-five in all) having
been enacted between the close of the second and the opening of
the fourth centuries.* But, in opposition to this, Bishop Griswold,
treating of the apostolic office as applicable to that age, says :
" One of the first, or highest order, was not ordained by a single
person ; several holding the apostolic office united in giving such
orders." And again : " Several bishops unite in ordaining a bishop.
Among us there must he at least three bishops to ordain one to the
same office." And " thus," he adds, " you will see that we strictly
conform to apostolic usage. "f

" One bishop," then, " lacks power, it would seem, to communi-
cate the apostolic virtue. To do the thing unexceptionably, three
are required, and fewer than two cannot transmit it at all. It is a
law of the electric fluid, that if a single Ley den jar be well charged,
it yields a smart shock. Double the number of jars, and connect
them, and the shock is doubled. Every additional jar gives ad-
ditional strength to the shock, until at length, by the sheer force
of numbers, we construct a batterj'- powerful enough to explode gun-
powder, or to light tapers tipped with sulphur. But the apostolical
fluid is regulated by other laws. A single jar, let it be charged as it
may, gives no shock whatever; set beside it a second jar, and
there ensues what may be regarded a shock in cases of dire neces-
sity, not otherwise. Add yet a third, and the battery is complete.
The fluid glances nimbly along, and ignites tapers at the noon-
day altar.":}:

We repeat : Consecration by THREE BISHOPS an indispens-
able condition of the transference, to another, of a valid claim to
the apostleship! All others, not so consecrated or ordained, are

" GROSS IMPOSTORS."

* Du Pin's New EcclesiasD'cal History, pp. 13, 14. Fol., London, 1693.
t Bishop Griswold on Apostolic Succession. Tract No. I., p. 9.
X The Witness, Edinburgh, April 27, 1842.

251

SECTION m.

Prelacy, as claiming to be the antitype of the Aaronic orders, must hold its analogy to
the mode of its transmission and perpetuity. — The two modes compared. — Query.
Did Christ impose his hands on the twelve ? — Proof that he did not. — Import of
the terra KaBiarnfi. — Archbishop Potter on. — Absurdity of the prelatical hypo-
thesis.

Let US examine this subject of three consecrators as essential to
a valid ministry, as above alleged, in the light of " Holy Scripture."
The prelatical argument for the Christian ministry as alleged to be
founded in its antitypal relation to the Aaronic orders^ requires, of
course, that the analogy holds good in regard to the mode of its
transmission and perpetuity. " No mem taketh this honor unto him-
self^ hut he that is called of God^ AS was Aaron.'" We will com-
pare the two, thus :

THE TYPE. THE ALLEGED ANTITYPE.

1. Aaron was consecrated, not by a 1. Prelacy requires the consecration
high priest, but by Moses, the Jewish of apostles vel bishops, hy apostles, and
lawgiver. — (Lev. 8 : 1-12.) none others.

2. Aaron was consecrated by a single 2. Prelatists say, " Among us there
agent, Moses. — (Ibid.) must be at least three bishops to ordain

one to the same office."

3. Levitical Priests and Levites, by 3. Prelatical Priests and Deacons, by
the same. — (Lev. 8 : 13. the Bishops and the Priests present, etc.

(See Rubric.)

4. In Aaron's consecration there was 4. No man may " presume to execute"
no laying on of hands employed. — (Com- the offices of Bishop, Priest, or Deacon,
pare Lev. 8 : 1-12 ; No. 20 : 23-29.) " except he were first called," etc.,

'■'■with imposition of hands,'^ etc. — (See
Preface to Form.)

So much, then, as to a correspondence between the Type and the
Antitype.

Pass we on now to the New Testament. And, first. As to the
mode of designation of the apostles to their office, we ask : Did
Christ impose hands on them f Let us see. The term " ordained"
is used to denote the same act as the term " chose."^ 'The original
word, KaOiciirril^ in the New Testament, in two instances is ren-
dered " ordain," and in about twenty, " ordained." In two of the
above instances it refers to the ordination of the apostles /^ and in
five instances, to the ordination of others.* But in neither case is
there the least allusion made to the imposition of hands as tJie
mode of ordination. The term simply imports, to constitute, ap-
point, ordain to an office, set over, establish, regulate,* etc., but
does not define the mode of doing either. In reply then to the

(1) Hcb. 5 : 4. (2) Compare Mark 3 : 14, In, with Luke 6 : 1.3. (3) Mark 3 : 14, 15 ; John 15 : 16.
(4) Heb. 6:1; Acts 1 : 22 ; 1 Tim. 2:7; .-Vets 14 : 23 ; Titus 1 : 5.

* See Parkhurst's Greek Lexicon, and Wright's Greek and English do., on the word,

252

above question, we shall let one speak, whom Protestant prelatists
regard as of the highest standard authority. Archbishop Potter,
in treating of this subject, says : " The rite of imposing hands,
whereby other ministers were ordained, was never used in mak-
ing apostles. It was a distinguishing part of their character, that
they were immediately called and ordained by Christ himself,
who gave them the Holy Ghost by breathing on them ; but neither
he nor any other is ever said to lay hands on them."*

We must here again reiterate. On the prelatical hypothesis of
ordination by " the laying on of hands," as the ONLY mode of
transmitting validly the functions apostolic, agreeably to the alleged
commission, "as my Father hath sent me, even so send I you;"
the FatJier must have imposed hands on the head of his Son ;
Christ his, on the heads of his apostles ; the Apostles theirs, on the
heads of their successors ; and their successors theirs, on the heads
of, etc., down to this day. Otherwise, how could the " chain," as
Bishop Mcllvaine affirms, be " fastened, at its beginning, upon the
throne of God, and preserved as inviolate as the line of the descent
of Adam," etc.?f Accordingly, the New Testament import of the
term, together with the authority of Archbishop Potter in support
of our version of it as respects the ordination of the apostles by
our Lord, to the contrary notwithstanding, the advocates of the
dogma of an unbroken apostolical succession persist in placing it
on the ground of a seminal transmission of the " grace'"' of " holy
orders^'' through the ^procreating process of manual irnpositions.
A valid Christian ministry perishes, except as preserved through
this all-potent channel ! Ordination by " the laying on of hands,"
is to Episcopacy what life is to the body ! Nor, we add, must we
overlook the alleged condition fundamental to its valid transmis-
sion— the agency of three consecrators !

* Potter on Church Government, p. 264.

t The reader is desired particularly to keep this fact in view, as on it depends the en-
tire validity of their alleged claim to the possession of the only true ministry and sacra-
ments of the Church, by an unbroken succession, etc.

253

SECTION IV.

The question of genealogy, as involved in the theory of prelacy. — The term defined. —
Applied, 1. To Christ, — 2. To the Jewish commonwealth. — 3. To the Leviticai
priesthood. — Illustrations of the exactness of their tabular views. — High prelatical
claims of, in support of the alleged succession. — Preliminaries to a further exami-
nation of — The law of analogy requires a correspondence between the Christian
ministry and its alleged Aaronic " model" in the articles of, 1st. Their respective
vocations. — 2d. Their limits or spheres of operation. — 3d. Prelatical dilemma. —
The Christian Church built, not on apostles, etc., but on priests. — 4tb. Another. —
Twelve foundation stones. — Twelve chains. — Proof, that such an analogous genea-
logical succession formed no part of the apostles's mission. — Inference.

The dogma of apostolical succession, therefore, involves the
question of genealogy.

Genealogy is simply the record of one's descent. On this sub-
ject, we remark, that it evidently formed no part of the divine
economy that every link in the chain of each individual from
Adam should have been preserved whole and entire. Even the
Anglican regal succession is traceable no higher than to the Nor-
man or Saxon races. Indeed, two such chains only have been
preserved to us, that of the incarnate Son of God, and that of God's
ancient covenant people, the Jews. A third, confined to a shorter
period, is that of the Leviticai priesthood as continued in the line
of Aaron. Nor, be it observed, are these genealogical records to
be looked upon as unmeaning and unimportant appendages to the
sacred canon.

1. That of our hlessed Lord was designed to authenticate his
claims as the true Messiah. And hence, its twofold end. First,
it sets forth Christ as " the minister of the circumcision for the
truth of God, to confirm the promises made unto the fathers," that,
as the " seed" of Abraham and " the son of David," he " should
sit on his throne," swaying the scepter of a finally triumphant
and ever Mddening empire. And second, it exhibits to us Christ
as " the second Adam, the Lord from heaven," as " head over all
things" to his redeemed " body, the Church," and shows us that,
while to her his " name is above every name," the names of her
members as gathered out of all nations are so dear to him, that he
registers them in the book of his genealogy — " The Book of
Life," so that, " when he shall appear the second time," to com-
plete their salvation, presenting them before the eternal throne, he
will say, "Behold, I, and the children whom thou," father, "hast
given me !" Lord, is my name written in that Book of Life?

2. That of the great Jewish co'tntnonwealth. Its design was,
to answer the purpose of a title-deed of that jDortion of the
promised land allotted to each tribe and family, as also to secure
to them their religious and political immunities, on which account,

254

to preserve such a table, was an obligation imposed on them by
the laws of the Theocracy. And, furthermore, considered as that
miraculously preserved race of whom it was predicted, " Lo, the
people shall dwell alone, and shall not be reckoned among the na-
tions ;"' this, their genealogical title-deed, is destined ere long to
evidence to the world that they are the only rightful heirs appa-
rent to that territory known in holy writ under the -designation of
" Canaan," " the glory of all lands.'"

3. The record of the Levitical priesthood. That order
was appointed, that they might " minister to the Lord in the
priest's office," as " an everlasting priesthood throughout their
generations.'" " No man," therefore, might assume it, but he that
should be " called of God, as was Aaron,"* and that, for the reason
that it adumbrated the great antitypal sacrifice for sin, which, " in
the fullness of time" was to be offered up once for all, in the
person of Jesus Christ.

It is obvious, therefore, that the purposes for which these genea-
logical records were kept, could only be attained hy their accuracy
and completeness. That relating to Christ, is authenticated in the
third chapter of Luke, 23d and 38th verses inclusive, furnishing
every link through a long period of over four thousand years.
That connected with the Jews, every individual of that vast com-
monwealth could trace upwards the distinct line of his ancestry to
Jacob, Isaac and Abraham, and through them, still higher, to
Noah, and to Adam. And, in regard to the Levitical priesthood,
two miracles were wrought in attestation of its sacredness and in-
violability as a positive institution of God — the destruction of Ko-
rah and his company for their schismatical attempt to invade it;
and the budding, blossoming, and almond-bearing of Aaron's rod
(among the twelve rods which God commanded to be laid up before
the Ark, bearing the names of each tribe) in a single night, as a
standing memorial or token against the rebels.

Nor should we overlook another most important fact in this con-
nection, as illustrative of the exactness with which the sacerdotal
catalogue was preserved, and the consequence attendant u])on the
smallest defect in the title of any claimants to the office. The case
alluded to is the following, as recorded by Ezra. " And of the
children of the priests : the children of Hebaiah, the children of
Koz, the children of Barzillai (which took a wife of the daughters
of Barzillai the Gileadite, and was called after their name) : these
sought their register among those that were reckoned hy genealogy^
but they were not found : therefore were they, as polluted, put
from the priesthood.''^ Nor is it a little remarkable, that neither
the plea of their betrayal into the neglect of preserving their fami-
ly register occasioned by their captivity in Babylon, nor the tra-
ditional evidence at hand of their legitimate title thereto, could
avert their ejectment from the priesthood !

(1) Numb. 23 : 9. (2) Ezek. 20 : 6. (3) Exod. 18 : 1 ; U : 13 ; 1 Chron. 23 and 24. (4) Heb. 8 : 4.

255

!From the important bearing of this matter on the subject in
hand, we shall insert in this place several specimens illustrative
of the hdelity, accuracy, and completeness of the genealogical re-
cords alluded to above.

CHRIST from ADAM.

Luke 3 :

23-

38.

Christ,

the son of

Joseph,

which was "

Heli,

Maithat,

((

Levi,

((

Melchi,

Janna,

Joseph,

Maitathiusy

Amos,

((

Naum,

«(

Esli,

((

Nagge,

etc., etc..

, etc

((

Adam,

((

God.

IT.

THE TRIBES and their families.
Numbers 26.

Jacob or Israel.

Reuben, the eldest son of Israel : The
children of Reuben, Hanoch, of whom
Cometh the family of the Hano-
chites ; of Pallu, the family of Pal-
luites ; of Hezron, the family of the
Hezronites ; of Carmi, the family of
the Carmi tes, etc.
These are the families of the Reu-

benites, etc.

And so of each of the other tribes.

III.

THE HIGH priesthood.*

1 Chronicles 6 : 49.

1. Aaron, Lev. 8 : 1-12, and his son.

2. Eleazar, Numb. 20 : 23-29, "

3. Phirwhas, indg. 20: 28,

4. Abishua, 1 Chron. 6 : 50, "

5. Bukki,

6. Uzzi,

7. Zerahiah,

8. Meraioth,

9. Amariah,
10. Ahiiuh,

etc., etc., etc.

51,

52,

IV.

THE PRIESTS's COURSES.f

1 Chronicles 24 : 1.

1. Jehoiarib,

2. Jedaiah,

3. Harivi,

4. Seorim,

5. Malchijah,

6. Mijamin,

7. Hakkoz,

8. Abijdh,

9. Jeshua,
10. Shecaniah,

etc., etc., etc.

1 Chron. 24 : 7

u u

" " 8

(1 ((

" " 9

I'. u

" 10

" 11

* The High Priesthood was continued to the house of Eleazar till the time of Uzzi,
when Eli, the first in the line of the house of Ithamar, assumed it. Here it continued
through Xhitub, Ahiah, Ahimelech, and Abiathar, (1 Sam. ] : 9 ; 22 : 11 ; 14 : 3 ; 22 :
11 ; 1 Kings 2 : 26), to Zadok, of the house of Eleazar, to whom the priesthood was
restored by Solomon, in accordance with a promise made to Phinehas. Eleazar's son, of
a perpetual priesthood, for his ardent zeal manifested in the punishment of the offenders
in the matter of Peor. (See Numb. 2-5.) We add further, that from Zadok the priest-
hood was continued in a direct line to Onias or Maiielaus, after whose death the lineal
descent was disregarded ; appointments to the office of High Priest fell into the hands
of the ruling faction, and thereby lost the sacred character by which it had been distin-
guished, and wa.s finally converted into a mere engine of State.

1 This register exhibits the names of those persons to whom were assigned the priest's
office " under Aaron their father, as the Lord God had commanded him.'' (1 Chron. 24 :
19.) They descended promiscuously from the families of Eleazar and Ithamar,
(1 Chron. 24 : -3-6,) in the order of twenty-four courses. (1 Chron. 24 : 7-18.) Zacha-
eias, mentioned Luke 1 : 5, was of the course of Abiah.

256

In tbcso examples of genealogical records, nothing can be more
explicit, straightforward, and clear. And, we submit, whether,
from the claims of prelatists to equal fidelity, accuracy, and com-
pleteness iu behalf of their ecclesiastical genealogy, their alleged
records should not be equally explicit, straightforward, and clear.
They assure us that " those whom they are accustomed to honor
as the fathers of the Church, always preser\^ed with the greatest
care the catalogues of bishops in their respective Sees from, the
he^inninq ;^'' — (Chapman): that the " chain, festenrd, at its hegin-
mng^ upon the throne of God," has been " preserved as inviolate
as the line of the descent of {e.g.^ the Son of God from) Adam ;"
— (Bishop McTlvaine) : and hence, " that there is not a bishop,
priest, or deacon among them, who cannot, if Tie please, trace his
own spiritual descent from St. Peter and St. Paul." — (Dr. Hook).
Now, nothing, surely, can exceed the tone of confidence in which
these statements are put forth : and, accomj)anied as thc}^ are, with
the authority of names ranking high in the theological firmament
of both hemispheres, we are not surprised at their influence in pre-
disposing the mind to pay to them the homage of an implicit faith.
Preferring, however, an examination of the " kegister," in which
these prelates allege that they have " always" been " reckoned by
genealogy" " with the greatest care," for ourselves, after one or two
preliminaries, we shall proceed to subject it to the double ordeal of
" Holy Scripture and ancient authors," etc., in its application to
the claims of " the Church," Romish and Anglican.

We remark, then, —

That the theory of an ecclesiastical genealogy on the prelatical
hypothesis, affirming, as it does, that the office and functions of
the High Priesthood of Christ, which had for its " model" the
Aaronic orders, was transferred by him to his apostles, and by
them to their successors, involves also the necessity of an analogy
hetween tlie Christian ministry and that ^'' model,'''' as it regards
their respective vocations and limits. If Christ, as the antitype, of
the Aaronic priesthood, instituted the Christian ministry after the
" model" of that priesthood, it follows, that there must have been
a correspondence between them,

1, In the article of their respective vocations. But, how dis-
similar! The origin of the Levitical priesthood, and of Aaron's
call thereto as the first of the order, transpired under circumstances
of peculiar interest and solemnity. It involved the creation of a
new office in the Church of God, not only, but that office Avas to
supersede the long established rites of patriarchism. It was to be
to the Jews as a nation, what that had been to the families of the
preceding age. And, with its multitudinous rites and ceremonies,
it was to be perpetuated by lineal descent from Aaron.

But, the ministry of Christ formed also the basis of a new econo-
my / and as such, like that which had preceded it, was attested by
miracle, in proof, that Christ took not the honor unto himself, but

257

was called of God as was Aaron ;' not, be it observed, as thougli
Christ was a continuous link in the Aaronie chain, thus merging
it into that of the Christian ministry : so flxr from it, his lineal
*' descent is not counted from them ;" " for it is evident," says the
apostle, " that our Lord sprang out of Juda, of which tribe Moses
spoke nothing concerning priesthood.'" No. Christ's priesthood
"is made, not after the law of a carnal commandment, but after the
power of an endless life :"' the antitypal " High Priest of our pro-
fession," " called of God as was Aaron," as to its office and func-
tions ; and after the order of Melchisedec, as being uncliangeable
and incomrmmicable. " Wherefore, he is able to save them to the
uttermost that come unto God by him, seeing he ever liveth to
make intercession for them."^

These, then, and similar of the Pauline statements in his Epistle
to the Hebrews, we must insist, more than suggest the marked dif-
ference in the nature, character, and design, of the two dispensa-
tions ; and especially, we would observe, as it regards the question
of an analogy of ministerial succession, under each. The Jewish
economy was typical and symbolic — " the shadows of good tilings
to come," not only, but its very priesthood partook largely of all
these characteristics. Nationally, it had for its ulterior end the
security, to the commonwealth, of the possession of the earthly
Canaan. It was, consequently, concentrative and exclusive.

On the other hand, the Christian dispensation, encompassing
within its expansive embrace " all the nations and families of the
earth"* who were to "be blessed" in Abraham through "the seed
Christ," ' was universal and diffusive. It was to the former dis-
pensation what the substance is to the shadow — the antitype to the
type. It was also spiritual in its nature, and had for its end, the
bestowment of a heavenly and an eternal inheritance.

Now, that rrs ministky partook of all these characteristics, the
facts of the case fully evince. Unlike the Aaronie order, when
Aaron, attired in his gorgeous sacerdotal vestments, and standing
before the stately altar located within " the holy of holies," is in-
augurated into his priestly office in the presence of all the congre-
gation ; in the vocation of the twelve apostles, Christ, invested with
all power in heaven and on earth, as though to stamp with an in-
delible and unmistakable seal, the dissimilarity between the office
and the functions Aaronie and apostolic, puts forth the simple
command alike to Matthew the tax-gatherer and Peter the lisher-
man, " Follow me." They obeyed. Henceforth they become the
constant companions of Christ during his ministry, and the eye
witnesses of his death and resurrection ; and hence, were possessed
of the qualifications indispensable to the due execution of the
mandate, " Go ye into all the world," etc. Where, then, we ask,
in the aspect of these facts and circumstances, is there any, the

(1) Heb. 5 : 4. (2) Heb. 7 : 6, 14. (3) Heb. 7 : 6. (4) Heb. 7 : 25. (4) Gen. 12 : 3. (6) Oal.
3:16

258

least, analogy, between the vocation of Aaron, and that of the
" twelve apostles of the Lamb" ? And so,

2. Of the limits assigned to their respective spheres of action,
as inclusive of the circumstances of person and place. Prelacy,
as we have seen, involves " headship," as a center of unity to the
visible Church ; for example — Peter occupying the chair of pri-
macy and supremacy at Jlome — or Peter and Paul, as the first and
joint Bishops of Eome — or Timothy of E|)hesus, Titus of Crete,
etc. — The Pope of Rome; the- Archbishop of Canterbury ; the
BisJwp of New York. In either case, the difference in the nature
and character of the prerogatives assumed or the territory occu-
pied, whether larger or smaller, being merely circumstantial, all
inferior orders, whether clerics or laics, being subordinate to and
dependent on, the Head, center in Him, as the bond of union to
the body.

Now, be it conceded that, in the high priesthood of Judaism
centered such a bond of union to their ecclesiastico-political com-
monwealth, such an arrangement was practicable and available
not only, but actually grew out of, and hence was in perfect har-
mony with, the circumstances of the Jews as an isolated nation,
with a sj'stem of religion concentrative and exclusive. Aaron,
ministering before the Lord in the tabernacle, which, during the
encampments in the wilderness, occupied the center of the sur-
rounding tribes as they were stationed, three on the East, three on
the West, three on the North, and three on the South, might well
attract all eyes to him as their visible head and center of unity.
The same, during the more permanent location of the tabernacle
in Shiloh. And the same, after the erection of the temple at Je-
rusalem, " whither the tribes went up, the tribes of the Lord, unto
the testimony of Israel, to give thanks unto the name of the
Lord." ' Hence, its peculiar adaptation as a center of unity in a
visible Head.

But, how diverse from this arrangement, that of the Christian
dispensation ! The sphere of its operations is commensurate with
the remotest bounds of the earth. "The field is tue wokld."^
The gospel is to be preached "in all the world" and "to every
creature,"' etc., circumstances one would suppose, every way in-
compatible with the idea of a center of unity in a visibly located
head, essential to which is, that he be accessible to all, not only,
but that he be seen by all. Under the Jewish economy, this was
both possible and practicable. Hence, three times a year, all the
members of the Church repaired to their high priest as the visi-
ble head of unity, at Jerusalem. But, the commission apostolic
was an itineracy. Take, for example, that of Peter. Prelatists
affirm, that he was for about twenty-five years bishop of Rome.
The question of his ever having been at Rome will be examined
in another place. We deny it. " We read of his being at Jeru-

(1) Ps. 122 : 3. (2) vlatt. 13 : 33, (3) Mark 16 : 15.

259

salem, at Samaria, at Lydda, at Joppa, at Cesarea, at Antioch.
We conclude from one of liis epistles that he also traveled through
Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithj-nia. And this was
just what was proper for him to do as one of the apostles, whose
mission, as we have said, was to all the nations of the earth. ; but
certainly which he should not have done if he were appointed the
"visible head and center of unity" of the Church at Rome.
" What : a center of unity, perpetually shifting its place, and per-
ambulating the world! A visible head of the whole Church,
when only the residents of one little province at a time could tell
where he was to be found ! A supreme ruler without a capital,
or court, or officer, or certain dwelling-place ! A successor to
Aaron, without a sanctuary, or vestments, or vessels of service !"*
We affirm, therefore, that neither in the vocation of the apostles,
nor in the sphere of action assigned to them by Christ, is there
the smallest possible resemblance to those of the Aaronic priest-
hood. And these circumstaiices, when taken in connection with
the fact that Christ, though the antitype of that priesthood, did not
form a continuous link in the Aaronic chain of succession, (not
being of the tribe of Levi, but of the tribe of Juda, " of which
tribe Moses spake nothing concerning priesthood,") and could not
have transferred to his apostles an office and functions which, from
their very nature, as we have shown, were absolutely incommuni-
cable, demonstrate, we think, that the idea of an unbroken apos-
tolical succession formed no part of the elements of that ministry
instituted by Christ. Again.

3. There is, on the prelatical hypothesis as above, another
difficulty. How, we submit, is their alleged analogy between the
existing ministry (Episcopal) and the Aaronic orders in the matter
of an unbroken succession, to be reconciled with the New Testa-
ment declaration concerning " the household of faith," which is
said to be " built upon the foundation of the apostles and pro-
phets,"^ etc? Clearly, on that hypothesis, one of two alternatives
follow : either, first, the admitted identification of the sacerdotal
character of the office apostolic with that of the Aaronic, in the
sense that the terms high priest and apostle are used interchange-
ably— a dilemma from which, by the way, the so-called " Low
Churchman" will, if we mistake not, find it no small task to extri-
cate himself; or second, the admitted faet, that " an horrible thing
hath been done in the land," even that of substituting, in the place
of the New Testament Apostles, the office and functions of an ab-
solutely abrogated priesthood !

4. Another difficulty : I'he above " foundation," so far as
constituted of the " apostles," was constructed, not of one, or of
six, but of " twelve" stones, and hence bore an exact analogy to

(1) Kph 2 : 19, 20.
* Stratten's Srripture Arj^iimpnt against Apostolic Succession. London, 1845. pp.
103, 104.

260

the foundation-stones of the Hebrew commonwealth — twelve
patriarchs — twelve apostles. Now, take in this connection the
tenacity of the tribes in preserving, entire, their respective gene-
alogical records. These constituted, as before remarked, the title-
deeds to their inheritance of the allotments parceled out to them
upon the divisions of the Holy Land by Moses and Joshua. And,
they had respect to the future. Looking down the vista of coming
ages, though, for their sins, they were destined to be led " captive into
all nations,'" and to be " trodden down of the Gentiles until the
fullness of the Gentiles be come in ;'" yet, " touching the election,"
being still "beloved for the fathers's sakes,'" when "the Lord
shall set his hand again the second time to restore the remnant of
his people, and shall assemble the outcasts of Israel, and gather
together the dispersed of Judah from the four corners of the
earth,"* then shall they occupy, in exact accordance with the ori-
ginal order of their title-deeds, their long-lost, but now restored,
inheritance.

5. The question then presents itself: Did it form any part of
the work of "the twelve apostles of the Lamb" as the foundation-
stones upon which, in conjunction with the "prophets," the Chris-
tian Church was to be built, to place the tenure of the inheritance
of " the household of God" on the basis of an analogous genealo-
gical title-deed? Evidently, the nature, character, and design of the
two dispensations show that it did not. For, not to mention the
fact of the ecclesiastico-political economy of the Jewish Church
state under the Theocracy, bound down as it was, in bondage to
the Sinai covenant of works," as opposed to the " easy yoke" and
" light burden'"' of the Christian economy under the laM^ of grace ;
while the former was to pass away,' the latter was destined to exist
throughout all future ages.' Hence the decree of Heaven, that the
title-deeds of " the children of faith," under this economy to that
inheritance which is incorruptible," should consist of the registry
of "the names of the first-born" in the genealogical "Book of
Life,"* as kept, not hj the twelve apostles, but by the vigilant eye
and unerring pen of Christ, " the chief corner-stone.'""

6. Let us, however, for the sake of the argument, admit that
a genealogical registrj^, analogous to that of the Jewish state, was
assigned to the keeping of the so-called ajDOstolico-priestly " repre-
sentatives" of Christ. Analogical consistency requires that, as
each of the twelve patriarchs, holding a federal relationship to
their respective tribes, stood at the head of the registry of the
families represented bv them, so with the " twelve apostles." The
dogma of apostolical succession, TF FOUNDED IN TRUTH,
must, to be consistent, exhibit a tabular view, separate and entire,
of each of the original " representatives." That the original col-
lege of " the twelve" should be broken up, and a large majority

(1) Luke 21 : 24. (2) Luke 21 : 24. (3) Rom. 11 : 28. (4) Isa. H : 11, 12. (5) Gal. 4 : 34.
(6) Matt. 11 : 29, 30. (7) Heb. 8 : 13. (8) Dan. 7 : 27. (9) Philipp. 4 : 3. (10) Eph. 2 : 20.

261

of them be consigned to the shades of an irrecoverable oblivion,
while some one or two only — to prop up a favorite theory — are
clothed with pre-eminent apostolic honor and power, how at war
with that bond by which they were equally united to Christ, the
Head ! You see this, as illustrated in their united converse with
Christ from the time of their call to the apostleship, to the cruci-
fixion. You see it after the ascension, when, a vacancy being
created by the apostasy and death of Judas, the number, " twelve,"
is preserved by the call of another — the Apostle Paul* — to fill it.
You see it in the predicted glory which Christ announced awaited
them as the reward of their work : " In the regeneration ... ye shall
sit on twelve thrones,'" etc. And you see it, finally, in their
eternal and immutable union in the apocalyptical Jerusalem.
" And the wall of the city had twelve foundations, and in them
THE NAMES of the twelve apostles of the Lamb.'" It follows,
therefore, on the prelatical hypothesis of an unbroken genealogical
succession, that " there might be twelve lines of descent" from the
twelve apostles, not only, but that " the model in the true Jewish
genealogies shows that there ought to be twelve lines of descent."f
Add to the above that scriptural injunction, " What God hath
joined together, let not man put asunder,'" and a pious and en-
lightened mind cannot but shrink with instinctive horror at the
thought that any, bearing the Christian name, should be so
reckless of palpable truth, and so determined in the support of a
mere dogma, as to interrupt and infringe upon, their equal rights
and honors, and their indissoluble unity I

SECTION V. ,

Direct examination of the prelatical theory of succession as an alleged fact. — Involves
the process of a procreating power. — Absurdity of — Illustrated in the case of Paul
and Judas Iscariot. — Anti-prelatical theory of the succession. — Archbishop
Whately on. — The two theories compared. — The high pretensions of prelacy. —
Tremendous consequences pending the issue. — Must be subjected to the severest
test. — Requisites for. — I. Authentic documents — None to be found. — II. An au-
thentic '"Register" or catalogue — None ever produced. — III. A triple agency in
welding each successive link — The pretense preposterous. — IV. Such procreating
power has no archetype in nature — Hence designated by Paul, " endless gene-
alogies," (1 Tim. 1 : 4.)

We have now fully considered the subject of the alleged eccle-
siastical genealog}^, as involved in the prelatical dogma of an un-
broken apostolical succession. Our examinations of the genealogi-
cal records of "Holy Scripture," furnish no indications either as
to the origin, or directions to perpetuate, such a record. On the

(1) Matt. 19 :28. (2) Rev. 21 : 14. (.•?) Matt. 19 : 6
* Part II., pp. 133-136 t Stratten, p. 37.

262

contrary, from the nature, character, and design of the three lines
therein recorded, — those relating to our blessed Lord, to the Jew-
ish nation, and to the Levitical priesthood ; — in addition to the
fact of the total absence of all analogy between the two dispensa-
tions, Jewish and Christian, and of their respective ecclesiastical
orders in regard cither to the circumstances of their vocation or
spheres of action ; the difficulties involved in said theory,— that of
substituting an absolutely abrogated priesthood in the place of the
New Testament apostles, on the one hand, and the limiting the
honors and powers common to all " the twelve" to some one or two
of their number on the other, all combine to demonstrate its utter
fallacy.

Prelatists, nevertheless, persist in alleging the fact, of such an
ecclesiastico-genealogical succession.

This brings us to the point of our proposed direct examination
of its validity.

Is it then, as a fact, sustained hy the combined authority of " Holy
Scripture and ancient authors ".^

I. First, then. To conduct our examinations into the validity
of this alleged fact understaudingly, we must know the jDrecise
sense attached to the term, succession, by prelatists. Assuming,
then, " the truth and authority of an ecclesiastical genealogy,"
they affirm, " that a spirit of life is infused into the act of ordina-
tion, which gives it a procreating power. The individual who re-
ceives ordination connects a paternal relation with the hands from
which it comes. It is alleged that this paternity must in some
wa}'' be manifest, and well-assured, through all ascending links,
until 3'ou come up to the homds of an apostle ; and, that through
the unbroken links of this lengthening chain alone, can the grace
of ministerial authority and sacramental efficacj^ be conveyed."*
In brief, Christ transferred "the offce'''' which he was leaving to
his twelve apostles, with power to transfer " the very same office"
to others, as their successors, the mode of transfer in each case
being that of manual impositions. This, Bishop Mcllvaine, in
speaking of the appointment of Matthias as the successor of Isca-
riot, says : "It was communicated hy the liands of those [the apos-
tles] who received it from the Lord."f

But, we ask : Is this the true idea of the term ? Let us see,
" If a king create a peer, with right to transmit his title to his de-
scendants, the heir of the family, as he rises to wear his honors,
becomes the successor of the first peer, not of the king — of him
who received the title, not of him who gave it.":}:

Now, it were a waste of time further to argue the fallacv of the
alleged transfer, by our Lord, of his priestly functions to mere

* Stratten's Scripture Argument against the Apostolical Succession. London. 1845.
+ Bishop Mcllvaine's Argument for the Apostolical Succession, p. 9.
X Straiten, p. 154.

263

mortals. That therefore aside, we contend, " if the apostles, in
the plenitude of their authority, had created any order of ministers
in the Church with power to perpetuate their honors and functions,
those who received the entail would become the successors of the
first of their order, not the successors of the apostles themselves."*

Again. We submit, that there is an essential difference be-
tween the uninterrupted perpetuity of an of&ce, and that of its
continuance by a succession, as alleged by prelatists. The true
idea of a seminal succession necessarily implies an existing chasm
(be it of longer or shorter duration) hy death ^ between A. and B.,
otherwise B. becomes a usurper of an office which still exists.
The case of Paul's appointment by Christ to fill the vacancy in
the apostolic college occasioned by the death of Iscariot, is in
point. And this we affirm, and shall prove in the sequel, is the
only instance of a legitimate apostolical succession on record.
The idea that "a power," civil or ecclesiastical, "to fill a vacancy
in office," is identical with "a power to perpetuate an order," is
preposterous. " We understand matters in these United States,
much better than to identify such things."f The office has for its
basis, the constitution, divine or human, ecclesiastical or civil, as
the case may be ; the agency employed in inducting into office, is
but the visible seal affixed to the power- — the constitution — which
created it. It follows, that the Aaronic priesthood was not, in the
strict sense, a succession. The mode of its continuance rather elimi-
nates the idea of the uninterrupted perpetuity of the qfflce. Aaron,
with his own eyes, looked upon him who was to perform the same
services, at the same altar, and in the same place in Avhich he had
for the period of thirty-five years been engaged, ere they were
closed in death. And, with the exception that the Aaronic priest-
hood was perpetuated by lineal descent from Aaron, the same prin-
ciple will apply to the uninterrupted continuance of what was de-
signed to be, and has been, the ordinary and standing ministry of
the New Testament Church.

And this leads us to remark, that, so far from a denial, as is al-
leged, of the uninterrupted perpetuity of the Christian ministry b^
«7i^i-prelatists, they insist that the legitimacy of such an inference
rests entirely upon the evidence, whether that unbroken continuity
depends upon a transmission of the office seminallj" through indi-
vidual hishops, or whether it consists in the perpetuity of a Chris-
tian ministry generally. Of the prelatical hypothesis, they deny,
that there is any the least countenance or support therefor, in
" holy Scripture." With Archbishop AYliately, they affirm, that
the fallacy of the prelatical scheme "consists in confounding to-
gether the unbroken apostolical succession of a Christian ininistry
generally, and the same succession in an unbroken line, of this or
that particular minister.":}:

* Stratten, p. 164. f Duffield on Episcopacy, p. 97.

t Whately's Essays on the Kingdom of Christ, Essay III., pp. 180-18].

264

They also further insist that, if their hypothesis, so far as con-
nected with the evidence to be derived from "ancient authors," is
liable to tlic contingency of interruption — in other words, if proof
can be adduced of the non-existence^ at any given period since the
days of Christ and his apostles, of such a Christian ministry gene-
rally, that is, a ministry not prelatically consecrated ; 3^et, that
such a ministry, to say the least (prelatists themselves being
judges), has equal claims to validity with the other, unless proof
can be furnished, express, positive, amounting to the clearness of
demonstration,*

* On this su])jpct, we quote the following, from the very able " Essay on the Primi-
tive Church Officers," a work attributed to the Rev. Dr. Addison Alexander, Professor
of Ecclesiastical History, etc., in the Princeton Theological Seminary, New Jersey.
New York: Charles Scribner. 1851. He says —

"The impossibility of prnvina: a particular succession, in the case of any minister, is tacitly ad-
mitted, on the part of those who claim it, by evading; the demand for proof, and simply alleging the
fact to be notorious. The case of ministerial succession is compared to that of natural descent from
Adam or Noah, which no man can prove, but which no man disputes. The fallacy of this analogi-
cal argument scarcely needs to be exposed. The descent of any individual from Adam is notori-
ous only on the supposition that the whole human family is sprung from a single pair. This being
assumed, the other follows of necessity. If all descend from Adam, so must every one. To make
the cases parallel, we must =up])Ose a plurality of races, and a dispute to which of these a certain
individual belongs. In that case the appeal to notoriety would be absurd, and in the absence of
explicit genealogies, the only proof available would be correspondence in the physical characteris-
tics of the progenitor and his alleged descendants. In the supposed case this might be a difficult
and doubtful process from the want of any accurate and authentic description of the ancestor. But
m the case of ministerial descent, we have the advantage of a description not only exact, but infal-
lible, with which those claiming to be successors of the primitive ministers may be compared with
rigorous exactness. Let us suppose that according to the Scriptures men had sprung from two dis-
tinct originals, and that these were represented as distinguished by the same external marks which
now distinguish Africans from Europeans. If any one should claim to be descended from either of
tliese stocks, and his pretensions were disputed, the nearest approach that could be made to a solu-
tion of the question, would be by comparing the complexion, features, form, hair, etc., of the claim-
ant with the like p.^irticulars ascribed in Scripture to the father of the race. The application of the
rule might be precarious, but without specific genealogies, no better proof could be adduced, or
would be called for.

" This imaginary case affords a close analogy to that of apostolical succession. Certain bodies of
men claim to be exclusively descended, by official derivation, from the primitive apostles, and re-
ject the claims of others to a similar descent, upon the ground that they are not able to produce
specific proofs of an unbroken succession : and when charged with the same defect in their own
orders, they appeal to notoriety, as if there were no room to doubt or question their extraction. But
it may be questioned on the same grounds upon which they question that of others, and the only
way in which the point at issue can be settled is by comparing the distinctive attributes of those
who now profess to have succeeded the apostles in the ministerial office, with the corresponding
traits of the apostles themselves. By tliis test we are willing to abide. We lay no claim to apos-
tolical succession, except so far as we agree with the apostles and the primitive ministry, in doc-
trine, spirit, discipline and life. And we consider our opponents as reduced to the necessity, either
of submitting to the same test, or of proving in detail their individual descent from the apostles.
The attempt to substitute for such proof the admitted fact, that the Anglican or Romish clergy of
the present day are, as a body, the successors of the apostolic ministry, is to evade the difficulty by
confounding general and particular succession, by insisting on the latter when our orders are in
question, and producing the former when their own commission is demanded. This is a virtual
admission of tlie fact, wliich forms the ground of our last objection, to wit, that apostolical succes-
sion, in the strict sense of the terms, and as a practical test of valid ministrations, is impracticable,
and therefore useless.

" If then, as we have tried to show, this doctrine is not only unsupported by express command and
binding example, and by any necessity arising from the nature of the ministerial office, or the ends
for wh^ch it was established, but at variance with the doctrine of Christ's headship, superseded by
the surer test of doctrinal conformity to apostolic teachings, contradicted by the providence of
God, and practically useless even to its advocates ; it is not perhaps too bold an inference from
these considerations, that an incapacity to trace our ministerial authority in regular succession,
step by step, to the apostles, is no conclusive argument, nor even a presumptive one, against the
validity of Presbyterian orders. Here we might safely rest the defense of our ministrations against
all attacks connected with this point of apostolical succession ; but we cannot do justice to the
strength of our position, without cxiiibiting tlie subject in another point of view. We have en-
deavored to show, that the apostolical succession, which we are accused of wanting, is not essential
to a valid ministry. This would suffice to justify our claims, even on the supposition that our op-
ponents possess in the highest degree wliat they demand of us, and that we, on the otlier hand, are
utterly without it. But we have furthermore seen reason to believe that our opponents have it in
a much more limited degree than that which they require of others. This, in addition to the unes-
sential character of the advantage, would at least have the effect of bringing us nearer to a level

265

1. That the so-called seven orders of the Romish priesthood, or
the three orders of bishops, priests, and deacons of the Anglican
ministry, have been transmitted through an uribrohen line, during
that period.

2. That each link has been added to the chain, in accordance
with the alleged apostolical forms and ceremonies, namely, conse-
cration hy three hishojys, preceded by a lawful baptism, and ordi-
nation as a deacon and a priest*

The declarations, that the first link in the alleged apostolical
chain is "fastened to the throne of God," and that the entire chain
has been " preserved as inviolate as the line of the descent from
Adam, or the succession of seedtime and harvest, of day and night,
of summer and winter ;"f and hence, that "every bishop, priest
and deacon" of the hierarchy " can, if he please, trace his own spi-
ritual descent from St. Peter and St. Paul;":}: these declarations,
we repeat, taken in connection with the paternal relation which is
claimed to exist between the apostles and their successors, and
which is made to depend on " the sacramental virtue" transmit-

with our neighbors, still supposing apostolical succession in the ministerial office to be altogether
wanting upon our part.

"But even this residuary difference between us, with respect to the validity of our pretensions,
disappears when it is known that, so far as apostolical succession can be verified, the Presbyterian
Church in the United States possesses it, as really and fully as the Church of England. In making
this assertion, as in all the reasonings of the present essay, we assume as proved already, that a
superior order in the ministry to that of presbyters is not essential to the being of the Church, but
that from the beginning presbyters have exercised the highest powers now belonging to the minis-
try. If so, it is through them that the apostolical succession must be traced, and we accordingly
maintain that our orders may be just as surely traced in this way up to apostolic times, as those
of any other Church through bishops. The denial of this fact has, for the most part, been con-
nected with the false assumption that the ministry of our Church has been derived from that of Ge-
neva, and depends for its validitj' on the ministerial authority of Calvin ; whereas we trace our
orders, through the original presbytery of Philadelphia, to the mother-church of Scotland, which is
well known to have been reformed with the concurrence and assistance of men regularly ordained
in the Churcli of Rome. The principal admixture of this Scottish element, in our earliest presby-
teries, was witii New England Puritans, among whom only two examples of lay-ordination are be-
lieved to have occurred, and whose ecclesiastical system was originally founded by regularly or-
dained priests of the Anglican establishment. Tlie proportion of those members, in our primitive
church-courts, whose ordination was derived from more obscure and doubtful sources, such as the
Welsh and English Independents, was extremely small. Whatever then a regular succession may
be worth, we can lay claim to it as far back and as certainly as any of our adversaries.

" This fact is indeed so 'notorious,' that it has been met, for the most part, not with a denial of
the fact itself, but with an allegation, that the only apostolical succession in existence is derived
through bishops, as superior to presbyters. It is the need of something tti destroy the force of pres-
byterial succession, as a fact which cannot be denied, that has occasioned the perpetual and almost
universal combination of the doctrine of Succession with the doctrine of Episcopacy, as alike es-
sential to the organization of the Church. We have ventured, however, to discuss them separately,
and have thus been led to the conclusion, that the higliest powers of tlie Churcli belong tu presby-
ters as such ; that succession, if derived at all, must be derived through them ; and that through
them we possess it no less certainly and fully than the Church of England or the Church of Rome.
We cannot indeed show that every link in the long chain has been without a flaw, but neither can
our adversaries do so upon their part. Until the reformation the two lines are coincident, and since
that time, the continuation of the series of presbyters, in Scotland, England, and America, is as cer-
tain and notorious as that of bishops. Supposing, then, as we of course do, that the rank which we
have claimed for presbyters is justly due to them, it follows necessarily, that no objection to the
validity of Presbyterian orders can be founded on the want of apostolical succession ; partly be-
cause we are as really possessed of it as any other ministers or Church whatever. When any urge
this argument against our ministrations, they assume two facts, both essential to the truth of their
conclusion ; first, that such succession is of absolute necessity ; and secondly, that they alone pos-
sess it. If either of these assumptions is unfounded, it destroys the argument ; for if succession is
not necessary, it matters little who has or has it not ; and if on the other hand, we have as much
of it as our opponents, they can have no pretext for impugning the validity of our ministrations.
By disproving either of tho.se two positions, the conclusion is destroyed. By disproving both, it is
doubly detroyed, 'twice dead, plucked up by the roots.'"

♦ See p. 249.

t Bi-shop Mcllvaine's Argument, etc., p. 9.

X Dr. Hook's two Sermons, etc.

266

ted to them through imposition of hands, and without which all
who claim to be ministers of Jesus Christ " are gross impostors,"*
warrant the demand for such demonstration. No. It is not suffi-
cient to be told, that this is a matter " too notorious to require
proof;" that "it is evident unto all men diligently reading holy
Scripture and ancient authors ;"f and, that "any bishop," etc.,
" CAN, IF HE PLEASE," tracc his spiritual pedigree back to Peter and
Paul. In other words, that the most trifling effort imaginable is
all that is requisite to satisfy the most scrupulous ! An insinua-
tion, we affirm, which, for polemical casuistry, Jesuitical sophistry,
and bold assumption, stands unrivaled in the department of let-
ters. The tendency is, that the unsophisticated mind, in falling
upon them, captivated by, and subdued into a holy reverence for,
the ex-cathedra authority of the "oracle speaking from its place
of mystery," is betrayed into tlu very neglect of that diligent read-
ing of "holy Scripture and ancient authors," which they would
seem so earnestly to recommend."

No, — we again repeat. No bishop, priest, or deacon interested
in this matter, is left at liberty to suspend an examination of the
evidence, whether indeed he forms one of, or is in any way connected
with, the links in the alleged unbroken chain of succession from
the apostles, Peter and Paul, upon " a mere caprice of his mind's
volition." Is it not clear, on the prelatical hypothesis, that " if he
can," it is not, "if he please"? That, "if he can, he should feel
it to be at his peril if he does not do it" ? That, " if the present
regeneration and pardon, and the eternal safety of the flock to
which he ministers, depend on the certainty of his being lineally
descended from an apostle, then, before he assume the tremendous
responsibility," "he is bound, by all the considerations which
can weigh with a rational and virtuous mind, to make, first, him-
self, and then those who are to receive grace by him, quite sure
upon this vital point" ? And finally, that " no labor, no cost, no
travel should he spare, — no rest should he take, night or day,
until he possess the indisputable genealogical document, clear in
the whole line, and firm in every link of the chain ?" :j:

And, upon a peradventure that these interrogatories may move
any to re-assert the prelatical claims, Ave would beg deferentially to
suggest the following course, as calculated greatly to facilitate the
labors of the teacher, not only, but to inspire confidence in the
minds of the taught.

First, then : — in regard to the documents^ necessary to authenti-
cate the genealogy of every individual in question. They either
exist, or they do not. If they do exist, they must have been pre-
served entire and immaculate. The uncertainty and deficiency of
man's pleasure must have been provided against by the certainty

* Bishop McCoskrey's Sermon, etc.
t Preface to Ordinal, etc., B. of C. Pr.
t Straiten.

267

and completeness of tlie Divine pleasure, which considerations, of
course, argue miraculous interposition in their behalf. No other
documents than such, can be admitted in proof of the unbroken
continuity of a claim, which, " at its beginning," is alleged to be
" fastened to the throne of God." " Iloly Scripture and ancient
authors," are claimed to constitute these documents. We appeal,
then : they mtist be admitted to stand on a basis of equal autho-
rity. But the documentary evidence derived from " Holy Scrip-
ture " in the premises, forms but a very inconsiderable portion of
tlie whole. Dr. Chapman tells us, that "those whom we are ac-
customed to honor as the_ fathers of the Church, always preserved
with the greatest care the catalogues of bishops,"* etc. But, who
are these "fathers of the Church"? Are their genealogical regis-
ters, like those of "Holy Scripture," immaculate? If not, how
can we trust them in a matter upon which are suspended " the eter-
nal interests of millions " ? f Again,

Second. Than prelatists, no class of men rank higher in the
scale of intellectual endowments, acquirements, and zeal. How
diligently have they cultivated every obscure nook and corner of
classic soil ! What word is there that they have not traced to its
root ! What sentence, difficult or defective, which they have not
toiled to elucidate or restore ! Who, besides, have produced more
numerous and elaborate works in the departments of divinity, the
abstruse sciences and the arts ! We now ask then : will they re-
fer us to one clear and authentic ecclesiastico-genealogical "regis-
ter" of the alleged succession of bishops, etc. from Peter and Paul ?
Their neglect to do so, cannot other than involve them in the
guilt of a dereliction of duty in the defense and support of a theory
professedl}^ so dear to them, or render questionable their sincerity
in its adoption. And then too, consider,

Third, the condition indispensable to the authentication of such
a catalogue, that of a triple agency in the welding of each link, suc-
cessively, to the mighty chain. The priests and deacons aside,
take, for example, the last consecrated link in the American
chain — the Rev. Dr. Upfold, of the diocese of Indiana. Should
it happen to "please" him, in compliance with the wish of some
Presbyterian inquirer, to enter upon the task of tracing back his
alleged " spiritual descent" to the hands of Peter and Paul," —
bearing in mind that, from the point whence he starts, the law
of congruitv will require an increase of certainty just in proportion
with his retrograde computation from himself, — the validity of the
orders of the three who consecrated him, must depend upon the
validity of the orders of the three times three {nine) who conse-
crated them, and theirs again, upon the three times nine {twenty-
seven) who consecrated them, etc. etc., each last number being mul-
tiplied by three, from generation to generation, until at length (as

* Sermons on the Church, pp 100, 101.
t Bishop McCoskrey's Sermon.

268

is now the fact) tlie genealogy of the so-called Christian priesthood
becomes as inextricable and impracticable in tracing, as is the the-
ogony of the myriads of deities who people (fabulously) the tem-
2:>les of Ilindostan. Nor — as we must further remark in. this con-
nection— will it at all lighten the task of the good bishop to find,
that, so soon as he comes, in the catalogue, to the name of an in-
dividual who was not ordained by the help of his predecessor to the
See to which the catalogue belongs, the antecedent line is directly
cut off from that which he had been previously tracing, into num-
berless collateral lines, the validity of the orders of which must be
equally authenticated with the other! Take, in illustration, the
Anglican Church, and Avho does not know that there is not a See
in it, which has not been filled again and again by translation, and
whose line, consequently, as to ordination, has not in that mode
been cut through and through into fragments of which it would be
difficult to find the number, and sometimes to make out where the
one ends and the other begins. Nor does the difficulty of the task
terminate here. The multiplying threads of the labj-rinth which
he has been threading may now stretch outward, and lead him out
of these realms across to the continent, and round about to one and
another, if not to all, of its Episcopal Sees. Having reached the
period at which Rome held supremacy in England, he may find an
Italian, a German, or a Gallic bishop, here and there assisting in
ordination, or even installed by translation ; and where then will
end his wanderings after the ascending lines of his pedigree ?
Finally, on this subject, we remark.

Fourth, that there is a peculiarily connected with Episcopal
genealogy which is found in no order of nature, and no analogy
of official transmission : that, we mean, of the reproduction of
each successive link in the chain, by three consecrators. It is a
mode of descent and propagation which has no archetype in nature.
There is in it no special beauty nor fitness to commend it to a
penetrating reason which finds out and puts together the hidden
links that connect God's varied and wonderful works with each
other ; no affinity and harmony, but, on the contrary, a marked
discordance with essential theological truth, as that Avhich declares
that Christians are born ''not of blood, nor of the will of the
flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God."'

Nor need it be affirmed, that, to the prophetic eye of the apos-
tle, the interior of this labyrinth, trebling its mazes at every step,
lay open and exposed ; but if it did, could he have employed a
word more descriptive of its nature, or of its variance with the ge-
nealogical records of Holy Scripture than the phrase, " endless ge-
nealogies" ?*

(1) John 1 : 13.
* Straiten, etc., ad seq.

269

SECTION VI.

Scriptural examination of the above theory. — " The Twelve Apostles." — These, if equal,
must each have a sejiarate chain. — Denied by Prelatists. — Yet cannot agree as to
whom the honor of starting the chain belongs. — Creed of Pius IV. — ^Dr. Hook. —
Rev. A. B. Chapin. — St. Peter. — St. Paul. — St. John. — St. James, etc. — Starting of
the chain as an alleged fact. — Dr. Stone. — Mode of, by " laying on of hands." — The
first links. — Bishops McCoskrey and Mcllvaine. — Positive evidence indispensable. —
Tested by its application, 1st, to Matthias. — Fallacy of. — 2d, to Barnabas. — Bishop
Mcllvaine versus the Evangelist Luke.

So mucli, then, for the up-hilledness of an attempt to trace one's
prelatico-" spiritual descent" back to Peter and Paul. Perhaps,
however, we may find a firmer foot-hold " at the beginning'^ of the
chain. Waiving further preliminaries, therefore, we come now to
subject the alleged uninterrupted succession of Prelatists " from
the apostles's times" to the test,

I. Of " Holy ScRiPTUEE."

It will of course be conceded, that the original college of the
apostles formed the first " twelve" links in the alleged chain.
Thus, Bishop McCoskrej : " The apostles were raised up to the
highest grade by the Savior, as he was about returning to heaven.
They then stood as his representatives, and arranged the ministry
after the model which he himself had followed," viz., the Jewish
priesthood.*

Now, we have proved that the powers of " the twelve" were
equal, that is, that no one had a primacy over the other, or supre-
premacy over the Church, f Will it not thence follow that there
ought to be twelve separate chains^ all equally " fastened to the
throne of God, and preserved as inviolate as the line of the descent
from Adam" ? What good reason can be assigned why " the
honor and riches of the patrimony" should be confined to some
one or two of the n amber ?

And yet, such is the result of the practical working of the Pre-
latico-Episcopal scheme. Nor is this all. Its advocates are not
agreed among themselves, to whom belongs the honor of com-
mencing the unbroken chain ! The creed of Pope Pius IV. declares
" the Roman bishop" to be " the successor of Peter, the prince of
the apostles and the vicar of Christ." And Bellarmine positively
affirms, that "the right of succession in the popes of Pome is
founded in this, that Peter, by Christ's appointment, placed his
seat at Rome, and there remained till his death."f On the other

* Bishop McCoskrey's SermoUj Episcopal Bishops the Successors of the Apostles, p.
12. 1842.
t See Part II., pp. 116-123. J Bellarmine, Lib. IL, c. 1.

270

hand, Dr. Ilook and others affirm that there is not a bishop, priest,
or deacon who cannot, if he please^ trace his own spiritual descent
from St. Peter and St. Paul,*^* while the Rev. A. B. Chapin insists
that the Anglican succession is derived, "not, as is often said,
from Home," but from " Ephesus," of whom the apostle, "St.
John," was the fountain-head.f

Here, then, are no less than three apostolical competitors for the
honor of " fastening" this chain, " at its beginning," to the throne
of God ! Should it, however, appear that Eome, alone^ through
her alleged viceregent, St. Peter, is, de facto, the channel through
which courses the mighty chain, it will follow that the " spiritual
descent" of the continuous links, both Anglican and American,
can only reach back " to the throne of God" THROUGH HER
TURBlb WATERS ! We must, however, hold the evidence of
this in reserve for a future page.

In starting this chain, the Preface to the Ordinal in the Book of
Common Prayer informs us, that "it is evident unto all men read-
ing holy Scripture, that from the apostles's times, there have been
these orders of ministers in Christ's Church, bishops, priests and
deacons," set apart thereto " with imposition of hands," etc.
Speaking of this " Preface," that learned and distinguished divine
of the Protestant Episcopal Church, the Rev. Dr. Stone, of Brook-
lyn, L. I., in his recent work, entitled, " The Church Universal,"
says, that "it is evident," "as a matter of fact,^' "that there has
been a trine ministry" in the Church of Christ " ever since the
apostles's time." And, he adds, " for this, from the heart, I con-
tend.":}: But, though so " evident," my worthy friend makes no
further allusion to the connecting links in the chain than by a re-
ference to " the occasional appointment, as in the case of Timothy,
Titus, and others, of general supervisors over large territories,"
etc., " with power of ordaining to the ministry."§

Others, however, speak more definitely on this point. Bishop
McCoskrey says of the apostles, that " one of the very first acts
tJiey did, after they received the apostolic office, was, to transfer
the very same power they had received from Christ ; and he adds,
as "few persons are willing to reject the 'Acts of the Apostles,'
they must recognize the transfer of apostolic authority to Mat-
thias." "If so," he continues, "the position is established, that
the apostles had successors."! Yes. " IF so."

Bishop Mcllvaine also furnishes us with the following, to the
same effisct. He says, " That the ojjiGe of the apostles did descend
from them to successors ; that it was communicated to others BY
THE HANDS of those who rcccived it from the Lord, is manifest."

* Two Sermons on the Church and the Establishment, by Dr. Hook, pp. 7, 8.
t The Primitive Church, by A. B. Chapin, New Haven. 1842. pp. 291, 292.
X The Church Universal, etc., p. 132. New York: Houel & McCoy. 1846.
§ lb., p. 13.3.

II Bishop McCoskrey's Episcopal Bishops the ."Successors of the Apostles, pp. 12,
14, 17.

271

And he instances " Matthias and Barnabas," with " Timothy," etc.,
in proof.*

The " unbroken succession," then, " at its leg inning ^''^ is " fast-
ened to the throne of God," thus : God — Christ — the apostle Peter,
or Peter and Paul, or John — Matthias, Barnabas, Timothj, etc.

But, we submit. Each of the above links from the apostles, as
so many alleged "facts," whether pope, prelate, priest, or deacon,
who, perchance, may " please" to " seek their register among those
that are reckoned by genealogy," must addnce proof positive that
" their names are found" there ; or, as in the case of those Aaronic
claimants of similar honors — *' the children of liebaiah, of Koz,
and of Barzillai," they must be pronounced '"'• 'polluted^'' and be
'* PUT FROM THE PRIESTHOOD "! Nor is this all. If, perchance,
upon examination, the boasted catalogue of the prelatico-sacerdo-
tal line should be found without a duly authenticated head — with-
out that FIRST LINK by which the whole chain is declared to be
" fastened to the throne of God," Avhat then? We may, perhaps,
without presumption, assume the title of Episcopio- Presbyterians^
and propose an exchange of position of the parties in this contro-
versy ; the prelatical denunciators of others as schismatical intrud-
ers into the ministry, being found the only true antitypjes to those
intruders into the priestly ofhce and rebels against Moses and
Aaron — Korah, Dathan, and Abiram, whom God destroyed in the
camp of Israel. Proceed we now therefore, to an examination of
the alleged claim in behalf of,

1. — MattTiias^ as the first link in the above chain. Let it now
be borne in mind, that the above writers declare that it " is mani-
fest^'' " as a matter of fact," that the apostles "transferred" to Mat-
thias, by the laying on of their hands, "the very same power they
had received from Christ."

(1.) First, then. Of the power transferred. To determine what
it was, depends, of course, on the precise powers of the apostles
themselves at the time of its alleged transference. The prelatical
hypothesis as above, must suppose that they were complete and
perfect — a transfer of " the very same power," which " they re-
ceived from Christ." Otherwise, Matthias could not have been
placed on a footing of equality with the others. On this subject.
Bishop McCoskrey informs us, that the apostles " were not to enter
upon the duties of the office which Christ had transferred to them,
until they had received in a full and open manner, the Holy Ghost.
Prior to the ascension of the Savior, they had received the power
to act as apostles, but not the gift necessary to fit them for dis-
charging the duties connected wdth the office. The former,
namely, the power, was given when Christ breathed on them and
said. Receive ye the Holy Ghost — the latter, namely, the gifts, on
the day of Pentecost. Hence they were commanded not to de-

* Argument for the Apostolic ^u cession, p. 9.

v*^

272

part from Jerusalem, but to wait for the promise of the Father,
which, saith Christ, je have heard of me."* But, the distinction
here made between the "j?6»wer" and the " gift ;" on what authori-
ty, wc ask, is it based ? If it was official power conferred by the
Holy Ghost in the former case, Avhy not in the latter ? We refer
the reader to Part II., pp. 110-11-i of this Treatise, for the scriptu-
ral proof, that the powers apostolic were cumulative^ having been
marked by three difl'erent stages of development, and of which,
the last, — the Pentecostal gift of tongues by the Holy Ghost — was
the completion of their powers. Then too, official power, without
either the qualification to discharge, or the authority to execute it,
what, we ask, is it worth ? And yet, even according to the Bish-
op's own showing, the appointment of Matthias tromsjnred before
the da}^ of Pentecost, and in direct violation of the command of
Christ. On Ms hypothesis, therefore, it was premature, and hence,
unauthorized. On ows^ he could have been made, at most, but
Jialf an apostle. Prelatists are welcome to either horn of this di-
lemma. Then,

(2.) As to the alleged mode of Matthias's designation tolas office,
namely, " hy the hands'^ of those who "received it from the Lord."
Yes, the procreating power, indispensable to the valid transmission
of the apostolate, perishes, except as it is preserved through this
all-potent channel. Nor must we forget that three consecrators are
indispensable, (agreeably to the alleged apostolical canon,) to
give validity to the act. Which three of " the eleven," then, were
concerned in this transaction ? Was it the three " pillars,'" Peter,
James, and John ? We are assured that, any " bishop, priest, or dea-
con, if he please," can answer. As we have shown. Archbishop
Potter, as one of them, thought differently. And, no marvel.
For, in the first place, it " is manifest" from the inspired record, that,
though Peter proposed this measure, yet the whole preliminary
process was transferred to, and was carried out by the " men and
brethren" composing the " hundred and twent}^" disciples,'' and
that Peter and his ten apostolic colleagues united with them in
referring the final decision of their nominations to the Lord.^ Ergo,
Matthias was not appointed by the apostles. Then, as to "the lay-
ing on of hands" in this transaction, it "is manifest" from the sacred
narrative, that a mode, entirely different, both in nature and in
form, was employed. Matthias's election was decided by " lot."*
On the prelatical hj-jjothesis, therefore, of the ordination or conse-
cration of each consecuitive link in the chain by the imposition of
hands of three consecrators, as indispensable to the conveyance of
the sacred fluid, grace, office or functions aposfolical ; how, we ask, is
the omission of any specific directions to that end by our Lord on the
one hand ; or, if it did occur, the silence of the sacred penman ia

(1) Gal. 2 : 9. (2) Acts 1 : 15, 16. (3) Acts 1 : 23, 24. (4) Acts 1 : 26.
* Sermon, Episcopal Bishops the Successors of the Apostles, pp 10, 11.

273

regard to any sucli action on the other, to be accounted for, when
both the circumcision of Timothy by St. Paul, which was a mere
matter of expediency, and his ordination by the laying on of the
hands of the presbytery, are recorded with the utmost precision ?
We leave those " who say they are apostles," to reconcile these in-
congruities, as best they may. And, if it may '* please" any one
of them, after what we have here and elsewhere said on this sub-
ject, to show that Matthias rather than Paul, has the better claim
to the apostolic vacancy created by the fall of Judas, whether in
the Church on earth or in heaven, we think they will have to do
it by other records than those of Luke, John, or Paul.
Pass we now, to test the prelatical claims in behalf of,

2. — Barnabas, as the second alleged link in the golden chain. ,
It " is manifest," Bishop Mcllvaine assures us, that " the office of
the apostles" " was communicated" to Barnabas, " Jy" their
" ha)idsy* Surely, then, the Bishop might have furnished us with
what is so important a desideratum in the premises, — the names of
his three consecrators. We have before us, however, a more in-
falhble guide. Luke informs us, that upon him were laid the
hands of three persons. But, were they apostles ? Nay, verily,
they were the ^^ prophets and teacher i'' of the Church at Antioch,
namely, Simeon, Lucius, and Manaen.' Upon a peradventure,
however, that prelatists should claim that these were apostles, how,
we ask, are we to reconcile such a claim with their scheme of dio-
cesan episcojjacy, which, so far from allowing several bishops to
belong to a single church, is based on the hj-pothesis of only one
bishop over many churches in a province or state, as the case may
be ? But, Barnabas is called an apostle. On this subject, we refer
the reader to Part II., pp. 131-132 of this Treatise ; only adding
in this place, that in his epistle, which is received as genuine, but
not canonical, Barnabas disclaims apostolic authority; and by the
early fathers, though sometimes styled an apostle, he is ranked
among companions of the apostles or apostolical men.f

In the order of the remaining alleged links, the Rev. Dr. Stone,
speaking of the apostles, tells us, that " one of their first acts was,
to originate, by prayer and the laying on of hands, an order of
deacons ;" and that " another" act of " frequent occurrence was
the ordaining of elders," or "presbyters;" (all of which is scriptu-
rally true ;) " and a third was, the occasional appointment, as in
the case of Timothy, Titus, and others, of general supervisors over
large territories, who, whatever the powers and prerogatives of the
other orders may have been, certainly had, for themselves, the
power of ordaining to the ministry. Thus much, at least," he

(1) Acts 13 : 1-3

♦ Argument for the Apostolic Succession, p. 9.

t Literary History of the New Testament, p. 244. London ; Seely, Bumside, and
Seely. 1845.

. 274

adds, " is plain on the very face of the Scriptures."* Now, there
is in these extracts from the work of my learned and worthy
friend, to say the least, a nearer approach to a compliance with the
canon apostolic in its bearing on their " very first acts," than that
affirmed by Bishops Mcllvaine and McCoskrey. That canon
enacts, that '^ ordination per saltu7n does not convey the grace."t
The above order, however, provides for the ascendhig scale — first,
a deacon, then a priest, then a bishop. Still, to say nothing of
those " general supervisors over large territories," (namely, dioce-
san bishops) to whom the Doctor alludes by the very equivocal
phrase, " and others,":}: we are not informed as to whether even
Timothy and Titus "purchased" to themselves the better degree
of the apostleship, agreeably to the requisitions of the above
canon.

SECTION vn.

Same subject continued. — 3. Timothy — Dr. Stone. — Bishop Griswold. — Positively af-
firms his consecration by " several" apostles, namely, the Ephesian presbytery. — Ar-
gument in support of. — Fallacy of — The apostolicity of the Ephesian presbytery
denied by Bishop Hobart. — His interpretation of Mcr, and Aia. — Fallacy of. — The
question fundamental in these premises is, was Paul personally identified with the
Ephesian presbytery in Timothy's ordination ? — Proof that he was not. — Conclu-
sion.— A choice between two absurdities. — 4. Titus. — Remarks on.

Pass we now to the next link.

3. Timothy. — Kegarding the mode of the consecration of Timo-
thy, as it is so " plain on the very face of Scripture," Dr. Stone
says nothing. He considered it, we suppose, "too notorious to re-
quire proof" Not so Bishop Grisv/old. Having informed us that
" one of the first, or highest order, was not ordained by a single
person," but that " several, holding the apostolic office, united in
giving such orders," he affirms, " Timothy himself had been so
ordained."§ But, not unless " the presbytery" who ordained him
were all bishops in the prelatical sense ? And such. Bishop Gris-
wold claims that body to have been. He tells us, " it is most pro-
bable that a presbytery then" [speaking of the apostolic age] " was
a college of bishops^ and that several of them were present, and
assisted at the ordination of Timothy." Here then, we have a mat-
ter that is so " plain on the very face of Scripture," that it is

" MOST PROBABLE !"

The argument of the Bishop in support of the above theory is as

♦ The Church Universal,? 13,3 1846.
t Dr. Field, quoted by Dr. Duffield on Episcopacy, p. 257.

} But referring, as we suppose, to Barnahas, .indronicus and Junia, ^polios, Epapro-
ditus, etc., respecting whom, see Part I., pp. 127-132.

J Bishop Griswold on the Apostolical Succession. Tract No. I., p. 9.

275

follows : First. He informs us that the terms " elders, presbyters
and priests," are "all words of the same meaning."* Then, second,
that " the apostles are sometimes called presbyters." Therefore,
third, the presbytery which ordained Timothy " was a college of
apostles."

Now, to say nothing of the palpable incongruity between the
conversion of the Ephesian presbytery into a college of apostles
upon the strength of the import of a mere name, and the current
denial of prelatists that ecclesiastical functions or offices can be de-
termined by mere names or titles alone, in addition to what we
have offered in proof that the terms " elder," TTpeafSvrepog, denoted
age,f and that, being a generic term of office, it might, and did,
comprehend different species or orders, and that hence, an apostle —
for example, Peter — might apply it to himself; also, that it was
principally used during the apostolic age, interchangeably with the
title emaKOTTog, bishop or overseer, as denoting the same office ; we
now affirm, in reply to the above statement of Bishop Griswold re-
garding it, that, of all the advocates for the sacerdotal or PiiiESTLY
character of the Christian ministry, not one can be found to ad-
vance it in more glaring terms. For, if the terms " elders, pres-
byters, and priests," are "all words of the same meaning," and the
fact, that the apostles having sometimes called themselves elders,
made the Ephesian presbytery " a college of apostles," it follows
that, having received " the very same power" from " the twelve"
which they received from Christ, (inasmuch as that power con-
sisted, as is alleged, of the transfer of Christ's ojioe to them which
he was leaving,) they must have exercised, with them, the same
functions, priestly, which Christ exercised. But we deny,

1. That the words elder or presbyter and priest, are synonymous.
No two words are more dissimilar. The word ngeafivTepog, pres-
byter or elder, denotes one of the qualifiGations, namely, maturity
of age, as befitting one filling the office of either an apostle or a
bishop, and hence is used in common by both. On the other hand,
the name ' IsQsvg (hiereus), a priest, from ' lepog (hieros), sacred, de-
notes a person consecrated to God, to offer sacrifices for sins.' As
such, it is applied to Melchisedek, a patriarchal priest," to the Le-
vitical priests,^ to a heathen priest of Jupiter,* to the Jewish high
priest,* to Jesus Christ, as the great antitypal high priest after the
order of Melchisedek,* and it is employed to denote the great body
of the redeemed on earth and in heaven, as forming a " holy priest-
hood, to offer up the spiritual sacrifices of prayer and praise, ac-
ceptable to God by Jesus Christ."' But, in no single instance^ we

(1) Heb. 5 : 1. (2) lb. 7 : 1. (3) Matt. 8:4; 12 : 4. .5 ; Luke 1 : 5, etc. (4) Acts 14 : 13. (5) Acti
6 : 24. (6) See Heb. 7 : 21. (7) Compare 1 Pet. 2:5; with Rev. 1 : 6 ; v. 10 ; 20 : 6. See also Park-
hurst's Greek Lexicon, on tlie word.

* Bishop Griswold oa the Apostolical Succession, p. 8.

f np£<r/3ur£f)(oi/, from irptof)vsy an old man. Bishop Ho'oart's Apology, p. 154. Marg.

276

affirm, is it ever applied to eitlier order of the New Testament
ministry. Nor is this all. We ask, How are we,

2. To reconcile tlie hypothesis, as above, of Bishop Griswold
as the patriarchal representative of Low Churchism, Avith the
denial, by prelatists generally, that the Ephesian "presbytery,"
whatever were their powers, had any right, independently^ to or-
dain ? Thus, Bishop Hobart : " It is undeniable," says he, " that
whatever the presbytery were, St. Paul himself was the chief agent,
the actual ordainer of Timothy ; he alone conveyed the ministerial
authority." "The presbytery, whosoever they were, only asso-
ciated with him as concurring in the work."*

Leaving prelatists then to reconcile these conflicting theories of
Bishops Griswold and Hobart in the shortest way they can, we
observe, that the argument advanced in support of this latter hy-
pothesis is the following : " Where the presbytery is named
(1 Tim. 4 : 14), the preposition of concurrence, juera" — with — "is
used; Where the imposition of the hands of St. Paul is mentioned
(2 Tim. 1 : 6), the preposition cJ<a" — Ijy — " denoting the efficient or
instrumental cause, is used."f The words \it~a and (Jm, therefore,
are to be understood as placed in opposition — 6ia, Jy, as denoting
the instrumental cause ; \iEra, with^ that of mere concurrence.
And, this meaning of the two words, we are assured by another
writer, is supported "on the authority of the best lexicons of the
language. ":{:

Take, then, in illustration, the following. "It is easier for a
camel to go through (dca) the eye of a needle, than," etc. — Matt,
19 : 24. " Jesus went through \6ta) the cornfields." — Mark 2 : 23.
" And again he entered into Capernaum after (Siaj many days."
— Mark 2:1. Dr. Mason on these passages asks, does the word dia
" emphatically signify the cause of the needle's eye ? of the corn-
fields ? or of the days ? or the ' cause' of the camel's going
through the first ? of our Lord's going through the second ? or of
his spending the third before he went into Capernaum ?"§

And of the two words as taken together. As it is insisted that
they " must be regarded as contrasted with one another," the same
learned divine argues, " Be it so. I open my New Testament and
read, that ' many signs and wonders were done by (dia') the apos-
tles.'il Proceeding in the narrative, I read afterwards that Paul
and i3arnabas rehearsed all things that God had done {fiera) with
them.^ Now, as " the passages relate to the same subject," namely,
the miraculous works which God enabled his servants to perform,
and the success with which he crowned their ministry, "the
terms" 6ia and fj-sra must be regarded as contrasted with one an-

♦ Hobart's Apology, etc., p. 155.
t lb., p. 155, note.

I Essays on Episcopacy, pp. 53, 54. Swords & Stanford, New York, 1806.
4 Mason on Episcopacy, p. 159.

II Acts 2 : 43. IIoXAa tc rtpara xai otficta AIA Toiv affooToXtd* lycvtro.
TT '0<ra 6 Qios titoiri<rt MET' avroiv. Acts 15 : 4.

277

other. And so, " wlien Peter, James, etc., wrought miracles, they
did it in virtue of an authoritative power ; and when Paul and
Barnabas wrought miracles, they had no authoritative or instru-
mental agency, but merely expressed their approbation of what
God did without them ; although the historian has positively as
serted that he did it with them. All this from the difference be-
tween dia and nera*

Still, the " preposition," AIA, which, the Doctor affirms, " never
signifies the cause of a thing," " but expresses the idea of transition
or transmission," does not " overthrow the argument," that Timo-
thy might have received his commission " through" the hands of
Paul, " to the exclusion of the presbytery." But it follows that,
if he did so receive it, while it would yet remain to be proved
whether he was ordained a bishop or not, we leave it for prelatists
to exonerate Paul, as best they may, from the charge of a viola-
tion of that canon apostolic, which makes the presence of at least
three bishops indispensable to a valid ordination.

The question fundamental in these premises, however, is this.
Was Fanl personally identified with the act of Timothy's ordina-
tion ? Amid the clouds of dust and smoke created by the per-
petual oscillations of prelatical writers on this subject, together
with their obvious perversion of the chronological relation of the
AIA of 2 Tim. 1 : 6, with that of 1 Tim. 4 : 14 ;t the only intelli-
gible construction, we affirm, which the passages taken together
will admit, is, first, that the prophecy which went before on Timo-
thy,' designated him as a fit person for tlie extraordinary ministry
to which he was called ; which vocation was ratified, second, " by
the putting on of Paul's hands,'" by which he was endowed with
the gift " of power, and of love, and of a sound mind,'" or the
gift of the Holy Ghost, as a qualification for office, and which he
is exhorted to " call to remembrance" and to " stir up" within him.
And that, as neither his designation to his office by prophecy, nor
his endowment of qualifications /w the office, invested him with
the office itself, it remained, third, that he be publicly set apart
thereto by the imposition of hands. Hence the act of the presb}^-
tery, as stated by Paul, 1 Tim. 4 : 14. And, as prelatists say,_ it
was an act of concurrence. But with whom, or what ? Not with
the apostle Paul as " the chief agent, the actual ordainer of Tinio-
thy ;" but with the ^^ projjhecy''^ which had previously pointed Mm
out to that body as one designated by the Holy Ghost for that
office:— "The gift," given him, not by Paul, but, AIA, ''hy pro-
phecy,'' MET' " with the laying on of the hands of the presbytery."
And when, in addition to these considerations, we reflect, that " the
presbytery" by whom Timothy was ordained, was composed of
those very " elders," 7rpe(T/3vTepot, whom Paul called to him from

(1) 1 Tim. 4 : 14. (2) 2 Tim. 1 : 6. (3) 2 Tim. 1 : 7.
* Mason on Episcopacy, pp. 149, 151.
t See Part II.. pp. 184-186.

278

Ephesus while at Miletus, (and who were the same with bishops,
a title, by the way, never given to the apostles,) an order which
Bishop Hobart, in direct opposition to Bishop Griswold, insist-s
was not " a college of apostles," but inferior to them ;* we think
the conclusion inevitable, that the ordination of Timothy was
Presbyterial. At least, of the four alternatives which the above
several hypotheses involve, namely, either, first, that of furnishing
a canonical complement of episcopal consecrators, by a metamor-
phosing of the Ephesian presbytery into a college of apostles, as
per Bishop Griswold; or second, the subjecting Paul to the impu-
tation of having done violence to the canons apostolic, by his con-
secration of Timothy single-handed and alone ; or third, that of
" the admission of his double ordination by two authoritative pow-
ers, namely, by prophecy, and by the apostle Paul ; and two con-
currences of the presbytery, namely, one with prophecy, and one
with the apostle, "f as per Bishop Hobart ; we think we would
prefer the fourth, as consequent upon our conclusion, that Timothy
was ordained by " the Presbytery." We give it in the words of
the last named prelate. " Timothy," on this hj'pothesis, he says,
" was ordained by the very council of men whom he was sent to
ordain and to govern." This he pronounces " absurd." Yes, pre-
cisely analogous to the "absurdity" of the imposition of hands of
" the prophets and teachers of the church in Antioch" iTpon the
heads of Paul and Barnabas. It were an easy task to show, that
the official functions of Paul and Barnabas as the aTToaroXoi, mes-
senger's, sent by the Holy Ghost, differed in no material point from
those of Timothy as evayyeXiarov, an evangelist. That agents
were employed in both instances, in setting apart, by manual im-
position, those who were endowed with functions superior to their
own, finds its solution in that act of the Divine Sovereignty, that,
" thus it seemed good to the Holy Ghost." If, as Bishop", Hobart
says, Timothy " was sent to ordain the council of men" who com-
posed " the presbytery" at Ephesus, it follows from his own ad-
mission, that they united with Paul in his ordination, and hence, that
they derived their orders from unordained, and therefore, unau-
thorized hands. But, no. Timothy's hands had not touched one

* Bishop Hobart says: " Many of the Schoolmen, and some few divines even of the
Church of England, are of opinion, that though bishops are superior to presbyters in the
power of ordination, they are, nevertheless, the same order, as having the same pricst-
hoo'l.^^ But, he adds, "It would be absurd to conclude from hence, that tliese divines be-
lieved bishops are on an equality with presbyters. They contend on the contrary, that
bishops are invested by ordination or consecration, with that power of ordaining others
which presbyters have not. The only thing, therefore, essential, is, that bishops possess,
by apostolic institution, certain powers distinct from, and superior to, the ordinary pow-
ers of presbyters," etc. (Hobart's Apology on Apostolic Orders, pp. 117, 118.) The
reader here should not forget what we have offered on tlie subject of the perfect equali-
ty of bishops and presbyters by the first reformers of the Anglican Church, and onward
down to the time of Archbishop Laud, covering a period of more than one hundred
years. (See the Preface, Introduction, and Chapter X., of this Treatise.

t Mason on Episcopacy, p. 156.

279

of the heads of that " council of men." There was no such cross-
hand ordination in the matter as the Bishop's objection to our con-
clusion insinuates. That " council of men" was at Ephesus hcfore
Timothy's ordination, placed there doubtless, by apostolic appoint-
ment," not as " a college of apostles," but as "elders," -y^jZ presbyter-
bishops.

In conclusion, then, on this subject of Timothy's alleged ordina-
tion by apostolic hands, we submit, that between the conflicting
hypotheses of Bishops Griswold and Hobart respecting it, pre-
latists are left to choose one of the two following " absurdi-
ties," viz., either, first, according to Bishop Griswold's theory,
which affirms that the Ephesian presbytery was " a college of
apostles," to erase from their catalogue the second order of their
hierarchy, presbyters or priests ; or second, according to that of
Bishop Hobart, which contends that they were nothing but pres-
byters, to concede that there is no resemblance between the ordi-
nation of Timothy as the alleged model of modern Episcopacy,*
and that of their " form of ordaining or consecrating a bishop,"
which, as we have shown, requires three, or at least two, prelates
to make it valid. But,

4, Titus^ it is said, forms another link in this chain. To this
end is quoted Titus 1:5. " For this cause left I thee in Crete,
that thou shouldst ordain elders in every city as I had appointed
thee ;" in other words, ordained thee, say prelatists. What, by
three consecrators ? and if so, who were they ? If not, it follows
that "Either Paul exercised, on this occasion, his extraordinary
power, and so has set no precedent; or, if he set a precedent
for ordination by a single prelate, Titus was no more than a
presbyter, and could not, by himself, ordain other presbyters."
The fact is, however, that the text says nothing about ordina-
tion. Paul, in virtue of his apostleship, " appointed," (that
is, " in the sense of prescribing, enjoining, commanding") Titus
to the work assigned him. This word (Greek, dtera^anev^ is
never used in the New Testament " in the sense of setting
apart to an office." Surely Felix did not give the centu-
rion his military commission in the passage, " he commanded
(diera^aro) a centurion to keep Paul."' The nature of Titus's ap-
pointment was precisely analogous to that of Paul to the Corin-
thians : " As God hath distributed to every man ; as the
Lord hath called every one, so let him walk, and so ordain I,
(Siaraaaonai) direct, enjoin I, in all the churches."'f So much for
this link.

(1) Acts 14 : 23. (-2) Acts 24 : 23. (3) 1 Cor. 7 : 17.

* Bishop Griswold, in common with the advocates of Protestant Prelacy, generally,
on this subject, says : " Bishops of the Protestant Episcopal Church claim no other au-
thority than was given to Timothy and Titus, and by thena ♦'xercised.''" (Griswold oa
the Apostolic Office, p. 9, note.)

t Mason on Episcopacy, pp. 170, 171.

280

SECTION VIII.

Of diocesan Episcopacy. — Timothy, Titus, and the seven apocalyptic " angels" alleged
to have been diocesan bishops. — Fallacy of, in regard to Timothy and Titus. —
Angels of the seven Churches. — Dr. Henry More, Joseph Mede, Dr. Fulke, and
Bishop Stillingfleet on — Additional proof of the fallacy of — Examination and refu-
tation of Bishop McCroskrey's use of Christ's commendation of the Ephesian
" angel," for having " tried them which say they are apostles, and are not," etc. —
Conclusion.

But, Timothy and Titus, togetlier with the " angels," or " stars,"
of the seven Asiatic Churches, were diocesan bishops. May we
ask, then, where is the correspondence between their spheres of
action as the alleged successors of the apostles, being limited to a
province or a state, and that of "the twelve," whose "field" was
" the world" ?

This, however, aside. Eegarding the alleged diocesan Epis-
copacy of Timoth}^ and Titus, we refer the reader to what we have
ofl'ered on this subject in Part IL, pp. 151-154, of this Treatise.

1. In reference to the seven apocalyptic angels, in addition to
what we have already explained, the import of their allegorical
names,* showing that (in opposition to the prelatical theory, which
affirms that they find in them " absolute demonstration" that they
" are constantly applied in the Book of Revelation, to single men,
and never to a society or number of men")f they denote " the
ministers of the churches, without discrimination" either of offi-
cial rank or of character, and hence, that they refer to and speak
of them as a body ; we present the following Episcopal authorities
in our suj^port : " Methinks," says Dr. Henry More, " it is ex-
tremely harsh conceit that these seven stars are merely the seven
bishops of- any particular churches of Asia. Such high represen-
tations cannot be. appropriated to any seven particular churches
whatsoever." And so, he adds, "by angels, according to the
apocalyptic style, all the agents under their presidency are repre-
sented or insinuated."^ " The great and justly-celebrated Joseph
Mede observes, that angels are put for the nations over which they
are thought to preside ;" for example, " the four angels (Eev. 9 ; 14)
signify so many sultanies or kingdoms."§ And Dr. Fulke says,
that " St. John, by the angels of the churches, meaneth, not all that
should wear on their heads miters, but them that are faithful mes-
sengers of God's word. They are called the angels of the churches
because they are God's messenger sJ^l Finally, "the famous Stil-
lingfleet, in his Irenicum^ asks concerning these angels, " If, in the

* See Part II., p. 130.

t Essays on Episc. Cyprian, No. III., p. 72.

j More's Exposition of the Seven Churches. Works, p. 724.

4 In Apoc. Book III. Works, p. 471.

II Quoted from Ayton's Original Constitution of the Christian Church.

281

prophetick style any unity may be set down by way of represen-
tation of a multitude, what evidence can be brought from the
name, that by it some particular person must be understood ?" And
a little further on, he says, " K many things in the epistles be
direct to the angels, but yet so as to concern the whole body,
then of necessity, the angel must be taken as the representative of
the whole body, and then, why not the word angel be taken by
way of representation of the body itself; either of the whole
Church, or, Avhich is far more probable, of the concessus, or order
of presbyters in that Church?" and he adds, " we see what miser-
able, unaccountable arguments those are which are brought for
any kind of government, from metaphorical or ambiguous expres-
sions or names promiscuously used."*

2. But these " angels," it is contended, were diocesan bishops.
The hypothesis assumed is, that the phrase, " the Church," as
" the Church of Ephesus," " Smyrna," etc, implies a plurality of
congregations and presbyters in one city, and Ephesus is referred
to in illustration, where, it is said, " there were several presbyters
when Paul bade them farewell at Miletus, which was many years
before the book of Eevelation was written ; and that, where there
were several presbyters, it is fair to conclude there were several
congregations."f

True. But we ask, is it as fair to conclude hence, that these
presbj^ters and congregations were under Episcopal jurisdiction in
the prelatical sense, simply because, forsooth, years after, an epistle
was addressed to one of the number in that city under the title of
angel ? Just as much so, we insist, as though, in the place of "the
angel of the Church of Ephesus," one of the clergy of the Col-
legiate Reformed Dutch Church, or Trinity Church parish, in New
York city, both of which are composed of several congregations,
under the supervision of several ministers, had invested him with
superior official functions over the others. For, whatever may be
said of the circumstantial differences, ecclesiastically, of the cases
here referred to, even the rector of Trinity Church parish, as " the
angel" thereof, fills but the rank of a presbyter^ in common with
liis six or seven assistants.

It hence follows, that each Church within itself^ may embrace a
number of these angels. This^ fact may be known and read of
all men in the organization of every Presbyterian Church
throughout the United States — yea, throughout the world.
Our warrant in thus addressing them, is founded in the apoc-
alyptic application of the singular and plural pronouns thou
and you interchangeably to " the angel of the Church in
Smyrna,"' as denotive of the collective ministry of said Church —
-ngtOtivreQOL vel e-toiconoi, Presbyter-bishops, comprehensive of the

(1) Rev. 2 : 8-10
♦ See Dr. Mason on Episcopacy, pp. 133-137.

t Bishop Mcllvaine's Argument for the Apostolic Succession, p. 10 See also Dr.
Snodgrass, p. 165.

282

double class of those wlio rule and labor in word and doctrine,
and those who govern only,'

Finally, speaking of " the angel of the Churcli of Ephesus,"
who was " particularly commended for having tried them which
say they are apostles and are not, and had found them liars ;"
Bishop McCoskrey asks : " But how could this be done, if he
were not an apostle himself? Or why should he try and examine
the pretensions of impostors if he had been persuaded that the
apostolic office was to be limited to those originally appointed, and
were not to have successors?" From this he infers that there
must at that time have been ^Hrue apostles, who had succeeded to
the office originally given by the Savior to the eleven," etc. " K
not," he adds, " why try any one who pretended that he had re-
ceived such an office ?"*

Now, to all this we remark, first, that on the prelatical hypothesis
of consecration exclusively by bishojjs, such a trial of apostolical
impostors were superfluous. Otherwise it overthrows that infalli-
bility which the Bishop assures us was to be imparted to them by
"the Spirit of Christ;" for says he, that Spirit was "promised to
guide them unto all truth, and to keep them from every error, in
discharging their official duties."f At least all that was essentially
requisite was, to know whether any, calling themselves apostles,
had been regularly hooked in the apostolico-genealogical register, a
matter, certainly, at " the beginning" of the chain, easily ascer-
tainable.

But no, " The truth is," as Dr. Duffield aptly remarks, " that
the very fact of the apostles being called and commissioned by
Jesus Christ, directly offered the temptation to ambitious and as-
piring men, to pretend to their lofty powers and office." Hence
the trial of those who said they were apostles. And the vigilance
of the New Testament Church in guarding against impostors, is
seen as well among the Corinthians, who refused to recognize the
high claims even of the great Gentile apostle himself, till he had
proved them by an exhibit of " the signs of an apostle," as of the
Asiatic Church of Ephesus. And the whole j^rocess in both cases
was conducted on the ground of the suspicions regarding such,
awakened by the fact tlcat itforined no part of the design of the great
Head of the Churchy that the twelve apostles should have successors.
Nor was the trial, as is alleged, "a judicial one." With the min-
isterial qualifications as laid down by Paul to Timothy and Titus,
every member of the Ephesian Church must have been fimiliar.
And as those qualifications, as we have shown, all fell below the
original functions apostolic, they could readily detect the impos-
ture of any " pretenders" to the apostolic office, of whom, as well
at that time as in Paul's day, there were doubtless many.

(1) lTim.6 : 17.
♦ Sermon : Episcopal Bishops, the Successors of the Apostles, pp. 2G, 27.
tib.

283

Thus have we examined, at a length, and we trust, with the
care, somewhat proportionate to the importance of the subject, the
first links in the line of that alleged unbroken succession through
which prelatists claim a " spiritual descent from the apostles," and
by which they affirm that they, as those in whom consists the
Esse^ the very Being of the Church, are " fastened to the throne
of God." We now submit whether, so far as it respects the New
Testament age of the Church, that claim has been shown to be
utterly without foundation, so far as urged in behalf of Matthias,
Barnabas, Timothy, Titus, and the seven apocalyptic angels.
There is yet remaining on our hands an examination of the
validity of the same dogma in reference to

The Romish line of succession.

The Anglican line of succession.

The American line of succession.

284

CHAPTER V.

OF THE KOMISH LDTE OF THE ALLEGED UNBROKEN SUCCESSION.
SECTION I.

This theory involves the establishment, by Christ, of a chair of primacy and supre-
macy in the Christian Church. — Romanists affirm, Protestants deny. — The jMints
involved stated. — Bellarmine and Boniface VIII. quoted. — Fallacy of their assump-
tions proved, first from Scripture. — First, no evidence that Christ founded any
such primacy, etc. — Remarks on the name Pope. — Second, dilemma of the
Romish hypothesis as shown from three rivals to Peter as the first alleged primate,
namely, James, Paul and John.

The subject of tlie Romish line of the succession as it relates to
an alleged /ac^, at this point assumes a somev/hat new aspect. The
question of an unbroken apostolical succession here resolves itself
into a single point, viz. :

Did Jesus Christ establish a chair of prhnacy in the Christian
Church f

On this point Romanists affirm^ Protestants deny. And both
claim for their support the authority of Scripture and of Tradition,

The affirmative of the above proposition very obviously sug-
gests the following inquiries: Who first occupied that chair?
Did Christ ordain a succession? Has that succession been per-
petuated down to this day ?

As to the first of the above inquiries, Romanists, assuming that
Christ Aas established a chair of primacy in. the Church, allege
that that primacy was founded in the vicarial headship:) of PETER,
as the first bishop^ supreme and infallible, of the See of Rome, and
a belief of which they make essential to salvation. Hence, Bel-
larmine:—

" The right of succession in the Popes of Rome is founded in
this, that Peter, by Christ's appointment, placed his seat at Rome,
and there remained till his death."*

Boniface VIII, decreed in his canon the following : —

" Moreover, we declare, and say, and define, and pronounce, to
every human creature, that it is altogether necessary to salvation
to be subject to the Roman Pontiff."

We have a right to demand that such assumptions in behalf of

* Bellarmine, Lib. II., c. L

285

the supremacy, etc., of Peter, be as clearly maintained as that of
the Aaronic priesthood, or as the appointment of "the twelve" by
Christ. Their fallacy we shall demonstrate by the arguments
following, commencing with Scripture, namely,

First :

There is no evidence in " Holy Scripture'^ of the founding, hy
Christ, of such a supremacy, etc., in the Church.

To avoid repetition, we must refer the reader to what we have
already offered* in answer to the question : Had any one of " the
twelve" a precedence in rank or authority either over the others, or
of primacy or supremacy in the Church of Christ ? The facts
there set forth, we submit, are decisive against the establishment
by Christ of such a " primacy" as Romanists allege.

But, admitting the institution of such a " primacy," in addition
to the difficulties suggested by the arguments alluded to regarding
Peter as the first primate, there are, we observe, three others of the
apostolic college, who might urge sujperior claims to that honor —
St. James, St. Paul, and St. John.

Before bringing forward these claims, however, the Piomish de-
signation of this primate deserves a passing remark. He is known
under the title of Pope. (Greek, na-mTag, '■^poppas;" Latin,
''papa,'' " father.")

Now, respecting this title, we remark that, in holy Scripture,
" there is one, whose double relation to Jew and Gentile was ])Te-
eminently paternal. Was it Aaron the high priest? So it should
be, on the ground of the alleged analogy between that functionary
and the Romish priesthood. So far from it, however, that relation
was sustained by Abraham, first, to the Jew, as lineally descended
from him, and who could hence say, "We have Abraham to our
father ;" and second, to the converted Gentile, between whom and
Abraham exists the relationship of spiritual children to a believing
father. "Abraham believed God, and it was counted to him for
righteousness. Know ye, therefore, that they which he of faith.,
the same are the children of Abraham."' As such, Abraham, as a
" father," could look upon them as the children of promise."'

Not so however, the apostles. So far from it, the uniform Ian
guage of Christ to them was, "-Be not ye called Rabbi, for one is
your master, even Christ, and all ye are brethren. And call no
man your father,f upon the earth ; for one is your father, which is
in heaven."' We ask here, could language frame a more positive
injunction, " Call no mam, father .^"

(1) Gal. 3 : 5, 6. (2) lb., v. 19. (3) Matt. 23 : 8, 9.
« See Part II., pp. 115-123.

t The prohibition, therefore, " call no man Pope," comes fully within the command.
Tlor^p, father, vel va-mrai, pappa.

286

Romanists, however, not only usurp the title in its earthly
sense, but in the sense also in which it is applied to the eternal
God. The vicar of Christ in the chair of St. Peter is sometimes
styled " Lord God the Pope,"*

We add, in conclusion on this subject, tliat it should be distinctly
observed, there is as much sophistry in the use of the word Pope,
as was ever played off on earth. This word, in the East, was first
applied to all bishops, and is now so applied in Russia. It was in
the fifth century applied to the senior bishops and metropolitans
of the West ; but it was not until the time of Gregory VII., a.d.
1073, that it was exclusively appropriated, by his own innovation,
to the bishops of Rome.

Is it not more than significant, that the American Protestant
bishops should have assumed the title, for example, "The Right
Reverend leather in God, John Henry Hobart, Bishop of the Dio-
cese of New York" ?

This premised, respecting the matter of right to the pontifical
chaii', we affirm,

Second :

That there are other apostles, who might ha/ce urged superior
claims to a primacy in the Church, to those of Peter.

This is true,

1. Of the apostle James. In evidence, take a glance at
the convocation in Jerusalem, as recorded Acts 15. By whom
was it convoked ? Answer : By some two or three of the
churches of Antioch. Of whom composed ? Answer : Of
*' the apostles and elders," and of " the Church" in Jerusalem.
Who occupied the pontifical chair ? Certainly not Peter, but
James, who commanded their special audience, and who, having
drafted the decree commencing with, " My sentence is," etc., was
honored with the acquiescence therein of " the apostles and
elders, with the whole Church !" Finally, duplicates of this de-
cree, in the form of "letters," were sent to the diftereut churches
by a delegation appointed — mark, neither by James nor by Peter,
but by the convocation composed of " the apostles and elders,
and brethren." "It seemed good unto us, being assembled with
one accord," etc. While, therefore, the inspired narrative exhibits
a total absence of all apostolical primacy or supremacy in the
Church, James evidently filled the most conspicuous post in the
above transaction. The same, we affirm, is true,

2. Of Paid. We here premise, respecting Peter, what cannot
be deemed other than singular, that in no instance does that apos-
tle appropriate to himself the title of paternity, in his relation to
the Church. So far from it, as though he had possessed some pro-

* See pp. 221, 222.

287

phetic foresiglit of tlie use which would afterwards be made of his
name, and some settled caution to abstain from every syllable
which might be employed in imputing an ofQcial paternity to him,
his words arc studiously fraternal : "To the elders which are
among you, I exhort, who also am an elder .""^

Paul, however, unlike Peter in this respect, does employ paren-
tal phraseology. He calls Timothy his own son in the foith," and
his '■'■dearly beloved son ;" and Titus, his " oum son after the com-
mon faith.'" So far, therefore, as this appellation is concerned,
Paul, and 7iot Peter, was the first Pope ! Still, we deny that Paul
used this appellation in an official sense, but simply as expressive
of that paternity which grew out of the spiritual relation, to him,
of those who, "in Christ Jesus, he had begotten through the Gos-
pel."^ When he has occasion to speak of office — as in his address
to Timothy, he employs a term expressive, not of the paternal, but
of the fraternal bond : " Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ, and
Timothy our brotJierP*

Again. On the Eomish hypothesis of the celibacy of the cler-
gy, Paul, who was a bachelor^" might justly claim a precedence
over Peter, who had a wife.^

One other consideration may yet be added. "We refer to the
fact, that the Galatians looked upon James, Cephas, and John as
" pillars," equally sustaining the weight of the affairs of the
Church at Jerusalem not only, but, having cast a suspicious eye
toward the claims set up by Paul as one of the number, he pro-
ceeds, not to detract from their honors, but to vindicate his own.
And in what way ? Why, yielding the point that the others were
"pillars," he places himself beside them, on the ground of perfect
equality. Peter (Cephas) is one of the number. And, calling to
mind the origin or source and functions of his office, though " one
born out of due time," yet he says, " in nothing am I behind the
very cliiffest apostles."' And in addition to this, it is positively
declared, that, "upon him (Paul) was the care oi all the churches.^'^
And, that he " labored more abundantly than they all,"* Finally,

3. In behalf of the apostle John, we have somewhat to offer.
Let it be borne in mind, that that remarkable reply of Christ to
Peter respecting him,—" If I will that he tarry till I come ;"'" and
which was construed to mean (though erroneously*) that "he
should not die," was still abroad among the brethren. And, as
aU the apostles, save he, had " fallen asleep in Christ" at the close
of the first century, he being still present with the Church to dis-
pense to her in all its plenitude, the benefits of his apostolic office,
that circumstance seemed to countenance the above conjecture re-
specting him. At this epoch, he stands before us as the venerable
patriarch of the Christian Church. His personal history is identi-

(1) 1 Pet. 5 : 1. (9) 1 Tim. 1 :'l ; 2 Tim. 2:1; Tit. 1 : 4. (3) 1 Cor. 4 : 15. (4) Ph'lem. 1.
(5) 1 Cor. 7:1,7. (6) Matt. 8 : 14. (7) 2 Cor. 11 : 5. (8) 2 Cor. 11 : 28. (0) 1 Cor. 15 : 10. (10) John
31 : 2-2.

* See Part I., Preliminary Essay, etc., pp. "73, 76.

288

fled witli its most sacred events and memorials. He had been with
his Lord in the splendor of the Mount of transfiguration, and in
the gloom of the agony of Gethsemane. He had leaned upon his
bosom at the pascal supper, and had received from his tremulous
lips when hanging on the cross, the tender charge to be a son to
Mary his weeping mother. Her history, from that time, had been
intertwined with his own ; for, from' that day, he had taken her to
his own home. lie had taken his full share in the journeys and
sufferings of the apostles ; and, if he had not labored more abund-
antly than they all, yet he had labored during a longer pei'iod ih&n
they all. And now, wrapt in the visions of the future, he becomes
the amanuensis of the Spirit, in recording the prophetic fortunes of
the Church, to the close of time.

How is it, then, we ask, since he became in age the acknowl-
edged patriarch of Christianity, that the supremacy was never
claimed for him? The subject of the next section will furnish a
reply.

SECTION n.

Fallacy of the Romish theory of the Succession, as derived from the nature of traditional
evidence. — Proof, that Peter never visited Rome. — Acts 15 quoted. — Examination
of traditionary fragments. — Eusebius, Papias, Dionysiasof Corinth, Caius, Irenaeus.
— His statements regarding Polycarp invalidated. — The Latin translation of his works
not reliable. — He does not affirm that Peter was Bishop of Rome. — Further proof
from Paul's Epistle to the Ronjans. — Romanists not agreed as to Peter's primacy at
Rome. — Direct proof from Scripture.

Was Peter ever at Rome ?

As it respects the apostle John, there was no tradition which
could connect his latter days with Rome. Such a tradition, how-
ever, is alleged in behalf of Peter. The authorities, therefore,
shall be forthcoming. Pass we now,

Third:

To another argument, in proof of the fallacy of the primacy of
Peter. It is drawn from the nature of traditional evid •nee.

We remark then, that, from the magnitude and ulterior bearings
of the above alleged fact on its traditional authority, reason justi-
fies the demand, that the evidence rest, not on mere hearsay, not
on probability or conjecture, but on the testimony of an eye
and ear witness of the fact alleged ; such, for example, as that

289

given by Jolin of the life, actions, death, and resurrection of the
Lord Jesus — "That which we have seen and heard, declare we
unto you.'" On such testimony, proof being available of its un-
corrupt transmission down to this day, the mind can rest with un-
doubting confidence.

But is this, we ask, the character of the tradition regarding
Peter, to which Romanists demand our unqualified assent ? So
far from it, on this the vital point of the entire fabric of the
Papacy, we are thrown upon the legendary testimony of an un-
written tradition, stretching, not through five, or fifty, but through
a period of about two hundred years.

The contrast between a doubtful and an authentic tradition, (and
which is fundamental to an understanding of the merits of the
question before us,) may be thus stated. " Suppose that, in the
year one thousand, a tradition had been current that a certain
bridge over the river Tiber had been built in the time of the apos-
tles, and that Peter laid the corner-stone of the Roman abutment.
Some incredulous persons began then to doubt of the matter, and
called upon those who afiirmed that Peter laid that stonfe to prove
it. They go to work. They found very man}^ to believe it in the
tenth century : fewer in the ninth, fewer in the eighth, fewer in the
seventh, till, within two hundred years of the time, they find only
one person that affirms faith in it, and with him it is an unwritten
tradition. All record ceases. There is a perfect chasm of two
hundred years without a single witness."

This, then, we afiirm, is true of the Romish tradition regarding
Peter's residence at Rome, as its first bishop. Still, Romanists at-
tempt to bridge this chasm, not only, but the advocates of Prelacy
of all grades, insisting with them that tradition is decisive on this
point, are equally interested in the consequences involved in it,
But,*

Fourth :

We, however, deny that Peter was ever at Rome. The New Tes-
tament Scriptures, of course, are entirely silent on the subject.
Let us then examine the Traditional evidence of the fact, as alleged
by Romanists, etc.

The facts of the case, in regard to Peter, are simply as follows :
His life, so far as furnished in the inspired records, is brought
down to a. d. 49 or 50, and leaves him at Jerusalem (Acts 15).
From this point, for all further information respecting him, we are
wholly dependent on the bewildering uncertainty of early tradi-
tion. " We will now proceed to present its scanty fragments before
the reader, with such expository remarks appended as the case
may require.

(1) John 1 : 3.
* See also on this subject Section V. (1) Peter ^ of this chapter.
19

290

According to Eusebius,^ Peter's first visit to Eorae is placed in
the second year of Claudius, A. d. 44, and his martyrdom in the
fourteenth of Nero, a. d. 69. This, however, evidently clashes with
the chronology of the New Testament as above, not only, but with
the fact, that he had not visited Kome at the time of Paul's writ-
ing to the Corinthians from that city, A. D. 57 or 58, or up to the
date at which the history of the Acts closes, about a. d, 63. And,
to say nothing of Epiphanius, who places his martyrdom in the
twelfth year of Nero, and Cave in the tenth ; the early and pre-
vailing tradition of his martyrdom at Rome with Paul, is made to
rest, first, upon a forced interpretation of a passage in the epistle
of Clement of Rome to the Corinthians, in which he alleges the
fact in plain terms, but without indicating anything as to time or
place. Second, upon Papias,f who affirms that Peter was at' Rome,
but who evidentl}' invalidates his own testimony, by confounding
Rome with Babylon. :j; Third, upon the statement of Dionysias
of Corinth, who, as cited by Eusebius, speaks of the same apostles
as "going together into Italy," and that they taught there, and
suffered martyrdom about the same time. Fourth, of the state-
ment of Caius the presbyter, that the trophies or tombs of Peter
and Paul were still to be seen in the cemeteries of Rome, with
their names inscribed upon them. But chiefly, fifth, upon that of
Irenaius, the scholar of Papias, and the disciple of Polycarp, who
was the disciple of the Apostle John. He flourished in the second
century, and was by birth a Greek. Polycarp's conversion is set
down at the year 80, and John lived to the close of the first cen-
tury. So that John taught Polycarp, and Polycarp Irenseus.
And hence the proximity of Ireua3us to the apostles is urged in
proof of the clearness of the testimony in his day. Somewhat
plausible this, truly. But, in addition to the consideration, that
the nearer we approach any true event, the more numerous should
be the vouchers of its reality and authenticity ; and that, if de-
pendent on tradition, that that tradition should be proved ; of this
testimony of Irena^us, we remark.

First, that, whatever it be, it is seriously invalidated by his
statement regarding Polycarp, who, he affirms, was appointed

♦ The earliest ecclesiastical historian extant. He was Bishop of Caesarea, and wrote
his history in the early part of the fourth century

t Bishop of Hierapolis in Phrygia, was supposed by Ireneeus to have been instructed
by the Apostle John. {Spanheim's Ecclesiastical History, p. 194 ) See also Literal
History of the New Testament, pp. 177, 10.'')-197. London, lS4r).

X Peter's first epistle is dated from Babylon, and hence the ancient supposition that,
under this name, Rome was intended ; but it is one of the most unfounded conjectures
that ever obtained the stamp of tradition. Yet, it is mentioned by Eusebius as a pre-
vailing opinion, and has been eagerly adopted by the writers of the Roman communion,
in order to prove the contested point of Peter's residence in the imperial metropolis.
But Milman (History of Christianity, B. I., c. 2; B. H., c. 3) , following Lightfoot,
says, " that Babylon was the scene of Peter'.' labors, and remarks that both Josephus
and Philo, in two places, name Babylon as the habitation of the great eastern settle-
ment. The notion, espou.sed by Greswell ^following Le Clerc and Pearson), that
Babylon in Egypt is intended, is without any support from evidence.

291

bishop of Smyrna hy the apostles. The facts in the case are these •
Poly carp died, A. D. 167. He was fifty years bishop of Smyrna.
His ordination, therefore, must have taken place A. d. 117, before
which time all the apostles had been removed by death ! How
then, we ask, could he have been ordained "by the apostles"?
But,

Second. We have said that Irenteus was by birth a Greek.
Now, the only fragment of antiquity relating to the subject in
question — a fragment which was extant in the time of Constantine,
and on which Eusebius himself relies — is not a Greek original,
but a Latin ti-anslation of that father's works. It is also to be par-
ticularly borne in mind, that the Greek version of Irenseus being
lost, the Latin translation was not found for some hundreds of
years afterwards. What, then, is his statement on this subject ?
Simpl}^ this : that " these blessed apostles, Peter and Paul (mark,
not Peter alone), founding and instituting the Church" — that is,
at Rome — " delivered the care of it to Linus," etc.* In view of
these facts, however, that this statement comes down to us second-
hand, not only, but in a translated form ^ and at a remote period from
the time of the original, our suspicion of its authenticity cannot
fail to be awakened, and especially so when we take into the account
the declaration of the learned Du Pin, already quoted, f regarding
the inventions of false histories, and the mutilations and corrup-
tions of the writings of that age, by the Catholics themselves.

Then, as it respects the statement itself, we remark in the first
place that, though it implies that both Peter and Paul were at
Home, yet Irengeus does not say that either of them was bishop
of Rome, but simply, that they ^''founded and instituted'''' the
Church there. We proceed, however, to demonstrate in the next
place, that the above statement involves one of two dilemmas :
either that Irena?us states what is not true ; or, that the above
translation of his works is a forgery.

Our argument is this : Paul's Epistle to the Romans was writ-
ten and sent to them, hefore he ever saw that city ; it was, con-
eequently, sent to a Christian Church already " founded and insti-
tuted" there. It follows, that Paul could have had no agency in
that matter ; and also, that Peter's having done so, rests upon
mere inference, based on no one knows how many editions of a
second-hand statement from Irenasus.

Nor, further, does it diminish our want of confidence in this
alleged statement of Irenasus, to find such Romish writers as Bel-
larmine and Barronius expressing themselves with different de-
grees of assurance on this subject. Bellarmine positively affirms,
that " the right of succession in the Popes of Rome is founded in
this, that Peter by Christ's appointment placed his seat at Rome:":f

* Irenaeus, Book III., c. 3.

t See Part I., Preliminary Essay on Scripture and Tradition, pp. 60, 61.

t BeUarmine, Lib. II., Chap. 1.

292

whereas Barronius only ventures to say, that it is not improbable
that our Lord gave an express command that Peter should so fix
his Sec at Rome, that the Bishop of Kome should absolutely suc-
ceed him."

To conclude our remarks on this mooted point, exchanging the
dubiousness of traditional for the certainty of scriptural teaching,
we learn, in regard to Paul, that, though he was at Rome, yet
that it was in the capacity, not of the " founder" of that Church —
not as its pontiff, but " as the jprisoner of the Lord^'' watering,
indeed, by his teaching, his counsel, and his example, as he had
previously done by his Epistle, that Church which had been
planted by other hands, and these hands, not those of St. Peter ;
for, as we have said in another place, while the New Testament
Scriptures are entirely silent on the subject of his ever having
been at Rome, " we read of his being at Jerusalem^ at Samaria^
at Lydda^ at Joppa^ at Cesarea^ and at Antioch / and, from one
of his Epistles, we conclude that he also traveled through Pon-
tus, Galatia, Gappadocia^ Asia and Bithynia; a circumstance, we
must insist, totally irreconcilable with the above omission to re-
cord the fact — a fact on which was suspended such stupenduous
results to the Church and the world — had he ever been there.

"With the preceding facts and arguments as drawn from Scrip-
ture and tradition, demonstrative of the fallacy of the prelatical
pretense that Peter was the first bishop of Rome, before us, we
think we are safe in adopting the conclusion, that our blessed Lord
dAd not establish a chair of primacy and supremacy in that See.

SECTION in.

The Romish dogma of an untroken succession subjected to the test of " ancient authors "
or TuADiTioN.T-Preliminary. — It is a question of genealogy. — One absent link
breaks the chain. — The pretense, a grand and stupendous deception. — Arguments
continued, demonstrative of its fallacy.— Fifth. The Romish argument for, as
based on the alleged preservation of the Scriptures by that Church. — Sixth. Rom-
ish schisms. — Seventh. Absence of uniformity in the pontifical elections.

Still, the Church of Rome alleges, that Christ ordained a suc-
cession for the pe/petuity of that primacy, of Avhich Peter was the
fountain or source. The existence of the alleged chair, and its
occupant, however, having been proven as repugnant to reason as
it is opposed bv Scripture and by fact, the fallacy of such an or-
dained succession becomes at once apparent. The way is therefore
open for our transit to the last sequence in the above proposition,
namely, the dogma of an alleged unhroken succession. This dog-
ma, it should be borne in mind, we are now to consider as a tra-
ditional FACT ; and mark, it is a question oi genealogy ; it affirms

293

a continuous line of descent from Peter of Rome, down to the
reigning Pope, Pius IX., " preserved as inviolate as the line of the
descent of Adam, or of the succession of seedtime and harvest, of
day and night, of summer and winter." — (Bishop McIlvaine.)
Accordingl}', if one link be wanting,

'•Ten or ten thousandth, breaks the chain aUke.'' — Pope.

The "register," therefore, must be clear and perfect; and so^
worthy the sacred purpose of an exhibit of a " consecrated host"
of popes, prelates, presbyters and deacons, bound, by links indis-
soluble, in one grand golden chain, reaching upward, and " fast-
ened to the throne of God." — (Bishop McIlvaine.)

But all of which, WE hold to be, a grand and stupendous decep-
tion— an ample net for catching men, a delusion and bondage
made for the world, as the Gospel was a redemption made for the
world ; the deepest device and mightiest achievement of Satan ;
the which, if we prove it not, or if any pope, bishop, priest or
deacon will condescend to convict us either of unfairness in our
quotations, sophistry in our reasoning, or error in our deductions,
we herebv pledge ourself, from that moment, to forfeit forever all
right and title to " benefit of clergy," " book," and " bell."

Having then, as we think, shown the fallacy of the Eomish pre-
tense of the establishment in the Christian Church of a chair of
primacy and supremacy, by arguments drawn, firsts from the ab-
sence of any evidence therefor in holy Scripture; second^ from the
superior claims of other apostles to the primacy over those alleged
in favor of Peter ; thirds from the nature of traditional evidence
in the premises ; and fourth^ from the evidence adduced in proof,
that Peter never was at Rome, and hence, that, as a consequence,
our blessed Lord could not have ordained such a succession from
Peter as prelatists allege, we shall continue our former line of ar-
gument, by way of adding to them those which demonstrate the
fallacy of the dogma of an unbroken succession, as an alleged tra-
ditional fact.

Fifth :

Romanists affirm the traditional ^preservation of the Scriptures hy
that Churchy in support of their dogma of an unbroken succession.
Its fallacy has been fully laid open, in our Preliminary Essay on
Scripture and Tradition, to which we respectfully refer the reader.*
Another argument in proof of its fallacy may be drawn,

Sixth:

From the nuinerous scMsms in the Church of Borne. These,
according to some of their writers, were twenty -two in number.

« See Essay, Part I., pp. 80-85.

294

Others make them twenty-six. Protestants count twenty-nine.
Our space, however, will only allow a few examples in illustration.
Take, then, first, the double election, as Popes of Eome, of Nova-
tus aud Cornelius, a.d. 251, the latter of whom was at length put
to death.* Second, that of Liberius and Felix, a.d. 367, of whom,
if Liberius be the true Pope, then the Church had for her spiritual
head, an Arian.f Third, that of Damasus and Ursicinus, in the midst
of whose conflicting claims for the popedom, many lives were sac-
rificed. This controversy, however, was finally settled by the
banishment of the latter, a.d. 381, by the Emperor Gratian, in
whose decision as an earthly ruler, on the hypothesis of the
Romish succession, now rests the faith and salvation of the Romish
Church.:}: Next we find, fourth, as in the preceding case, Peter's
chair is filled by the Emperor Honorius, an Arian, who rejected
Eulalius in favor of Boniface I., as the Vicar of Christ, a.d. 419.§
Fifth. Another schism occurred in the double election of Lauren-
tius and Symmachus, a.d. 498, and which was also attended with
war and bloodshed. || So, sixth, the simultaneous election of Boni-
face II., and Dioscorus, a.d. 529, but the death of the latter soon
after ended this strife.^f A seventh schism grew out of the election,
at the same time, of Sylverius by the people of Rome, and of Vigil-
ius by the Emj)ress Theodora. Here then we have a Pope placed
in Peter's chair by a woman. But Vigilius, though he procured
the banishment of his rival, who died in exile by famine, having
killed his secretary by a blow with his fist, and whipped his sis-
ter's son to death, and whom the Romans ever looked upon as a
usurper, was never acknowledged by them as their lawful Pope.**
Another : Eighth. After the death of Gregory VII., a schism
ensued between Benedict VIII., son to Gregory the Count of Fres-
cati, and one Gregory, who was elected by the Romans, and ejec-
ted Benedict VIII. He, however, was subsequently restored by
Henry King of Germany, but died a.d. 1034. Following this,
another son of the Count Frescati, who assumed the title of John
XVIII., was simonically elected in his place. Upon his death,
a.d. 1033, Albert, the brother of the Count Frescati, placed his
son Theophylact, a child of only about twelve years of age, in
the papal chair, who took the name of Benedict IX. After the
lapse of ten years, however, enraged at the enormous profligacy
of his life, he was ejected in favor of S^dvester III., formerlj^ Bish-
op of Sabina. But, during all this time, Benedict VIII. was still
on the stage, and, returning from his voluntary exile, he expelled
his competitor, and re-assumed the papal chair. His profligacy,
however, incapacitating him for the duties of his office, he bartered
the popedom to Gratian the Archbishop of Rome, who -assumed
the name of Gregory VI. Here, then, we have, at the same time,
three rivals for the papal chair — Sylvester III., Benedict VIII.,

* Du Pin, Vol I., p. 135. t Du Pin, Vol. I., p. 190.

t lb. pp. 226, 227. § lb. p. 417. |I lb. p. 527. 1 lb. p. 542, ** lb. p. 552

295

and Gregory VI. Henry, however, having succeeded his father,
Conrad, a.d. 1039, resolved to terminate this schism, which he sup-
posed he had effected, by causing their deposition in several
synods as usurpers, simonianists, and criminals, and by placing
Suidger, Bishop of Hamburg, in their stead, under the title of
Clement II. Nine short months, however, ended his career, a.d.
1047, when Benedict IX., the son of the Count of Frescati, re-
turning to Eome, remounted the papal chair in opposition to Poppo,
the Bishop of Bresse, who had been sent to Rome from Germany
by the Emperor, bearing the consecrated title of Damasus 11.*^
Ninth. Other schisms and interregnums occurred between a.d.
1261 and 1379. f But passing these as of lesser importance, we
remark, that for seventy years, there was a vacancy in the pontifi-
cal chair of Rome. The Pope, during this period, was a resident,
not of the eternal city, but of Avignon in Paris. Besides, for
almost half a century, there was a double succession in the line of
Popes, the one Italian, the other French. And finally, to cap the
climax, the thirteenth century closes with the conflicting claims to the
papal See of another tripod of formidable rivals, namely, Benedict
XIII., of Spain ; Gregory XII., of France ; and John XXIIL, of
Italy. And, to these, the Roman Cardinals add Clement VII. To
mend the matter, the Council of Pisa, a.d. 1409, deposed both
Gregory and Benedict, and, under a pretense of reforming former
abuses, elected Alexander V. This, however, only increased the
schism. Alexander was poisoned by his rival, John XXIII., who
endeavored to conciliate the University of Paris, and convened a
general council at Rome, hoping thereby to establish his authority
to the exclusion of his rivals, but he failed. At the Council of
Constance, a.d. 1414, John and Benedict were deposed ; Gregory
abdicated ; and a new Pope was elected under the title of Martin Y.j;.
It will furnish a suitable introduction to the uses to which these
schisms will be applied, to advert.

Seventh :

To the total want of uniformity in the method of condiLcting iJie
pontifical elections.

Irenteus, it is affirmed, quotes a tradition which says that
' Peter appointed his successor.' If, then, we argue, Irenseus is
good authority as to the fact of Peter's primacy at Rome as its first
bishop, why, we ask, has not the Church of Rome imitated his ex-
ample in this particular ? § But, so far from it, history and tradition
furnish us with at least seven other modes, namely : — 1st. Nomination
by the bishops, but election by the priests and people. 2d. Nomi-

♦ Du Pin, Vol. II., p. 206. t lb., see Vol. 11.

I Riddle's Ecclesiastical Chronicles. Centuries 13. 14.
4 See pp. 249, 250.

'^' 296

nation by the emperor or empress on their own responsibility,
and election by the bishops. 3a. The transfer of the whole power
to the emperor, by Leo YIII. Of the 4th, Barronius says, ' They
(the popes) were introduced by powerful men and women. It was
frequently the price of prostitution !'* By the 5th, according to " the
decree of Pope Nicholas II., in his Lateran synod, ' The whole busi-
ness was given over to the cardinals,' an order of men not heard of
for the first thousand years after Christ ! This transpired a.d. 1059.
Then 6th. The appointment of the popes by general councils, as
those of Pisa, Constance, and Basil. Finally, that enacted by
Nicholas II., constitutes the present mode. The popes make
cardinals, and cardinals make the Pope !

" It is now affirmed, that the intrigues of papal elections incom-
parably surpass the intrigues of any court on earth. The politics
of France, of Italy, of Austria, are so incorporated with the
schemes of the cardinals, or so bias or bribe them, that on the elec-
tion of a pope it is usually said, "Austria has succeeded," or
" Spain," or " France has prevailed this time." In one word, the
papal chair is the most corrupt and corrupting institution that
ever stood on earth ! The Eoman Caesars, or the Egyptian Dy-
nasties, were pure and uncorrupt, compared with this mammoth
scheme of iniquity" ! And, as a shield to ourselves against the
imputation of a sacrifice of Christian courtesy and charity to Pro-
testant 'malice afore-thought,' we shall take the liberty to submit
the following testimonials from Komanists themselves, in the next
section, regarding the moral character of many of the consecutive
links.

* Barronius Ann. 112, 8, and Sect. 141, 1.

297 •■^'

SECTION rv.

The subject continued — Eighth : Fallacy of the above dogma, as drawn from the
moral character of the Popedom. — Barronius, Mich, de Chemaugis, Prideaux, Dr.
Whitby, the Emperor Maximilian, etc. — Ninth : Romish concessions of breaks
in this alleged chain. — Barronius, Bishop Purcell, of Cincinnati, Ohio. — Terrific pre-
latical dilemma. — The attempt to escape from, by Protestant prelatists, under the
plea that they are not dependent on Rome for their succession. — Subsequent notice
of. — Bishop Purcell's mode of escape. — Fallacy of. — Tenth : Evident absurdity of
the above dogma — Makes the uninspired Linus the primate over the inspired apos-
tle John. — Eleventh : Closing argument. — Palpable defects of the best authenti-
cated lists of the alleged succession. — The prelatical hypothesis of, absolutely ex-
cludes the idea of an intervening break, as to time, in perpetuating the chain.

The Romish biographer Plautina on — Bishop Purcell — The " Register" reliable,
only in proportion to the uniformity and agreement of the chroniclers.

We pass now to consider,

Eighth :

The vioral character oj many of the poniificat links in this alleged
unbroken apostolical chaiyi, as further demonstrative of its fallacy.
The chain itself, we remark, following the Romish Genealogical
*' Register," and counting from Peter to the present reigning pope,
Pius IX., is formed of two hundred and fifty-six links.

We will begin with Laurentius. In the struggle to sustain his
election against his rival Symmachus by the Emperor Theodoric,
A.D. 498, Barronius says that " murders, robberies, and numberless
evils were perpetrated at Ronie," so that "there was a risk of their
destroying the whole city."'^ So of Vigilius, the rival of Sylva-
nius, A.D. 540. Barronius says of him, that he was " implicated
in so many crimes," that all virtuous men opposed him. Yet he
was made pope.f Pope Stephen VI., A.D. 885, in the exercise of
his infallibility, not only rescinded the acts and decrees of his pre-
decessor Formosus ; but, collecting a council of cardinals and
bishops as bad as himself, he actually had the old pope taken out
of his grave, brought into court, where he was tried and con-
demned ; after which, he cut off three of his fingers, and then
plunged his remains into the Tiber ! Barronius says of him,
that ' he was so wicked, that he would not have dared to enroll
him in the list of the popes, were it not that antiquity gives his
name " ! :{: At the opening of the ninth century, the popes were
generally men of corrupt minds and profligate lives, obtaining the
pontificate by the perpetration of the most shameful crimes, par-
ticularly that of bartering it for gold. Barronius, speaking of this

* Barronius Ann., Vol. VI., p. .562. t Ih. Vol. VIL, p. 420.

X Barronius Ann. Plautina's Life of Stephen VL

298

period in his Life of Pope Stephen VII., a.d. 900, says, " the case is
such, that scarce any one can believe it, unless he sees it with his
own eyes, and handles it with his hands, namely, what unworthy,
vile, unsightly, yea, execrable and hateful things the sacred apostolic
See, on ivhose hinge the universal a'poslolic Church turns, [ ! ! ! ] has
been compelled to see," etc. Speaking of the death of Pope Ste-
phen VII., he writes, " Thus perished this villainous man, who
entered the shcepfold as a thief and a robber, and who in the retri-
bution of God, ended his days by the infamous death of the hal-
ter^* Another writer, Genbrard, under the year 90-1, says, "for
nearly one hundred and fifty years, about fifty popes deserted
wholly the virtues of their predecessors, being apostate rather than
apostolic !"

Again. Barronius, under the year 912, says, " What is then
the face of the holy Roman Church ? How exceedingly foul is it !
When most potent, sordid and a,bandoned women {meretrices) ruled
at Rome : at whose will the Sees were changed ; bishops were
presented ; and, what is horrid to hear, and unutterable, FALSE
PONTIFFS, the paramours of these women, were intruded into
the chair of St. Peter," etc. He adds, "For who can affirm that
men illegally intruded by bad women [scoriis) were Roman Pon-
tiff's !" Again. " The canons," he says, " were closed in silence ;
the decrees of pontiffs were suppressed ; the ancient traditions were
proscribed ; and the sacred ceremonies and usages were wholly ex-
tinct." f The same writer records the election, a.d. 1034, of Bene-
dict IX., at the age of twelve years ! which, he says, was accom-
plished by gold, and he calls it, ("horrendum ac detestabile visce")
horrible and detestable to behold ; and yet, he adds, that " the
whole Christian world acknowledged Benedict, without contro-
versy, to be a pope !" Finally, under the year 1004, he names
three rival popes, whom, on account of their enormous crimes, he
denominates " Cerberus, the three-headed beast which had issued
from the gates of hell !"

But Barronius is not alone in bearing testimony to the abomina-
tions of the Papal See. In his book of Simoniacal prelates, cap,
1. Nich. de Clemaugis, archdeacon of the Church of Rome in the
fifteenth century, says, "The Church is now become a shop of
merchandise, or rather of robbery and rapine, in which all the

sacraments are exposed for sale And therefore you see

such men admitted to the priesthood and other holy orders, who
are idiots, unlearned, and scarce able to read, etc. ; and Avho, when
they read, pray, or sing, know not whether they bless God or
blaspheme him ;" and who are " unquiet, gluttons, drunkards,
praters, vagabonds, lustful, bred in luxury, and, in one word, idle
and ignorant."

* " Ita quidem possus facinorus homo quique ut fur et latro ingressus est ovlle ovium,
laqueo vitam adeo infami excitu vindice Deo clausit." (Barronius, Vol. X.. p. 744.)

t Barronius Ann. a.d. 912, and Brownlee's Letters on the Roman Catholic Contro-
versy, pp. 36, 37. 39.

299

In his book also on the con'ujit state of the Churchy Cap. 3, he sajs,
" That she was defiled with the sink of all vices, and might well
be called the church of malignants ; that the saying of the pro-
phet was now verified, that from the least of them to the greatest,
EVERY OXE was given to covetousness ;" and " from the prophet to

the priest, every one dealt falsely Who," he demands,

" preaches or declares the Gospel ? Who, either by word or deed
shows the way to eternal life ?"

Further. Pope Marcellinus sacrificed to Idols.^ The Popes
Liberius and Leo were Arians, and Pope Honorius adopted the
heresy of Sergius. Pope Hildebrand also published heretical de-
crees which were burnt by a synod held at Pome. Pope Sylvester
II. was raised to the pontificate by necromancy. And, against
Pope Eugenius, the Council of Basil pronounced the following
sentence of de^DOsition, viz. : " We condemn and depose Pope
Eugenius, a despiser of the holy canons, a disturber of the peace
and unity of the Church of God ; a notorious offender of the
whole universal Church ; a simonianist ; a forsworn man {per-
jurum) ; a man incorrigible ; a schismatike ; a man fallen from the
faith, and a wilful heretike."f

It were, however, an almost endless task to recite the variety of
forms and the depth of moral pollution, either of the pontiffs or of
the Church of Pome. Ambition, covetousness, sacrilege, incest,
simony, drunkenness, adultery, heresy, sorcery, murder, and every
species of abomination, from the middle of the third down to the
opening of the sixteenth century, for the most part, in one form
or other, everj^where prevailed. Prideaux,+ in his " Introduction
for reading histories, numbers amongst the popes, thirty-eight
usurping Nimrods, forty luxurious Sodomites, forty Egyptian
magicians, forty-one devouring Abaddons, twenty incurable Baby-
lonians," etc. Glaber, the monk, as quoted by Dr. Whitby,
speaking of the eleventh century, says, "That all ecclesiastical
degrees, even from the popedom to the door-keepers, were op-
pressed with damnable simony, and that this spiritual robberj
obtained in all places." There is lying before us similar testimony-
regarding the character of centuries twelve, thirteen and fourteen.
The Emperor Maximilian, a. D. 1510, was wont to say, "0 Eternal
God, if thou shouldst not watch over us, how ill would it go with
the world which we govern ! I, a miserable hunter, and that
drunkard and wicked (Pope) Julius."§

Now, from the aspect which this exhibit of the popedom, in a
moral point of view, has on the question of an alleged unbroken
apostolicity (and against which we beg the reader to contrast our
scriptural portrait of the characteristics essential to the Christian
ministry — Part II. pp. 102-105, — viz., a changed heart, a holy life,

* Howel's Pontificate, p. 43.

t Jewel's Def. of the Apol Part VI., p. 536. Ed., 1609.

j The supposed learned Bisnop of Worcester.

I Prideaux's Introduction, p. 143.

300

a divine call, suito.ble intellectual qualifications, soundness in doc-
trine, freedom from indulgence in a spirit of self adulation, of
jealousy, and of a love of the pre-eminence), let it be taken in
connection with the sixth and seventh arguments, the numerous
schisms in the popedom, and the want of uniformity in the mode
of their election, and these with yet another,

Ninth :

Romish concessions of breaks in this alleged unbroken chain. Bar-
ronius tells us that " false pontiffs were intruded into the chair of
St. Peter by sordid and abandoned women ;" and he indignantly
demands, '' who can affirm that men illegally intruded by bad
women (scortis) were Boman pontiffs T^ But we can bring this
matter nearer home than this concession of Barronius. The
Romish Bishop Purcell, of Cincinnati, Ohio, in his debate with the
Eev. Mr. Campbell, in 1837, stated in the most explicit terms, that
^Hhere were vacancies^ breaks in the chainl'' !*

Here, then, on the prelatical hypothesis, the only channel of
communicating the "grace, in the collation of holy orders,"
(Bishop Jeremy Taylor) — that of uninterrupted manual imposi-
tion, is cut off! Episcopacy, Romish, Tractarian, and High and
Low Church, made to depend upon the seminal transmission of
apostolic functions by " the laying on of hands ;" the vital spark
of each preceding link, by a direct act of its own, alleged to have
been transmitted to others through a trij[>le agency, as indispen-
sable TO PERPETUATE ITS EXISTENCE IN ANOTHER " Cach having

seed in itself, after its kind," and hence, " preserved as inviolate
as the succession of seedtime and harvest," or "as the line of the
descent of Adam," and yet that existence continued, though the
seed itself be destroyed — the only communicating medium of its
transmission being CUT OFF.

Of course, no one, hereafter, will venture to deny., that Episco-
pacy is supported bv MIRACLE.

The pretense of Protestant prelatists, (in order to escape this
sequence,) that they are not dependent on the Romish line for
their succession, will receive due notice in its proper place.

Bishop Purcell, however, like an old experienced casuist, armed
cajp-a-pie for every emergency, offers the following, as an escape
from this dilemma. He says : " The lapse of a few years, before
binding together the links of the apostolical succession, does not
affect the great principle" of that succession. " We are," he adds,
" no believers in metempsychosis, or that, like the supposed di-
vinity of the Lama of Thibet, the soul of a deceased pope goes by
a hop, skip and jump, right off, into his successor. We will wait
six months or six years, to find a good pope. If the pope were a
poor v/anderer in the mountains of the moon, it would not destroy

* Debate, etc., p. 144.

301

his authority, thongli the See of St. Peter should be vacant for
seventy years ;''^^ but, as it happens, the question is not, how the
soul of a dead pope is transferred to another, but how the grace^
under the circumstance of " hreahs in tlie chains can be emploj'^ed
in the forging and welding together of a new link ? Certainly, in
this case, the only channel of communicating the functions apos-
tolic, that of manual imposition, like the extinguished fluid of a
demolished Leyden jar, is cut off; a consideration, we submit, of
itself^ decisive of the fallacy of the whole dogma in question.

Take, however, yet another argument, demonstrative of the im-
possibility of the alleged unbroken succession. It is drawn,

Tenth:

From tJie evident absurdity which it involves. To illustrate this
point : "If Linus," for example, was " the successor of Peter in
the supremacy," he having, according to the chronology of the
martyrdom of that apostle, succeeded him a.d. 64, it follows, that
he must have become, by virtue of his primacy, su])erior to the
apostle John; a man of the generation following the apostles

GREATER THAN AN APOSTLE HIMSELF, yca, GEEATER THAN

JOHN, THE MOST VENERABLE AND BELOVED OF ALL
THE APOSTLES ; and that too, even when the Savior was grant-
ing to him visions of heavenly glory — was sending by him Epis-
tles to the Seven Churches in Asia — was completing, by him, the
canon of inspiration — was pouring, through him, the light of pro-
phetic sj^mbols which were to illustrate the whole future history of
the Church and the world. Linus, greater than John, and that, at
the very time when all the glory of the apostolate is gathered into
one luminary, from whose ample orb the softened evening radiance
is streaming over the face of nature, while on every eminence the
prophetic watchfires are enkindling in its beams, which, after it
shall have descended below the horizon, are to burn and illumine
through all generations. f

Our final argument, demonstrative of the fallacy of this dogma,
is derived.

Eleventh :

From the tabular genealogical register of the Romish line of
succession.

In entering on this subject, we must beg the indulgence of the
reader for our frequent intrusion upon his notice of that point, fun-
damental, as we have said, to the prelatical theory of an unbroken
apostolical succession, namely, the transmission, direct, of the

♦ Debate, etc., pp. 144, 146, 154.

t See Stratten's Scriptural Argument, pp. 99, 100.

302

grace, office, functions, apostolic, " hy the hands of the apostlea^"*
etc.

Now, it is obvious, that this hypothesis, in the first place, ahao-
lutely exclndi's the idea of an intervening space^ as to time^ in the
uniting the consecutive links. For example : Take the liomish
line. It is essential to its validity, that the hands of Peter, etc., as
the first alleged pontiff, be employed in the forging and welding
of the link next following. In him alone., (however others might
have assisted at the anvil in blending the second link to the chain,)
in him alone presided the element, the fire, that conld fuse, and
thus prepare it for and unite it to that chain. Accordingly, that
standard Romish biographer of the popes, Plautina, affirms, " that
just before Peter's martyrdom, he appointed Clement to he hishop
ofRome^'' the which, if this l3e so, it must be admitted that the
chain said to be " fastened to the throne of God," was rightly
started.

Then, as to its continuance. The same Bishop Purcell, who, as
we have seen, declares that " there were vacancies^ breaks^ in the
chain," holds also the following language: Speaking of the suc-
cession, he says, " it has been faithfully noticed, and regularly
perpetuated in an unbroken chain of pontiffs down to the present
chief pastor, (Pius IX.), auspiciously presiding over all the
Church" I* These, then, are the points now at issue.

First. " It has heen faithfully noticed.'''' That is, we suppose we
are to understand, the "register," or catalogue, exhibits the suc-
cession complete and perfect, for example, like that of the descent
of Christ from Adam, etc.

SECTION V.

The records of early antiquity. — Our Canon on. — Eusebius. — His testimony defective. —
The reader admonished. — Endless confusion of the chronicles of the first links. —
1st, Peter. — Flaccius Illyricus, Zanchius, Archbishop Cranmer, Dr Cave. — Peter's
successor.— Variations in the Roman Pontifical Index.— Plautina, Tertullian, Rufinas.
Epiphaneous, contradicted by Irenaius, Eusebius, Jerome, and Augustine.— While
Bishop Pearson, and Dr. Comber differ from them.— Cabussate, Prideaux, Howell,
etc.— Papal authorities, etc.— Eight specimens of the first five links, culled from
Eusebius and others.— Challenge to Prelatists to harmonize any two of them.

But, indispensable to the validity of such an alleged " Register,"
is uniformity, or agreement, among the chroniclers of each succes-
sive link added to the chain in the several articles of the persons
by whom, and the circumstances of time, place, and occasion, etc.,
concerned therein, both ancient and modern. Let us then com-
meuce our examinations,

♦ Roman Catholic Debate, p. 108.

308

I. Of the records of earhj antiquity. We now speak of the age
immediatelj following that of the apostles. Of course, the testi-
mony relating to this early period is exclusively traditionary.
Our canon on this point (and tor the reasonableness of which we
appeal to the decision of the candid reader) is, that our confidence
in an alleged fact diminishes, just in proportion to the remoteness
of the witnesses from the point of time when the event spoken of
transpired.

Now, in regard to the alleged unbroken apostolical succession,
we have proved the positive existence of a chasm of about 200
years^ during which period there is a total absence of any testi-
mony on which we can rely. Eusebius, the earliest ecclesiastical
chronicler of these times, was compelled, as we have seen, to draw
his information from what we have shown to be the exceedingly
equivocal testimony of Clement of Eome, Papias, Dionysius of
Corinth, Caius the presbyter, and Iren^eus.* Ilis ecclesiastical his-
tory was penned about a. d. 320, under all the advantages which
the greatest familiarity with these earliest fathers could afford ;
and the Episcopal government having at that time obtained a firm
footing in "the Church," the specific design of his work was, as
he tells us, " to rescue from oblivion the SUCCESSIONS,"! in
the Sees of Bome^ Jerusalem^ Antioch and Alexandria. We have
only, however, to refer to his own testimony of the character of
the sources whence he drew his information, as evidence of the
palpable uncertainty with which he was trammeled in the very
outset of his undertaking.

In Book I., chap. 1, of his history, he says : " Acknowledging
that it is beyond my power to present the work perfect and unex-
ceptionable, I freely confess . it will crave indulgence, especially
since, as the^rs^ of those that have entered upon the subject, we
are attempting a kind of trackless and unbeaten path." And he
confesses : " We are totally unable to find even the bare vestiges
of those who may have traveled the way before us, unless, per-
haps, what is only presented in the slight intimations which some"
(viz., the earliest fathers above named) " in difierent ways have
transmitted to us in partial narratives of the times in which they
lived, etc.ij:

The " bare vestiges," " slight intimations," "partial narratives,"
etc., of those early times, then, and which Eusebius denominates
" torches at a distance," were the only lights aftbrded him, in his
endeavor "to rescue from oblivion the successions" apostolical;
an " unbroken descent," extracted from a traditionary^ " trackless
and unbeaten path ;" a continuous chain, the first link of which,
" fastened to the throne of God," reaches down to the present day
with as much certainty as the scripturally recorded descent of

* See pp. 288-292.

t Eusebiuss Ecclesiastical History, B. I., c. 1, p. 14. Cruise's Edition. 1833.
Philadelphia.

X Eusebius, etc., p. 14.

804

Christ from Adam, but wliich Eusebius, upon whose genealogical
register all prclatists are dependent in starting it, declared it to be
" beyond kis power to present perfect and unexceptionable."

May we not then be pardoned, if we entreat that those who, in
these " last days," the " perilous times" of the Church of Christ,
^' say they are apostles,'''' and who allege it in behalf of those whom
they claim to have preceded them in unbroken continuity "from
ihe apostles's times," will pause. . . . While, in uddition to what
has been ah'eady offered as demonstrative of the fallacy of their
dogma, we pass to an exhibit of the confusion, endless, of the
chroniclers of the first links. We shall begin with

1. " St. Peter r First then. In addition to the evidence already
furnished that this apostle never was at Rome,* while Flaccius
niyricusf and Zanchius:]; express strong doubts of his ever hav-
ing seen that city, Archbishop Cranmer says, " It is not even
certain that Peter was ever at Rome."§ And, to the same effect
speaks the learned Dr. Cave. " There is," says he, " a npcorov
tpevdog in this case lying at the bottom, it being generally taken for
granted that Peter was in a proper sense Bishop of Pome, which
yet I believe can never he made good^X But admitting, for the
sake of argument, that Peter was the first bishop of Pome, we
ask,

2. Who was his successor t This, we affirm, never has been
and never can be, determined. The variations in the Romanorum
Pontificum Pndex, as constructed by diflierent hands from the
same sources on which Eusebius himself relied, furnish a clear illus-
tration of the Babel-tongued tradition of these early times. Take,
for example, Plautina. lie makes Clement the first bishop after
Peter, by his own ajDpointment. And yet, this same writer assigns
twenty-three years to the presidency of Linus and Cletus between
that of Peter and Clement. How, then, could Peter have made
Clement his immediate successor? Again: "Most of the Latin
authors," viz., TertuUian, Rufinus and Epiphaneus, according to
Jerome, "supposed the order to be, Clement^ the successor of
Peter." But Irentcus, Eusebius, Jerome and Augustine, contradict
these writers, and affirm that Linus succeeded Peter ; Avhile Bishop
Pearson has proved that Linus died before Peter. Dr. Comber
says : " The like blunder there is about the next pope. The fabu-
lous Pontifical makes Cletas succeed Linus, and gives us several
lines of Cletus and Anacletus, making them of several nations,
and to have been popes at different times, putting Clement between
them;" while he quotes Bishop Pearson as proving that "these
were only two names of the same person ; and every one," he adds,

* See pp. 289-292.

t Catalogue, Testament Version I , pp. 484, 485. Ed. Sec. (See Powell, p. 107.)

X Zanch. de F.ccles., c. 9. (Powell, p. 107.)

\ Burnet's History of the Reformation, B. II

y Cave's Goverament of the Ancient Church, pp. 9, 10.

805

" may see the folly of the Eomish Church which venerates two
saints on two several days, one of which never had a real being ;
for Cletus is but the abbreviation of ^wacletus's name."* Finally,
on this subject, the Papists, and Protestant prelatists generally,
make Clement thefowih in the line of succession from Peter.

But, it were a needless task to pursue this subject further,
Cabussate says, " the whole question," that is, of the succession,
"is very doubtful." Prideaux affirms that " no certainty is to be
had" on this subject. The learned Howell, who, with Prideaux,
was a thorough Churchman, says : " It is evident how very doubt-
ful and uncertain is the personal succession of the Eoman Bishop."
Dr. Comber concludes this point by remarking, that the stupidity
and fable here are " a sufficient proof there is neither tnith nor
certainty in the pretended personal succession of the first Popes."f
And Plautina acknowledges that the authorities on the subject in
several of the following centuries, were full of confusion. And
he complains, saj^s Prideaux, that they who were appointed Pro-
tonotaries to register the passages in the Church, were in his time
become so ilhterate, that some of them could scarce v/rite their
own names in Latin.:}:

The authorities from which are principally compiled the various
catalogues of the Roman Pontiffs are, the early fathers, as above
— Eusebius — Plautina's Lives of the Popes — Graveson's History of
Ecclesiastics, 12 volumes, folio, Antwerp, 1610-1629 — Mura-
tori, Annali d'ltalia, 12 volumes, folio, Genoa, 1773-1778 —
Lives of the Popes, by C. W. F. Walch, D.D., Div. Profess.
Gottingen, 8vo., London, 1750 — Bowers's Lives of the Poj^es, 2
volumes, 4to., London — Sketches of the Lives of the Popes, from
Gavin's " Master-Key to Popery," 1820 — etc.

Proceed we now to verify the fallacy of the alleged unbroken
Romish chain, first, by an exhibit of eight specimens of the first
five links, as culled from the early fathers by Eusebius and others,
DOth ancient and modern.

1st. 2d. 3d.

1. Linus, 1. Peter, 1. Linus,

2. Anacletus, 2. Linus, 2. Anacletus,

3. Clement, 3. Cletus, 3. Clement,

4. Euarestes, 4. Clement, 4. Sixtus,

5. Alexander. 6. Anacletus. 5. Alexander.

♦ Dr. Comber, On Roman Forgeries in Councils. Part I., c. 1.
t Powell on the Apostolical Succession, pp. 108, 109.
t lb. p. 109.

4ih.

1. Peter,

2. Anacletus,

3. Clement,

4. Alexander,

5. Evaristus.

806

5th.

1. Linus,

2. Clement,

3. Anacletus,

4. Evaristus,

5. Alexander I.

7tli.

1. Peter.

2. Linus,

3. Cletus,

4. Evaristus,

5. Alexander,

6th.

1. Peter,

2. Clement,

3. Linus,

4. Cletus,

5. Alexander.

8th.

Peter,

Linus,

Cletus or Anacletus,

Clement,

Euaristus,

Now,

Of these eight lists, the reader is desired to compare only the
three following, namely, the 1st, which is taken from Eusebius ;
the 5th, from an anonymous writer ; and the 7th, from the pen of
the Rev. Wm. "Watson, former Rector of St. Peter's Church, Ply-
mouth, Conn., 1841 ; with the confident tone of the advocates of
prelacy in the affirmations of the ease with which they can demon-
strate, with moral certainty, their " spiritual descent from the
apostles." We hereby challenge the entire world of Prelatists,
Romish, Tractarian, or High or Low Church, to harmonize any
two of them. Let them go to work. Perhaps the ex-cathedra
announcement of the Rev. Dr. Hook, of Leeds — " Any bishop,
priest, or deacon can, if he please," may induce some champion
to take the field. And, when he has authenticated tJie first five
links of the golden chain, we will assign to him the farther task
of harmonizing the following lists of that line, commencing with the
sixth link, down to his Immaculate Holiness Pius IX., of 1852.

SECTION- VI.

Pive catalogues of the Popes of Rome. — Eusebius, Chapin, Watson, Anonymous, aud
Gavin. — The prelatical theory of succession excludes any break in the chain. — Re-
view of the above catalogues. — Variations both in names and the number of — Disa-
greement between Chapin and Canon II. — His omission to notice the schisms in. —
Ornits Pope Joan (a woman), the lOoth in Gavin's list. — Failure of the "Re-
cord" at the very point where all should be explicit and complete — Illustrated. —
First recorded instance of a consecration by three bishops, a.d. 585.

HISTORICAL REMARKS

C3
o

Instituted 5bZy Water.

Instituted Lineii Surplice.

Instituted Lent.

Instituted Sponsors.

Denied Baptism to Jews.

Martyred.

A Campanian.

Sent Embassador to Britain.

Lover of Prelatical Power.

Superstitious.

Instituted three Yearly Fasts.

Instituted Church Endowment.

Died in banishment.

Martyred.

^ o

1-3

CNi— t(M-^COCCr-l<MOOOO<M<N
CN(M (M ,-H,-Hr-li— It— 1

l^-cococc^Tt^co<^:)cct-0001— 1

r-l r-i

OOOt^^COT-HOii-OOiGOiOO-^ 1
1— 1 1— 1 1— 1 r— 1 -I— 1 1

•n:iay£)

OOCOOt^T-lt-OOt-CNT— lOi'+lT— |(X)
Ot— IC0C0rh(»0«0J:^CaOr-l(MC0C0
T-(i— It— I^HtHt— lrHTHi-HC<JC<JC<J(M(M

Alexander
Sixtus I. .
Telesphorus
Hyginus .
Pius I. .
Anicetus:}:
Sorter , .
Eleutherius
Victor I, .
Zephyrinus
Calistus .
Urbanus .
Pontianus:}:
Anterus:}: . .

Names and

'WANO.NT

OOC<li:DiOCOt-(NrHOi^T-H>0'^
rH,— li— ItHt— It-ItHtHC<ICN(MC<J<:M<M

•N0S1VA\.

1— (tHtHt— It— li— IrH,— It— l(M<MC<lCq<M

•iinjyHO

OOOOOOt— llO<^^t^OO<:DT-IOilOCO

T-ic<?co^io^t-ooaiT-t(MCMcoco

T-lT-lT-tT-lTHT-lT-lT-HT-IG<l(MC<J(M(M

•saiaa

sxia

oogooot— iioco'^t--oocoT-tC5io<:o

T-l<MCOTtlkO'^t-00OiT— ICMCNCOOO
T-^T-lT—lTHT— It-It-It-It— lO^C'^ieMtN*?^

Sixtus I. .
Telesphorus
Hyginus .
Pius . .
Anicetus .
Soter . .
Eleutherus
Victor . .
Zephyrinus .
Callisthus
Urbanus .
Pontianus
Anteros .
Fabianus .

X>t— CX)aJOT-i(MOO-tiiO<X>I;— OOCR)

308

1— (

12;

C^5

h-1

'«

<1
0

^«

HISTORICAL REMARKS

CD
GO
•?

C5
0

Instituted Chrism.

Banished and beheaded.
Martyred.

Controversy with Cyprian.
Opposed the Chiliasts.
Opposed the Heresy of Paul.
Celebrated the Memory of Martyrs.
Buried 342 Mtr's. with his own hands.
Kinsman to Emperor Diocletian.
Guilty of Idolatry.

1—1 COCOCNCO-^Or^T—ICO
T-H CM i-( r-l r-H

1-1 C<JCOiOO(MCOi-H'^C<l
■pH t-H

7-( rH ,— 1

•iWAYf)

00 »0 10 >0 0 10 b- t^ 00 Ci
(>? CM CM CM CM C<1 <M C<J (M C<1

Fabianus , .

Cornelius:]: .
Lucius l.X
Stephen I. .
Sixtus II,:]: .
Dionysius
Felix l.X . .
Eutychianus:]:
Caius . , .
Marcellinus:]:

•KAisTOJSTV

-4

THCOCOOt-'XiOi-OCOCD -^
0 10 »0 i-O 10 10 !■- t- 00 C5i 0
G<1(MC<I(M<M<MCM<MCMC<1 CO

•NOSXVAi

T— ((MCMiOOOOiC3iiOCO'X> -rf
iOiO>-OiO>OK:i':Ot-OOOi 0
CMG<1C<1(M(M(M(MCMC<ICM CO

•NiWVHO

rHCOCOlOt^ClC3:>lOCOCO GO
lOkO>O>O>O>O':Dt^Q00i 0
CNC^G^G<J(M(M(>;(M<M(M CO

•snisasna

p
<

,— IC0C0>Ot-01CiiOC0<X> CO
>0 lO lO 10 0 >0 <X) t^ CX) OS 0
(M <M C<1 CM (M 05 C<l (M CM (M CO

.• M -J—

1st Schisrr
Novatus, ven
Cornelius .
Lucius . ,
Stephanus
Sixtus II.
Dionysius
Felix . .
Eutychianus
Caius . .
Marcellinus
Miltiades*
vel Marcellus

0 r-t<MCO-^kO'^t--CX)C3:.
(M cq(MCM<MC<)CMCMCM<M

c ■*-■

w (I)

3 O

^ c

■5 S

o p
Oh u
in o

"B <
S a

* •*-

809

e«

-s

l-H

S3
O

1—1

bX)

!2 fo S

^ o S

H EH

•JsTIAYf)

"KUaOKV

•JsIOSXViii

5;1 >d '-I

^ I M

O ^ f-i

SO
pq<1

O S

O) '^
u
O O

a _

<t1

l<M

CO Oi 1— I O

-*l

I CO T-H t^ O CX)

bo C<J

o ^

Ph«
I O lO

lO C^ CO CN

CD iO

00 CO ^ lO

-* Oi T— I TtH -^
O O T-l T-H r-l
CO CO CO CO CO

CO C^
CO lO

CO CO

t^ lO OO CM

CO 00 Oi o

CO CO CO Ti^

^ .2 .2

"^ i^ !-3
a oj o

Cj ;3 <U

DQ ^ -r-i -i-^

f3 2 S «=•

•indYHO

J— I

~oo

T-H

"^j

t/j

ci;

i-J

tsjweq

lOi rH Tfl CD CD

!o 1—1 1—1 CO CO
CO CO CO CO CO

CO 00

»o 00 c<i t-

00 Oi O 1-1

CO CO ^ ^

00
T-H

IO O TfH CD t-
IrH 1— 1 T— 1 CO CO
CO CO CO CO CO

CM 1

CD
CD

iO CO c-i t-

00 Ci O 1-1

CO CO ^ -*

1— 1

O O ^ CD t-
1— 1 T— ( i-H CO CO

CO CO CO CO CO

lO 1
CO

CD
CD
CO

lO 00 CM t--

00 C3i O 1-1

CO CO xH ^

00
1—1

2 2 S3

2 <^

1-3 I

.^^

t« c5 (p 2

2 ^

Q O T-H (M
y IcO CO CO

OO CD
CO CO

^ ^

^ '^ "^

o 3 "5
WHO

8i0

O
<1

Fh
<1
Q

«4-.

pel

■a

I-]

-*^

•§

cS &< a;

•NIAV€

•MAJS[OJS[V

•jsrosiyAi.

•NIJVHO

<M OO
C<1 tH

Oi 00 1— I ^O CD

Oi ^

Ti<

^H (M T— I ,— ( t^

Oq CO Tt< CD <X>
""^ "^H "^^ "^i ''^1

CO cq

00 05

00 TtH CO CO

Oi i-H C<l (M
tJH lO lO »o

3 (-H .03

c/2

I— I :3

a5 0)

0 M
O TS

C/^'tdi-:,

C<J O T-H t^ CO
CO -tH <X> CD CO

Tt^ "^ "^ "^ "^

CM CO

TtH CO CO
O O lO

(M O T-H t- CO
CO -tH CO CD OO

-tH -H -iH -* -*

G<1 CD

00
OS
-tH

-tH CO CO
T-H <M (M
lO lO lO

o
CO

(M O T-H 00 CO
CO -JH CO CD OO
^th ^^^ "^ ^^ ^^

(M CO

TjH -^

TtH CO CO
tH (M Oq

»o »o o

M ■ t* l-H

=3 l-H

„ o^ d;=!
;/) ^q tri (73 tJR

t<!

O CO t- 00
t}H tJH rfl T^H

311

s ^

•S ^ "*^

PI O >^

c3 ,-^ , '^ _,

I — I o f:;

rQ CO -rt

o
Ph

cti

O CO

bi s^ o ^.
§ bo t "=>

d
•5b

•r-t

^ d

O ta

d d

•43 o

'M a

-73 'T5

C/J

PPPh

a* o
o +^

^ O

:^ft

■-d w

r^ ,-, ^ f^
(D p +^ f>
O ;-, O)

-d

'-^^.

d
o

d M is

ft<i

o 00

CD QO

O O Oi

bp
o .

^ I

2 d
§S

--% § •

S dL ^

^ d

d <u ^

o > t
^ o r

f-l Hi

d
o

CO Q

CO 00

O t-

-t^ l-H ^

<D CD -g
O O .1^

I 00 CO
I 1-1 (M

•^ f^c/T

<!> a [^ •

7:5 .rt r-4 8

3 =^rd ^

-^ -S ^H 2
w S ® ^.

fH j3 .d -d

d ^

d^
o a>

e b£)

Old

t<| CO
(D |i4

•r-llOt~Oi-(T-(G^lOlOOiOO I It— i(?q

I 10 rH CD CO G<1 1 CO 0
1 1 T-\

(M 00

It-IiO-^OOtHCOCOtH lt--CO00<M 1
1 T—l i—( rH ^—^ 1 1—1 1

C<I 00 CO 1 -r^H t- CM >0 1
1 T-H 1

0 G<l

CO CO
10 10

10 Oi 0 CO 0 CO t- T-H 10 CD t^ ^ t- t~- 1
COCO-^TtHl-^t-t-OiOOOi— li— ICM
lOiOOiOOiOiOiOCDCOCDCOCOCO

rHCSlO^aiCDOOCOO-D
'-HTtHlOOCOt-t-OOOO
CDCOCOCOCOCOCOCDCD

ShH
O o

CO CO
»0 iO

CO CO
10 10

(D f-i d
bD

h- 1 -^2

g I— I cj ;:;

d^pq
O

r-i ,0S

<D OJ © H)

^.^'

i^^d^S^odiddd
-^o <P-<yr-*rf P P © o

d '^ r^

_<5 i:^>ii;_h^_fq p;__Oj^_pq_pq_ft WWM^^eSw^><lft<^H^

§ w d

P a> ?-i

d 2 O

"S d'^

(D c3 O

- 0=^

to ^

i=i s =^

d .3 "^

CD r-< 0

boi^ CD

d.t^^

CD CO 10 01 CO t~ O
CO CO 10 i-O t- t^ Oi
10 ^ O O 10 lO 10

CO O CD rH 10 00 O
CO 10 >0 CD t^ t^ Oi
10 10 O UO O O kO

Augustine,
A.D. 597.

CO CO
10 «:>

C0OiC>O-*00O^C000>Ot3i>OOOCN<J5^t— cqcooOCMr^i
CO'*»OCOi:^^-C3iOOOrHrH'^^-^-s^^^-^^lOkOt-i^t~0000
iOiOkOOiOiC>OCOCOCDCOCOCDCOCOCDCDCDcDCOCOCOCOCO

^ M ^ i_i b
— S ._ ^^ iri

O P CO

.c3

.;i dC

§0*co

^SSdddddr;;rj(D
\F'P 'o ^ <a'^'^ o o <D oo 5"o-^ii2 '^ F"^ 2 ^ ^
>pHH^pQC^OcOPQPQQpqac^^^&HSWK-<lQ<iK:i

0iOrH(MC0^l0CDt^(X)C3iOrHC<JC0-^l0C0i:^00aiO
»OCDCOCOCOCOCOCOCOCOCOt^t^i:^t^t^t^i>-£^t-^-00

<D , . CO d

fel ^ d rj -J^ CO -

P ^-^ 9^ d P,

■^.S - -S^ d^ t

13 o I — ' o d -1-^ H

(H bfi ^ ^ S ^„

312

.s'

-t:^

l:^

52;

O o

•XLTAYD

•KIJYHO

•^ _.

Em
O

O M C ^ !-<
(-( ^ O <1^ ^

Ph rf d rt

o .

C/2

.<; ~; _• o

■s-i

d.^^

S.og^_^jO

<D S
^ O b^ ,

> r^ g_ ^ faO g

'1' s s k> «

r^ 4*1 'TJ 'Ti

Oh M

1^ <i^ tj Ti "^

o c^O

=+H -T^ .13
CI

CD rO rt

^\>Tj}^\>- CO aq Ph fin Q O Ph 0-1 O

^ 2
cop

i 1 1 1 I^S^^ 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

0 1 T-H 00 CO t-

r-i 1 T-H

1 1 OS 1 CO 1-1 r-l 0 0 1 CO

1 rH 1 -^JH ^ CO
1 1 rH

ICOt-OOOOiOCOi-H ;
1 tH r-l i-H fM G<I 1

-ft iO 0 CO r-l 10

CO CO GO 00 0 0
CO CO CO CO t- ^^-

1^1— It— It— (COCOC<llOCO 1
It— ICOTtllOOCOi:^OST-l 1

r-[> . 2

mm' '

<U <U M

fl d ^

. ;i< M M M

+J r- r-: rH

Ti a ^ ^ ff r^ •'^ S o o ci

d^ d £1^^^ g d CD CD o

M >^ O CO H^ h-j ry2 OOQIS]

;^ M

d 2

=^ S

rd.2

OC0t^TH>0<X)CX)K5T-lT-l

aDcxjcooooOTHCo-*

COCOCOt-t-l^-t-t^t^t^

CM t^ CO <M 10 CO
)0 10 CO t^ Oi T-)
t^ t- t- Xr^ t- 00

d
d

•- rH .H d

hn d d -^

t>t>

>^ !>^ !>,d d ^.

Jh f;H fH O <U
' . Ol'

D CD

(— I q 5 t— I

- <D O

O CO ^^-scooc:t?Ots3coc^airy:<!i-qco
co-+i>ocot^ooaiOT— ic<ico->t>ocoj>-oo

(X)000000000000C55OiOiO5O5<^OiOSO5

313

P o

Org

!r^ CO

^.S S^

o -j-i rO

rcJ 0)

1=1 n

rt3 <V

g ^ 0^ !^

^
fjj

Ci P^

H <D

<I^

(i:) f^ 03
PPhW

t/j d j/j
o '^ p

S <^ d

d d tH .

c o

.d^ "

(U a; /^

nd T^ "^
d d "

C-^rd

dniiirdrj^

d ^^

d M

d O

^ d

d '^

M M Co 0? f-M p.

Oi CO £

CO CO CO OS I G<l lO C<1

xH 1-1 1:- tH

>0 (M

i>.CO iQOCOt- ICOOiiOOi— I ICOO ICOCO ICO

^ir- |^t-TtlT:tH0000-*C<)TiH>OT-Ht~
C<)<M l^-^iOOi-OCOt-OOOOOOOiOi
00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 GO 00 GO 00

o o o

Oi Oi Oi

OS CN C<J 00 ni
O rH rH 0;j -C

Oi Ci Ol Ol

^_d.d

d c3

<D c_. O

^ It: S CD

nc^

pq^<J

t-;,

S<1

ry}

d (D d
M o 9
O ,c3 =5

, I— I

><■

^ r— 1 .^ I— I

_ ^ ^ +^ d -tJ 3
o d CD .2 "ka 2 "^

^So^o^'^J g^ gd §^

t^^ t ^t-lOOOl-^CMCM-^lOrHCDOO

T-IC<J Ol-tH-fllOlOCDt^OOOOOOCiCiOi

CX)00 OOOOODOOOOOOOOODGOCOOOCOOO

OOOCOCOCOOCO-flOOOi
OiOOOOi— ItHt-I(N<M
OOOiOiOiOiOSOiCiCiCi

u t>-

c3 d rt

d _o
b rJQ ^5 CQ S

Sh O OJ

■r-i »-l

^ d

,^ S d

M P

d 9 d "'

^ 2

^ d o

M 2 fl >-> l-H !=

d J O^S_§

<J r/} C::^ r/} « ^ 1-^ m >-3 Q r/j <! ^^3 t-^ i_^ c/3

-d (D "^ C3 o QJ -SS

9h «

Oi O i-H

o o o

CM CO -+(

o o o

o o

T-H CM CO -f >0 CO t^ O) Ol O 1— I (M CO -H >0
,— IrHi— Ir-li— li— li-Hi-HrH(M01C<lCMG<JOq

314

Q
w

CO
W

1— 1

ft)
«

Cm
O

O "

-(J

A modest and honest man.

Meek and devout. [persons ! ! I

Poisoned Leo and Stephen, and 200 other

A wicked and libidinous man.

Lived in seditious times.

A man of peace. Humane.

Of great innocency of life.

Slain in the act of Adultery.

Restores election of Popes to Emperors.

Died in Exile.

Instituted the baptizing of bells.

A man of great modesty. [strangled.

Of questionable morals — was imprisoned and

Guilty of /Sacrilege^ etc.

Was a good man.

Died in prison of famine.

Hated the clergy, etc.

EJ r ^

C5 &< M

^ o W
•NIAT9

f-t |,-l ,-1 1 T-l 1 1 1 1 1 III 1 1

kJICOr-lOCOl 1 1 1 |i:D|C»|t-|CO00
1^ 1 i-H 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

k^llC^l^COThlTtlOOir-l 100 \ Ol lO 1 1

Q C<J CO CO CO 'tl '^ lO i^O CO CO t- t- t- t- 00 00 1

1 .

Leo VI

Stephanus VII. .
Johannes XL . .
Leo VIL. . .
Stephanus VIII.
Martinus III. .
Agapetus II. .
Johannes XII. .
LeoVIIL . .
Benedict V.
Johannes XIII.
Donus II. . .
Benedict VI. .
Boniface VII. .
Benedict VIL .
Johannes XIV.
Johannes XV. .

'KldYKO

.(— icoaiiococc'tii^OG<i^o-*>ocoo5coco
Plcococo-H'+tiococot^t-t-ooooasOiOO

J |OiOiOiCbcbo:)OiOiOiOiOiOi050iOiOO

John XL . . .
Leo VIL . . .
Stephen IX. . .
Martin III. . . .
Agapetus II. .
JolmXIL . .
Benedict V.
John XIILf .
Benedict VI. .
Domnus II. . .
Benedict Vll.f
John XlV.f .
John XV. . .
Gregory V.f .
Sylvester Il.f .
John XVII. .
JohnXVIIL .

COr^OOOiO'-HtMCO'+liOCOt-OOOsOT-^C^
C<l(>1<M<MMCOCOCOCOCOCOCOCOCO-rl"^-^
i-(THr-lrHT-lrH,-(r-l7-lT-li-lTHT-lt-lrHT-(i-l

315

•s^^

^ c3

£d c3 Ph

*" a a M

bO
^' P 4)

,^ C3 ^ CD 'cS

£ -S ^ ^ o

QDt2 M S Ph

^ (U

«tl ?H JU

^ S ^

o o

«^ ?^

M in

.2 O
bO ^

^ ,— ;

;^ >

Ph
Ph '-d

t> o

' a

SH^

O iD

p3 <I>
rfi O
O

• <D m

o o a

Q> o

'^ CD

^^a^O^EH^W

I 1

o o

tH 1—1

1 1

1 Oi OS 1

1 1 CO tT) 1 C<1 o 1 1 1
1 1 rNI 1 CM <M 1 1 1

1 1

1 CO

1 1

11-^1

£- Oi 1 <M 1 O GO 1 ^ 1

1-1 CO

T-l

CO 1

t- CM

CO r-H O 1
T— 1 1— 1 1— 1 1

c<i \ 1 iO CO 1 1 CO c<j crci

II II 1— ( rH

CO Oi

CO CO

o o
o o

tH t-I

o o
o o

T-l r-i

T— 1 CO ko 1

1-1 Ca CO

o o o

rH 7-1 T-l

COt^OOCirHt^t^OOi— (CO

oooooooooo

1— (tHi— ItHi— It— It— It— li— li— 1

ft i

t>>

03 .i:^

c , . „ o „ r: t^ o

iJ CO

Ph ^ gPM

<u Pi
t^ O

o 03

Mt>> 'm

-So

S b

=5 2 .a

"^ a ot5

' (—1 '^^

pi O
I T3

I— I

7^ >^ .S 3 "-^ '-'

ri4 Pi
o <^

^Pi

o 53 , . , . _

OS (M

-* -*

tH CO

QOai^t^CO(MCOCDt^OiGOOi^O

O 1—1

C<1 CO

^ ^

rfl'+liO^O'XJt-OOOOasi— li— ICMCO

o o

OOOOOOOOOOt-It-It-Ii-I

T— 1 1—1

rH 1—1

rH rH

1— li— IrHrHi— It— iT-HrHrHi— It— li— It— It— 1

I— I
PI

bo S ^ 2 <^^

CO e? o CO eg

p kJ > r/} :z; ■

^
-H

t^ 00

05 O t— I G<1 CO
"^10 10^0 0

»0 lO

lO to

Oi o
lo CO

(:o CD

316

'■w

•2

O
O

t25

r/l

0)
5

->1

««

pc3

o fe g
^ o S

•JsEIAYO

'NIJVHO

O
o
■xi

M
o

?-<

^-^

p
o

O
O

o
o

r/5

t-i

->j

C/3

tia

• S o

C5 r-l 'Ti

■TJ O CD T?
Cl> t^ +?^ ^ ^ r-

o h

I I '^ I I I I I

si IP

O (M t— lO T-H "*

G<1 O i-H

Cq CS rH lO '^O -*

00 T-M lO G<1 -^

TjH

;:o b- est. 00 -hi O CO

GO 00 Oi i-H (M CO '^
O O O 1— I T-H 1— I 1— I

>0 CO ^ OS T— I »o '^
^ >0 O lO CO 00 oo

O rt

c3 CD

CD fl

^ s d ^

d 'en d

tj I— I

CD O

Eiq<l<^<lH^p

M I— (

2 ^

O 0)

boa
2 J

CO^>OCO'*Oii-Hi-Ot^O0i— lOSCDt^
^'*'+I>O>0>O0000CX)00c32C35t-I<M
1— li-Ht— li— It— (t— It—It— (i— It— (r-lT— (C<1C<I

■1-^ r-i —

2 -^ t-H

^t^

o o
Oo

2 b !^ !=>

o +^

o X

d 03

2<^

X ICO -H O O

y I '£> CO CO o

-+I iO

00 05

817

o
O

■

hfl

a
o

Ti TS

^ri3 CD

rr-J H i-SJ CO

K GO

c-t I— I

^ 9

O ir; ^ -i-a -i-J -i-a

^ ■>

M
<U
O

S ^ g

^ .O o

-I Si

M bp^ ?. +s

'i^^ a|^-s --s

C3 ha- O-'

ffr^'

PhkhH^^P

^ o 2 ©

rj +^ O +J
-^^^^

- (D (X> 0)
TS Si rj c!

2 M P-i rt

■^ o

t> CD

r^ CD

9 . >

<D CO* O

W §H
^;^

CO 3 o

U O!^

-1-3 £« r^-l

•r' r75 r-M
;■< o -1-3

"^ S g

CD Sd -(^

•j::; *i CD

B^lfea^^

S JTnO

p- -M

" .Jn

P.^

o e o 3

-e ^" •§ S

.^ ?3^ ^ ?i n 13 CD

(X)

CO I xH >0 00

t- 00 ^-i ^

1— ( t- CO -<*l ^

CO-^CM'* ICi|(X)00CiOO'00i:^TH

COCOt^T-H |COO^OO<X)
c3irHC>)Ttl llOCOCOCOt-
THCjqc^JCM CMCNC^G^CM

T-H lO t^ CM

(X) 00 GO Ci
CM CM c^ cq

COCOO^C<lC?qC<)Ot~t3i
OOi— iOl^>OCOIr-l:^00
CO CO CO CO CO CO c^:) CO CO CO

I— I ?N

fcb 3 o !;<
CD J=; cj QJ

1—1 ^

^^ t> kJ > M — -I

^^>^ c«^^^
g O O crS d O .5

-S J 2 ^ ^ .2 ^

2 <^

0.2'

02 ^

■7\ <0

d d

O (D

-t-3 <rj

^ O

d 1^

«o

"5 2

(D •-?

O 1—1
CD t-
CM CM

CO t-
C<J CM

I— I lO 00 -* ^ CO O O CM CM CM CM T— I 00 CTj -H «0 Cji O t-

oooooocjsasooi— (-ti-+o<:oi>-t-ocoooT-<T-H
(^^(^^c<^c<^cMcocococococococococo^^^'*'^

O 1-1
00 00

CM CO

00 00

cx) 00

O rH CI

Oi Oi OS

CO -# iO CD 1— GO Ci O
(3iOSC3S0505C3iOO
1— It— (t-It-Ht-Ii— lr-l(^4

CM CO -t<
O O O
C>1 CM G^l

O CO

o o

318

Tf)

1-1

>-:)

'fl

fcC

w-H

O fn 03
t^ O g

•KTAVf)

'KUVHO

CI
O

o o

.9^1
.>; a .

P Pi CO e3

^ (73 Ol OJ

•5 ^
wpq

15 ^

« I

•s §

03.2

s a

<1J S Q;> -rH

CO <i:) w ;i
O '^ O ^

Phcj o-,\;

<K o <1^ ^

POP W

rJ3

^ o

"+H -e

J5j CO O
!k q;! to

> o 0) g

PI W
o cs W

3 -^^ -^ t>

'^3 t3

'T3 ^

•^ <D O

■73 <U

•CO ^

>-0

co-^<:ooococoi>'coco

O Oi

.|CO''-Das l-^T— It^'X'OO^i— l-^CMCO |CO(M
POOO ■i-ICO'*iO>0<X>t^CX)OsO i-(<M

T-tl>-OG0'f'-l-<tlC-1C0C0C0C<lC0Tt(O>0l0
C0'^0l0':0t^000500i-H(>;(MCO>0 1010

1— ItHt— It— li— (itHtHi— li— li— It— trHrHi— (rHi— It— (

•^

« .„^

2 ?^ ?.

.!_; CO "^ +o

!» .in;

DhCU

CO ,.q <1 (£1 1^ vJq <1

:^>-'

-c5 _q ;:^ --2 ^

l-^OOOSOi-ICMCOTHOCOt^OO
OOOT-lr^T—;i— (i— It— It— It— IrH
(M(M(MCM(M(N(M(M(M<N(N<M

O 1-1

CM OO

819

ft o

I.?

"S H '^^ i=!

ho S ,L ^ ^

o p:

2^1^

^ D e

c3 OJ

S >

U O

CO +^

Qj O

9.2 lo^^^

O) <U S 1=1 c3 .

CO 2

a P-, o) (X> c3

I I '^ i I I '

o
f-l

Ph'S
^ fco

^ a sh
o aTi

CO -r^

-K 0-1

fin

8 ^

fl +J « CO

c ap ««

> ;=! c3 O)

?^ «-, Q?

be c3
c3 -, cS

d 3

a> o

tn 2 PL, Ph d^ P^ O
O r.d O O r3 O

O ^ > _ _

fLj E£] [v^ ClJ E^ S^^rf}<X^^<'^

CO
CM

C^ T— I iO o

CO lO

CqCOCDCOCMCO-rHCO
r-l T-H <?q

oqcO'^O |<»<:ot^QOOi I lOiO
THr-ir-lrH t— iT-tr- It— It— I T— ItH

'^OC^-^iOt-^OOOl'T— ICItH^

" +3 I i

<iOCn

I—!

w a;i i-H I— I

* ""^ k> I— •
^_, ).<j I— I p.

>'p s rt S'8 |>^>-*

to b£) ^ ^ b£i o ci

.2 g.^-S £ a §

9 a s

bJ3 ^ O

t^Oc/^tDO^OPf^HOH^^

-TS

-1-2

a J

H • I— I ja

, , f> I— I ^T I— I »

S ^ F^

OiOOlOOOr- iCMOiOT— ICO'*»Ot^O<XJOST-<OT— I'^OOGOOiiO
»0<:0X-CCCiC;.Ci0iOOC^CM^^':0t--t-000iOG<lOTC0'+li0'X)J>-

•

1— 1
1— 1

1— 1

>— 1

!>■

►— 1

><
1— 1

>— 1

1— 1

• • • •

1—1

»— I

y~.

1— H

1— 1
(— 1

<11

-+7

1— 1

hH hH

hH hH
hH hH

-J-

hH
hH

XIII. .

XIV. .

1— 1

>> >
^ =« c:

id
o

>^ o a

-(-3

G.2

1:5 "S ►-^

G G K;^

CD D P*

fcO o

^^-^ boS

a a OO

'd!,

?1 O ^ O) r^

1— t

1— 1

PQOPCOOPL,

»o

•^

— ,

Ol CO -+i lO

c:d 1—

rf:

'^l

, — *

T— t

or.

-f

1—

CX) Oi o

cmcocococococococococO'+I'+|"*^'*-+'-*-^'+|'*k:i

<M<MC-J<?^C^C^(MC<JGqC^C<J<7^C^l(M(M013^<^«(M

CM 01 r^-K

CM CM CN (M CM

320

?>.

'ts

•J

o
o

H
P

p
<

■>!

HISTORICAL REMARKS
(Referring to Gavin's List of the Popes).

Jansenists persecuted.

Learned and liberal.

Opposes the Jansenists.

Friend of the Jesuits.

Probably poisoned by the Ex-Jesuits.

Died a prisoner to Bonaparte.

Crowned Bonaparte Emperor of the French,
Dec. 2, 1804 ; by whom he was deprived of
all his territories in 1808, and made pris-
oner in 1811.

LENGTH

TERM.

P 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

^'r 1 1 1 M 1

kJ 1 O Gvl 00 rH CO i,-- CO

•KIAYO

. O O C/D Ol lO Oi T— 1

p CO -+I lo xi t- CD 1-1
• 1^ 1:^ 1^ t^ 1^ t^ CO

' t—ItHi— It— li— It—It-I

Benedict XIII.
Clement XII. .
Benedict XIV.
Clement XIII. .
Clement XIV. .
Pius VI. . . .
PiasVIL* . .
Leo XII. . .
PiusVIIL . .
Gregory XVI. .
PIUS IX. . .

•NIJYHO

O OO C5 1— 1 o
O CM 01 CO -*
GO GO 00 CO QO
tH T— I T—l tH r-l

PiusVIL . . .
LeoXIL . . .
PiusVIIL . . .
Gregory XVI. . .
PIUS IX. . . .

i-ICMCO'*iO':Oi:-GOOSOTH
lOOlOOlOxOiOiOiOCOCO

cMC^(M(McqG^(?q(M(?:icqoq

321

Now, in casting his eye over this exhibit of the Romish genea-
logical line, — and keeping in view the fact, that the theory of an
unbroken apostolical succession (involving, as it does, the transfer,
direct, of the grace, office, functions, apostolic, to those who, hav-
ing been duly baptized, had been previouslj- ordained deacons and
priests, — " by the hands of the apostles" and their successors, —
three^ or at least two^ consecrators, being requisite to the validity
of eacli act) absolutely excludes the idea of an intervening space,
as to time, in the uniting the consecutive links ; we ask the reader
to bear in mind in the first place, that the authorities from which
are compiled the various catalogues of the Eomish bishops, are
oj-iginally derived from their own standard writers, respecting
which " unbroken succession," Bishop Purcell assures us, " It has
been faithfully noticed and regularly perpetuated in an imhroken
chain of Pontiffs doAvn to the present chief pastor," Pius IX.,
" auspiciously presiding over all the Church."

We ask him in the next place, to weigh candidly the following
facts, as presented on the face of the above catalogues, namely :

(1.) That, in a(«ldition to the 'confusion worse confounded,' pre-
sented in our exhibit of the eight examples of the first five links
in the alleged chain, in the aggregate lines, the first four commence
the sixth Pope with Sixtvs I., while Gavin, following Plautina, gives
Alexander^ the lines continuing to vary down to 95. Then, from 96
to 104, Chapin and Gavin run together. And, from 105 to the
end of the two catalogues, the utmost confusion prevails, there
being no correspondence either as to the order of the succession,
or the number of the Popes, — ^Chapin making the whole number
255, Gavin, 261 ; while the Romish " register" gives 256 as the
true amount.

(2.) Chapin, having informed us that Urban IV. the 180th, and
Gregory XIII. the 20od, in his catalogue, Avere archhishoj>s at the
time of their consecration ; and also that there were fifty-one who
were hishoj?s at the time of their election to the Pontificate, states
also, that eleven were deacons only,* and that Fabian the 19th in
the line, and John XIX. the l-15th, are known to have been lay-
men. Query. What then, in reference to these last, becomes of
the canon which enacts, that "that ordination has been judged in-
valid^ where the person ordained bishop had not been pkhviouslt
ouDAixKD a deacon and a p7'iest^ that is, ordination per saltum,
does not convey the grace ?" Then again. What were the
other 189 at the time of their consecration ? For example, Bene-
dict IX. the 146th in his list, and whom Barronius says was onl}'-
12 years old at the time of his consecration ? Then further :

(8.) It may occur to the reader, after our exhibit of the numer-
ous schisms in the popedom,f as not a little singular, that Chapin

* The Primitive Church, pp. 354, 346.
t See pp. 293-295.

322

atudiously avoids in his catalogue, the least recognition of them.
Once more.

(4.) Why does Mr. Chapin omit Pope Joan, the 105th in
Gavin's list, from his catalogue ? The fact that this pope was a
woman^ remained undisputed for six or seven centuries after her
occupancy of the papal chair. Marianus Scotus was the first writ-
er to authenticate the following circumstances respecting her, to
wit : that she was born in Mentz, and having disguised her sex,
traveled to Athens and throughout Greece, and having acquired
a competent knowledge of literature, she came to Komc, was ad-
mitted to holy orders, and at length, by unanimous consent, on ac-
count of her excellent conduct, and great learning, was elected
pope. She became pregnant by a servant, and died in child-birth
when going to the Lateran. To prevent the recurrence of a simi-
lar disgrace, the jpoi^jphyry chair was ordained, to determine the
sex of a newly elected pontiff. It was not until since the Reform-
ation^ that this fact has been disputed. And, in the controversy
which it has elicited, Protestant prelatists have exhibited as much
zeal as the Romanists themselves, in bringing it into discredit.*
Again, ^ ,

(5.) In regard to the " register''' itself We submit, that it total-
ly fails at the very point where^ to entitle it to our confidence, all
should be explicit, clear and complete. Prelatists admit the ne-
cessity of such a fullness of detail, to this end, by their mode of
exhibiting the fragmentary catalogues of modern successions.
Take in illustration, the following, in the Anglican line —

Name of Bishop. Diocese.

1. Henby Standish, St. Asaph,
War. Reg. 21.

2. John Voysey, Exeter,

War. Reg. 22.

3. John Longland, Lincoln.
War. Reg. 23.

4. Thomas Ceanmee, Canterbury,
Cran. Reo^. 4.

Consecrators.

July 6, 1715.
Warham. Canterbury,
Sherborn, Chichester,
John Young, Titular Bishop.

Nov. 6, 1715.
Warham,
John Rochester,
Thomas Leighlin.

March 5, 1721.
Warham,
Fisher (Cardinal),
John Exeter, 2.

March 30, 1533.
John Lincoln, 2,
John Exeter, 2,
Henry St. Asaph, 1,

* See Spanheim's Ecclesiastical History, p. 350.
Appendix, E.

See also further on this subject,

323

Now, this principle, applied to THE FIRST LINKS in tliat chain
which, " at its beginning" is alleged to be "fastened to the throne
of God," would place the evidence in its behalf as a /act, beyond
the power of resistance. But, as we have said, where such fullness
of detail in the "registerof those who are counted by genealogy" is
indispensable to authenticate its truth, there is a total blank. This
is true of all the so-called catalogues of the primitive age — Jerusa-
lem^ Alexandria, Antioc/i, Epliesus., and Rome. The chasm of
which we have spoken in reference to this the most important
period of all, has never been and can never be, bridged over.
But we find that, just at that point of time when the predicted
" falling away" from the New Testament faith and order of the
Gospel mentioned by Paul, had sufficiently developed itself in the
aspirations of ecclesiastics after '■'■ the pre-eminence,'''' to give form
and consistency to a hierarchy yet in embryo, commenced the
entry, into the newly opened " register," of

Bishops of Rome. Consecrated.

18. Anterus, Nov. 21, a.d. 235.

19. Fabian, Jan. 11, " 236.

20. Cornelius, May 24, " 251."
etc. etc.

But even here, it will be observed, there is yet one grand defect.
There is no record of the three canonical consecrators, without
whose agency the links cannot be joined. Indeed, so far from this
being the order observed in the consecration of the Popes, the
Jirst recorded instance of a consecration by three bishops, is that
of Pope John V., marked as the 82d in Chapin's list, a.d. 685, on
which occasion officiated the three bishops of Ostium., Portiis, and
Valiturnum, which practice was subsequently adopted by his suc-
cessors.

As the next chapter will treat of the Anglican Succession, we
shall append, as a suitable introduction thereto, in the first section,
an historical sketch of the rise and development of the theory of
Episcopacy, as erected on the platform of Expediency alone.

♦ See Chapin's Catalogues, Primitive Church, etc., pp. 284, 291*295, etc.

324

CHAPTER YI.

THE ANGLICAN LINE OF THE ALLEGED UNBROKEN SUCCESSION.

SECTION I.

Episcopacy, as founded in expediency alone. — Recognized the perfect equality of Bish-
ops and Presbyters. — Was adopted as an ecclesiastical arrangement only. — Jerome
on. — An unwarrantable innovation of the New Testament ministry. — Jerome. —
Originated the distinction in ecclesiastical titles. — Amalarius, Theodoret, Bingham,
etc. — A mere human device. — Formed the germ of Prelacy and the Papacy. —
Prelatical denial of primitive parity. — Answer. — Jerome. — Bingham. — Diocesan
Episcopacy. — Archbishop Whately on. — Ministerial parity affirmed by Bishop
Mcllvaine to be unknown to the Church till the sixteenth century. — Answer. —
Proof of its New Testament origin and primitive prevalence. — Was adopted by
the first Anglican Reformers. — Principles on which it may be adopted or re-
tained.— Appeal to those who are really Low Church.

Having had occasion in the preceding pages, to advert inci-
dentally to that theory of Episcopacy which is founded in expe-
diency only, and a proper understanding of it, in contrast with the
various forms of development of the system of prelacy being in-
dispensable to an elucidation of what is to follow, we shall appro-
priate the present section to an exhibit of its historic rise, progress,
results, etc.

AVe remark then, first, that this theory of Episcopacy is a totally
different affair from that which claims for it an apostolic origin,
jiure divino. It is conceded by anti-prelatists, that the former the-
ory was brought into practical operation at an early period of the
2)08t-aj)OstoliG^age. It originated in the always plausible plea of
necessity. The exigencies of the Church, it Avas argued, demanded
it, as better adapted to good government, the eradication of heresy,
etc., but that it fully recognized the fraternal character or perfect
EQUALITY of tlic oflicc and functions of the elders^ -npeaiSvTepoi, and
his/iojjs, e-moKOTToi, of the New Testament age, and that, primitively,
it was held to be a purely ecclesiastical arrangement, I have shown,
not only from the interchangeable use of the above titles as applied
to the same person, but also from the declarations of prelatists
themselves, confirmed by the writings of the purest ages of early
antiquity, and the testimony of all the Christian churches in the
world. The learned Jerome, who attained the zenith of his great-

825

ness in the early part of the fifth century, having thoroughly can-
vassed the writings of the early fathers on this subject, holds the
following language : " If any suppose that it is merely our opinion,
and not that of the Scriptures, that bishop and presbyter are the
same, and that one is the name of age^ and the other of o^^ce^ let
him read the words of the apostles to the Philippians," etc., and,
having argued the point from this and other passages, he adds : —
" These things I have Avritten, to show that among the ancients^
presbyters and bishops were the same ; but, ny liitlk and little,"
says he, " that all the seeds of dissension might be plucked up, the
whole care was devolved on one j as therefore, iho. 2)reshyter8 know
that BY THE CUSTOM OF THE Churcii they are subject to him Avho is
x\m\v jji^esident, so let the bishops know that they are above pres-
byters more hy the custom of the Church than by the true dispen-
sation of Christ, and that they ought to rule the Church in coni-
mon^ imitating Moses, who, when he 'might alone ride the people
of Israel, chose seventy with whom he might judge the people."*

But, the histrionic sequel of this arrangement, however pure the
motives of those with whom it originated, carries with it the evi-
dence, that it was an unwarrantable innovation upon that divinely
appointed order of things designed by Christ and his apostles for
the permanent and ordinary upbuilding and edification of the
Church, till the end of time. I affirm of it, that it formed the first
step of departure from that platform apostolic, wdaich, while it
wisely provides for a diversity in the functions^ yet stands so un-
mistakably antagonistic to any the least rliversity of ra/tk^ in
the ministry of Christ's Church. " The elders that rule well are
counted worthy of double honor, esjjecially they (that is, of the
elders,) who labor in word and doctrine." Here, a diversity of
functions is declared to be entirely consistent with identity of
ofilce. Wherefore, then, depart from that system of ecclesiastical
regimen in which inhered all the powers and functions commen-
surate with the utmost exigencies of the Church through all time,
and every where? It provided for the incidcation and defense of
scriptural "doctrine," for the interpretation of the "word," for
general edification, and for the good government and discipline of
the Church: in a word, as "built" upon that "foundation of the
apostles and prophets," of which " Jesus Christ himself is the chief
corner-stone ;" it was " profitable for doctrine, for reproof, and for
correction and instruction in righteousness;" "the man of God"
recpiired nothing more to make him '"'■ perfect^ thoroughly fur-
nished unto all good works^ Since, then, no necessity existed
therefor, there is no principle which could justify a departure from'
such a regimen. Jerome tells us in what that regimen consisted.
"/•*/'<?.<,-6yfer5," says he, " ruled the Church in common^'''' the only
other Church officer was that of deacon. Thus, Clemens Romanus :
" The apostles," he writes, "preaching through countries and cities,

* See Treatise, Part III., Chap. X.

326

appointed the first fruits of their conversion to be bishops and dea-
cons over such as should afterwards believe, having first proved
tliein by the spirit; nor was this anything new, seeing that long
BEFORE, it was written concerning bishops and deacons : For thus
saith the Scriptures, in a certain place, I will appoint their overseers
(bishops) in righteousness, and their ministers (deacons) in faith."

But, the fell spirit of innovation having been evoked, the estab-
lishment, as above, of a system of Episcopacy on the ground of
expedienc}^, I affirm, was hut the laying of the corner-stone of that
foundation on which was subsequently erected the hierarchy of
Eomc ! " By little and little," as Jerome hath it, the stealthy
footsteps of ecclesiastical aspirants after " the pre-eminence^^^ con-
tinued their aggressions on the New Testament and early post-
apostolic constitution of the ministry etc. of the Church, until
Episcopacy, at first founded on the principle of expediency alone,
was e.Kchanged for Episcopacy by Divine right ; the bishop, at
first chosen by his compee7-s, the presbyters, and appointed by
them to preside over ministers and people as their superintend-
ent— called by St. Ambrose, " inter Preshjteros prl/nws,^'* or
^^ primus Presbyter ^^^^ and which arrangement Jerome tells us was
adopted, not on the ground of Divine appointment^ but " BY the
CUSTOM OF THE Church" — an arrangement which the early fathers
contended to be in no way inconsistent with the perfect equality
OF DIVINE EIGHT between him who superintends, and those who aro
superintended — this bishop soon came to arrogate to himself a supe-
riority of official rank over those of his compeers of the presbyte-
rate, as, by divine right above, and entirely sejiarate and distinct fro'/n,
that of the presbyterate.

Hence the origin, in early antiquity, in accommodation to the
order of things in this newly fledged hierarchy, of a distinction of
ecclesiastical titles. This circumstance is thus alluded to by Ama-
larius, in a citation from Ambrose : " They," says he, " who are
now called bishops, were originally called apostles ; but the holy
apostles being di:ad, they who were ordained after them to govern
the churches, could not arrive to the excellency of those first, nor
had they the testimony of miracles, but were in many respects infe-
rior to them ; therefore, they thought it not decent to assume to
themselves the name of apostles, but dividing the names, they left
to presbyters the name of the presbytery, and they themselves
were called bishops.":]: To the same elfect writes Theodoret, a con-
temporarj'^ of Ambrose, as quoted by Bingham, " The same per-
sons were ancientl}^ called, promiscuously, both bisliops and pres-
byters, Avhilst those who are now called bishops, were" (then)
" called apostles ; but shortly after, the name of apostles was ap-
j)ropriated to such only as were apostles indeed;" — that is, "the

♦ Comment, on 1 Timothy 3. t Comment, on Ephesians 4.

X Ambrose tlourislied in the fourth century.

327

twelve" — " and then the name hishop was given to those who be-
fore were called apostles," etc.

A remark or two, in passing, regarding the above. Bingham,
on the authority of Theodoret, sajs, that during the apostles's days,
" the appropriate name of iis/iops, to distinguish them from mere
presbyters, was that of apostles." But where, I ask, is the au-
thority for this? Certainly, not in the New Testament. The
" apostles" are there sometimes called presbyters, but never bish-
ops ! It is a bold flibrication, noio intended, as it was by the early
ecclesiastical writers, to bolster up a system of purely human ori-
gin, under the pretext of a claim in its behalf, founded in divine
right.

I repeat, a system of purely human origin. This is demon-
strable from the statements themselves as made by Ambrose and
Theodoret, For how, it may be demanded, on the modern prela-
tical hypothesis of an alleged unbroken apostolical succession,
could the hands of the apostles be employed in the transmission,
either in whole or in part, of their functions to others, when they
were " dead" ? Clearly then, the authority apostolic as claimed
by their so-called " successors," is a usurpation, and hence,
HUMAN ! Thus much for the testimony of Ambrose. Take now
that of Theodoret: " The same persons were anciently called pro-
miscuously both bishops diXidi presbytersj'' Let us admit then, for the
sake of argument, that the apostles were anciently bishops. Theo-
doret says : "Those who are now called bishops, were" (then)
" called apostles." This change of title, it is alleged, transpirea
" shortly after''' the apostles were " dead." Whether the interval,
therefore, were six mouths, or six years, or six centuries, it mat-
ters not. The clear inference is, that the now-bishops were not the
THEN-BISHOPS ; modem bishops ake not the same as ancient bishops ;
therefore, they are not, and cannot be, bishops by Divine eight.*

As an incident of those early times, I now remark, the change
of ecclesiastical titles above alluded to, having transpired subse-
quently to the introduction of the superintendency of one presbyter
over the others as a human arrangement, serves, of itself, to illus-
trate the nature and tendency of the theory which originated it.
And now, the work of aggression having been thus commenced
by these early innovators upon the primitive constitution and
ministry of the Church, the precedent of an Episcopacy of three
orders, bishops, priests, and deacons, at first established, as we have
said, on the principle of expediency alone, served but as a stepping
stone for others which followed in rapid succession until, under
the plea of a " prescriptive" or Divine right, there were finally
added to the above, archbishops, primates, patriarchs, metropolitans,
popes, cardinals, archdeacons, moriks, friars, nuns, exorcists, acolytes,
etc., teaching and preaching the doctrine of priestly ahsolution,

* For a more elaborate statement of this argument, see Powell on Apostolical Suc-
cession, pp. 14-lG. London, 1838.

328

auricular confession, purgatory, transuhstantiation, extreme unction,
a system of C Jiristianized derrtoriolatry or image-worship, etc, and a
belief in, and obedience to, and praetiee of, one and all, enforced
by the thunders of the Vatican in the infliction of penalties by
imprisonment, confiscation, banishment, fire and fagot, the gibbet
and the sword, excommunication, and, iinall}'-, eternal damnation,
against all the disobedient, whether sovereigns or subjects, rich or
poor, learned or ignorant, bond or free ! The acme of this fearful
power of the popeuom, arrogating to itself the attributes of infalli-
bility, and universal and absolute supremacy, spiritual and tem-
poral, and beneath which emperors, sovereigns, kings and nobles
trembled, may be seen in the decrees of the canon of Boniface
VIIL, in the words following :

" Subesse Romano Pontifici, omnis humanai creatiiras declaramus,
dicimus, defininms, et j^ronunciamus omuino esse necessitate
salutis."

" Moreover, we declare, and say, and define, and pronounce to
every human creature, that it is altogether necessary to salvation
to be subject to the Eoman j^ontiftV*

Sununarily, then, what I affirm of the theory of Episcopacy, as
founded on the j^rinciple of expediency^ is, that it forms the leaven
of that PRELATicAL systcm of which the Papacy is the lump. With
all deference to the sentiment as expressed by a recent learned
anti-prclatical controvertist, I submit that the Church of Eome is
not " the mother of Episcopacy."f Nor " did Episcopacy spring
from Presbyterianism.":}: " The mother of Episcopacy" was rather
that " evil spirit which, actuated by a love of " the pke-kmlnence,"
and of which " Diotrephes" is the New Testament type,' — sowed
broad-cast on primitive Presbyterian ground the seed of its prelatical
rival, which, taking root downward, "p,y lpitle and lhtle," pro-
duced at length that miglity Upas, THE PAPACY, upon whose
wide-spread branches have lodged all those various broods — " the
fowls of the air" — of the great antichristian apostasy, both of the
past and the present age. As in nature, so in the matters under
consideration. Presbyterianism, originally sown on ajjostolie grouna
by apjoslolic hands,% continued to flourish like " wheat" in the
midst of " tares." No period since the New Testament age has
elapsed, when they ceased to " grow together." And they will
and must so continue to " grow together until the harvest" of the
great day.

But to the historic fact, as stated by Jerome and the writers who

(1) 3 John V. 9.

* Roman Catholic Debate, Cincinnati, Ohio, p. 93. 1837. For a truly graphic
portrait of the Papacy, by an able and eloquent pen, the reader is referred to PartlJl.
p. 177. of this Treatise.

t The Posiiion of the Evangelical Party in the Episcopal Church, by Albert Barnes.
Philadelphia, 1844. p. 34.

X Remarks on the above from the Episcopal Recorder. R. S. George. Philadelphia,
1844, p. 16.

§ See Part II. of this Treatise.

329 •

preceded him, that in the first age after tlie apostles " tresbyters
KULED IN COMMON," the modem advocates of prelacy of all sects
and grades object that "there is not a trace of it" — that is, of min-
isterial parity — " to be found." That " it is impossible" that " such
an office as was held by the apostles, and afterwards by the
bishops their successors," should " ever arise in the Church, with-
out it had been fully sanctioned by the great Head of the Church."
That it is marvelously "strange that it" — that is, miuisterial
parity — "should have been considered so unfitted for the Church
of Christ, as to be banished from it before the close of the first
century." And, finally, it is contended that if such a change did
occur, " this immensely important mistake must have spread so
rapidly and powerfully as to have revolutionized the government
of the Church of all lands, in the course of some sixty years after
the death of St. John, and so silentl}^ that history has preserved
not the slightest trace of its beginning and progress, and so per-
fectly and universally, that though the Scriptures were daily
read in the Churches, and presbyters and laity were made of
the same materials as they are now, none perceived the usurpation •
but all took it for granted, without a question, that such had been
the government of the Church from the beginning, and was to be,
to the end of the world ; and this mistake, so permanent, that
Avithout a dream of its being else than the most unquestionable
truth, it continued till the sixteenth century entirely unsuspect-
ed,';* etc.

Now, all this is plausible, very. But, let it be conceded that the
regimen of tlie Church was changed from parity to prelacy — from a
system of parochial to that of diocesan Episcopacy — before the close
of the second century. Surely, the most ample scope, as to tinie^ was
afforded for precisely such a revolution as is here contemplated.
Its silent accomplishmeut holds an exact analogy to those numerous
instauces in civil, political and ecclesiastical affairs, " where men
have yielded their rights without a struggle." All histor\' attests,
that such revolutions have been achieved " more by'art and decep-
tion, than by war, and bloodshed." It is the very character of
such " encroachments," to forge in silence those chains which,
when imposed, cannot be resisted. The histories both of Imjierial
and of Christianized Rome, may be taken in illustration. Thus,
in the instance before us : It was not by commotion, not by
fire and sword, but b}^ a mere change of ecclesiastical titles, adapted
to that system, for the establishment of which the way had been,
for the space of nearly a century, gradually and imperceptibl}' pre-
paring the Church, that prelacy first attained a foothold on primi-
tive soil. And, that nothing but ignorance, or a purposed intention
to deceive, could have betrayed any writer into the declaration, as
aljovo, ''^ tJcat Jiistory has preserved not the slightest trace of the begin-
ning and progress^^ of such a change, we shall now prove fi'om the

* The Argument for llie Apool. Succ, Bisliop Mcllvaine, p. M.

830

account which Jerome, -vvhom prelatists claim in support of their
theory, gives of this very matter. His words are as follows : —

" Presbyters and Bishops were formerly the same. And he-
fore the Devil incited men to nnake divisions in religion^ and one
was led to say, ' I am of Paul, and I of Apollos,' churches were
governed by the common council of the Presbytery. But
AFTERWARDS, when every one in baptizing rather made pros-
elj^tes to himself than to Christ, it was everywhere decreed that
one pei'son, elected from the rest of the presbyters of each church,
should be placed over the others," etc. Again. '' But that the
roots of dissention might be plucked up, a usage gradually"
(or '■'■ silently^'''' '■'•'by little and little^'') took place, that the chief
care should devolve upon one," etc.

The learned Bingham, a standard authority with Churchmen,
tells us, " St. Jerome will be allowed to S'pealc the sense of the
ancients y

Again. It is said, the early fathers speak of the existence of
Diocesan Episcopacy in their day. Granted. But this does not
prove that it existed in the ajjostolic age. On this subject, the
learned and acute Archbishop Whately says : " It seems plainly
to have been at least the general, if not the universal practice of
the apostles to appoint over each sejyarate churchy a single indi-
vidual, as a chief governor, under the title of angel or ' bishop.'
A CHURCH and a diocese seem to have been for a considerable
time" [sixty years will answer our purpose*) '"'' co-extensive and
identicaiy\ Nor, we add, does the mention of the above fact by
the early fathers, prove that diocesan episcopacy was by divine
right. Jerome savs, — " Let the hishojjs know, that they are above
presbyters more BY THE CUSTOM OF THE CHURCH, than
by the true dispensation of Christ.":}:

Once more. If, as is asserted above, "Ja'sAo/^s" could not have
risen "in the Church," unless "fully sanctioned" by Christ; then,
query : why cannot the whole troop of high dignitaries up to His
Holiness "the Lord God the Pope," "Vicar General of Jesus
Christ on earth" "and Minister Plenipotentiary of Heaven," who
subsequently arose " in the Church," plead a similar sanction?

And so, linally, of the pretense, that prelacy was " the govern-
ment of the Church from the heginning, and was to he, to the end of
the world,^^ etc. ; and that, ^'without a dream of its being else than the
most unquestionable truth, it continued till the sixteenth century entirely
unsuspected.''^ In refutation of this statement, and in proof of the
uninterrupted existence of ministerial parity " from the begin-
ning" down to the Reformation in the " sixteenth century ;" the
reader is referred to tlie numerous quotations from the early fath-
ers, etc. (see Chapter X., Sections II. and III., etc. etc., in-

* The Ar!>;ument for the Apostolic Succession, Bishop McIIvaine, p. 14, Note.
t Whately's Kiiitj;iloni of Christ.
X S. Hieron, in Tit. C. I.

331

elusive, of tliis Treatise. And I now remark, that, of all the acts
of imposition practiced upon the "unlearned" in these matters in
support of a favorite theory, that stands first and foremost, which
assigns to the system of ministerial parity, alias^ Pkesbyterian-
iSM, an origin subsequent to the Anglican Reformation. So far
from it, we refer the reader to the historical evidence furnished in
this Treatise, (Chapter X. Section IV.) that " the Reformed Church
of England as by law established," though adopting the episcopacy 1^1^

of three orders, bishops, priests, and deacons, nevertheless placed '■^~

it, not on the basis of prescriptive or divine right ; but, throwing
herself back upon the primitive j9d5^apostolic platform of the
second century, adopted it on the ground of expediency only,
the first English Reformers — Cranmer and his coadjutors, backed
by Royal authority, affirming, and that in the most positive terms,
that hisJwps and presbyters were, by divine appointment, ONE
AND THE SAME ORDER, and that to them belongs, EQUAL-
LY, the right to ordairt- Nor this only. This theory of ministe-
rial parity, alias Presbyteeianism, continued to be the ruling
principle of the Anglican Church down to the time of Archbishop
Laud, A.D. 1664. During this interval — a period of over one
hundred years — " all the eminent Archbishops of Canterbury,
with but two exceptions" — (I quote from a recent Episcojpal
writer) recognized " the Church character of 7ion-Episco2)al com-
munions," and have sealed that recognition with the fact, " that
ministers not JFpiscojyally ordained held livings in the Church of
England for more than one Tiundred years after the Reformation."*
In conclusion, then, on this subject of Episcopacy as adopted on
the ground of expediency alone, though, as we have said, having
originated in the early age of the Christian Church, it formed (at
least in our view) the first stepping stone towards the erection of
that stupendous spiritual hierarchy, the Papacy / and though,
since the time of Laud, the original Loio ChiircJi platform has
been displaced by the unscriptural substitution therefor of prelacy
by divine riglit ; yet, where it is, or may be adopted or retained
on the same principles with those of its primitive and more
modern Anglican forms ; with the experience of its past abuses
operating as a beacon to guard against the rocks and shoals which
lie beneath its surface, it being entirely free from the unchurching,
denunciatory, and schismatical consequences of the opposite theory,
there can be no insuperable objection urged against its continuance,
A Ttturn to these original principles, on the part of the Anglican
and American Episcopal Church, I affirm to be the only effectual
antidote to the distracting contentions and divisions which now
disturb her peace. At least, the really Low Church portion in
that body, now that we have removed the superincumbent debris,
with which prelatists have concealed from view the above historic

*"Triie Churchmanship Vindicated," etc. By Rev. Mason Gallagher, Rector of
Trinity Church, Covington, Ky. 1851.

S32

facts for the last two hundred j'ears, are forced to a choice between
two alternatives : either to adopt the above theory on the basis of
its primitive and Anglican reformed principles, as their stand-
point against the Babel-tongned theories of tlieir Romish, Tracta-
rian, Hobartian, and so-called Low Church antagonists, and insist
on the rfidoratlon. to the Church of its original and only leeiti'>>''*^''
landmarks ; or, to secede.

SECTION n.

The alleged Anglican Succession. — Aspect, etc., of England at the time of Henry

VIII.
Review of Rev. A. B. Chapin's work on " The Organization of the Primitive

Church," etc.
Proposes to trace the English Succession in several different ways. — Remarks.

Proceed we now to an examination,

II. — Of THE Anglican line of Succession.

We have already taken a brief survey of the ecclesiastical as-
pect of England, on the accession of Henry VIII. to the British
throne, ajx 1509. England, now under the dominion of the
Papacy, finds in her monarch a zealous advocate of Papal suprem-
acy, and the recipient of pontifical honors. Then, growing impa-
tient under the restraints, and indignant at the attempted dictation
and control of a foreign spiritual court in the matter of his divorce
from his ailianced queen, the proud king throws oft" the Papal
yoke, and himself is constituted " the onl}' supreme head of the
Chuich in England and Ireland," and that, as we have seen from
the statute, in things spiiitual as well as temporal.* No. Passion-
ately fond of the process of divorce fi'om his wives,f and of that
of his kingdom from Papal Rome, as was this capricious monarch,
it seemed never to have entered his head, that 'ihk Ciiukcii might
have been immeasurably benefited by its divorce from the State.

But, to return to the subject of our present remark : — the
alleged Anglican " unbroken succession." The Rev. Mr. Chapin
proposes to "give the English succession in several dijferent
vxajsyX A labor, this, Ave submit, of supererogation ; one

* See pp. 2.30, 232.

t Heiirv Vlll. had six wives — Katharine, Anne Boleyn. Jane Seymour, Anne of
Clevi's. Katharine Howard, and Katharine Parr. He was divorced from three of Ihem^
Ka/finrim, Anne Boleyn, and jlnne of Cleves. Two were beheaded — Anne Boleyn, and
Katharine Howard.

} The Primitive Church, p. 29L The italirs are our own.

clearly autlicnticated " wa}'-" being quite sufficient for all practical
purposes. Still, where this author leads, we must follow.*

It will be well, however, in the first place, to examine a little
into the souree of infmmation whence our author derives his mate-
rials for his work. Having attended elsewhere to the argument
for prelacy as alleged to be founded on " Holy Scripture," we shall
pass over the portion of Mr. Chapin's book devoted to that depart-
ment, and conline ourselves to his treatment of the subject on the
authority of " ancient avithors."

What, then, is Mr. Chapin's testimony regarding these " ancient
authors," alias^ Tradition. Speaking of them in the matter of the
light reflected on the subject of the early links in the chain, com-
mencing, for example, with the " succession from Ephesus," he
sa3^s : " We are not able to . consult the original records, being
kept in a difterent portion of country, and these at present are im-
perfect, many of the earl}^ records of the churches having been de-
stroyed when the south of Europe was overrun by the northern
barbarians. Since \hQ fourth century^ however, we are able to
give the dates of the several successions, and enough has been
preserved to give us the exact order of the succession up to the
most primitive times. We copy from the great work of the Bene-
dictines,f entitled Gallia Christiana, in eleven folio volumes, and
which was above thirty -live years going through the press.":{:
Wonderful !

It is here, however, to be borne in mind, that these Benedictine
monks were the stanch advocates qf the 2)((2)(icy- Between the
sixth and fourteenth centuries, the order embraced 24 popes, 200
cardinals, 7,000 archbishops, 15,000 bishops, 15,000 abbots, 4,000
saints, and 37,000 monasteries, .besides many emj:»erors, empresses,
kings, queens, princes, princesses, etc.§ They are, therefore, to
say the least, an interested 'part]! in this matter. Then, too, their
" eleven" ponderous folios, considering the sources whence their con-
tents were gleaned — the " imperfect" fragments which escaped the
destructive hands of the northern barbarians of earlier times, how
idle the pretense, that " enough has been preserved to give us the
exact order of the succession up to the most primitive tmies." But
this is not all. Mr. Chapin has himself furnished us with the ma-
tcrid out of Avhich to construct a canon on the subject of tradi-
tional testimony, somewhat to the following effect : " The state-
ments of ' ancient authors' become valueless, just in proportion as
they recede^ in point of time, from the apostolic age." For exam-

* We speak advisedly when we say, that the work of the Rev. A. B. Chapin from
which we here quote, is received as of standard aulliority by the Protestant Episcopal
Church in this country.

t The celebrated order of the Benedictines, the most ancient annonp; the Latins, was
fornned about the middle of the sixth century, by Benedict Nursinus, of Unibria in Tlaly,
who was first a soldier, then a hermit, and finally a monk. The order soon covered the
whole face of Europe. (Spanheim's Ecclesiastical Hi.tlory, p. 299.)

t The Primitive Church, p. '294.

§ See Spanheim"s Ecclesiastical History, p. 300.

384

pie : speaking of the prelatical theoi}', he claims for its support
** the whole current of ancient authorities," by which he means the
apostolical fathers, and affirms, " that no one has pretended to find
a single opposing authority, until more than two hundred and fifty
years after the death of St, John, a.d. 100 ; that is, not before a.d.
350 ;"* and he then refers us to Jerome, as quoted by Presbyteri-
ans against prelacy, and says : " Such a person cannot be au-
thority." Pra 3^, wherefore? Answer: '^ Because he did not live
at the tiviey-\ But, did the Benedictines, from whose ^'■Gallia
Christiana]'' he compiles his " Succession from Ephesus," " live at
the time" of the commencement of that chain ? If Jerome's testi-
mony, A.D. 850, "cannot be authority," how comes it to pass that
the Benedictine folios, written several centuries after that period,
are referred to as authoritative in determining " the exact order of
the succession up to the most primitive times ;" or are we to under-
stand, that " ancient authors" are unauthoritative, only when
quoted in support of Presbyterianism ?

Indeed, considering the bulk of these " eleven folios," compared
w^ith what Mr. Chapin declares to have been the "imperfect" re-
mains of " the early records of the churches" on which they had to
depend in filling them, we cannot suppress the suspicion, that the
spirit of an earlier age, when, according to Du Pin, in order to
" keep up the piety of the faithful," the " Catholics were carried so
far as to invent false histories^'' etc., had descended upon these
Benedictine monks.:]:

In conclusion on this subject, we deny^ " that no one has pre-
tended to find a single opposing authority" to prelacy, until "a.d.
850." As we shall presently show, Mr. Chapin is either crimi-
nally ignorant of the earlier "opposing authority" to that theory-
adduced by Presbyterians, and which, in a writer of his pretensions,
is quite unpardonable, or he has attempted to palm upon the unin-
formed reader what he knows to be untrue.

Now then, for the " several different ways" in which Mr. Chapin
proposes to give " the English succession," preliminary to which,
however, we must "consider two points- connected with the suc-
cession of bishops in the English Church, which," this writer tells
us, " are often confounded." He explains himself thus : " If we
wish to trace back the authority of the present bishops, we must
go, not in the line of bishops occupying a particular See, but in the
line of their consecrators f the former, he calls "the succession
of Episcopal governors ;" the latter, " the apostolical succession,"
" on which," he says, " all Episcoijal jpoiocr dej^ends^ He then fur-
nishes the following example in illustration : "All the colonies
[American] were originally attached to the bishop of London, and
hence each of the dioceses in this country, where there was an
Episcopal Church before the Eevolution, would trace the succession

* The Primitive Church, p. 198. t lb., — .

X See Part I., p. 61.

835

of Episcopal governors back to the bisliops of London ; but the
apostolic succession is traced back through the archhishojps of Can-
terhary^'''' etc., " or through the archbishops of Y&rk,'^* as they
assisted at the consecration of our first bishops, "f

SECTIOIT m.

The subject continued. — Mr. Chapin's sources of instruction. — Tradition. — His testimony
regarding them. — Benedictine monks, etc. — The " Gallia Christiana." — A mistake
of Mr, C — His singular mode of tracing the apostolical succession. — Alleges the
English succession to come from Ephesus, etc. — Claims Augustine as the first Saxon
Bishop, and the first Archbishop of Canterbury. — Design of this theory, to avoid its
derivation from Rome. — Two difficulties for Mr. C. — First: With those prelatists
who admit said succession from Rome. — Second : With himself. — (1.) His authorities
in support of his new line. — (2.) His error regarding Polycarp's alleged consecra-
tion by the apostle John. — Eusebius, Gallia Christiana, Bade, Barronius. — Their
statements irreconcilable with authentic data. — Dr. Cook, Bishop Pearson, Bishop
Purcell, etc. — Tabular view, etc.

With these instructions as our polar star, we are then told that
the English succession is to be traced, not through Itome, but jfrom
the See of Ajjhesus, founded by St. John, through ^'■Augustine, the
first Saxon hishop^ as well as the fikst Aechbishop of Canter-
bury," he having been consecrated, " very providentially," at
Aries, " by VirgiUus, 24th bishop of Avles^ assisted by (Etherius,
31st bishop of Ljons, a.d. 596.":}: The reader will please put his
thumb on these stand-points of Mr. C.'s theory.

Consecrated, '•'■ very iirovidentially ^^ at ^Arles^'' etc. Wherefore?
Answer: Because "the ancients themselves traced back" their
{"i "episcopate and ecclesiastical rites" of " the Grallic churches," " to
■W^ St. John ;"§ hence, the English Church, deriving her succession
from St. John, instead of St. Peter, through the pious, humane, and
zealous Augustine, as the first archbishop of Canterbury, if true^
escapes, on the one hand, the guilt of schism imputed to her by
her Komish and Presbyterian opponents, on the ground, as Mr. C.
afiirms, that she lias "ever been legally and cationically independ-
ent of '11 that Church; and, on the other, the opprobrium of having
. derived her Episcopacy through that corrup)t channel. Indeed, the
construction of Mr. C.'s argument throughout his whole book of
408 duodecimo pages, hinges on the deeply seated conviction, that
tlie salvation of Protestant prelacy depends on his sustaining

♦ The rustom was, for the Archbishop of Canterbury to consecrate those of York, ex-
cept when overruled by tlie popes. — ( Viile Howell's Pontif., p. 2S8; etc., and Bishop Godwin,
p. C68.)

t The Primitive Church, pp. 285, 286.

X lb., pp. 291, 292.

§ lb., p. 292.

II lb., p. 359.

336

these two points ; a failure liere, and there remains no redemption
for her ; she must otherwise remain forever indelibly branded as a
schismatical and semi-papal Church,

But, in order to do this, there are, we respectfully submit, a
nuDiher of difficulties in ilie ivay^ which it will be incumbent on
Mr. C. to remove. There is the difficulty,

1. With those advocates of prelacy, who, admitting the deriva-
tion of the English succession through the liomish line, contend,
against their Presbyterian opponents, that no amount of moral de-
linquency can invahdate the links or break the chain.* Then,
there are several difficulties,

2. With Mr. C. himself

(1.) The first relates to tlie authorities on which he relies for the
support of his new line. He admits that the evidence relied upon
to iJrovethat the Gallic Churches "derived their Episcopate," etc.,
from "St, John," " has been somewhat disputed,"-}- whether " with-
out an}^ sufficient reason," as he affirms, we leave the reader to
decide, when he shall have compared Mr. C.'s canon on the subject
of " ancient authors," with the dates of his authoi'ities, viz., the
Benedictine Gallia Christiana,:]: Spel. Concil.,§ Bede, etc. And,
mark : The question at issue regards, not the genuineness of
these several productions, but the authenticity of the alleged facts
therein set forth. Is it, we demand, sufficiently authenticated by
these writers, that the apostle John founded the See of Ephesus,
and established a succession of bishops, of which he was the first
link, through the bishopric of Aries, in twenty-four successive
links, from Trophimus to Virgilius, the consecrator of Angustin ?
Look at his own list of that succession. It makes the third in the
line, viz., Martin I., to have been consecrated A. D. 254, leaving
but two intervening links to fill up a gap of 154 years, from the
death of that apostle ! Then, again : How is it that Aries, " the
whole province" of which was at first " reckoned as the arch-
dioccss of Lyons, a name it still retains," though at a later period
it was reckoned as belonging to that of " Venice ;" and, " from
the time of the Emperor Honorius," a. d. 424, it " had been
ranked as the metropolitan city of Gall," and ^^■hich, as Mr. C,
informs us, was " the reason Avhy Augustine was consecrated at
Aries ;"|| how is it, we repeat, from tliis showing, that its succes-
sion of bishops, in point of historical completeness, falls so far
below that of the See of Lyons ? Here the line, commencing
with " St, John," is continued regularly through Polycarp^ Po-
thinus, etc., down to -^^Itherius, who, a. d, 596, assisted Virgilius
the Bishop of Aries in consecrating Augustine.*!] Nor is this all.

(2.) Mr. C. starts this line with the positi^•e affirmation, that

* See pp. 218, 210. With which compare pp. 102-105.

t The I'rimitive Church, p. 292.

X See pp. 3.'i.'i. :VM. § OIJ manuscript of Sir H. Spelman {Concilia).

II The Primitive Church, pp. 291, 292.

i lb., pp. 294, 290.

837

" Polycarp himself" was " ordained Bishop of Smyrna, hy St.
John.* Now here, we again repeat, is something tangible, if true.
We ask, then : Is Mr. C. borne out in this affirmation by Euser
bins ? That writer distinctly tells us, that " Polycarp received
his Episcopate of the Church at Smyrna, at the hands of the eye-
witnesses and servants of the Lord."f Now, supposing that Euse-
bius here refers to some three or more of "the twelve," — and we
admit that he docs, — what right has Mr. C, on the authority of
the " eleven" huge folios of the Benedictine Monks, or Bede, or
any other, to substitute in their place as the consecrators of Poly-
carp, the single name of St. John" ? Nor will it avail that Bar-
ronius, following the same authorities, affirms the consecration of
Polycarp by St. John, A. d. 82.:}: Indeed, and in conclusion on
this subject, we re-affirm§ that these authorities, one and all, are
totally irreconcilable with admitted authentic historical data in
these premises, Polycarp, at the time of his death, was above one
hundred years old."|| Dr. Cook, M.D., the most distinguished lay
advocate of prelacy of modern times, speaking of the date of
Polycarp's martyrdom, though he quotes Bishop Pearson as plac-
ing it A. D. 148, says that he stands alone in that opinion, and that
" many learned men place it in 167, or thereabouts,"^ Others
place it at a.d. 169 and 175, We shall adopt a.d. 167 as the
rehable date.** Now, the Eomi^h Bishop Purcell places the date
of Polycarp's conversion at A. D. 80. This gives between his con-
version and death 87 years. Then, supposing that the " eighty-
six (86) years, during which, according to Eusebius, Polycarp
declared to the Proconsular of Asia he had served Christ,f f to be
understood as the length of hi-S bishopric at Smyrna (but which no
one pretends), he must have been consecrated A. D. 81, But it is
generally conceded that he was bishop of that See only fifty (50)
years, which willi^lace his consecration at a.d, 117.

We will now give the dates of the deaths of " the twelve apos-
tles," adopting Echard as the standard. :}::{: Of Lehheus no account is
given. Iscariot is excluded. Of the remaining eleven, including
Paul, Echard gives,

* The Prim. Church, p. 292.

t Eusebiiis's Ecclesiastical History, B. III., c. 36, p. 120.

X Spanheim's Ecclesiastical History, p. 192.

\ See p. 290-292.

I! Spanheim's Ecclesiastical History, p. 192.

«r Cook on the Inval. of Presb. Ord., Works on Episc, Vol. II., p. 2-56, sec. 127. 1831.

** Cook, as above. Lardner (Lit. Hist. New Testament. London, pp. 533.) Rid-
dle's Eccles. Chron. London, p 25. Vater's " Syn. Chronistischen Tafeln." Cent. II.

tt Eusebius's Ecclesiastical Histor}', B. IV., c. 15, p. 146.

XX "A General Ecclesiastical History, etc., from the Nativity to Constantine the
Great. By Lawrence Echard, A.M., Archdeacon of Stowe. London, 1729."
22

338

Nanus. Mtdm. etc. Names. Mtdm. etc.

A.D. A.D.

1. James, son of Zebedee, 44 6. Peter, 68

2. Philip, 52 7. Paul, 68

3. Matthew, - - - - 60 8. Bartholomew, - - 72

4. James, son of Alpheus, 62 9. Thomas, - - - - 73

5. Andrew, - - - - 64 10. Simon, - - - - 74

11. John, - - - - 100

AlloAving, therefore, that Polycarp's consecration took place
A.D. 81, it could not have been at the hands of the first ten of the
above named apostles, for they were all in their graves seven years
before that event ! and if, as is generally conceded, he was but fifty
years bishop of Smyrna, he could not have been consecrated by
" St. John," he having died seventeen years before !

So much for the boasted "succession from Ephesus," so far as
it relates to the Knks of the line between " St. John" and "Augus-
tine."

SECTION IV.

The subject continued. — The English succession from Augustine to the present Arch-
bishop of Canterbury. — Cardinal Pole. — The English succession from Paul. —
Bishop McCoskrey. — His authorities, etc. — Bishop Stillingfleet, Rev. H. Carey,
Mr. E. Churton, etc. — A bird's-eye view of the relation of old Britain to Rome,
about A.D. 595. — Favorable to the establishment of a universal spiritual empire. —
Gregory I. — John, Bishop of Constantinople — Augustine's mission to Kent, Eng-
land.— Romish. — His authority over the Anglican Bishops. — Proof, that England
was not independent of Rome at this time. — Dilemma of Mr. C. — Double dilemma
of Bishop McCoskrey and Mr. C. regarding the old British and the Anglo-English
bishops.

Let us, in the next place, examine this line from Augustine
downward.

Augustine, then, according to Mr. Chapin, having received his
consecration at ' Aries," by the purer hands of Virgilius, bishop of
Aries, and ^therius, bishop of Lyons, as " the first Saxon bishop,"
and "the first archbishop of Canterbury," forms the eonnectiTig
link between ^^ St. Jolin^'' and the fresent incumbent of that See;
and, in proof of the alleged uncorrupt and uninterrupted continu-
ance of that Canterberian succession from Augustine, as entirely
independent of the Romish line, referring to his list, he says : " It
will be seen from this list, that we do not trace our succession
through Cranmer's successor. Cardinal PoUy* The succession of
Canterbury continued unbroken, with one of the links, because

♦ The Primitive Church, p. 004.

339

added bj Homish liands, thrown out. But, was tliis the onl/y
addition thereto, made by the same hands ? We shall see.

But we must premise, in the first place, that Mr. Chapin, as an
advocate of Protestant prelacy, is not alone in his eagerness to
trace the Anglican succession through another than that of " the
corrupt and vitiated channel of the Romish Church." Thus,
Bishop McCoskrey, speaking of the earh^ introduction of the Gos-
pel into " Great Britain," says, " the first records of the Church
established there, show that it was organized, as all the churches
were, by the apostle, [Paul,] and in three orders, with the bishop
as supreme ; that the succession was carried there by St. Paul, and
continued uninten'upted in the Church."

" The first records of the Church." Bishop Stillingfleet, speaking
of these " records," says, " that by the loss of records of the Bri-
tish churches, we cannot draw down the succession of bishops from
the apostles's times."* The Rev. Henry Carey says, " We have no
mention of bishops in the British Church, nor do we find any fur-
ther information on the subject at all, until the year 814 ;"f and
even the latest historian on this subject, Mr. E. Churton, and highly
lauded by Bishop Ives of North Carolina, does not adventure further
than to say, it is a mere supposition, that either Paul " was himself
in Britain, or that he sent some of the companions of his travels to
make known on these shores the name of Christ," and adds, that
" the woes and persecutions which followed the first preaching of
the Gospel in Britain, have destroyed all certain records of Chris-
tianity in these early times.":}: It is not surprising, therefore, that
" the first introduction of the Gospel to Britain has been attributed
to James, the son of Zebedee, to Simon Zelotes, to Peter, to Joseph
of Arimathea, as well as to Paul."

A bird's-eye view of the political and ecclesiastical affairs of
ancient Britain in her relations to old Rome, is indispensable to a
proper understanding of the subject in hand. The Roman empire,
having Rome in Italy as its metropolis, was founded B.C. 758.
Prophecy had marked it out as a Gentile power which was to attain
to universal dominion, and which should rule the nations ^^■ith a
rod of iron.' At the time of the Nativity, it had grasped the rich-
est portions of the earth, extending in length three thousand, and
in breadth two thousand miles; and in the time of Augustus
Caesar, was denominated " the v)hole worldJ^^ The Jews were at
this time tributary to that power, and in a.d. 70, found themselves,
as' was predicted of them, without either "place" or "nation."^

Britain formed the fiirthest western province known to the Ro-
mans, but no circumstances, either of distance or peril, could save
that province from her rapacious grasp. And though, B.C. 55,

(1) Dan. 7 : 7, 19. (-2) Luke -J. : 1 (3) Comjiare Luke 2 : 1 with John 11 : 4et.

* Origines Brit., pp. 81-83.

t The Apostolical Succeesion of the Church of England, p. S.

j The Early English Church, pp. 17, 19.

840

Caesar, having subdued France, met witli severe repulses from the
valorous Britains, yet, subsequently to a.T), 43, the Eoman army,
after nine years resistance under Caractacus, subdued them to the
Eoman yoke ; nor did the valor of their heroine. Queen Boadicea,
A.D. 61, together with the forty years war which ensued, succeed in
the expulsion of tlie invaders from the island.

Imperial Rome, however," now the mistress of the v. sttions jJoUii-
GalJy, was destined to conflict with a foe clothed with a power
other than that of Briton arms. The religion of the cross, during
the first three centuries, had become co-extensive with tlic Roman
dominions. When this latter power, therefore, with its paganism
incorporated with, and inseparable from, its national and political
institutions, was brought into antagonism with CHKisTiANiTy to-
wards the close of the fourth century, Rome " saw her glories
star by star expire," and the year a.d. 410, found Britain disen-
thralled from her iron yoke.

But, we have now to turn over the other side of this historic
page. " While Rome saw her Emperor gradually falling from his
throne, she saw her Bishop clothing himself in purple and scarlet,
and (gradually) ascending the steps of the same throne," Let us
look into this matter a little in detail.

It is, then, conceded that Christianity was introduced into the
island of Great Britain at a very early period. We are willing to
admit the testimony of Tertullian of the second century, that " all
nations have believed, .... and those places of the British isles,
which were unapproachable to the Romans, are altogether subject
to Christ."* Also that of Bede, who, in speaking of the tenth
persecution under the bloody Diocletian early in the fourth century,
says: " At length it reached Britain also, and many persons, with
the constancy of martyrs, died, in the confession of their fiaith."f
More : We will even admit as authentic the testimony of Gildas,
the earliest British Christian whose works are preserved, that
" the Sun of righteousness shone out upon this frozen isle a little
before the defeat of Boadicea by the Roman legions," a.d. 6I4
Still, it by no means follows that the British bishops, who, it is
affirmed, were present at the Council of Aries, a.d. 815, were
prelatical bishops, continued in an uninterrupted line of succession
from (St. Paul or ?) St. John. Indeed, if we may rely upon
Churton's testimony regarding this period, it is more than doubt-
ful whether any Christian churches could be found in England at
this time. Speaking of the period between a.d. 303 and 314, he
says : "In the time of Diocletian, it pleased the Almighty to per-
mit the cause of truth, for the space of ten years (a. d. 303, up to
314), to undergo the most severe trial which the world had ever

* Adv. Jud., c. 7.
t Bede, B. I., c. 6.

X Gildas de Excid. Gent. Brittania, p. 9. Ed. Joss. Evan's Prim. Ages. Gildas
wrote about a. d. 560.

341

known. Gildas, the earliest British historian, tells us that at this
time the Christian churches throughout the world were leveled
with the ground ; all the copies of the Scriptures which could any
where be found were burnt in the public streets, and the priests
and bishops of the Lord's house were slaicghtered, together with
their charge ; so that in some provinces not even a trace of Chris-
tianity remained."*

But, even admitting that the above persecution did not take
effect in the province of Britain as elsewhere ; or, that the expa-
triated bishops subsequently returned, yet its inhabitants had
breathed but a short time in freedom and independence, after the
expulsion of the Komans. For although the Eomans, up to A. d.
426, sent troops into Britain and assisted the natives " to build again
the wall of the Emp. Severus, which extended from the mouth of
the Tyne to that of the Esk, beyond Newcastle and Carlisle, as a
protection against the Picts and Scots ;" yet, the Saxons, a. d. 449,
made a descent upon, and violently seized on, the eastern parts of
the island, and, pushing on in savage war, they drove great num-
bers of the Britons luestward, even into Wales, where their posterity
and language are preserved even to the present day. Speaking of
Britain in reference to these calamitous times, Mr. Churton says :
" It is impossible to find anything more disastrous than the state of
Britain at this time. A famine had followed the ravages of the
Picts and Scots ; then arose a bloody war among the native chiefs,
and the Roman Britons ; those who had lived with the Romans in
their cities, and learnt their language, were cut oif almost to a
man." . . . . " From this time," he continues, " Christianity be-
gan to disappear from the most important and fruitful provinces of
Britain. As the Saxons founded, one after another, their petty
kingdoms, they destroyed the churches, and the priests fied before
them^-f

Now, some of these refugees found their way to France, and
settled in that part "called Brittany or Bretagne (alias, Aeles),
from whom it received its name." While, on the other hand,
Britain was occupied by two peoples totally distinct in language,
in religion, and in laws, viz., the old Britons, who, with their
flocks, had fled to Wales, and the Saxon invaders of their once
peaceful homes. A long interval of one hundred and fifty years
of heathen darkness, together with the most rancorous hatred and
deadly wars, ensue, till a. D. 596, when Pope Gregory the Gh-eut sent
Augustine, with other mmihs, to convert the SAXONS to CJtristianity.

The circumstances connected with the origin of Augustine's
mission, the source of that mission, its object, the sphere of its
operations, its character and its results, each require a passing
remark.

And first : Of Gregory the Great. Of the period of which we

* Churton's Early English Church, p. 20.
t The Early English Church, p. 32.

342

now speak, the once mighty empire of Eome was a mere wreck,
forlorn and powerless. And yet, marvelous as it may seem, at
this very time, the mind of Gregory conceived the gigantic pro-
ject of making liome the center of an universal spiritual kingdom.
It was the oilspring of that ambition which often survives the
wreck of fortune. The political state of the world, and the aspi-
rations of ecclesiastics after " the pre-eminence," were maturing
the way for the extension and establishment of the office of " uni-
versal bishop." That title was now actually assumed by Gregory's
cotemporary and rival, John, the patriarch of Constantinople,
whose " strange daring and arrogance" that pope denounced as in-
dicating " that the times of Antichrist were at hand."* And yet,
the Roman Breviary tells us that Gregory " crushed the audacity of
John" !f Gibbon says of him, that " his virtues, and even his
faults, a singular mixture of simplicity and cunning, of pride and
humility, of sense and superstition, were happily suited to his
station, and the temper of the times. In his rival, the patriarch
of Constantinople, he contemned the antichristian title of univer-
sal BISHOP, which the successor of St. Peter was too haughty to
concede, and too feeble to assume.":}:

The idea of the conversion of the Saxons was conceived by
Gregory before his election to the popedom. Bede§ informs us,
that being one day at Rome in the market-place, among other
articles of merchandise exposed to sale were " some boys, their
bodies white, their countenances beautiful, and their hair very
fine." Having asked what was their country and their religion,
he was told that they were " Pagans," " from the island of
Britain^ . . . "He therefore asked again, what was the name
of the nation ?" And it was answered that they were called
Angles. "Right," said he, "for they have an angelic face,
and it becomes such to be co-heirs with the, angels in heaven."
" What is the name," proceeded he, " of the province from which
they are brought ?" It was replied, that the natives of that pro-
vince were called Deira. " Truly are they De ird^'' said he,
" withdrawn from wrath and called to the mercy of Christ. How
is the king of that province called ?" They told him his name was
yElla; and he, alluding to the name, said, "aZ/e%"a/i, the j^raise of
God the Creator must be sung in those parts."||

Under these circumstances it was, that Gregory I., the 64th
Pope^[ in the alleged line of succession from Peter, a.d. 596, ' sent

* Bede's Epist Lib. IV. : 78.

t Die XII. Martii. In festo Sancti Gregorii.

\ Gibbon's Decline and Fall.

\ Called '' the venerable Bede ;" he was a monk, and, though a native historian of
the eighth century, yet he paid unreserved obedience to the Pope of Rome ; and so
highly are his works esteemed by the Romish Church, that they are referred to as
evidence in the Catechism of the Council of Trent, and quoted for edification in the
Romish Breviary.

II Bede, Book II., c. 1.

H See the Catalogue of the Popes.

343

AUGUSTINE, with otlier monks, to preach to the English,' or
Saxons, the Pope having appointed that Augustine should ' be con-
secrated bishop, in case they were received by the English.'* The
whole company, at first intimidated by fear of the fierce and bar-
barous character of the Saxons, and from their ignorance of their
language, returned home.f But ' Augustine, being strengthened
by the confirmation of the blessed Father Gregory, returned to the
work of the word of God, with the servants of Christ,' i.e., the
monks, about forty in number, 'and arrived in Britain.' They
landed on ' the large island of Thanet on the east of Kent,' of
which ' Ethelbert was at that time the most powerful king.'
Through ' interpreters of the nation of the Franks,' furnished 'by
the order of the blessed Pope Gregory,':}: they were admitted to
hold audience with the king, who, though at first influenced by a
superstitious fear of an exposure to ' magical arts,' yet, 'bearing a
silver cross for a banner, and the image of our Lord and Savior
painted on a board, '§ ' Augustine,' says Bede, ' by God's assist-
ance, suppof'ted with miracles,'' (though not possessed of "the
signs of an apostle," the miraculous gift of tongues,) ' reduced
King Ethelbert and his nation from the worship of idols to the
faith of Christ.'! Bede then informs us, that the king 'permitted
them to reside in Cantekbuby, which was the metropolis of
all his dominions.'^ And from thence, Bede tells us, Augustine
sent Laurentius the priest, and Peter the monk, to Pome, to ac-
quaint Pope Gregory that the nation of the English' (the Saxons)
' had received the faith of Christ, and that he was himself made
their bishop.'

* Bede, B. I., c. 23. t lb. J lb., c. 24. § lb.

I) lb., Book II., c. 3. 1 lb.

344

SECTIOIir V.

Proof j)ositive, that, in the time of Augustine, and fon nearly one hundred years after,

no ecclesiastical connection existed between the fornner and the Litter bishops. — Mr.

E. Churton, Bede, etc. —
This, the most important point of the Historico-Prelatical Controversy. — Involves the

necessity to show,
I. — How the succession through Canterbury is derived from the " Old British Church."

— Mr. C. here compared with himself — "The Culdees." — Mr. E. Churton. — Bede.

— Aidan. — His ordination Presbyterial. — Inference fatal to Mr. C's theory.—
II- — Must demonstrate the total exemption of the English Church from all subjection to,

or connection with, the See of Rome. — '' The Old British Bishops" subdued to the

obedience of Rome, a.d. 668. — Persecution of. — Bede charges it on Augustine. —

Lauded by Mr. E. Churton.

Thus, then, as we have seen, Augustine's mission originated
with, and was appointed by, Pope Gregory I. That its object was,
the conversion of the pagan Saxons. And, that its sphere of oper-
ations was, Kent in England, of which Canterbury was tlie me-
tropolis, and of which Augustine was made the first English
archbishop.

Hence, the radical point on which we are at issue with Protest-
ant prelatists generally, and with the Rev. Mr. Chapin in particu-
lar. - The question is, was Augustine a popish or an anti-popish pre-
late ? If the former, then it follows, that the Anglican succession
IS d?:kived from Ro:me. If the latter, and it can be made
to appear that the English Church has "ever been legally
and canonically independent of^""^ the Bishop of Rome., then,
vice versa.

If there is any meaning in language, Mr. Chapin affirms that
Augustine's Archbishopric at Canterbury in Kent, England, was
not of Rome : in other words, that it was anti-popish. Augus-
tine was consecrated by the Archbishops of Aries and of L3'ons
in Gall, (France,) and " the Gallic Churches derived their episco-
pate" according to " the ancients themselves" from " St. John ;"
and Augustine, being " \hQ first Sa.ron hishoj), as well as the first
archhishopf of Cantei'hury^'' therefore, " the English bishops re-
ceived their succession, not^ as is often said, from Rome, but from
Arle8^''\ etc.

Now, by turning over to page 360 of Mr. C's book, we find the
following. " In 598, he (Augustine) wrote to Gregory, Bishop of
Rome., for advice touching certain points of inquiry. One of the
questions was, In what manner he ought to deal with the bishops
of Gall and Britain ? .... In answer, Gregory tells him, that he
has nothing to do with the Bishops of Gall, who were subject to

* The Primitive Church, p. 359.
t lb. pp. 291,292.

345

the Bishop of Aries as their metropolitan;" but, "that he ought
to have authority over the British hishojfs,^'' etc. From the above,
Mr. C. infers, " that there were canonical and lawful bishops in
Britain hefore Augustine went there ;" " and consequently, he
adds, " HE (Augustine) owed submission to the metkopolitan of
Britain, (!) according to the then existing canons of the Church,"
namely: "the sixth canon of the Council of Nice, a.d. 325,"
which enacts, " that the ancient customs and rights of the Church
should not be changed."

It turns out, then, after all, that Augustine, through whom, as
the connecting link between the English succession and that of
EpJiesus through the lines of Lj^ons and Aries, and who is de-
clared to be "the first Saxon bishop," and " the first archbishop of
Canterbury," was a USURPER of the rights of the metropolitan
of the British Church. Query. What has Mr. C. to oiler in
reply ?

But, no. For, on the one hand, authentic history shows how
totall}^ at variance with the fact is the pretense of Augustine's
schismatical infringement of the rights of a pre-existing metro-
politanship in the old British Church. That no such order existed
in that part of the dominion of Ethelbert where Augustine was
established as Archbishop of Canterbury, is evident from the fact
already alluded to, namely : that " the old British churches, exist-
ing anterior to the Anglo-Saxon invasion, had been utterly swept
from North Britain." Mr. Churton saj^s : " The last British bishops,
Theonas of London, and Thadioc of York, retreated with the
remnant of their flocks into Wales."* From Wales, therefore,
and not from Old Britain, came those bishops, who, under Augus-
tine's Oak on the bank of the Severn rejected his over-
tures to submit to the papal yoke. Such were the so-called seven
bishops, whom Augastine endeavored to bring over to the See of
Rome. We repeat: the so-called bishops. Otherwise, why axe
we not furnished with the unhroken chain through said bishopric
from St. Paul, who, Mr. C. informs us, " about a.d. 63, appears to
have visited Britain, "f where there has been " at all times since, a
Church of the Jiving God" based on the prelatical platform, having
derived her "ecclesiastical rites" from "the eastern churches"
through " Aristobulus, a Greek, and the disciple of St. Paul ;":]:
which, with other " facts, proves, beyond all cavil," says Mr. C,
" that Ijpfore Augustine came to England, there was a church es-
tablished there, duly organized upon apostolical principles, — with
bishops owning and acknowledging no subjection to the pope."

Yes, proved, " heyond all cavil,'''' though Mr. C. assures us that
" the earliest history of the British Church has been involved in
much obscurity, by the destruction of the records of that Church ;"

* The Early English Church, p. 33.
t The Primitive Church, p. 363.
t lb. p. 364.

346

and, that " much doubt and uncertainty has been thrown over it,
by the manner in which it has been treated by the later monkish
historians, to whom we are indebted for very much of the history
of those times." Ilence, " the number of bishops in England at
that tiiiic^^ (the time of Augustine's mission there,) he says, " we
do not know.''''*

We must, therefore, in this instance, content ourselves to forego
the benefits of the genealogical register, the entire validity of the
English Succession being made to depend on the uninterrupted
spiritual descent from St. Paul, of the seven above named protest-
ing bishops against the attempted usurpations of Augustine, to
the contrary notwithstanding.

In regard to " the number of bishops in England" in the time
of Augustine, however, we would respectfully inform Mr. C. that
Bede makes mention of one^ — ' the Bishop of Luidhard, whom the
pagan king, Ethelbert of Kent, had agreed (as the condition ex-
acted by her parents) should accompany his wife Bertha, a Chris-
tian lady of the royal family of the Franks, f to preserve her faith.
Beyond this one bishop, — and who doubtless sympathized with
Augustine, tliere was none other in England " at this time.''''
Those who met Augustine in the conference held on the banks of
the Severn, were the exjyatriated bishops of the old British
churches, existing anterior to the Anglo-Saxon invasion, and who
had lied for refuge, some to Brittany in France, and some in
Wales. Bede tells us, that ' the bishops, or doctors,' whom Au-
gustine, with the assistance of King Ethelbert, drew together to
confer with him at a place which is to this day called ' Augustine's
Ac' (Oak), were ' of the next province of the Britons,':]: i.e., Wales.
The first eflbrt of Augustine having failed, a second conference
was appointed, which brought together seven of the above expa-
triated bishops, and many of their most learned men from the
monastery of Baucornaburg, or Bangor, over which the Abbot
Binooth, who bore a prominent part in the debates with Augus-
tine, is said to have presided at that time.§

Now, it is by a confounding of things which thus plainly differ —
it is by identifying the English succession with the old British
churches, (which are entirely separate and distinct,) by which Mr.
C. and tlie advocates of Protestant prelacy of the same school with
him, labor to blind the minds of the "unlearned in these matters,"!
to a perception of the real points at issue. For, to prove that the
English succession is derived through a channel independent of all
connection with that of Kome, they must show,

First, in what way the line of bishops through the See of Can-

* The Primitive Church, p. 362.

t Bede, Book XXV., c. 25.

t lb., Book II., c. 2.

§ lb. See also Chapin's Primitive Church, p. 361.

II The Primitive Church, p. 355.

347

terbury^ is derived from that of the expatriated bishops of the old
British Church / and,

Second, having done this, they must demonstrate the total ex-
enwtion of that See from all subjection to or connection with, the
Church of Rome ^

I. In regard to the first, we are not aware that even the learned
ecclesiastical genealogist, Mr. Chapin himself, has ventured to offer
any thing on the subject. True, on pages 356-358, under the head
of " Province of Canterbury," he gives us a list of twenty-nine
bishops in nine different dioceses, between a.d. 635 and 668. He
then affirms, that " there were certainly seven* bishops living in
England at the time of Aidan's consecration as bishop of "Lindis-
farne, or Durham,"f a.d. 635, fi-om which statements, nothing is
more natural than for those "unlearned in these matters" to infer,
not only that there was 7io " scarcity of bishops in England" at the
time of Augustine's mission, but, as one of the " seven" above
named "bishops living in England" was " the metropolitan of his
own province,":}: that that province was Canterbury ! whereas,
according to his own dates of consecrations, the earliest in his list
leaves an interval between Augustine's mission and it, of at least
twenty-eight years ! nor will the reader pass over this fact as of
trivial moment, when he reflects that Mr. C.'s statements, when
stript of their — we hope, unintentional — ambiguity, he discovers
that there is, between Mr. C.'s seven English bishops, and the old
British bishops of Wales who met Augustine on the banks of the
Severn, a gulf, which no prelatical sophistry can pass.

Thus severed, then, from the old British churches, there remain
two other alternatives to the English successionists — either to ad-
mit their spiritual descent from Rome^ whose alleged unbroken
succession Stillingfleet says : " is as muddy as the Tiber itself," or
to derive it from " the churches of South Britain^'''' through " the
Culdees."

" The Culdees." Who were they ? Answer : Scotch lyresby-
tersy or monks, belonging to the monastery of St. Columba, him-
self " an Irish preshyter^ abbot, and monk," and under whom, a.d,
505, the Picts were converted to Christianity, and among others
their king, Bridius. We quote from Mr, Chapin. " In return for
his eminence, his piety, and his labors, Bridius gave to Columb the
island of Hii, or lona, and conferred upon him the government of
the island. Bede's account of this island is : ' That island hath for
its ruler an abbot, [meaning Columb,] who is only a presbyter, to
whose government all the provinces, and even the bishops (con-
trary to the usual custom) are subject, after the example of their

* From Mr. C.'s own lists, as we shall presently show, not one such bishop was pre-
eent in England at that time,
t The Primitive Church, p. 358.
t lb., p. 358.

348

first doctor, [meaning Columb,] who was not a bishop, but a jprea-
l)ytci\ and a monk.' "*

But a revolution transpired in Northumbria, England^ which
placed Oswald on the throne; and in the year a.d. 635, this king
sent to the Scotch cJturches for a bishop, who, on his arrival, was
established, says Mr, Churton, on "the island of Lindisfarne, on
the coast of Northumberland, near to Bambrough, his o^n royal
seat," A\'hich, Mr. Churton adds, " was the first foundation of the
bishopric of Durham."f " The monastery of St. Columba" re-
spoudocl to the call, by sending to Oswald the "Scottish mission-
ary Aidan," who was also " followed by many other Scottish
monks and priests, who were called Culdees, (quasi Cultores dei,)
from their great piety and devotion."

Now, true, the fifth chapter of Bede is entitled, the " Life of
Bishop Aidan ;" and it is said, " from this monastery [in the island
of Hiij Aidan was sent, having received the office of a bishop."
And again, under date 652, he says : " Finnan succeeded him
[AidauJ in the Episcopate, being also sent from the monastery of
Hii, in the Scottish island, and remained a long time in the Epis-
copate, (Episcopate. "):j:

But, by ivhom was Aidan, for example, consecrated? Speaking
of their proceedings in his case, Bede says, " Thus making him
bishop, they (the Guldee Presbyters of the monastery of St.
Columba) sent him forth to preach."§ To prove, therefore, that
the consecration of Aidan was any other than Preshyterial^ it is
incumbent on the advocates of prelacj^ to show when and by whom
St. Columba and the Presbyters of his monastery were made pre-
lates. This, we affirm, neither Bede, nor Bishop Lloyd, who has
attempted it, nor Mr. C., either have done or can do. Will pre-
latists condescend to inform us how it came to pass, that " the
council of Cealehythe, held A. D. 816, decreed " that no Scotch
priest should perform any function in England ?" We can inform
them that it was " their waiit of metropolitan hishoj/s^ their con-
tempt of other orders^ and the council's ignorance of the nature of
their ordination.^^W

Now, had the fact presented itself in any other book but one
written ostensibly to demonstrate that the English succession was
not derived from Rome, it had not appeared so extraordinary, that
Mr. Chapin's " Chapter XXVIL," under the head of " alleged
breaks in our succession," and which he pronounces "absurd,"
and " next to an impossibility," comes next after his exhibit of
the tabular view of the Bomisih line from Peter to Gregory XVI.
One would suppose that these "alleged breaks," from this circum-
stance, related to that line. But so far from it, we are at once '

* The Primitive Church, pp. 355, 356, Bede, Book III., c. 4.

+ Early English Church, p. 65.

X The Primitive Church, pp. 352, 356, Bede, Book III., c. 6, 17.

§ Bede, B. III., c. 3.

II See Ree's Encyclopaedia, Art. Culdees.

849

ferred to the objection against tlic English succession, that from
A. D, 668, "by far the greatest part of their bishops were of Scot-
tish ordination by xViden and Finnan," etc., which objection, on
the authority of Bede, as above, he labors to prove fallacious. The
fair inference therefore is, that the boasted English succession is
derived, not from Rome, not from Canterbury, but from the Culdee
monk^ Aidan^ the first bishop of the diocese of Landisfarne or
Durham, whose consecration, as we have shown, was presby-

TERIAL !

With prelatists, if we mistake not, such a derivation, to use the
language of Stilliugfleet, must be esteemed quite " as muddy" as
that of Rome.

Nor should it be forgotten in this connection, that, even admit-
ting that Aidan was a bishop in the prelatical sense, yet, being no
more than an ^'■Episcopal governor^'' he could not transmit the
" apostolic siLccession, on which all Episcopal power depends," "that
apostolical succession" being only traceable " back through the
Archbishops of Canterbury or York."*

Thus, patient reader, after having been compelled to " box the
compass," in our perambulations of the meanderings of Mr.
Chapin in his attempts to dodge " Old Rome" by way of " Ephesus^''''
through St. John ; of Britain^ through St. Paul ; of Scotland^
through Aidan ; and of Ireland^ through St. Columba ; we are
actually brought back again to " AUGUSTINE, the first Saxon
bishop, and the first archbishop of Canterbury." For,

II. Second, we proceed to the evidence in proof that so far from
it being true of the English bishops, as Mr. C. affirms, that " they
have ever been legally and canqnically independent" of Rome, the
comparatively brief intervals of such independence as mark their
history, is but the measure of their schismatical rebellion against
their only legal and ecclesiastical ancestor, Rome !

True, the old British bishops of Wales, whom, on the banks of
the Severn, Augustine failed to subdue to the obedience of the
Roman See, were not subjected to that yoke till about A. D. 668.
Under Theodore, the pope's primate, in the See of Canterbury,
England, "Rome triumphed." This triumph was signalized on
the one hand by Wilfred's refusal, on his appointment to tho
bishopric of York, to receive consecration at the hands of the
Scottish bishops of Lindisfarne or Durham, and Litchfield, and his
repairing to Paris, where he obtained it from Agilbert, the Arch-
bishop ; and on the other, from the re-ordination of Chad, at the
instigation of Theodore, he ha^dng been previously ordained
bishop of York, on which occasion two Welch bishops were present
and assisted."f Nor are we to overlook the agencies employed b}'-
Rome in the accomplishment of this work. In reply to their re-

* The Primitive Church, pp. 285, 286.

t Churton's Early English Church, pp. 75-86.

350

fusal to accede to Augustine's demands, " that thej would do none
of those things, nor receive him as their archbishop ;" Bedc re-
ports him " in a threatening manner to have foretold, that in case
they would not join in unity with their brethren, they should be
warred upon by their enemies ; and if they would not preach the
way of life to the English nation, they should, at their hands,
undergo the vengeance of death. All which, through the dispensa-
tion of the divine judgment, fell out exactly as he had predicted."*

Yea, verily. For, " under Theodore and Wilfrid, the Welsh
Christians were not even allowed to receive the sacrament with
the English, unless they conformed," Bede relates, that at one
time " there were slain of them who came to pray (j^resbyters)
about a thousand and two hundred men and only fifty escaped by
flight" If

Thus, says Mr. Churton, speaking of Theodore, " he found the
Church (English) divided, he left it united ; he found it a mis-
sionary Church, scarcely fixed in more than two principal pro-
vinces ; he left it, what it ever will be, while the country remains
in happiness and freedom, the Established Church of England.^X

Protestant Episcopalians, what think ye ? " The Established
Church of England," with its foundation, according to Bede,
soaked in the purest anti-papal blood that was ever spilt at the
hands of Old Eome's sanguinary vassals, and that deed of perse-
cution and of blood lauded by one of your very last and most
distinguished advocates.

SECTION VI.

Distinction between the British Church and the Jnglo-EngUsh, admitted by Mr. C.
His disingenuousness, and glaring sophistry. — Effect of. — Mr. C. further com-
pared with himself in regard to Augustine. — Fallacy of the plea of his
" very providential" {alias) Protestant (!) ordination, by the Archbishops of
Aries and of Lyons. — Gregory's reply to Augustine's seventh of the nine questions
proposed to him. — Legate of Leo L at the Council of Chalcedon, a.d. 455. — Decree
of the Emperor .Justinian IIL — Not annulled between a.d. 440 and 590. — Romanism
of Augustine. — Mr. Turner and Archdeacon Mason on. — Mr. C.'s admission, that
the Anglo-Saxons were converted by Augustine. — 10,000 baptized in one day. —
The present Cathedral of Canterbury identical with that erected for Augustine by
his first royal convert, Ethelbert, King of Kent. — Hence the Romish origin and

• descent of the English line of archbishops. — Proved from Mr. C.'s own book. —
Vide his Catalogue of the Succession, divided into four parts ; for which, see next
Section.

The reader will now, doubtless, be not a little surprised, to find
that Mr. Chapin himself recognizes a distinction, between the old

* Bede, Book IL, c. 2. f lb., Book II., c. 2.
I Early English Church, pp. 75, 76.

351

Britisli Churcli of "Wales, and the Anglo-Saxon, Of the former,
he says, " We have shown conclusively, that the British Churoh
was not originally a branch of the Eoraan Church."* Surely, Mr.
0. might well have spared himself the toil of compiling some fif-
teen pages of matter, in proving what no one on earth denies. Of
the latter, he says, " the Anglo-Saxon portion of it, though con-
verted by missionaries froin Rome^ practically denied from the
very outset, the supremacy of the Pope, as it is now claimed, "f
etc. This, in every particular, we positively deny.

First, Mr. C.'s assertion, " That there were at least one arch-
bishop and seven bishops in England when Augustine landed
there," as I have shown, is a sheer imposition upon those " un-
learned in these matters." The paragraph, taken as a whole, is so
framed, as to make " the Arch-Episcopate of Cacrleonl^'^X ^^ which,
he says, these bishops belonged, identical with what he alleges to
" be the Anglo-Saxon portion of it" in Kent, England, " when
Augustine landed there." But we ask, what," portion" of the old
" British Church" could that have been, when Mr. Churton tells us,
that " the last British bishops, Theonas of London and Thadioc of
York, retreated with the remnant of their flocks into Wales^^^
and that, according to Mr. Chapin's own showing, six years hefore
the conference between Augustine and Dinooth, they having fixed
their seat at "Kaerllion ar Wye — Caer-leon upon Wislcer\

But even granting that there was a "portion" of the old Brit
ish Church in Kent " when Augustine landed there," Mr. C. tells
us that they were " converted hy missionaries from Homers So
then, after all, that " portion," whether large or small, became
KOMAN.

But, says Mr. C, they " practically denied from the very outset,
the supremacy of the pope, as it is now claimed." The structure
of this sentence is glaringly absurd and sophistical. Mr. C.'s ordi-
nary sagacity, in giving it a place in his book, seems to have for-
saken him. What, Anglo-Saxon converts to Romanism in the A.D.
596, protesting against the ministry, the doctrines, and the usages
of that church hy which and to which they had been converted,
" from the very outset "? Pray, what sort of conversion can that
be, against which the mind rises \ip in revolt '•'■ fro^in the very out-
set ".^ Then too, they " denied the supremacy of the pope, as it is
NOW claAmed.^'' Now, had it not been more in accordance both
with consistency aiid honesty, had Mr. C. informed those "un-
learned in these matters," as to what "the supremacy of the pope"
was, "when Augustine landed" in Kent? Also, if there were
any essential difference between what popery was then and now^
to have pointed it out ? The sophistry of this sentence is seen, in
Mr. C.'s attempt to palm upon his readers the idea of great zeal on

* The Primitive Church, p. 371. f lb.

X lb., p. 369. \ The Early English Church, p. 33.

II The Primitive Church, p. 361, note. \ lb., p. 371.

852

the part of these converts to Romanism, by pointing them to their
alleged " practical denial" of — what? We answer : —

That very system of religion, which that very Augustine, whom
Mr. Chapin styles " the first Saxon bishop, and the first archbishop
of Canterbury," and who, having been " very providentially" con-
secrated by the Bishops of Aries and of Lyons, was sent into En-
gland to propagate, under the auspices of Pope Gregory I. ; and
who, as such, forms the connecting link between the English Suc-
cession through the See of Canterbury^ and the 8ee of EpJtesus^
as alleged to have been founded by St. John ; and all of which
proves, " conclusively," that the English Succession is not de-
rived from Rome.

The reflecting and pious mind cannot but look with deep sor-
row on a cause which cannot be sustained, except at the expense
of so gross a dereliction from all scholarlike propriet}^ and historic
fact. But to proceed.

Mr. Chapin has devoted seventy-three ]3ages of his book (pp.
285-358) to prove, " that the Church of England did not descend
from the Church of Rome ;" and, with these, one hundred and
fifty additional pages, (pp. 358-508) to prove that her bishops
"Aav<? ever leen legally and canonically independent of^''* the
pope.

As it is our right, and, indeed, our duty, to weigh the merits of
any author who writes such a book on such a subject in the scales
of " even-handed justice," let us, in a few particulars, compare Mr.
Chapin with himself, as to what he affirms in regard to Augustine.

Mr. Chapin^ p. 291, says: Himself p. 360, says:

" The Archbishop of Canterbury, " There were canonical and lawful
through whom the succession of the bishops in Britain before Augustine
English bishops is usually traced, re- went there ; and consequently, tie oiccd
ceived their succession, noU as is often submission to the metropolitans of Brit-
said, from Rome, but from Aries,'' ain, according to the then existing
through » AUGUSTINE," etc. canons of the Church."

Now, having shown conclusively, as we claim to have done, that
the old British churches which existed a?iterior to the Anglo-Saxon
invasion, and which had been utterly swept . from North Britain
p^'ior to the mission of Augustine, are entirely separate and distinct
from the English Church ; and having also pointed out the impos-
sibility, that the Anglican succession could have been derived
from the former, we leave Mr. C. to reconcile, as best he can, what
he alleges as above of Augustine's canonical duty of sidmissimi
" to the metropolitan of Britain," etc., with his favorite theory, that
the English succession is derived, "?26'^, as is often said, from. Rome^
but from Arles,^"* through "Augustine," as " the first Saxon lishop,
amd the first archhishoj) of Canterlury^

* The Primitive Church, p. 359.

353

In proof that tlio Anglican succession from Augustine was not
from Kome, Mr. C. refers us to his " very providential" consecra-
tion at the hands of the archbishops of Lyons and of Aries, who
traced their descent "back to St. John," by which of course we
are to understand that these Gallic churches were purely Protes-
tant. But, let us see. In reply to the seventh, out of the nine
questions propounded by Augustine to Gregory on his accession
to the See of Canterbury — viz., "How are we to deal with the
bishops of France and of Britain?" the Pope says : " We give you
,no authority over the bishops of France^ because the bishop of
^r Aries received the pall in ancient times from my predecessor^ and

we are not to deprive him of the authority he has received

But as for all the bishops of Britain, we commit them to your
care^'' etc. And on the strength of this answer, "Augustine con-
ceived himself invested with full authority to reduce the British
bishops to the obedience of Eome."* We refer the reader to pages
349, 350, that he may see how this subjugation was finally accom-
plished.

Then, further. As far back as the Council of Chalcedon, a.d.
451, the legates of Pope Leo I. hold the following language : "Leo,
the most holy archbishop of great and old Rome^'' etc.f In ac-
cordance with this, in a.d. 455, some bishops belonging to the pro-
vince of Hilary, metropolitan of Arles.^ appealed from his sentence
to Leo I., who not only entertained their appeal, but deposed
Hilary, which act of deposition was confirmed by the Emperor
Justinian III., in the following language: " We decree that neither
the bishops of Gaul^ nor of the other provinces, any thing should
be taken in hand contrary to the ancient custom, without the 'vene-
rahle ])ope of the eternal city^ but whatever the authority of the
Apostolic See shall sanction, is to he a laiu to them allJ^"^ Besides,
the governor of the province was empowered to compel the bish-
ops, when summoned, to attend the tribunal of the pope !

Between Leo I., consecrated a.d. 440, and Gregory I., in a.d.
590, a period of one hundred and fifty years, the question is, was
this edict of Justinian III. annulled f So far from, it, it formed
tJie very basis of the rapidly growing power of the popedom. Of
the eighteen popes that intervened, the reader, by referring to our
historical remarks appended to the lists of the popes, § will see that
superstition, ambition, arrogance, tj^ranny, cruelty, heresy, and a
lusting after " the pre-eminence," cliaracterized the most of them.
Mr. Turner, speaking of Romanism at the time of Augustine, says :
" The peculiar form of this religion Avhich Gregory and Augustine
introduced, was of course that system which Rome then pos-

* Treatise on " The Man of Sin." Edward M. Hearn, M.A., Trinity College, Dub-
lin. 1844. pp. 23, 24.

t Fry's Church History, late of University of Oxford, pp. 146. London: 1825.

X Hallam's History of the Middle Ages, Vol. 11., p. 23.

\ Pp. 307-320. ^

354

sessed;"* and of the sphere of Augustine's missionary operations,
Archdeacon Mason has successfully shown, that he '* was not the
apostle of this island, not of the Britons, not of the Scots, not of the
Picts, not of the Angles, not of the Saxons, not of the Jutes, hut of
Kent aloner\

Upon the conversion of Ethelbert, " within a short period, all
the inhabitants of Kent were convinced of their folly in worship-
ing Thor and Woden, the idols of their ancestors," and "upwards
of ten thousand of them were baptized on one Christmas day."
And, continues the author from whom I now quote, " Ethelbert,
(a monarch of great power and ability,") was extremely anxious
to afford to Augustine and his comjpanions the means of perform-
ing divine worship with decency and solemnity ; and he surren-
dered to them his own palace, that they might live therein, and
erect a Church adjoining ; at the same time, he bestowed many am*
pie possessions for the maintenance of the priests who were to be-
come its ministers. Tnis Chukch is now the Cathedral of Can-
TERBUKY ! The present structure, though ancient, is of date long
subsequent to the age of Augustine. After a great fire, which con-
sumed the cathedral in the eleventh century, it was rebuilt by Lau-
franc, and other portions are of yet later periods ; stilly the cathe-
dral retains its original consecration^ and venerable as the fabric
appears to the eye, it acquires a greater title to our respect, when
we reflect how long the spot has been hallowed by the worship of
the Lord.";}:

Yes, Mr. Chapin, and that, as conducted by that long, though
not " unbroken" line of archbishops who derive their succession,
not from the papal-resisting expatriated bishops of old Britain, on
the banks of the Severn in Wales, but from YOUE OWN RO-
MAN AUGUSTINE !

I now propose further to prove this, from Mr, Chaj^in's own
book. By comparing Mr. C.'s tables of the succession on pages
356 and 358 inclusive, with that on pages 296 and SO-i inclusive,
the former of which was compiled to sustain the assertion that
" there were certainly seven§ [anti-popish] bishops in England
at the time of Aidan's consecration as bishop of Lindisfarne, or
Durham," a.b. 635, the latter shows that every one of those bishops
was consecrated either by Augustine himself, or one of his suc-
cessors^ or by the bishop of a Romish See. We will give them in
the order of their dates of consecration.

* Turner's History of the Anglo-Saxons, p. 32.

t Mason's VindicUs Ecclesiast. Anglican, Lib. IV, c. 4., Ed. 1638. London : (Powell,)
p. 123.

t History of the Anglo-Saxons, by Francis Palgrave, F.R.S., F.S.A., pp. 66, 67. Lon-
don : 1838.

§ Mr. C.'s own dates in that table give only_^i;e, up to a.d. 635.

355

Name.

Diocese.

Consccrators.

1. Mellitus, London^

2. Roman us, Mochesler,

Dates.

A. D.

604.

624.

((

625.

626.

633.

Augustine,

Justus, who was conse-
crated hy xiuGUSTINE,

3. Birinus, Dorchester, Bishop of Geneva, an

Italian,

4. Honorius, Canterbury, Paulinus, w^ho was con-

secrated by Justus, and
he by Augustine,

5. Paulinus, Rochester, Justus, who was conse-

crated by Augustine,

We leave the unbiased reader to make his own comment on
such church authorship, and his own inferences as to the anti-
popish character of the above-named English bishops.

But again : Thomas Cranmer is inserted in Mr. C.'s list as the
sixt^^-seventh archbishop of Canterbury from Augustine, and the
ninety-ninth from St. John. Then next follows Reginald Pole
as the sixty-eighth from Augustine, and the one-hundredth from
St. John. But on page 304 Mr. C. says, " It will be seen from
this list, that we do not trace our succession through Cranmer's
successor, Cardinal Pole." Why not ? Oh, he was archbishop of
Canterbury, under the Popish Mary ! Hence, though one of the
links in the " unbroken", chain, he must, nevertheless, be thrown
out.

SECTION vn.

THE subject continued THE SUCCESSION,

1. From St. John to jiugustine. — 2. From Augustine to Cranmer. — Explanation of the
nature and use of " THE PALL." — Coeval with the time of Augustine, and re-
tained by the archbishops of Canterbury to this day ! — Fallacy of the plea of the
independence of the Anglo-English Church. — Loss of the independence of " the
Old British Church" after a. d. 731. — Bede. — Evidence of the disingenuousness of
Mr. C— Proof that instead of only ONE, there are THIRTY-SIX Archbishops
of Canterbury and York between AUGUSTINE and CRANMER, who received
their PALLS from POPISH hands ! — What then becomes of the English succes-
sion, if these share the .same fate with Cardinal POLE ? — Extraordinary evolution
of Mr. C. — Failing in his attempts to dodge old Rome by way of Ephesus, Old
Britain, Scotland, Ireland etc., in order to place the validity of the English suc-
cession beyond the reach of controversy, he assures the reader that that succession
can be traced back to the Apostles St. John and St. Paul, not only, but also to St.
PETER, the first bishop of the ROMISH SEE.

this

Here, however, a most important question presents itself. It is
is : Was said Resrinald Pole

the only jwpish archbishop of Can-

856

terbury and York ? Let us sec. We will take a view of the
whole chain, dividing it into four j)arts. The first^ from St. John
to Augustine. The second^ from Augustine to Cranmer. The
third, from Cranmer to John Moore, the consecrator of William
White, the first American bishop. The fourth, the American
bishops. The

I. From St. John to Augustine.

Augustine, Mr. Chapin tells us, derived his Episcopate from St.
John, as the founder of the See of Ephesus, through the two
archdioceses of Lyons and Aries. Thus :

ST. JOHN.
1. PoLYCARP, Bishop of Smyrna,

Bishops of Lijons. Bishops of Aries.

2. (1) Pothinus,
8. (2) Irengeus,

4. (3) Zacharias.

5. (4) Elias.

6. (5) Faustinus.

7. (6) Verus.

8. (7) Julius.

9. (8) Ptolomy.

10. (9) Vocius.

11. (10) Maximus.

12. (11) Tetradus.

13. (12) Verissimus.

14. (13) Justus,

15. (14) Albinus.

16. (15) Martin.

17. (16) Antiochus.

18. (17) Elpidius.

19. (18) Sicarius.

20. (19) Eucherius L

21. (20) Patiens,

22. (21) Lupicinus.

23. (22) Rusticus,

24. (23) Stephanus,

25. (24) Viventiolus,

26. (25) Eucherius II

27. (26) Lupus,

28. (27) Licontius,

29. (28) Sacerdos,
80. (29) Nicetus,

31. (30) Priscus,

32. (31) ^THEREUS,

177.
179-202.

374.

427.
451.

494.
499.
515.
524.
538.
542.
549.
562.
578.
589.

(1) Trophinus.

(2) Regulus.

(3) Martin I.,

(4) Victor,

(5) Marinus,

(6) Martin II.

(7) Valentine,

(8) Saturnius,

(9) Artemius.

(10) Concerdius,

(11) Heros.

(12) Patroclus,

(13) Ilonoratus,

(14) Hilary,

(15) Ravenus,

(16) Augustalis,

(17) Leontius,

(18) ^]onius,

(19) C;\?sarius,

(20) Ananius,

(21) Aurelian,

(22) Sapandus,

(23) Licerius,

(24) ViRGILIUS,

254.
266.
313.

346.
353.

374.

412.
426.
483.
449.
455.
462.
492.
506.
543.
546.
557.
586.
588.

AUGUSTINE.

357

Now, in regard to this division, at the very point where the
evidence to authenticate the validity of its several links is most
wanting, there, we affirm, it totally fails. We have shown conclu-
sively (pages 336-338) from the admitted authentic chronology of
those early times, the impossibility that Polycarp could have been
consecrated bishop of Smyrna, either by the apostles, or by "St.
John." And as to the other links, connecting the " bishops of
Lyons with Polycarp, the only information we have is, that " an
ancient Irish historian of the sixth or seventh century says, that
the Grallican course (that is, Liturgy) was first chaunted by St,
John, then by the blessed Polycarp, then by Iren:eus, Bishop of
Lyons, in Gaul."* But Pothynus, who, in the table, comes in
between Polycarp and Irenajus, is left out! But as he was " eighty
years old when Polycarp died," and was " a Greek," Mr. C. con-
cludes that Polycarp must have consecrated him the first bishop of
Lyons !\ On the other hand, the line of bishops in the archdiocese
of Aries commences at a much later date. It would be a loss of
time to pursue this branch of inquiry further. Whenever, or
however, these archdioceses originated, the edict of Justinian III.,
as given on page 353, shows that both were subject to " the vener-
able pope of the eternal city." And this accords well with Gre-
gory's declaration to Augustine, that " the bishop of Aries received
his pall in ancient times from his predecessors." The next divi-
sion:

II. From Augustine to Ceanmee, through the archiepiscopate
of Canterbury.

Mr. Chapin tells us, that " the apostolical succession is traced
back through the archbishops of Canterbury, ^^ etc.

We must here j)remise, that a proper understanding of the eccle-
siastical relations of this " succession" requires an explanation of the
nature and use of " the pall,'''' which Gregory informs his Anglican
vassal, Augustine, " the bishops of Aries received from his prede-
cessors," Fox, the venerable martyrologist, and Johnson, in his
Clergyman's Vade Mecum, tells us that Romanists hold that " this
PALL was a supernatural robe of lamb's wool, — taken from the
body of St. Peter, as a fullness of the office pontifical, — curiously
adorned, and worn by the archbishop when he celebrated.":|: Fox
also informs us that Pope Alexander III. " decreed that no arch-
bishop should receive the pall, unless he should first swear," and
of which the following is a copy, " as it is contained in their own
words :"

" The form and manner, how and by what words the pope is wont to give the
pall unto the archbishop, in English : —

" To the honor of almighty God, and of blessed Mary, the Virgin, and of

* The Primitive Church, p. 293. t lb., p. 292.

X Fox's Acts and Men., p. 259, Vol. I., fol. London. 1684. Vade Mecum, Vol. I ,
p. 41. 4th cd., 1715.

858

Peter and Paul, and of our Lord, Pope N , and of the Holy Church of Rome,
and also of the Church N. committed to your charge, we give you the pall, taken
from the body of St. Peter, as a fullness of the office pontifical, which you may
wear within your own Church upon certain days, wnich be expressed in the
privileges of the said Church, granted by the See apostolic."

" In like manner proceedeth the oath of every bishop swearing obedience to
the pope, in like Avords as followeth, in English : —

"1, N., Bishop of N., from this hour henceforth, will be faithful and obedient
to l^lessed St. Peter, and to the Holy Apostolic Church of Rome, and to my

Lord N. the Pope To the retaining and maintaining the papacy of

Rome, and the regalities of St. Peter, I shall be aider (so mine order be saved)
against all persons, etc. So God help me and these holy gospels of God."*

The question now is, was this " pall" received, and has it been
retained bj the archbishops of Canterhiry, from the time of Au-
gustine down to this time f We shall let Johnson answer,

" Both the Archbishop of Canterbury, and he of York, from the time of Austin
fA.D. 59G] and Paulinus, [a.d. 635,] down to the time of Henry VIll., (saving
that eight of this province (York) had it not- namely, those between Paulinus
and Egbert) received a pall from Rome, for which they paid an unreasonable
sum.f It is still the arms or device of the Archbishopric of Canter-
bury !" J

Mr. Chapin devotes twenty-two pages of his book, from 359 to
381, to prove that the Anglo-English churches were i/idependent
of the Komish See. And we admit, that " 'twas pretended" by the
English archbishops that " the pall," as above, was nothing more
than "an ensig^i of archiepiscopal authority," and that that pre-
tense is still urged. But the reader has only to run his eye over
these pages, to discover that the evidence in proof of this alleged
independence, at least down to the time of the reformation under
Henrj^ VIII., amounts to nothing more than the unavailing re-
monstrances of kings and parliaments against the political and ec-
clesiastical supremacy of a power whose tenderest mercies were the
extreme of cruelty. Of the independence of the old British churches
prior to the mission of Augustine, there is no dispute. But we
have shown conclusively, that those churches formed no part of
the Anglo-Saxon Church at the time of that mission. Hence^ the
imjpossibility that " tlie English successionl'' could have been de-
rived from them. So far ii-om it, even the old British churches,
which had retained their independence till a.d. 731, when Bede fin-
ished his history, soon after became merged into, and thenceforward
formed a part of, the Anglo-Saxon Church founded in Kent by tlie

* Fox's Acts and Mon., Vol. I., p. 259.

t So j;reat was the drain of wealth from Britain by tlie pope, ihat in the time of
Henry I., a.d. 1100-113o, a sum equal to .£10,000 sterling was paid by the archbishop
of York for his pall! And in the reii^n of Edward III., a.d. 1327, the' English Parlia-
ment remonstrated against the exorbitant e.vactions of the papal See in these words-: —
"That the taxes paid to the pope of Rome for ecclesiastical digniiics, do amount to Jive
fold as much as the taxes of all profits, as appear to the king by the year, of his whole
realmc." (An. 50, Edward HI., Tit. 94.) Historical Treatise on "The Man of Sin."
Edward M. Hearn, M.A., Trinity College, Dublin. 1844.

I Johnson's Vade Mecum, Vol. I., p. 41.

359

Romish Augustine. And, in conclusion on this subject, we affirm,
tliat nothing is more palpable on the face of the entire historic
period between the "consecration of Augustine, a.d. 596, and the
throwing off the papal yoke by Henry VIII., about a.d. 1520, than
the fact that although England constantly exhibited a jealous sub-
mission to the pope's demands, and a restless endurance of his un-
hallowed sway, yet that tlie triumph of Roine was com])lete.

Between Augustine and Cranmer, in the See of Canterbury, there
were sixty-seven archbishops. Of these, as evidence of the disin-
genuousness of Mr. C, in his attempt to palm " Cardinal Pole"
upon those who are " unlearned in these matters," as the only
Romish archbishop of that number, the following table will show,
that nearly one-half of them were consecrated either by the popes
themselves, or by their legates :

Names.

1. Augustine,

2. Lawrence,

3. Mellitus,

4. Justus,

5. Honorius.

6. Adeotatus,

7. Theodore,

8. Birthwald,

9. Tatwine,

10. Northelm,

11. Cuthbert,

12. Breo;win,

13. Lambert,

14. ^Ethelred L,

15. Wulfred,

16. Theogild,

17. Ceolnoth,

18. J^thelred IL,

19. Phlegmund,

20. Athelm,

Consecrated by.
^thereus and Virgilius,
Augustine,
do.
do.
Paulintts, consecrated by Justus,
and he by Augustine.
Vacancy 18 months,
Ithamar., cons, by Honorius, etc.
y ITALIAN, 76th Bishop of Rome,
Godicin.^ of Gall. Some say of
Wales,

Gregory III.,

Paul, 94th Bishop of Rome,
Leo III., 97th Bishop of Rome,

FoRMOSUS, 112th Bishop of Rome.
The ordinations of this pope
were declared tiwZZ, both by Pope
Stephen VI. and Sergius III. Yet
Phlegmund was never re-ordain-
ed. And by him, most of the
English Mshops were ordained
for 26 years ! What became of
the succession here ?

Dates of.

A.D

. 596

605

619

624

((

634

654

668

((

693

731

735

742

759

763

793

803

830

871

Phlegmund^

" 891
" 923

360

Names.

Consecrated by.

Dates of.

21. Wulfelm,

A.D. 928

22, Odo Scvcrus,

" 941

28. Dunstan,

" 959

24. ^thalgar,

" 988

25. Siriciis,

" 989

26. Aluricus,

^' 996

27. Elphcge,

" 1005

28. Leon Elskan,

" 1013

29. Agelnoth,

Rome,

" 1020

80. Edsin,

" 1088

31. Hob. Norman,

" 1050

82. Stigand,

" 1052

88. Lanfranc,

Yaicac J four years.

" 1070

84. Anselm,

" 1093

85. Kodulph,

" 1114

86. Wm. Corbell,

Nominated by the
Vacancy two years.

king,

" 1122

37. Theobald,

Card. Albert (Legate),

" 1138

88. Thomas a Becket

" 1162

39. Eichard,

Alexander III., 168th Bp. of

40. Baldwin Fordensis,

41. Reginald Fitz,

42. Huber Walter,

43. Steph. Langton,

44. R. Wethersfield,

45. Edmund,

46. Boniface,

47. R. Kilwarby,

48. John Peckham,

Rome. YiCTOR TV., his ri-
val. His chair sustained
by sedition, war, and blood-
shed,

Joceline,

Innocent III., 174th Bp, of
Rome, deposed King John ;
after six years restored him,
but held the kingdom as a
fee farm,

Innocent IV., 178th Bp. of
Rome. He "impoverished
the universal church more
than all his predecessors,"

His consecrator, 7r^?i. Britton,
Bp. of Bath and Wells, was
consecrated by Pope Ckles-
TiNE v., 177th B]). of Rome,

NicnoLAS III., ISOth Bp. of
Rome. He exacted of Peck-
ham 4000 marks for his pall,
on pain of excommunication,

" 1174
" 1184
" 1191
" 1193

" 1207
" 1229
" 1234

" 1245

1172

1278

861

Names.

49. E. "Winclielsea,

50. Wal. Eajnold,

51. Sim. Mcphani,

52. J. Stratford,

53. Th. Bradwardine,

54. Sim. Islip,

55. Sim. Langliam,
66. W. Wittlesej,

57. Sim. Sudbury,

58. W. Courtnaj,

59. Th. Arundel,

60. Hy. Chinchely,

Consecrated hy.

Suabino (Cardinal),

H. Winclielsea^

JoHx-T XXII., 194tliBp. of Rome,

Vitali (Cardinal),

Bertrand (do.),

R. Straff (/I'd — he, by J. Strat-
ford— he, by Cardinal Vita-
li, of Avignon,

Dates of.
" 1294
" 1313
" 1328
" 1333
" 1348

1349
1366
1368
1375
1381
1396

Geegoet XII._, 203d Bp. of
Rome. Schism in the pope-
dom. This pope deposed by
the Council of Constance, as
no hishoj? at all. Yet Cliiu-
chely ordained bishops in the
English Church for 29 years,
without 7'eordinatio?i. "What
an unbroken line of valid con-
secrations," " 1414

61. J. Stafford, " 1443

62. John Kemp, " 1452

63. Th. Bourcher, " 1454

64. John Morton, " 1486

65. Henry Dean, " " 1501

66. W. Wareham, ' " 1503

67. Thomas Ceanmee, " 1533

68. Reginald Pole, etc., etc., etc.

The first thing to be observed in this catalogue is, the t/iree va-
cancies which occun^ed, namely, the first, between Honorius and
Adeodatus, of eighteen months, a.d. 634-654. The second, be-
tween Langfranc and Anselm, of four years, a.d. 1073-1093.
The third, between Wm. Corbell and Theobald, of two years, a.d.
1122-1138.

Second. Thejirst seven of these archbishops were either " Ital-
ians or foreigners."

Third. Of the whole number, eleven were consecrated by dif-
ferent popes, and tldrteen by other Romish consecrators. Total,
TWENTY-FouE. And, if to these we add.

Fourth, the cotemporaneous Archbishops of Yorh who received
jpopish consecration, to the above may be annexed the following,
namely :

862

AKCHBIS^OPS OF YORK.

Names.

Consecrated by.

Pates cf.

Thurston,

Pope Calixtus,

A.D.

1119

llj. Mardac,

" EuOENIUS,

1147

Roger,

Theobald, Archbp. of

Canter-

bury. He by Card. Albert,

1154

Geof. Plantag.

By the Pope's order.

1191

Walter Gray.

Ste])h. Langion,

See 43d of Canterbury.

1215

Godfrey de Kinton,

Rome,

1258

Win, Wickwane,

do.

1279

J. Komanus,

do.

1285

Th. Corbridge,

Pope Boniface YIII.,

1299

10.

Wm. de Greenfield

, '' Clement Y.

1305

11.

Wm. de Melton,

Avignon,

1307

12.

Wm. le Zouch,

Pope Clement YI.,

1342

Total, with the above, thirty -six.

We might thus with equal facility show that the same holds true
of the popish ordinations of the cotemporaneous diocesan bishops;
for example, those of Durham and Winchester. But it were use-
less to pursue this subject further. It only remains for us to add
in conclusion regarding these consecrations, that, on the prelatical
hypothesis of an " unbroken apostolical succession," alleged to be
" fastened, in the beginning, to the throne of God, and preserved
as inviolate as the line of the descent of Adam,'" etc. —

" Ten or ten thousandth, breaks the chain alike.'" — Pope.

Apply now, therefore, the same rule of excision from said chain,
to the above thirty-six archbishops of Canterbury and York, who,
as shown above, have received ^y'^pish ordination between Augus-
tine and Cranmer, as does Mr. Chapiu to the popish archbishop,
Cardinal Pole, the regular successor of Cranmer : and we deferentially
ask, what becomes of the succession of the Anglican Church, de-
rived, as Mr. C. assures us it is, from Augustine, through the arch-
bishops of Canterbury and York ?

The ver7 ingenious and ingenuous Mr. C, however, has provided
at his hand a ready door of escape from the dilemma Avhich this
interrogator}^ would involve. Having told us, page 346, that " the
materials for tracing the succession of the Church of Rome" were
" more full and ample than those of any other ;" and, that from
the time of the first translation of a diocesan bishop to Rome, in
the person of Formosus of Porto, A.D. 891, they became frequent,
and were made " from nearly every part of Christendom ;" there-
fore, " it may be safely assumed," says he, " that nearly all the suc-
cessions in the ivorld entek into, and assist in authentica'iing that
of the BisDOPS OF Rome.

363

Surely, Bishop Hughes should convene a council, and pass a
unanimous vote of thanks to Mr. C, for this concession to, and
zealous advocacy of, the uninterrupted perpetuity and universal
prevalence of Romish episcopacy throughout Christendom.

But, it is only " nearly all the successions in the world," that
'* enter into and assist in authenticating that of the bishops of
Rome." JMot quite all. " The English succession'^ is an exception.
Augustine, vi'hen sent among the Saxons by Pope Gregory I.,
" owed suhnission to the inetro])olitan of Britain j'''' and they "do
not trace their succession through Cranmer's successor," the poinsh
" Cardinal Pole !" So far from it, though ^'■nearly all the succes-
sions in the world enter into that of the bishops of Rome," yet,
says Mr. C, " the succession [English] may be traced in a great
variety of waysJ'^ ' The reader may therefore perceive how en-
tirely mistaken are our Presbyterian opponents — all of Avhom are
' unlearned in these matters,' in supposing that we are dependent
on the corrupt Church of Rome for " our succession." '

But, "tell it not in Gath."' Mr. C. having attempted, as we
have said, to dodge Old Rome by way of Ephesus, Old Britain,
Scotland, Ireland, etc., suddenly veers round and tells us that, "if
desired, the later bishops [English] may be traced through the line

of THE BISHOPS OF RoME."f

"The later bishops." How late? Those subsequent to the
time of Pole ? Nay, verily, for Mr. C. carries us back to " Theo-
dore, the seventh archbishop of Canterbury — (that is, in the direct
line of succession from Augustine) who, he tells us, " Avas conse-
crated by the bishop of Rome, [Yitalian,] and filled the archiepis-
copal chair from 668 to 693, twenty -five years." And he adds :
"Those bishops, therefore, , who were consecrated by him in
England^ could trace their succession through him back to St.
PETER" ! And, strange to tell, as though panic-stricken at the
thought of the injustice done to Augustine, by the affirmation that
he, as the first linlc in the chain of the Canterberian archbishops,
" owed submission to the metropolitan of Britain ;" to the name of
Theodore, as above, he adds those of several others in the same
Hue, who were either consecrated by the popes themselves, or who
were foreign Roman prelates, and by whom English dioceses were
formed and English bishops consecrated, not a few: for example,
Theobald, bishop of Ilostia, Robert Winchelsey, John Strat-
ford, and Thomas Bradwardine, '■'■all cardinal hishoj)s ;^^ and in
addition to them, " one other foreign bishop, Mark A. de Domi-
Nus, archbishop of Spalatro^ a Church in communion with the See
of Rome, assisted in the consecration of Nicholas Fenton and
George Monteigne, and these assisted in the consecration of so
many other bishops, that since 1638 [a period of two hundred and
twenty-seven years !], there has not heen a hishop consecrated in

(1) 2 Sam. 1 : 20.
» The Primitive Church, p. 321. f lb-, P- 320.

864

England that could not trace liis succession to the archlishops of
Spalatro^ and then hack to the apostles''' ! And upon the strength
of this, Mr. C. arrives at the very important conelusion, that, " if
THERE HAD BEEN ANY BREAK iu thc succcssion before that time, we
should now have a vahd succession" !

Then, on the other hand, as through Berthwald, the successor
of Theodore, who was consecrated by Godwin, Archbishop of
Wales, who, he affirms very confidently, traced their succession to
Jerusalem and St. James ;" and as "Augustine traced his succes-
sion back through IrenaBus to St. John," therefore, " all subse-
quent bishops must be able to do the same ;" that is, to trace their
spiritual pedigree back to "St. James, to -St. John, and to St.
Petek" ! ! !* And THUS it is, he adds, " that the succession may
be traced in a great variety of v:ays''^ !\

But to the above, we reply, very briefly, in regard to Berthwald,
first, that in his list, Mr. C. admits that some say that he was the
metropolitan "of Gall, {Galllarum^ which, from the fact that
Bede in his day, A.D. 731, sa3's of these old British bishops of
Wales, that "it was not their custom to pay any respect to the
{Roman) faith and religion of the English, nor to correspond with
them any more than with jpagans^''\ we think was the most
probable. The old Britons were not subjugated to the Roman
yoke till after this period.

Then, second, Mr. C. must have forgotten what he says of Paul,
as having first " labored" in " Britain" " as early as a.d. 63," and
that "Aristobulus," his " disciple," " when he went into Britain,"
carried " with him the ecclesiastical rites of the Eastern
churches," etc.§ Or, was the old British See founded in an apos-
tolical schism J<5^t«ig^;i St. James and St. Paul? And,

Third, as to Augustine's tracing " his succession back through
Irenaeus to St. John," after the abundant evidence already ad-
duced to prove that it is a prelatical ^'■cunningly devised fahle^''^
having for its object the concealment of the unmistakable, though
recently denied fact of the dependence of the Anglican and Ameri-
can Episcopacy on the Eomish line for its derivation, the reader,
we are sure, will readily excuse us from any further appropriation
of time or labor in exposing its fallacy.

(1) 2 Peter 1 : 16.
* The Primitive Church, pp. 320, 321. t lb., —

\ Bede, Book II., Chap. 20. § The Primitive Church, p. SG-i.

365

SECTION vni.

THE ENGLISH SUCCESSION, FROM THE PERIOD OF THE REFORMATION
UND.ER THE REIGN OF HENRY VIH.

The subjeU continued. — 3. The English succession from Crannier to John Moore. —
Tabular view. — Another attempt of Mr. Chapin to dodge the Romish line. — Jeru-
salem, through James. — Proof that James was not the bishop of — Patriarchate of
St. David's from. — Do., of Llandaff from Gall. — Fallacy of — Mr. C. in error in
regard to his alleged union of the old British bishops with Augustine in preaching
to the English. — Three inferences. — Fallacy of the alleged independence of the
English Church proved by Mr. C.'s own statements. — Her claim thereto a bor-
rowed glory.

We come now to the next division in this great chain. This
extends,

III. From Ceanmer to John Moore, the consecrator of
William White, the first American bishop. Of those following
the line of the archbishops of Canterbury, there are, according to
Mr. Chapin, in all, twenty, viz. :

Names. Dates

1. Thos. Cranmer, a.d.

2. Keg. Pole,

3. Matt. Parker, "

4. Edm. Grindell,
6. John AVhitgift,

6. Eichard Bancroft, "

7. Eobt. Abbott, "

8. William Laud, "

9. William Juxton, "
10. Gilbert Sheldon, "

The first thing which in this connection calls for remark is, that
Mr. C, having attempted, as we have said, to dodge Old Eome by
way of Ephesus, Britain, Scotland and Ireland, now that he has
come down to the time of the Eeformation,"* proceeds to point
out to his readers another by-path — the ^^ succession from Jeru-

But here, also, leaving his reader to grope his way through total
darkness, as to any evidence of the founding of such a See, or
authority for placing " James Alpheus,:}; one of the apostles," as

* The Primitive Church, p. 329. f lb., p. 322.

I We affirm that there is not the least evidence in the New Testament or in authen-
tic tradition, to prove that St. James was the founder and diocesan of the See of
Jerusalem. True, as that city was the seat of Christianity, and the center of operations
of " the twelve apostles of the Lamb," the neighboring churches, — e. g., that of Antioch,
referred thither for counsel, instruction, and support. It was highly suitable, therefore,
that one of " the twelve" should take up his residence there, whose qualifications should

of Con.

Names.

Dates

of Con

1553.

11.

Wm. Sancroft,

A.D.

1677

12.

John Tillotson,

1691.

1559.

13.

Thos. Tenison,

1691.

1559.

14.

Wm. Wake,

1705.

1577.

15.

John Potter,

1737.

1597.

16.

Thos. Seeker,

1734.

1609.

17.

Thos. Herring,

1737.

1621.

18.

Matt. Ilutton,

1743

1633.

19.

Fred. Cornwalli

1749

1660.

20.

John Moore,

1775

366

the first link in the chain of its bishops, — (the catalogue ending
with Sopliroiiius, the sixtieth link, a. d. 633-637, "when Jeru-
salem was taken by the Saracens, and the Patriarchate was broken
up,^') — our author proceeds to derive tlirough it what he calls " the
Patriarchate, or archdiocese of Meneva, or St. Davids,"* in Wales,
and of whom David, having been consecrated at Jerusalem by
John III., the thirty-third patriarch of Jerusalem, was made its
first archbishop, A. d. 519.f

lie then introduces a second archdiocese — that of Llandaff — of
which he says Dubitius was the first archbishop, he having been
consecrated a. d. 448, by Germanus and Severus, two bishops
from Gall, on a visit to Britain.:}:

An archdiocese, the reader will understand, embraces several
dioceses, whose bishops are subordinate to the archbishop.

Now, from the above, the reader will also understand Mr. C. to
speak of two entirely separate and distinct archdioceses, those of
Meneva or St, Davids, and Llandaff. But let him take the follow-
ing statements respecting them, from the same pen :

(1.) Speaking of the action of the archdiocese of Meneva, in Wales,
A. D. 519, he tells us that " previous to this time there had been three
archbishoprics in Beitain — London^ York, and Caerleon." And that
Theonas, with the great body of his clerg}^, as bishop of Gloucester,
accompanied by Thadioc, archbishop of York, having " fled from
the Saxons, a. d. 587,§ and settled themselves in Wales, established
their archiepiscopal seat at Caerleon upon Wiske ; whereupon the
two archbishoprics of London and York were destroyed by the
Saxons, while the latter, Caerleon, was transferred to Meneva, now
St. Davids. Of course, the former, being thus merged in that of
the latter, they are identical.

Take now in this connection, the following statements, which
we shall place in juxtaposition :

fit him to serve as mediator between the opposite parties of Jewish and Gentile converts,
and to counsel and act for the peace of the Church. And who, of that number, so
admirably qualified for this as " James, the brother of our Lord," called " the Just" ?
But that he was neith<;r invested with, and that he performed none of the powers of, a
prelate, — in other words, that he was twt the bishop of Jerusalem, is evident from the
following facts, viz. : 1st, The contributions raised by the churches for the relief of the
brethren in Judea during the dearth in the days of Claudius Cansar, was sent thither by
the hands of Barnabas and Saul, not to Pope or Bishop St. James, but to '• the elders,"
Tpiff/Sunpoi, the appropriate officers of the Church. (Acts 11 : .30 ) And so. 2d, of the
delegation sent by the Church of Antioch to Jerusalem for counsel. (Acts 15 : 15.)
That council was composed by the apostles and presbyters, and the Church, who, to-
gether, received them, decided upon the merits of their appeal, and made known their
decision by letter to the Church at Antioch ; and, though James bore a prominent part
in the transaction, yet, from beginning to end, not one word of intimation is given that
he sustained any thing approaching to a prelatical relation to that Church. (See on this
subject, Coleman " On the Apostolical and Primitive Church," pp. 146-148.)

* The Primitive Church, p. 324. f lb., 444 J lb.,

4 On p. 361 he says 597. See noti.

867

" Dubritius Tvas the first Archbishop " The archdiocese of Meneva (St.
of LlandaflF." (p. 324.) Davids), contained sermd/ocesses. (1.)

St. Davids, by David; (2.) Llandaff,
by Dubritius," etc.

" Dubritius, Bishop of Llandaff, was " The succession of bishops in this
succeeded by Telianus, and he by archbishopric," i. e., St. Davids, came
Odocius, who was consecrated by Theo- tlirough St. David from Jerusalem ;
dore (Roman) Archbishop of Canter- through Dubritius from Gall to Efhe-
bury." (lb.) sus ; and through Odocius from Arks

and Rome.

" The bishops of Llandaff", therefore, " And from them, these succes-
are properly the successors of Theonas sions," i. e., those of Jerusalem, Gall,
and Thadioc," i. c, the expatriated Ephesus, Aries and Rome, have been
founders of the archdiocese of Caer- spread through the whole body of
lean or Meneva (St. Davids), which the English Church."*
Mr. C. says "contained seven dioceses."
rib.)

Now, in regard to these statements, sQveral questions very ob-
viousl}^ present themselves, as —

1. If Dubritius was the first archbishop of Llandaff.^ how is it
that his successors are identified with the archdiocese of Caerleon
or Meneva, (St. Davids ?)

2. If Llandaff" was an aechdiocese, by what canon law can it
be reckoned as one of the alleged seven dioceses of Meneva, or "St.
Davids?"

3. If the arch-diocese of Meneva or St. Davids contained seveti.
dioceses between a.d. 450 and 600, how many, within the same
period, were embraced under the archiepiscopate of Llandaff

4. How are we to reconcile the alleged derivation of the arch-
bishopric of Meneva or St. Davids through Jerusalem, Gall, Ephe-
sus, Aries and Borne, with- the declaration that, "Avhatever au-
thority the bishop of Rome may have had over other bishops, he
has none over those of England, inasmuch as they have ever
BEEN legally and canonically independent of him .?"f And of this
latter affirmation : *

5. How is it to be reconciled with the declaration, that the
above "successions," Jerusalem, Gall, Ephesus, Aries and Eomk,
through the archiepiscopate of MeucA^a or St. Davids, "Aaye been
spread through the whole body of the English GhurchV

And yet, in the midst of all this " darkness visible," this "con-
fusion worse confounded," of two archiepiscopates entirely sej)arate
and distinct, and yet identical, and of the entire independence of
the British churches and bishops of the See of Eome, and yet of
her consecrations spreading through the whole body of the En-
glish Church, the reader, at the end of two lines of succession, the
FIRST commencing with David as the first archbishop of Meneva
or St. Davids, and containing eighty four links, ending a.d. 1553;
and the second, headed by Dubritius, as " the first archbishop of

* Compare pp. 322-325, with note, p. 36L
t The Primitive Church, p. 359-

368

Llandaff, and containing sixty-four links, ending a.d. 1545, the
reader, we repeat, is told, that thus he is "brought down to

THE REFORMATION,

since which time, the English succession comes through Matthew
Parker, and his associates."*

But here, at the very outset, the reader finds Mr. C. flounder-
ing upon another " snag." Having told him, page 291, that "the
archbishops of Canterbury, through whom the succession of the
English bishops is usually traced, received their succession, not^
as is often said, from Rome, but from Aries, Augustine, the first
Saxon bishop, as well as the first archbishop of Canterbury, hav-
ing been consecrated at Aries, "f etc., he now informs him, that
" the early bishops of these dioceses," that is, those of Caerleon
vel Meneva vel St. Davids.^ and Llandaff, who could trace their
succession "to Jerusahm^Xo Ro?-rE, and to Ephesus,^^ " Avere instru-
mental to a very great extent in preaching Christianity to the Sax-
ons, in the west and north of England.":}:

Here then we have the " early" British bishops working hand
in hand with those of Rome, in the promotion of a common cause 1
But, was this so ? Why, then, in proof of the absolute indepen-
dence of the British churches of that of Eome, has Mr. C. remijided
us that, upon Augustine's arrival at Kent, "Ae oived sidimission to
the metropolitan of Britcdn^'' Avhose " seat" at that very time was,
not at Saxon Kent, but at "Kaerleon ar Wye," "Caerleon upon
Esk," in Wales?-

But, no. Indeed, so far from any such co-operation existing be-
tween these " early" British bishops and those of Eome as above
represented, Bede's account of the matter is as follows : At the
time of their second conference with Augustine, a.d. 603, to his
demands — "if you will comply with me in these three points, viz.,
to Iceep Easter at the due time ; to administer haptism-, hy ivhich ive
are again horn to God,'''' [baptismal regeneration,] according to the
custom of the holy Roman Apostolic Church, and, jointly icith vs, to
preach the word of God to the English nation, we icill tolerate all the
other things you do, though contrary to our customs ;" they answered :
" We will do none of these things, nor receive him [the pope]
as our aechbishop ;" to which they added, " we are under the
government of the bishop of Caerleori upon Wishe, who, under God,
is to oversee us, to cause us to walk in the way of the Lord."§
And this determination, that is, that they would not unite with
the Romish missionary Augustine, and his Saxon converts | in
preaching to the English nation, these " early" British bishops,
Bede informs us, persevered in till some time after a.d. 731, when

* The Primitive Church, pp. 326-329. f lb., p. 291. | lb., p. 329.

§ Bede, Book II., c. 2. See also the Primitive Church, p. 361.
II See p. —. .

369

he concluded his history: — "it being," says he, " to this day^'' the
custom of the Britons not to pay any respect to the (ROMAN) faith
and religion of the English^ nor to correspond loith them any more
than ivith p)agans'^ /*

The couchisions, therefore, warranted by the facts above exhib-
ited^Mr. C. himself being judge — are :

1. That while we admit the very early introduction of Chris-
tianity into ancient Britain, yet that, from the admitted loss to the
Churcli of the early records of those times, and the consequent ab-
sence of a claim to authenticity of those of more recent date, the
alleged prelatical character of the ministry of that Church is
wholly unauthorized and fabulous.

2. That the ancient British Church and its ministry, having
been driven, during the Saxon invasion, from North Brittany into
France and Wales, as she ever had been, so she continued to be,
a body entirely separate and distinct from, and independent of the
Anglo-Saxon or English Church, (which, Mr. Chapin informs us,
was formed out of those who were " converted by missionaries
from Rome,"f under Augustine,) till subjected to her power, a
short time after a.d. 731, when "the Welsh as well as the English
became entirely Romanists. ":|:

3. That, as there is no historical evidence that the Anglo-Saxon
Church, founded by the Romish missionary Augustine, A.D. 596,
under the auspices of Gregory I. and King Ethelbert of Kent,
formed cmy '■'■portion o/"" the ancient British Church, so it is as
much at variance with reason as it is contrary to fact, to suppose
that that Church could have " practically denied from the very
outset, the supremacy of the pope^ That she did not, that she could
not so have done, we shall once more refer the reader to Mr. C.
himself, for the most ample proof.

First, then. Speaking of the period when Theonas and Thadioc
were driven by the Saxons into France and Wales, (a.d. 587) he
says, " that from that time there was hut one British archdiocese,
that of Caerleony\

Then, second. He allows that, from that time, till about a.d.
787, the "British Church" was held to be '■Ulistinct from the Sax-
on-English."^ Yes, indulgent reader, and that, as we have shown,
after all his labored endeavors to produce the conviction, that they
were identical. For in no other way can he, or any one else, fur-
nish any the least pretext, that the Anglo-English Ghnrch ivas ever,
for one hour, from the time of Augustine, independent of the Church of
Home.

Therefore, third. The protests made against the pope's suprem-
acy during this interval of about two hundred years, proceeded,

♦ Bede, Book II,, c. 20.
t The Primitive Church, p. 371.

X Johnson's Clergyman's Vade Mecum, Vol. I., p. 34, fourth edition. 1715.
4 The Primitive Church, p. 368. II lb., p. 373.

870

not from the Anglo-English, but from the old Bntish churches.
All along, the Komish power had been culminating towards the
highest altitude of pontifical supremacy and dominion. About
midway of this period, (a.d. 709,) Mr. C. informs us that, "through
the conjoined elforts of Egwin, Constantine, and Birthwald, sixty-
five tracts of country ivere ceded to the pope forever^ for the purpose of
establishing monasteries," and thus, "to introduce into the heart
of England, an army of monks, who were entieely independent
of the civil and ecclesiastical authority of the realm."*

Aye, reader, onlv to think. And all this, in that very England,
where " the Ckurcti' has " EVER BEEN legally and canonicalh)
independent of, the pope.f

No. Though, as we have said, from the period of the subjuga-
tion of the old British bishops early in the ninth century to the
dominion of the Romau Anglo-English Church, there were from
time to time indications of a jealousy of the rising power of the
pope, and of a restless endurance of his unhallowed sway ; yet,
this jealousy, this restlessness, it is to be particularly borne in
mind, were the fruits of a foreign growth. What of merit the
Anglo-English Church claims in these premises, it is the height of
disingenuousness in her to seize as hers by inherent right. So far
from it, — we again quote Mr. C, — as, " subsequent to a.d. 787, we
hear less of the British Church as distinct from the Saxon-
English ;":{: So, on the other hand, we discover, _^/br the first time^
no indications of a consciousness within the bosom of the English
hierarchy, of a loss to Christendom of its alleged primitive inde-
pendence. No, no. The Anglo-English Church should not plume
herself upon the merits of an uninterrupted independence of the
Romish See. This, as what she so much boasts of, is a hor rowed
glory. We repeat. As a church, it never was hers. And, so far
as it exhibited itself within the pale of the Anglo-English branch
of the Holy Catholic Mother by these old British captives, or by
others, who, having imbibed their spirit, groaned under the yoke
of the oppressor, yet, how unavailing. Yes, at this time,
THE TKiuMPn OF lioME WAS COMPLETE. And, who that has
any regard for his reputation as an accurate and honest ecclesiasti-
cal historian, will venture to deny that, down to the time of Henry
VIII., that triumph, (if we except those antagonistic quakings in
England created hj the continental reformers,) had not maintained
itself undisturbed and universal.

* The Primitive Church, p. 372. f lb., p. 359. \ lb., p. 373.

871 < ^

CHAPTER VII.

THE TKUE CHAKACTER OF THE ENGLISH CHUECH, VIEWED IN THE ASPECT
OF HER ORIGIN, AND OF HER ACTS AS " THE PROTESTANT CHURCH OF
ENGLAND AS BY LAW ESTABLISHED," HER PROSPECTS, ETC.

SECTION I.

Proof, that the Anglo-English Church,, bet ween Augustine and Henry VIII., was not
independent of Ronae.— The old British bishops, the only protesters against the
usurpations of Augustine. — Loegria. — The Cymri. — Conversion of the former by
Augustine. — Formed the basis of the Anglo-English Hierarchy. — A solemn pro-
test against Mr. C.'s alleged independence of the Anglican Church and Succession,
of that of the Romish See.

With the facts, therefore, as set forth in the preceding chap-
ter, in view, we affirm, and shall maintain, the following propo-
sitions, to wit:

I. — That the Anglo-Saxon or English Church, as the natural
born offspring of the Roman See under Augustine the missionary
of Gregory I., and who is acknowledgedly " the first Saxon bishop,"
and " the first archbishop of Canterbury," through whose archi-
episcopate, with that of York, "the English succession" is declared
to be derived, at no period^ up to the time- of tfte Anglican Re-
foK'mation under Henry VIIL^ loas independent of that See.

II. That the Anglican Reformation, commenced hj that monarch
and perfected by his successors, Edward and Elizabeth, was an act
of rapacity and schism ayainst that See. And,

III.— That consistency and duty leave to the AngHcan Church
and her American daughter but one of two alternatives, — either, a
submissive return to the liomish See; or^ a full, total, and absolute (dj-
jaration of, the principle upon ivhich it is founded, namely: a semi-
NALLY DERIVED SACERDOTAL PRELACY, — and a Tctum to tbc Prcsby-
terial platform of ministerial parity adopted by the first English
reformers.

We shall now take up these several propositions s&naiim, and
show,

372

I. — That, unless, upon Augustine's appearance among tlie An-
glo-English in Kent and Essex, it can be proved that there were
bishops there other than the archbishop of Cambria or Wales and
the seven bishops whom that liomish missionary on the banks of
the Severn labored in vain to subdue to the obedience of Home ;
and also that they, equally with the exiled bishops, kesistkd the
overtures of Gregory's vassal to surrender that ecclesiastical inde-
pendence Avhich the Rev. Mr. Chapin and others claim that they
derived from the old British Church ; it will follow, that any such
claim to independence of the See of Rome on the part of the An-
glo-English Churchy rests on mere ass^tmjytion. When, then, we
reflect, that upon this single point, depends the entire fate — as in-
volving the question of its truth or falsehood — of the principle,
and with it the gigantic ecclesiastical superstructure erected there-
on, of the Anglican and American system of prelacy, we must
venture upon a little further tax of the reader's indulgence in re-
lation to it.

A glance at the condition of th6 Anglo-English nation at the
period of which we now speak, will not be out of place. We re-
mark then, that, upon the invasion of the Island, whether by the
Scots, Picts, Jutes, Angles, or Saxons, the total expulsion of the
British tribes by no means followed as a necessary result of their
political subjugation. Still, as we have seen, they Avere often scat-
tered. And, of those who continued in possession of their native
soil, they nevertheless remained unmingled with the stranger. It
hence came to pass, that very many of the territories ruled by the
Anglo-Saxons had thus a double aspect : Anglo-Saxon, if you
viewed them as a State ; British, if you viewed the pojjulation by
which they were filled. It is here also to be particularl}'- borne' in
mind, that the Brotwaldas are to be considered as the successors
of the Roman emperors, or tyrants. Yea, more. That when and
so soon as the royal authority became developed among any of the
barbarians who settled on Roman ground, all their kings took
upon themselves, as far as they could, to govern according to the
spirit of the Roman p)olicy^ and agreeably to the maxims prevail-
ing at the decline of the empire, and declared in the imperial law.
It hence followed, that the whole body of the people were subject-
ed to the supremacy of a ,S(?7Mi-Romish Anglo-Saxon scepter. They
bent before the Anglo-Saxon throne, and rendered tribute to the
Anglo-Saxon kings.

Thus did the dominion of the old Britons pass away : thus were
the British people either banished from their own country, or re-
duced into vassalage. And the Island, from the Pictish Sea (the
Frith of Forth) to the shore of the channel, became the inheritance
of the Anglo-Saxo7is, who caused their own language, and their
own customs and laws, to become paramount in Britain, which
dominancy they held, down to the time of the Norman conquest,
A.a 1066.

373

Retracing our steps back however to about the time of Augus-
tine, we find that, while the South Britons of Loegria yielded
almost without resistance to their invaders, the old Cymri, who
were the noblest of the Britons, who held the Saxons in utter de-
testation, and who refused to conform either to their customs or
their laws, maintained themselves in Cambria, or Wales, against
every attempt to subdue them.

Thither, then, it was, as we have stated, that those old British
bishops, Theonas and Thadioc, together with their persecuted
flocks, prior to the mission of Augustine^ fled from the hand of
their Saxon oppressors.

On the other hand, Augustine's labors among the Anglo-English,
besides being crowned at an early period with the conversion of
Ethelbert, (a monarch of great power and ability, and who had
compelled the other sovereigns of the island, whether Britons or
Anglo-Saxons, to acknowledge as their superior,) shared also the
advantages of his zealous co-operation. Nor did the Gregorian
missionary find the Loegria Britons, as above, any the less pliant
to his Romanizing influences, than in the case of their submission
to their Saxon invaders.

It turns oat, then, that those portions of the Britons who became
thus Saxo:n'ized by their Qemi-jjolitico -^omx&h. invaders, became at
the same time Romanized by ih.&u: jpopish missionary and his forty
monks !

Now, let Mr. C, or any other advocate of Prelacy, find, if he
can, one single anti-Romish bishop in Kent, or Essex, whp, after
the example of the old British bishops in Cambria or Wales, de-
nounced the popish missionary as a usurper of their^ original rights
as independent of the jMpal see. No. So far from it, we athrm
that the whole Anglo- English population became Romanized. It
avails nothing to remind us of the fact, that Augustine, on his ar-
rival in Kent, found a bishop (Luidhard) in the family of Ethel-
bert, as the guardian of the faith of his Christian wife I3erta. Let
it here but be borne in mind, that Augustine now filled the place
of " first Saxon bishop," and " the first archbishop of Canterbury,"
through which the English Succession is declared to flow. Why,
the very first Anglo-English bishoprics of those times, according
to Mr. Chapin's own chronology, etc., were all Romish. The
first seven archbishops of Canterbury were consecrated either by
Augustine himself or by Romish Legates. The first archbishopric
under the Romish See was that of London^ which had been vacat-
ed by the flight of Theonas and Thadioc a.d. 587 into Wales.
Mellitus, appointed to that bishopric by Ethelbert,* was consecrat-
ed by Augustine, A.D. 604, and was translated to Canterbury a.d.
619. During the lifetime of Augustine, the Anglo-Saxons to the
north of the Humber remained pagan, till under Edwin the suc-
cessor of Ethelbert and his son-in-law, who permitted Paulinus, who

* Palgrave's History of the Anglo-Saxons, p. G2.

374

had been sent thither by Justus tlie 4th Archbishop of Canter-
bury, to enter his dominions, about a.d. 625.* But here again,
all was Roman. Justus, the consecrator of Paulinus, had himself
been consecrated by Augustine.

We again therefore enter our most solemn protest against Mr.
C.'s alleged independence of the English Church and the English
succession, to that of the Romish See. His quotations from liede,
in proof that there were seven bishops present at the conference
with Augustine, and from a very ancient author who computes the
number at twenty-five, with three archbishops, f taken in the con-
nection in which they stand, compel us, though reluctantly, to
view the act as a total sacrifice of the honesty of the historian to
an obstinate zeal in the support of a known indefensible cause.
We have shown conclusively,:}: that there was no ecclesiastical con-
nection between these " seven" old British bishops and those of the
Anglo-English Church, till, early in the ninth century, they were
subdued to the supremacy of the Romish See, and became thence-
forward incorporated with it as part and parcel of the " one Holy
Catholic and Apostolic Mother Church." The reader will pardon
the expression, but it is all gammon to refer us to the occasional
protests and acts of resistance of the English bishops, Idngs, and
parliaments, against the enormous exactions of papal avarice upon
the realm. That these very protests, etc., were but the evidence
of the most ignominious vassalage of these very bishops, kings,
and parliaments to the popedom, from the time of Augustine to
Henry VIII., may be seen from the following (as one out of many
similar incidents), which occurred about the middle of the thirteenth
century. Robert, Bishop of Lincoln, having ascertained that
Pope Innocent IV. had actually abstracted from the kingdom more
than 70,000 marks, — which sum amounted to more than two-thirds
of the king's own revenue, — ventured to address a letter of remon-
strance to his holiness, on the ground not only of its injustice, but
of its demoralizing tendency on the pastoral office and charge.
And Mr. C. refers us to several statutes of Edward III., a. d.
1351, 3, 4, and 6, " making it criminal to carry the contributions
called " Peter-pence," etc., " out of the kingdom,"§ which inci-
dents Mr. C. adduces as proof of the independence of the English
, Church to the See of Rome !

But, of the legitimacy of this inference we will leave the reader
to judge, Avhen he shall have been informed of Robert's style of
address to his holiness in the above letter of remonsti'ancc, and of
the pope's reply : " Your wisdom," says he, " will know that /
ohey the mandates of the apostolical See with filial affection and
devoted reverence, and Avith zeal for your paternal authority, etc.,
which neither are nor can be any other than the doctrine of the

* Palgrave's History of the Anglo-Saxons, p. 63.

t The Primitive Church, p. 362. \ See Chap. VI., Sects. IV., V., VI.

S The Prinnitive Church, pp. 377, 378, compareJ with pp. 371-381.

375

apostles, and of our Lord Jesus Christ. The pope, in the hierarchy
of the Church, is the vicar of Ghrist,^^ etc.

On the other hand, when Eobert's letter reached the pope,
" unable to restrain his wrath and indignation, he, with a terrible
countenance and haughty mien, exclaimed, ' Who is this old,
crazed, blind fool, who dares, with such temerity, to judge our
actions? Bj Peter and Paul, were it not for our inbred gene-
rosity, I would hurl such confusion upon him, that his folly and
punishment should astonish the world. What ! Is not the King
of England our vassal? Yea, more, even our bond slave? And
cannot we, by a sovereign nod, imprison him, and bind him in his
ignominy ?' "*

Here, then, is English Church independence, with a vengeance !

In conclusion, therefore, on this subject, we refer the reader to
pages 221-223 of this Treatise for a summary of our evidence of.
the universality of the papal power, spiritual and temporal, civil
and ecclesiastical, in England, as elsewhere, down to the time of
Henry VIII.

SECTIOIS- n.

Proof of the schismatical character of the English Reformation under Henry VIII,,
Edward VI., and Elizabeth. — Difference between the cardinal principles of the
English and of the Continental Reformations, as to their practical results, etc. —
The Continent the seat of the Protestant Reformation — Claude, Bishop of Turin,
A. D. 831-840. — The Waklenses. — (See also Appendix.) — Persecution of. — Popes. —
Alexander III., Lucius II., Clement III., Celestine III., Innocent III., Honorius
III., Gregory IX., Innocent IV., Alexander IV., a. d. 1159-1199. — Count Raymond
of Toulouse, A. D. 1208. — About 70,000 massacred. — Reformation still spreads. —
Present Waldenses in the valleys of Pit^dmont — John Milicz. a. d. 1360-1367. —
Huss, A. D. 1400. — Waldenses in England. — Jerome of Prague, do., a. d. 1402. —
Wickliffe, the English Reformer. — Romanism again dominant till a. d. 1521. —
Henry VIII. assumes the supremacy.

It hence follows,

II. That the Anglican Eeformation, commenced by Henry
VIII., and perfected by his successors, Edward VI. and lilizabeth,
was an act of schism against that See. And, being created solely by
acts of parliannent, is a human institution.

It here becomes fundamental to a proper understanding of this
matter, that we bring to light those cardinal in^inciples, which
formed the basis of the AngUcan Reformation, taken as a whole,
as contradistinguished from those on which were based the Conti-

* Archdeacon Mason's account of this transaction, as taken from that of Matt.
Paris. Mason, Lib. 4, cap. 14, gives a similar account of the reigns of thirteen of these
English kings, who thus fell victims to the rapacity of the popes.

376

nental Reformation. These, we shall now proceed to show, were
essentially different, both in their character and in their results.

Now, agreeably to the current nomenclature of the parties
respectively concerned in these two great religious revolutions, —
both claiming to be Protestant, — the principles whence they
originated and on which they were professedly conducted were, a
protesting against, and a casting off, of the abominations of that
'' INFINITE SUPERSTITION, THE PAPACY," which, from
the seed previously sown, from early in the fourth to the opening
of the sixteenth century, had proudly trampled on thrones and
scepters, causing " the kings of the earth to drink " to the very
dregs " of the cup of the wine of her fornications,"' and, " mak-
ing war with the saints," had so worn them out,^ as scarcely to
leave for them a name and a place in the earth.

But, clearly, these protesting principles, to be consistent, must
necessarily regard the system protested against as a whole. But,
inasmuch as the popedom was to that system what a foundation is
to the siijDerstructure, a system, as we have shown, built on tra-
dition as at least equal with, if not superior to. Holy Scripture,
the true Protestant Reformation principle struck at this as the
source of all its concomitant abominations. The doctrines, eccle-
siastical orders, and ordinances and rites of New Testament Chris-
tianity, by the arch devices of the jDopedom, had been all moulded
into such forms as its developments rendered indispensable to the
support of its high claims of primacy, infallibility, and ecclesiasti-
cal and political supremacy.

If, then, the evidence of lust for " the pre-eminence" exhibited
in the conduct of John of Constantinople, the rival of Gregory I.,
in assuming the title of " universal bishop," led the latter to con-
temn such an assumption as a mark of the predicted " Man of
sin" of Paul, and the " Antichrist" of John ; what marvel, that
there were, during the entire period of the subsequent reign of
papal darkness and corruption, a " seed'''' preserved, (like the im-
perishable germ of our mortal resuscitation,^) to form the nucleus
of the Church's resurrection from the grave of poperj^ ?

And, thus it was. The Pauline prophecy of that apostasy from
" the faith" first "delivered to the saints"* by Christ and his apos-
tles, as the precursor of the advent of the Antichrist that was to
come, attracted to it, both on the continent and in England, the
evangelic eye of faith, as to "a light which shineth in a dark
place."*

Nor are we here to overlook the fact, that this " light" ^ir^^ hrolce
in upon the darkness of popery^ on the continknt. Not that Ave
mean to affirm that there were none in England, who, between

(I) Rev. 17 : 2. (2) Dan. 7 : 21, 25, (3) See 1 Cor. 15 : 38. (4) Jude 3.

* See Appendix A, for proofs drawn from the known characteristics of popery in
nght particulars, that it constitutes the antichristian power referred to in the above
prophecies.

377

A.D. 1000 and 1500, did not offer stern opposition to the usurpa-
tions, rapacity, and corruptions of the popedom. Such contests
were both frequent and violent. They were also common alike to
France, Sicily and other kingdoms. But it was on the continent
where first commenced the mighty conflict between the Protestant
Evangelic reformation principle, and the papal Antichrist. In this
warfare, Claude, bishop of Turin, stands foremost. Between a.d.
831-84:0, he presented a bold front in his opposition 'to anti-
christian Rome, for which Barronius has adorned him with the
envious title of "impious, an opposer of all goodness," etc. He is
held, and justl}^ too, as having first rallied and concentrated that
heroic and suffering " army"* of anti-Romish Protestants, known
by the name of the Waldenses.*

The head and front of their offending was, " that they accused
the popes of avarice, tyranny, and ambition ; the cardinals and
clergy of vice, corruption and dissolute manners ; and the Romish
Church of various errors, in holding traditions, not apostolical, but
antichristian."

The bitterest persecutions followed. Between a.d. 1159 and
1199, the popes, Alexander III., Lucius II., Clement III., and
Celestine III., large numbers of them were subjected to excommu-
nication and other indignities. These sufferings, however, were
tender mercies, compared with those inflicted on them under the
pontificate of Innocent III., whose vigilant jealousy was roused
by the imchecked and surprising progress of the scriptural doc-
trines of these Protestant reformers. The fundamental principle
on which they conducted their reformation, as intimated above,
was, that the Bihle is its own interpreter^ and the only infallible source
of Christian hriowledge, and that the pojoedom ivas the antichrist pre-
dicted by Paul and John. The language of Innocent III. and his
successors, Honorius III., Gregory IX., Innocent IV., and Alexan-
der IV., was, that "unless this error was repressed by the swords
of the faithful, in a short time it would corrupt all Europe." If
we let these " Waldenses^^ alone, " all men will believe on them,
and they will come and take away" all the power, spiritual and
temporal, of our long-labored-for and dearly -bought triple crown!

The Waldenses were at this time in the enjoyment of quietude
in the territories, and under the protection of Raymond, Count of
Toulouse. Troublous times, liowever, are at hand. Innocent III.,
failing in his efforts to seduce them from the simplicity of the truth
by the sophistry of his twelve Cisterian abbots, who, with Didacus,
bisrliop of Osma, and his companion Dominic, the first inquisitor,
are sent to debate with them the points in dispute, now resolves
(a.d. 1208) to unsheath the sword against them. The following
year, sixty or seventy thousand of them were massacred ;. and
finally, through the treachery of the vacillating Count Raymond —

(1) Rev. 19 : 19 ; 7 : 14.
* See Appendix. D, The WaMenses.

378

after having headed an army in their defense of a hundred thou-
sand men — who had been coerced into an oath of obedience to the
pontiff, those of them who escaped death, perpetual imprisonment,
banishment, etc., were dispersed abroad Hke sheep having no
shepherd. But, hke the apostles when driven from Jerusalem, so
these Waldensean I'rotestants. Fearless alike of lire and sword,
they disseminated their reformation doctrines in all countries
whither they were scattered. France, the Netherlands, Germany,
Italy, Flanders, Picardy, Dalmatia, Bulgaria, Austria, Illyiicum
and England., furnished them with temporary and precarious re-
treats ; but, as a standing monument of the truth and faithfulness-
of God, from this period down to the present day, the utmost fury
of th«ir Romish persecutors has failed wholly to exterminate
them. Some twenty thousand of them are still to be found in
their old " mountain home," in the valleys of Piedmont! A let-
ter, from the "Table," or "commission of the Synod,"* of these
martyr people, bearing date September 12, 1849, written at La-
Tour, their principal city, and addressed to the Rev. Dr. Baird,
soliciting aid from their American brethren, to enable them to
erect a church edifice, school-house, etc., at Turin, is evidence of
this.

To return, however, to the thread of our narrative. From the
Waldenses, in process of time, emanated the Bohemians., com-
menced under the preaching of John Milicz of Prague, between
A.D. 1360-1367, and carried on under the auspices of Huss, confes-
sor to the Queen of Bohemia, a.d. 1400, whence the Hussites. In
A.D. 1415, Huss, for refusing to recant his alleged errors as re-
quired by the Council of Constance, is condemned as a heretic, de-
graded, delivered to the secular arm, and burnt !

But, as we stated above, the Waldenses, at their dispersion be-
tween A.D. 1208 and 1254, found, in part, a temporary retreat in
England. We are not surprised, therefore, to find, as the result
of the presence of such " lights" amid the darkness of popery,
there should have arisen in that horizon a kindred spirit, contem-
porary with a Milicz and a Huss. While, tlierefore, the reforma-
tion was advancing on the continent, Wickliffe commenced his
exposure of the abounding corruptions of the papacy in England.
Meanwhile, Jerome of Prague, who had previously labored for the
conversion of the remaining pagans of Lithuania, visits England,
but returns to Prague a.d. 1402, and commences •dispensing the
same doctrines taught by the English reformer. He is finally
burnt, A.D. 1416. Wickliffe, besides denouncing the avarice of
ecclesiastics in a treatise entitled "The Last Age of the Church,"

* This '■ Synod" meets triennially. But they appoint a commission, or committee ad
interim, with discretionary powers, composed of the moderator, assistant moderator, sec-
retary, and two elders, (laymen.) The "TaMi^"' (so called from meeting around a ta-
ble) ii^iires greatly in the history of these wonderful people. There is something very
Prcshijlerian-li/ce in all this! See American and Foreign Christian Union, Vol. I., Feb-
ruary, No. 2, et. seq.

379

(a.d. 1356,) declares his opinion that the pope is Axticiirist, (a.d.
1374,) establishes a society of pious men to act as itinerant preach-
ers in England, (a.d. 1379,) who are subsequently known by the
name of Lollards. The next year he commences his English trans-
lation of the Bible. He was, however, finall}' compelled to quit
Oxford, and though, upon his retirement to his old rectory at Lut-
terworth, he continued to write against the abuses and corruptions
of Kome until his death in a.d. 1384, and his doctrines continued
to spread both in Bohemia, and for a time in England, yet the lire
of persecution against his followers raged with the greatest fury ;
his writings were burnt, and by an order from Pope Martin V., his
bones were dug up and burnt, while his followers were held as the
constant laug;hino;-stock of the adherents of the Court of Korae, all
which " signs" indicated, that these reformatory movements were
but the jyf'f^carsovs of a greater work which was to follow. " The
set time to favor Zion" had not yet fully come. In England^ the
supremacy of the popedom and the reign of papal superstition was
completely dominant, till about the twentieth year of the reign of
Henry VllL, (1521.) On the continent, however, the year 1517 is
sisnalized bv the commencement of a new era.

SECTION" III.
THE LUTHERAN REFORMATIOJST, A.D. 1517.

Founded on the two great Protestant principles named above. — Spreads with great ra-
pidity.— Results. — His coadjutors, Melancthon, Zwingle, Bullinger, Carlstadt,
(Ecolannpadius, Erasmus, Bucer, P. Martyr, and the renowned Calvin.

This year, Luther, having been educated in the University of
Erfort, A.D. 1505, enters the monastery there, and, by the study of
the Bible and the writings of Augustine, on his return from a visit
to Kome, a.d. 1510, disgusted and shocked with the abominations
of Romanism as there witnessed, he commences his career as a
Reformer, by denouncing the sale of indulgences, by preaching
the doctrine of j ustification by grace through faith, and by deny-
ing the divine right of the pope's supremacy, etc. Having filled
the chair of professor of philosophy in the IJniversity of Wittern-
burg, to which he was elected a.d. 1508, and created doctor of di-
vinity, a.d. 1512, the ears of the Vatican were made to tingle with
his denunciations of her corruptions. The work of reformation
spread with great rapidity. The principle on which it was con-
ducted may be gathered from the facts following, viz.: —

Zurich, having received the gospel at a council held a.d. 1519,
" commanded all preachers to teach the pure luord according to Holy
jScrijjiure, and to refrain froiji human additions.'''' And,

In his Treatise " On the Babylonish Captivity of the Church,"

380

Luther denounces the papacy as the kingdom of antkhristian Buhylon^
and the Pope as the Antichrist.

Being cited to appear before the Diet of Worms, Luther refuses
to recant, until convinced of his errors bj Scripture. And, escap-
ing an attempt to seize his person, bj repairing to Wartburg
under the protection of Frederick, he begins his translation of the
Bible into German, and matures his opinions concerning the na-
ture and constitution of the Church, which are decidedly anti-pre-
latical. And, though the Duke of Savoy raises the hand of perse-
cution against his followers, the work of reformation becomes
wide-spread, extending its hallowed leaven into Denmark, France,
Transylvania, Switzerland, Sweden, the Netherlands, Prussia,
Scotland, Hungary, Poland, Wurtemburg, Pomerania, Mecklen-
burg, Augsburg, Brandenburg, Magdeburg, Halle, liatisbon, Hil-
derhim, the Palatinate of Bavaria, Vienna, Naples, Geneva, and
even into Italy, where the writings of the reformers are translated
and circulated, and received by many. Nor should we omit to
notice, in this connection, one particular characteristic of tliis re-
former. We allude to his .unbending o|)position to the force of
arms, in its support.

Finally, the results of this reformation, antecedent to the death
of Luther, may be gathered, 1st, from the solemn protest made by
the evan2;elical princes against the edict of the Diet of Worms, a.d.
1529, whence the name PROTESTANT; 2d, the publication
of the Augsburg Confession^ A.D. 1530 ; 3d, the Protestant League of
Smalcald^ a.d. 1537 ; 4th, the publication of the Helvetic Confession,
A.D. 1531; 5th, the Articles of Smalcald drawn up by Luther, A.D.
1537 ; and 6th, the solemn recognition and adoption of the re-
formation doctrine at Leipsic, a.d. 1539.

Between a.d. 1517 and the death of Luther, a.d. 1546, the short
period of twenty-nine years, this reformation had spread over
nearly the whole of Continental Europe, and was firmly establish-
ed in many of the principal states and provinces, particularly in
Switzerland, Denmark, Prussia, Sweden, Hungary and Transyl-
vania, Basle, Brunswick, Geneva, etc., etc.

Then too, besides princes and others, Luther found many able
coadjutors in his great work in the persons of Melancthon, Zwin-
gle, Bullinger, Carlstadt, fficolampadius, Erasmus, Martin Bucer,
Peter Martyr, and the renowned Calvin. These, one and all, were
distinguished alike for their profound learning and eminent piety ;
and, if we except Erasmus, for a bold, unflinching, indomitable,
and untiring zeal in the prosecution of their great work. Erasmus,
however, though a promoter of classical, biblical, and patristical
learning, yet as a reformer, he aimed at the adoption of a via
media course between the Pomanists and the friends of Luther.
Hence, while to the Elector of Saxony (Frederick) he would ap-
plaud Luther's intentions as good, but lament his want of modera-
tion,— an evidence of his over-cautiousness and timidity — that

381

great reformer said of him, that he could point out error, but
would not teach the truth. It hence came to pass, that he was ob-
noxious to both parties. The Romanists accused him of a secret
opposition to the papacy, while the reformers looked upon his
neutrality as synonymous with cowardice.

Calvix, 'a native of JSToj^on in Picardy, begins in a.d. 1532, to
distinguish himself as a reformer in Paris. The year 1535 wit-
nessed the publication of the first edition of his " Insiitutio Eeli-
gionvi Chn'sdame,^^ which work, however, was not completed till
1559. Having left Geneva, (at which place he settled in 1536), he
is again recalled in 1541, where he establishes a presbytery, and a
system of strict ecclesiastical discipline, and \\-hence the influence
of his name and . writings spreads both far and near. To him,
more than to a.ny other reformer, are the continental churches in-
debted for their safe keeping (during the sacramentarian contro-
versy) from the influence of the Lutheran dogma of consubstan-
tiation or impanation,* — a theory of the Eucharist so nearly ap-
proaching to the Romish dogma of transubstantiation as scarcely
to be distinguished from it ;f and also for their preservation (par-
ticularly the churches of Switzerland) in the distinguishing doc-
trines of grace.

* Calvin published a Treatise on the Lord's Supper, a.d. 1539, in which he maintains
that it is simply and essentially a commemoration of our Savior's sacrifice.

t The theory of ConsubstarUialion maintains the real corporeal presence of Christ in,
with, and under, the elements of the Lord's Supper (as fire is in heated iron). That of
Transubstantiation, that the elements themselves are changed into the real body, blood,
soul and divinity of Christ, etc.

382

SECTION IV.
THE ANGLO-ENGLISH REFORMATION.

Proof that it was commenced and conducted on principles cardinally different from that
on the Continent. — Essentially Romish and Antichristian. — Never repudiated by
that Church. — HENRY VIII. aLaic, yet constitutiid Supreme Head, Spiritual and
Temporal, of that Church, by Convocation and by Parliament. — Result. — Two
Supreme Heads and two Catholic Churches. — Both claiming to be founded in
" THE RisHT OF PRESCRIPTION." — Romanists have the vantage ground. — English
Church guilty of Rapacity and Schism. — E.xamination of this claim, '• the Right
of Prescription," by the English Church, as involving the doctrine of " The
Divine Right of Kings. — 1st, By the Scriptures of the Old Testament; 2d, do.
N^ew Testament. — The Laico-Royal Head of the Anglican Church, the FOUN-
TAIN of the ENGLISH and AMERICAN SUCCESSIONS.— Proof that the
assumption of the SUPREMACY by Henry VIII., and the reconstruction of the
English Church under him and his successors, are in their character antichristian. —
Prpof of the rapacity of Henry in seizing upon, and his successors in retaining, the
Monastic Possessions. — Use of, to bribe the aristocracy to support the " Church
and State" alliance. — This irreconcilable with the Church's declared " prescrip- .
five rights."— Two alternatives.— Proof that the ANGLICAN CHURCH is AN
ENTIRELY NEW CHURCH.— Created by acts of Parliament.— Its title.—
" The Protestant Church of England, as by LAW established," not by Christ and
his Apostles. — King's coronation oath. — Preface to Ordination, etc., in the Anglican
and American Liturgies. — Conclusion.

Turn we now to the Anglo-English Reformation. We have
said (see pages 379, 880) that the cardinal principles which formed the
basis of the Anglican Reformation, taken as a whole, were essen-
tially different, both in their character and results, from those on
which hinged the Reformation on the Continent. These latter,
we have shown, consisted, first, of a solemn protest against the
Romish theory of tradition, as the basis on which rested the entire
superstructure of that infinite superstition ; and, second, against
the popedom as the Antichrist, and the system of papac}^ as anti-
christian. But, to support the claim (which it is pretended) that
these principles constituted the basis of the Anglican Reforma-
tion, it will be indispensable to identify them, as in the former
instance, ivith the very first movements, not only, but as constitut-
ing the grand motive-power, — the cause which originated it.

Now, if it can be shown, on evidence good and true, that the
Anglican Reformation, from the very outset, hinged on principles
obviously antichristian, and that these principles have never to
this day been repudiated by the English Church ; in other words,
that the Anglican Reformation still rests upon its origi^ial basis, it
will follow that it has no claim to the appellation of Protestant,
in tlie sense in which it is applicable to the Reformation on the
Continent.

383

To test tins point. As we have seen, the darkness, superstition,
and tyranny of the papacy in England had totally eclipsed and
supplanted the reformatory efforts of the evangelical VVickliffe,
long before the accession to the throne of Henry VIII."' And
we find that monarch, as an evidence of his zeal in support of the
papacy, in the year 1521, publishing a defense of the seven sacra-
ments against Luther, for which he received from Pope Leo X.
the autichristian title of "Defender of the faith."

But he linally throws off" the papal yoke (a. D. 1580).t For
what purpose? As we have shown, pages 229-231, that he
might assume, as a temporal prince, all the powers and j^reroga-
tives, spiritual and temporal, which inhered in the popedom !
This assumption was conlirmed, first, by the clerical convocation
of Canterbury, and then by act of parliament, declaring that
"archbishops, bishops, archdeacons, and other ecclesiastical per-
sons, have no manner of jurisdiction ecclesiastical but by, under,
and from his royal majesty; and that his majesty is the only
supreme head of the Church of England and Ireland," etc., " to
whom all authority and power is wholly given to hear and deter-
mine all manner of heresies^ errors^ vices and sins whatever^ and
to all such persons as his majesty shall appoint thereunto.":{: On
what grounds? On the ground of arguments alleged to be ad-
duced against the papal supremacy in England, as drawn from
Scripture and tradition, and in support of the spiritual and tem-
poral supremacy of the king as alleged to be founded in Scripture,
etc. In other words, the English Church, in severing her alle-
giance from the Romish Church, claimed to do so upon the ground
of " a right of prescription ; that is to say, a right which existed
before all written laws" — -jure divino^ by divine right.

This " right of prescription," however, had long formed the
very foundation on which was erected the superstructure of the
papacv. Yes. Homanists claim that, "from the beginning,"
their church was established by Christ and his apostles on the
rock Peter, as one flock and fold under one shepherd, to Avhom,
in the line of the popes as the successors of Peter, all Christians
owe unconditional spiritual obedience ; and being unconnected
with and independent of the state, they claim to hold all tithes and
oblations, by whomsoever given, as belonging to God, and as
coming from God, and therefore that they belong to the Church, as
a man claims the right of possession to his lite and limbs, and ■
hence, that they are independent of all temporal or secular power.
In other words, independent of all written laws.§

Here, then, clearly, are two separate and distinct churches, both

* See pp. 378, 379.

t Burnet's History of the Reformation, Vol. I., pp. 126, 221. 340.

t lb., pp. 182, 183,256, Henry VIII., statute 37, chap. 17. See also pp. 231, et seq.
of this Treatise.

§ See Cobbelt's Legacy to Parsons, in Six Letters, dedicated to Bioonnfield, present
Bishop of London, pp. i), 10. New York, Sadlier. 1847.

384

claiming an absolute independent existence of each other, bj a
prescript or divine right. We repudiate the claims of both as
equally fallacious. The only point of interest, therefore, regarding
these two sects is, the question of the equity of their respective
claims.

On this subject, therefore, we remark in the first place, that the
papists have the decided vantage ground in one aspect. Romanism
' was dominant in England^ till about the twentieth year of Henry
VIIL, A. D. 1530. It is hence incumbent on the English Church
to " show cause," in justification of the two following acts of her
monarch against that Church : The first, his setting up himself as
the supreme head of the Church in things spiritual and temporal,
in direct opposition to the alleged supremacy of the popedom of
Eome; and the second, his sup2)ressing the monasteries., and confis-
cating, and then seizing upon, their vast estates, which, with the
parish tithes, amounted to more than one-third of the whole of the
real property in the kingdom.*

Now, clearly, these two acts, unless supported by the plainest
warranty of Holy Scripture, inevitably involve the charges against
the English Church, both of rapacity and of schism. Let us look
then at the first plea oftered in justification. This is founded,

I. In the alleged divine light of kings., alias, a prescriptive right
or " power over spiritual persons and in spiritual causes," as well
as those civil and political. It turns out, hence, that the alleged
indeiDendence of the Anglo-English Church of the See of Eome
rests, not on their forming " a portion" of the old British Churches,
and deriving their succession from them ; (which, by the way, is
the very point l^hat Mr. Chapin has devoted so large a portion of
his book to j)rove) ; but, on the original divinely-appointed su-
premacy, spiritual and temporal, over Church and State, of the
British monarch ; which hypothesis, if founded in truth, would at
once prove the papal supremacy in England to have been a usurp-
ation, the casting off of which, upon a recovery of sufiicient
strength, Avould be justifiable, not only, but a duty. The utter
fallacy of this hypothesis, however, is apparent, from the obvious
sophistry of the arguments employed to uphold it. Take, for ex-
ample, those which are alleged to be derived,

1. From the ^rijUures of the Old and New Testaments. Samuel
acknowledged Saul's authority. So also Abimelech the high
priest. David made laws about sacred things, and commanded
Solomon to do the same. And Jesus Christ, though he declared
that his kingdom was not of this world, yet nevertheless paid taxes
to the pagan emperor Ca^sar.f

Therefore, the king of England is, by divine right, the " su-
preme head" of church and state, etc. ! :{; and,

* Cohbelf's Leftprs, etc., p. 14.

t Burnet's Histoiy of the Relbrmation, Vol. I., pp. 229, 230. J lb. p. 229.

885

• Ergo, tlie pagan emperor, Ca?sar, was tlie same.

On this subject of tlio alleged divine right of English kings as
derived from Scripture, we beg to remark simply and briefly, that
the exchange in the government of the Jewish Commonwealth of
a theocracy for a monarchy, was founded, not in divine appoint-
ment, but b}' divine permission. Samuel's reproof of Israel for
their selection of Saul as their king to the rejection of the covenant
God of their fathers, and the miraculous display of the Divine dis-
pleasure which accompanied it, together with their confession of
their sin for having done so, is evidence of this.' Besides, of this
very Saul, God declares, " I gave thee a king in mine anger, and
took him away in my wrath." ^ And further. Whatever may be
said of the Davidic monarchy as predicted by Moses, ^ and renewed
to that monarch by the oath of the Most High, " that of the fruit
of his loins, according to the flesh. He would raise up Christ to sit
on his throne;"* yet the very circumstance of a want of conformity
of the principal characteristics of that monarchy to those predicted
by ]\Ioses, evidences that its perpetuity rested rather on the prior
covenant stipulations, equally certified by oath to David's fathers,
Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob : " Kings shall come out of thee ; and
" in thee and in thy seed shall all the families of the earth be
blessed." * Indeed, what is decisive of this point is the following
declaration of Paul, reaching, as it does, from the time of Saul, the
first earth-horn king of Israel, down to his own times. " God, in
times past," says he, suffered (permitted) all nations (the Jews
among the rest) to walk in their own ways." °

Nor, on the other hand, can it be consistently urged that the
union of Jew and Gentile under the Christian dispensation, will
justify a transfer to any monarchical system since the days of the
apostles, of the claim that it is founded in divine right. As it re-
spects the Gentile monarchies having been chosen as the rivals to
the ancient theocrac}^, they became, in the hands of God, the in-
struments for the chastisement of his rebellious people, ' to all
future generations. These, as depicted in the symbolico-prophetic
colossal image, and the four ferocious beasts* of the prophet
Daniel, ® they had found so to be during the entire interval be-
tween the Babylonish captivity and the overthrow of their national
polity under Titus, a.d. 70. But the same symbols, particularly
the last, were designed by the Holy Spirit to portray that portion
of the prophetic earth, on the platform of which was to transpire
the mighty conflict between the true religion and the false.

Now, take into this connection the fact, that, especially from
A.D. 70, when the royal scepter of Judah was torn from its socket
by the talons of the Eoman eagle, that nation has been " without

(1) Compare 1 Sam. 12 : 12, with v. 19. (2) Hosca 13 : 11. (3) Deut. 17 : 15. (-1) Acts 2 : 30
(5) Geu 12 : 3. (6) Acts 14 : 16. (7) Lev. 26 : 23. (8) Dan. 7 : 1-7.

* Denotins; successively the rise of the four great Gentile monarchies, the B/
I.ONIAN, the Medo-Persi.\n, the Grecian, and the Roman.

386

a king, and without a prince," etc., ' and we ask, where is the evi-
dence to upliold the claims of the British monarchy as founded in
Divine right ? So far as that claim rests upon the precedent of the
Davidic monarchy, the English throne should have ever been filled
by a Jew or a Jewess, as the case might be. But the Anglo-Saxon
origin of the British nation is proof decisive that it is a Gentile na-
tion. The present incumbent of that throne, and the long line of
her royal predecessors, in the sense of Moses are " strangers," and
hence, not eligiVjle to fill a vacancy in a once divinely-appointed
line (admitting that those of Saul and David were such) of kingly
sovereigns. There is, therefore, we affirm, no more signal mark of
politico-antichristianism, than for a nation bearing the Christian
name under a monarchical or any other form of government, to
claim that its throne is filled in the line of succession by Divine
rigid. And,

2. If we add to the above considerations the fact, that it forms
no part of the genius of Christianity to originate, transfer or
change any of the existing forms of earth-born governments, but
that it requires the most unqualified submission, respect, and obe-
dience to, and "the offering of supplications, prayers, interces-
sions, and giving of thanks for all men; for kings, and for all that
are in authority," as being one and all equally "ordained of God;"
it follows, that, as well the absolutism of the chief of the Pottawa-
tomies, the despotism of the autocrats of Russia and of China, and
the democracy of the United States, as that of the monarchy of
Great Britain, are founded in divine right !

We affirm, then, that the very assumption of the powers, spi-
ritual and temporal, by the monarchs of Great Britain as the
heads, supreme, of the Church and State of England and Ireland,
stamps it with the indelible impress of antichristianism. We are
aware that, to save the apostolical succession in the line of English
prelates (and with it that of the American bishops) from the catas-
trophe which this assumption of powers involves, it is claimed that
the validity of their functions respectively depend, not on their ap-
pointment by the crown, but on their Episco23al consecration. But
we argue that, if Rome usurped^ in England, as is alleged, the
once independent and prescript rights of the British crown and
Church, then the act of throwing off the papal supremacy must
have annihilated as well the ecclesiastical as \kiQ, political economy
of the popedom in that realm. To have rejected the latter — the
political, while they retained the former — the ecclesiastical — had
been to have conceded that the English Church, with all her
boasted claims to a " right of prescription," was nevertheless de-
-pendent on the Church of Rome for the apostolical succession.^
which had been, of course, to have left the work but half accom-
plished ! Accordingly, as no one will pretend that there was any

(1) Hosea 3 : 4.

387

engrafting by popish hands, of tlic pohtical powers of the popedom
on the scepter of iU'itisli political supremacy ;* so, on the other hand,
the following, as the king's commission, authorizing the designa-
tion of bishops, etc., shows that he became the sole fountain of an
Episcopate, (^d novo. "Since «^^ jurisdiction, both ecclesiastical
and civil, flowed from the king as supreme head, and he was the
foundation of all powers ; it became those who exercised it only
(priccario) at the king's courtesy, grate fu.lly to acknowledge that
they had it only of his bounty, and to declare that they would de-
liver it up again, when it should please him to call for it," etc.f
And, as evidence of the absoluteness of this supremacy, it was fur-
ther enacted, that, however great their offenses, " yet it is no where
permitted to subjects to call their princes in question, or to make
insurrection against them, God having reserved the punishment of
princes to himself.":}:

But it will be said, that even Henry and his State coadjutors
denounced the popedom as ^^ Antichrist and Z,acifer.^'^ Granted.
Of course, then, no one will pretend that so earnest a zealot of re-
form could, for a single moment, tolerate the thought of retaining
in the Church of which he was the supreme head, Home's anti-
christian ministry. So far from it, those bishops who united
with the king in this act of revolt from Rome, neither did, nor
could, move hand, or foot, or tongue, either in the exercise of their
own functions, or in the transference of the Episcopate to others,
till reneiotd to them by the king's " courtesy" and " bounty." No.
English prelacy sprang not up, phoenix-like, from the ashes of anti-
christian E.ome. It was created by the will, and moulded by
THE HAND, OF THE IMMORTAL Henry ! Yea, and by the same act of
his will, it was perpetuated or annihilated. As "in the natural
body, there were many vital motions that proceeded not from the
head, but from the heart, and other inward parts and vessels, and
yet the head was still the chief seat and root of life ; so, though
there be peculiar functions appropriated to churchmen, yet the king
is still head^ having authority over them., and a power to direct
and COERCE them in these !"||

But, we have affirmed, and we claim to have proved, that the
assumption of supreme headship over the Church of England and
Ireland by Ilenry VIIL, being without scriptural warrant, was itself
antichristian. And so, the reconstitution of the English Church
under that monarch. It retained all the old features of anti-
chrixtian Rome. Henry's act in casting off the papal yoke, con-
sisted simply in the transfer of the very same supremacy from the
person of the pope to himself, within the limits of his own domin-
ions. So also, similar spiritual courts, and similar ecclesiastical
j urisdiction, were continued under him, which had been established

* Burnet's History of the Reformation, Vol. I., p. 395, et seq.

t lb., Vol I., p. 4-29. X II)., Vol. III., p. 429. § lb., Vol. I., p. 231.

II Burnet's History of the Reformation, Vol. I., p. 231.

-V

888

under the Roman pontilT. And, when we add to the above the
fact, that when, in the lull spirit of papal tyranny, he burnt some
of liis subjects for not renouncing the supremacy of the pope, and
others for renoimcing some of tlie grossest errors of poper}^, had
not 11 K also every Icature of " the Man of sin ?" Or shall the
same characters be allowed to denote the Man of God in England,
which in Italy serve to point out the Man of sin and Son of perdi-
tion ?*

Henry VIII. departed this life a.d, 1547, in the 56th year of
his age, and the o8th of his reign. History stamps his name with
the deepest infamy. And, without doubt, whether viewed in the
relation of husband, or father, or king, or as the assumed head of
the Cluircli, he was one of the most capricious, unjust, and " san-
guinary tj'rants that the world had ever beheld, whether Cliris-
tian or heatlien."f

We here remark, by the way, as a circumstance of no small mo-
ment in these premises, that in casting off the papal supremacy in
England and Ireland, Henry still retained the title conferred on
him by Pope Leo X., of "Defender of the Faith." The Church
of England, though professedly reformed, in all respects was es-
sentially popish, at the time of his death. This result followed, as
the natural sequence of the motive which instigated it, — that of
personal resentment on the part of Henry against the popedom, in
the matter of his divorce from Queen Catharine. The suppression
of the monasteries in England followed, as a matter of course.
On their immense possessions and revenues Henry was dependent
for the consummation of his work of reform. Aware of the then
prevalent disatfection of a portion of the aristocracy of the realm
against the popedom, consequent upon the enormous drains of the
papal See on the resources of the kingdom, the arch king resolved
to command their united influence by an appeal to their cujyidity .
No sooner therefore was it understood that, ' to the victors belong
the spoils,' than two acts of Parliament are passed, (a.d. 15S5 and
1539) confiscating the immense estates of the monasteries, and em-
powering tlic king to dispose of them to whomsoever and in what-
ever way he might please : — save, indeed, that no portion of it
was to be distributed among any other Christian sects out of the
pale of " Holy Mother. ":j:

And all this, be it observed, on the ground of the claim, by
Parliament, of a prescript divine right so to do. Parliament sus-
tained to the regal Headship, spiritual and temjDoral, of the
Church, a relation analogous to that of the members of the body
to its head. It but executed Avhat the head dictated. Of course,
all its acts were clothed with an authority truly divine !

The fallacy of the dogma of the divine right of kings, and of

* Soc Towors's Illustration of Prophecy, Vol. I., p. 183.
t Cobbett's Legacy to Parsons, p. 15.
t lb , p. 14.

389

the alleged independence of the English Church, of which, if
founded in truth, it must be the basis, has been already sufficiently
exposed.* Indeed, it had been enough to have rested the entire
merits of this question on the single consideration, that this alleged
supremac}' did not and could not raise Henry and his Parliament
above the rank of mere laymen in the Church. True, emperors
and kings had, on several occasions, nominated jiopes and bishops
for vacant sees, not however (at least for the most part), without
the authority of a papal decretal. It remained for the layman
Henry, to be the first to reverse the long standing order of things
in these premises ; the popedom having restC'l their claims to
temporal power on the ground of their j^rescri] 'tivo rights as the
sj)i/'itmil successors of St. Peter. And, in virtue of the same
prescriptive rights, to hold, as most sacredly inalUnahle^ all the
possessions of the Church.

It is these considerations (as we have already intimated) which
render it imperative to a successful repelling of the charges of
schism and rapacity against the Eomish Church, that, in casting off
the so-called Church and State papal usurpation in England, evi-
dence the most decisive be adduced, in proof of the prescriptive
right, first of the royal laic Henry to become the fountain of a new
line of prelates ; and second, of the Parliament to seize upon the
Cliurch possessions of the pope. In regard to the first, however,
M-e claim to have shown most conclusively, that, from the time of
G-regory I., the papal founder — through the agency of Augustine
— of the Anglo-English Church, taken in connection with the un-
deniable fact of the continuance of the alleged apostolical succes-
sion in the line of the archbishops of Canterburj' from the Romish
Augustine, that Church was at no time and in no sense independ-
ent of the papal see. It follows that the act of the laic Henrj^, in
abjuring the papal supremacy, was an act of schism against that
see. It was the setting up another churchy with the title of " the
Holy Catholic Church," under a royal laic head, in opposition to
that very Church which all England at the time held to be " the
only true Catholic and Apostolic Church universal," and of which
the pope was alleged to be the supreme sjpiritual head, by the ap-
pointment of Christ and his apostles.

On the other hand. Pome claimed that the Church possessions,
from whatever sources accruing, being held bv prescriptive or di-
vine right, were beyond the legitimate reach of laic hands, and
hence, that it was the highest act of sacrilege, for either king or
parliament to touch" them. Indeed, under "'Kenred and OlYa,
kings of England," a.d. 709, through the conjoined efibrts of Egwin,
Bishop of Worcester, Birth wald. Archbishop of Canterbury, and
Pope Constantine, the " sixty-five ditterent tracts of country"
which had been most sacredly " ceded to the pope forever^'' and
" confirmed by a synod held" the same year, were given to estab-

* See pp. 314-3j9.

390

lish tliose very monasteries on a solid and permanent basis, wliicli
were designed as an auxiliary in the support of the ijopcdoni in
England.*

This circumstance alone, then, is more than sufhcient to settle
the question forever as to the right of king and parliament to
seize upon these monastic estates. As a donation from the En-
glish crown. Home claimed that it belonged to the Church, and was
to be used only by and for the Church, in the same sense that a
man claims a right to the possession and use of his life and linibs.f
It hence follows, that this laic regal and parliamentary act of con-
fiscating said monastic possessions, was an act of perfid}' , rajjacity,
and sacrilege !

And now, this Anglican reformed Church, thus possessed of the
tithes, oblations, bishop's lands, and college lands of the popedom,
not only claims to hold them by right of prescription, such as a
man has to an estate purely private, but that this right of posses-
sion is beyond all the inquiries of law ; and that a parliament
must be a tyrant, and guilty of rapine, if, by its acts, it alienate
any part of said property to secular uses, or appropriate it to the
support of any of the so-called disseniing sects. Hence the argu-
ment of Sir Kobert Peel, during the discussion of the question
relative to the admission of dissenters to take degrees in the uni-
versities, etc., viz. : that the Established Church, being still in
fact the Catholic Church, by the above procedure was merely re-
formed ; and, therefore, that it was in possession of all the pre-
scriptive rights which had ever belonged to " Holy Mother.";}:

It turns out, however, that there is a sad clashing between this
hypothesis of the so-called Keformed Church's alleged prescriptive
rights, and the uses made by Henry VIII. of the confiscated pos-
sessions of the monasteries. In the matter of his invasion of the
papal 2:)rerogatives, as the supreme head of the English Church,
that monarch employed them as the means of hrihing over to his
side the AiiiSTOCiiACY of the realm.^ To this use of said property
is to be traced the origin of the titles of all the lay holders of
abbey-lands, tithes, oblations, etc., M^hich, thus taken from the
Church, and distributed by the king among the noblemen and
gentlemen of the realm, wore alienated from the Church, and are to
this day deemed private proj^ertj^l Was not this, then, an act of
rapine ? Take, for example, the immense estates granted by act
of parliament to the Duke of Wellington in Strathlieldsay.^ These
immense estates were taken from the Church. Was not this, then,
an act of tyranny on the part of Parliament ? So says the En-
glish Church. And so said the people of England in the days of
Henry. Yes. Pleading the law of God, and denying that an^^
]:)arliament had a right to pass a law authorizing laymen to receive
tithes, they actually refused to yield their tithes to la3'men till

* The Primitive Church, p. 372. f Cobbett's Legacy, p. 10.

t lb., pp. 12, 37. § lb., p. 14. li lb., pp. 14, 37. ' H lb., p. 13.

391

compelled to do so by tlie severest penalties ! as ma}'" be seen by
the act 27th of Henry VIII., chap. 20; and renewed by two ad-
ditional acts, 2d and 3d Edward VI., chap. 13.*

One of two alternatives follows : Either the parliament has no
right to alienate that which is called church propert}', in which
case all titles to lay estates, tithes, etc., are null; or, possessing
that right on the principle, that what a parliament can do, a parlia-
ment can undo ; these lay-estates, tithes, etc., can, by act of
parliament, be disposed of in any manner and for ariy jourpose
that parliament may choose.

The matters of principal concernment to us, however, are the
facts, so abundantl}' established in the preceding pages, first, that
the Anglo-English Church, so far from having "ever been legally
and canonically independent" of the pope of Eome,f was JRoman-
boni, and was subject to the dominion of the papal supremacy from
the time of Gregory I. to Henrj^ VIII. Second. That the abjura-
tion of the papal supremacy in England by that monarch, was an
act of usurpation and schism. In other words, we mean to afl&rm,
that the so-called Reformed Catholic Church of England IS AN"
ENTIRELY NEW CHURCH, totally unknown in history till
the time of Henr}^ VIII., and created by that monarch as a con-
venient vehicle through which to transfer from the pope to himself,
the spiritual and temporal supremacy of the Church in his do-
minions.

Still retaining his Romish title of " Defender of the Faith," we
bave seen how Henry's usurpations of the prerogatives of the
popedom in England were encouraged, defended, promoted, and
hnally confirmed, first by the convocation, and then by acts
of parliament. Also, that by acts of parliament, the vast es-
tates of the monasteries were confiscated and given to the king,
who distributed them at will among his lay partisans, the aris-
tocracy of the realm. The reader tlierefore will unite with us
in according to parliament the meed of consistency in passing
one other act, in perfect harmony with the above : that, we
mean, connected with the names, style, and title of their
Church. It is called, " the Protestant CJnirch of England as BY
LAW Established" ! and the king's coronation oath binds him to
support the Protestant Church, '"as by LAW Established.":}; And
yet another: that which constitutes the king as the supreme
head of the Church in England and Ireland, the fountain whence
flows the Episcopal succession ; the Preface to the " Form
and Manner of Making, Ordaining and Consecrating Bishops,
Priests and Deacons," both in the English and American Li-
turgies, directing that none be thus set apart except those
who are " approved and admitted thereunto by lo.wfvl au-
thority." While, therefore, Romanists allege that "their Church

* Cobbett's Legacy, pp. 38, 39. t The Primitive Church, p. 359.

X Cobbett's Legacy, p. 13.

892

originated with Christ and his apostles, the Henraic Ecformed
Anglican Church is founded solely on acts of Parliament^ sitting at
Westminster.^' Aye, and the very foundations of which New
Church were cemented with the blood both of Eomanists and Pro-
testants,— the former, for refusing to abjure the supremacy of the
pope ; the latter, for renouncing some of the grossest errors of
popery, and for refusing to take an oath recognizing the spiritual
supremacy of Henry VIII. !

It will be in place here to remark, that while matters were in
their transition state. Protestantism was making great progress
in the southern, which were the richest and best peopled, parts of
England, on the one hand ;f and on the other, — and that too in the
latter part of Henry's reign, — his subjects in the north were gene-
rally addicted to the old superstition. We refer the reader to Bur-
net, for an account of his severities against the former,:}: particu-
larly the Sacramentists,§ and also those of his Komish subjects. |

* CobbeU's Legacy, p. 13.

t Burnet's History of the Reformation, Vol. L, p. 188.

t lb., Vol. I., p. 206, and pp. 363-365; 476-482.

§ lb., Vol. I., pp. 40.'5-408.

II lb., Vol. I., pp. 563-582.

393

CHAPTER Vin.

THE ANGLO-ENGLISH REFORMATION, AFTER THE DEATH OF HENRY VIH.,
A.D. 1547, UNDER EDWARD VI., MART, AND ELIZABETU.

SECTION I.

Under Henry VIII. nothing Protestant worthy the nanne. — I., Edward VI. — Ruling
motive of the Guardians of, (the king being now but ten years of age) in promot-
ing the Reformation, the security of the monastic estates now in their possession.- —
A reformation achieved, not. as is alleged, " by the common consent of the people ;"'
not by the conversion of Romanists to the Protestant faith, but by the compulsory
Acts of Parliament. — Protestant principles subordinate. — '' The Book of Common
Prayer" under Henry and Edward. — Its near identity with the Romish Mass Book.
— Judgment of the Papists on. — Statements of the " Commissioners" under Edward
and Elizabeth. — Also, the Romish author of Horae Biblias. — Lord Chatham, etc. —
Proof of the above. — Parliamentary Acts, — 1 : a.d. 1534, which abrogated the papal
supremacy, etc. ; 2 : 27th year of Henry, a.d. 1535, and 31st ditto, a.d. 1539, confis-
cating the monastic estates ; 3 : 27th Henry VIII., chap. 20, and 2d and 3d Ed-
ward VI., chap. 13, compelling the payment of lay tithes; 4: 1st Edward VI.,
chap. 1, A.D. 1547, coercing the people, Romish and Dissenters, into the sheep-fold ;
5 : 1st Edward VI. chap. 1, a.d. 1547. and 2d Edward VI., coercing the adoption
and use of the Prayer-Book, etc. — High pretensions of "the Protestant Church of
England," etc. — The only true Church, etc. — The Prayer-Book composed by aid of
the Holy Ghost, and for '• the honor of God" ! Surely, then. Parliament could
never turn its back upon such a Church and Prayer-Book !

Of the Protestant character of the English Church, as reformed
by Henry, if we except the partial restoration of the Scriptures to
the laity, there is nothing connected with it deserving the name.
A brief survey of the progress of the Reformation after the death
of Henry, a.d. lo-iT, taken in connection with the motives, mode
of operations, etc., of the persons engaged therein, with an exhibit
of their results, will not be out of place.

I. — Under Edward VI.

During the lifetime of Henry, the lay holders of the confis-
cated monastic estates remained undisturbed in their ill-gotten
possessions. But now that the original Supreme Head of their
new " Catholic Church" was gone, Edward "Vl. being a minor.

894

and the government devolving npon guardians and trustees, to
escape the contingcncj of a re-action, which sliould restore popery
and the monastic estates to their rightful ownei's, it was necessary
to abrogate, to efface forever, if possible, the Catholic religion in
England. Nor, considering that, with comparatively few excep-
tions, tlie people remained firm in their attachments to the faith
and forms of Eomanism, was this a work of easy attainment.

Edward YI., now ten years old, was the supreme spiritual
head of the Church, and secular sovereign of the State, and still
retained (as indeed his successors continue to do down to this day)
the same po^iish title of" Defender of the Faith," given to his father
by Leo X. His accession to the throne was signalized by that \erj
state of things which the diversified sentimeiits and feelings on the
part of his subjects might lead one to anticipate. The tendency
of Plenry's movements, as a reformer, was, to unsettle the minds
of the people on every other subject, save that of claiming the
right to think and decide for themselves in religious matters. The
work tlierefore to be achieved by the guardians of the '' boy king"
was, to preserve " the Church" of Henry's creating, from shipwreck,
in her exposure to the Scylla of Eomanism on the one hand, and
the Charybdis of Dissentism on the other. But the question was,
as to how this stupendous work was to be accomplished ? On the
one hand, it was discovered that, in doctrines and ceremonials, there
was scarcely the shadow of a shade of difference between the
Henraic reformed and the Romish churches. On the other, that
of the so-called dissenting sects (for example: Lutherans and
Sacramentaries, etc.), compared with the others, was as the differ-
ence between light and darkness. The points to be reached, there-
fore, were first, so far to Protestantize the " mongrel Catholic
Church" of Henry, beyond the point attained by that monarcli, as
to place it in obvious contrast with that of Rome ; while at the
same time it should remain so far Romanized, as to indicate its ob-
vious remove from Geneva. And second, and above all, as we
shall see in the sequel, to place beyond tlie reach of both the Ro-
manist and Dissenter, eitlier the recovery of, or any, the least, imriici-
patio7i in, the confiscated sj)oils of the old monasteries.

AVe deem it essential to a proper understanding of the principles
involved in the final settlement of "the Protestant Church of
England as by law established," under the reigns of Edward and
Elizabeth, again to allude to the basis on which the action of the
agents employed therein was predicated. Suffice it to say, it was
identical with that u.ndcr Henry, — the alleged right of prescription,
as vested in the supreme headship, spiritual and temporal, of the
Crown. Now, the advocates of that Church invariably represent
the English Reformation as the result of a general conversion of
Romanists to the Protestant faith, and lience, that it was the effect,
not of the compulsory acts of parliament, enforcing conformity by
the penalties of confiscation, transportation, imprisonments, and

395

death by the axes, ba^^ onets, halters, and fires of these monarchs ;
but that it was " by the common conaenl of the j^eojjle, as if it had
arisen out of their will, and had been their work." Nor can we
be surprised at the plausibilitj^ with which this assertion is put
forward, when we take into the account that class of circumstances,
at this time so auspicious to the promotion, in England, of a refor-
mation, similar, in its evangelical features and results, to that on the
Continent. Tindall's English translation of the New Testament
had made its appearance a, d. 1526, followed by the publication of
a complete edition, in three volumes, folio, of Luther's Bible, in
A. D, 1534. And, in the short space of the five following years,
these were followed by that of Coverdale, and by Matthew's,
compiled from Tindall's and Coverdale's, in two editions, the first,
by Kogers, and the last by Cranmer. Then, too, various exposi-
tions of the Scriptures, in the form of Paraphrases, (Erasmus,)
Treatises, etc. had been circulated among the people. Besides,
even in the time of Henry, several comparatively sound divines
had been advanced to the bench of bishops. But, in a. d. 1548,
we find the following eminentlv learned, pious, and zealous Conti-
tienfal reformers at Cambridge, viz. : Bucer, Tremellius, and Fagius.
While at Oxford there were Peter MartjT and Occhino.

"We, however, must insist that, to whatever extent these circum-
stances were made available in giving to the Anglican Eeforma-
tion a Protestant character, they were, nevertheless, one and all,
subordinated to the one grand design of securing " to that Church
all the powers, all the exclusive benefits, all the protection, and all
the advantages, necessary to make it a valuable thing to those
who would necessarily have its patronage exclusively in their
hands."* Indeed, so far from that reformation being conducted
on the great evangelical principles which gave birth to the Pro-
testant revolution on the Continent, — principles which, as we have
shown, based on the Scriptures as the only rule of faith, to the
total repudiation of a graj'-grown and spurious tradition, and on
the cardinal doctrine of justification by faith, abjured the popedom
and its Pomanistic sj'stem as antichristian ; so far from its being
the act, or sanctioned by the common consent, of the people, if we
except those — the aristocracy — who were in possession of the con-
fiscated estates of the monasteries ; we affirm that both Eomanists
and Dissenters were of one mind, on the article of the new head-
ship, the new faith, and the new worship of that Church ! What,
say they, a mere layman, arrogating to himself supremacy, spiri-
tual and temporal, over Church and State ; and in virtue of the dis-
pensation called the Conge deelire,-\ claiming to constitute in his

* Cobbett's Legacy, p. IG.

t ■' The Ctmgt de'eliri- is a lem;e to elect ; that is to say, a leave given by the king as
head of the church, to the (lean and chapter of a diocese, to elect a bishop. When they
receive this leave from the king (or queen, as the case may be), they meet; and, after
the religious ceremonies and invocations suitable to the occasion, the dean pulls out of
his pocket the name of the man whom the king has given them leave to elect'''' as one
of the links in the apostolical succession ! (See Cobbett's Legacy to Parsons, p. 46.)

396

own person the fountain wlieneo alone can flow the true apos-
tolical ministry of the Church of Christ? A headship, too, which,
being hereditary, may be Jilled by " a boy, or a little girl ; nay, a
babe in arms ;" or, perchance, even by an idiot !* As they are the
most conspicuous among the Eomanists, we here give the names of
Sir Thomas More and Bishop Fisher, who both parted with their
heads, rather than acknowledge "the uniting of the spiritual supre-
macy of the Church with the temporal supremacy of the State,"
under such a la}^ headship. And, as to the dissenters, it were
idle to attempt a description of their sufferings, on the same ac-
count.

And so, of " the Booh of Common Pi^ayer^'' etc. The " Litany"
was first published in English A. d. 1544, and the following year,
the " English Book of Common Prayer." Its character, however,
under Henry, may be inferred from the " six articles'^ put forth by
him A.u. 1589 (in reference to the Eucliarist, the denial of the cup
to the laity, celibacy, chastity, priA^ate masses, and auricular con-
fession), all of which were rigidly popish, and enforced under
penalty of death !f The first, under Edward VI., was published
A. D. 1549, somewhat modified, chiefly at the hand of llermann,
archbishop of Cologne. The following year it was reviewed.
But Bucer, still dissenting from many of the alterations made as
strongly objectionable, in A. D. 1552 another Liturgy (under the
direction of Cranmer, with the aid of Bucer and Peter the Mart^-r,
from the Continent) was put forth, which is substantially the same
as that now in use.

We here beg to remark, by the way, regarding this " Book of
Common Prayer," that in all its essential features, it is nothing
more than " an extract of the mass translated" — its festivals and
fasts, its anthems, its litany, and manj^ of the collects and lessons
for those days, being nearly identical with those of the Eomish
" mass hooW now in use. Its Creeds are identical.:}: Even the
second prayer-book of Edward VI., as above, retained many
things so strongly objected to by Bucer on a former occasion.
The papists themselves boasted " that the book was a cowj^Zmwce
witli the/Ill in a great part of their service ; so were not a little con-
firmed in their superstition and idolatry, expecting rather a return
to them, than endeavoring a reformation of themselves." Corrobo-
rative of this is the fact, that " the commissioners Avho formed the
Book of Common Prayer under Edward VI., with Archbishop
Cranmer, at their head, themselves declare, that " every thing
sound and valuable in the Romish missal and hremary^ was trans-
ferred by them without scruple, to the English communion ser-

* Crtbbett's Legacy, p. 46.

t Burnet's History of the Reformation, Vol. I., pp. 416, 417.

t Sec "The Apostolical and Primitive Church," by Coleman, where, in an Appen-
dix, the whole is compared in parallel columns. (Second edition. Boston: Gouhl,
Kendall & Lincoln : 1844.)

397

vice, and to tlie Common Prayer ;"* whicb " sound and valuable"
things thus " transferred," may be gath'^red from the following
declaration of the commissioners who were appointed by Charles
II., A.D. IGGl, to revise the liturgy. They say : " We humbly de-
sire that it may be considered that our lirst reformers, out of their
great wisdom, did at that time compose the liturgy so as to win
xil)on the pajnsts and to draw tJiein into their Church communion,

BY VERGING AS LITTLE AS THEY COULD FROM THE RoillSII FOKISIS BE-
FORE IN use" !f

''Of all Protestant churches," remarks the learned author of
Horas Biblicre, himself a distinguished civilian and Eoraan Catho-
lic, " the National Church of England most nearly resembles the
Church of Eomc. It has retained much of the dogma, and much
of the discipline of Eoman Catholics. Down to the sub-deacon, it
has retained the whole of their hierarchy ; and, like them, has its
deans, rural deans, chapters, prebends, archdeacons, rulers and vi-
cars ; a liturgy, tahen in a great measure from the Roman Catho-
lic liturgy^ and composed, like that, of psalms, canticles, the three
creeds, litanies, gospels, epistles, prayers and responses. Both
churches have the sacraments of baptism and the eucharist, the
absolution of the sick, the burial service, the sign of the cross in
baptism, the reservation of confirmation, and order [ordination] to
bishops," etc.:}:

On the other hand, it is freely conceded, "that the [XXXIX]
Articles of the Church of England strongly protest against the
errors of popery, and assert the doctrines of the reformation." But,
what marvel, if, in view of the palpable variance existing between
these articles and the prayer-book, we should have a " verification
of the famous declaration of Lord Chatham, that the Church of
England has "a Calvinistic creed, a Popish liturgy, and an
Arminian clergy ?" What marvel, that the history of that
Church, from the time of Henry VIII. down to this day is but a
tissue of internal convulsions, illustrative, even under its mildest
form of development, of its Eomish character, tendency, and ulti-
mate destination ?

And, to return from this digression — what marvel, that, while
the papists, speaking of the reformation prayer-book during the
several stages of its progress, said of it, that it " was likely to
change as oft as the fashion did ; since they never seemed to be at
a point in any thing, but new models were thus continually fram-
ing," the so-called dissenters should also stand aloof, and choose
for themselves what they conscientiously believed to be "a more
excellent way" ?

It followed, that, bet^-een the discontents of the one party, and
the clamors of the other (the Eomonists) for the restoration of the

t Coleman's Apostolical and Primitive Church, p 440.

X lb., p. 442.

X Burnet's History of the Reformation, Vol. II., p. 303.

398

old order of things, " the sharers of the spoils of the Church and
the poor," together with "the Protestant Church of England as
by law estabhshed," which they were engaged in placing on an
immovable basis, were held np to ridicule by the people all over
the kingdom, " in dialogues, rh3'mes, songs, plays and jests."

Now, this conduct was beyond endurance. But the question
arose: how was it to be suppressed? How were these malcon-
tents to be c6nverted over and brought into " the Protestant
Church of England as by law established" ? Parliament was not
long in its deliberations on this subject. " The first step was by
an act, first year of Edward VI., chapter 1, a.d. 1547. 1'his is an
act to jjunish people for speaking irreverently against the sacra-
ment taken in both kinds, etc. The preamble of the act tells us
that "this new practice had been ridiculed by the people," as
above set forth. It enacted, "that these rhymsters and singers
should suffer imprisonment for their bodies, and lines, at the king's
will and pleasure,"* etc.

Previously to this, " every inducement had been offered to with-
draw the parish-priests from their religion." " The king had put
forth a book of homilies and a catechism ; and an act was passed
soon after (2d and 3d Edward VI., chap. 21), to allow priests to
marry,'' Still, however, the great body of them " remained firm
in their faith and their practice. f But now, parliament makes
another move in relation to the Prayer-Book. " The preamble" of
this act (1st and 2d Edward A^L), sets forth, that " the king, in his
great goodness, has appointed the Archbishop of Canterbury (Cran-
mer) and others, to draw, and make, one meet order, rite and
fashion, of common and open prayer, and administration of sacra-
ments, to be had and used in his Majesty's realm of England and
Wales; the which, at this time, BY AID OF THE HOLY
GHOST, with one uniform agreement is of them concluded," etc.,
to his great comfort and quietness of mind, entitled, " The Book
of Common Prayer," etc.

" The Book of Common Prayer," etc. Of course it was to be
used by all the people. This same act therefore provided, that
" if any rector, vicar, perpetual curate, or other priest, with bene-
fice, should in future say mass in the usual manner, and not use the
Common Prayer Book,'^he should forfeit to the king one year's re-
venue of his benefice, and be imprisoned for six months ; that for
a second offense he should be deprived of his benefice, and of all
his spiritual promotions, and be imprisoned for one Avhole year ;
for a third offense, imprisonment duiing his natural life ; that if
the priest had no benefice, he should be imprisoned for six months
for the first offense ; and for the second offense should be impris-
oned for his natural life" ! But the act did not stop here, it
went on to the loity ; and it enacted, that " if any onB should, by

* Cobbett's Legacy, etc., p. 17.
t lb., p. 20.

399

interludes, plays, songs, rhymes, or by other open words, de-
clare, or speak any thing in derogation, depraving, or despising the
said Book of Connnon Pi-ayer, penalty after j)enalty were to follow,
till at last eanie forfeiture of goods and chattels to tlie king, and
imprisonment during the natural life of the party" !*

Tluis, then, to use the language of Cobbett, " did this gentle
Christian church begin ; thus did tlie angel of charity, humility,
and humanity, preside at her BIRTH"! Her language to all
was: " //e?'e is this Church ; take it ; oi\ take pecuniary ruin and im-
prisonment/or life "/f And yet we are told that this very " Pro-
testant Church of England as by law established," was the result
of a reformation from the corruptions of popery, orirfiaating in the
will^ and sanctioned by the common consent^ of THE people \\,

To recapitulate. We have seen^

Fiist, That, on the ground of an alleged prescriptive right in the
person of the king, the convocation and parliament constituted and
declared Henry VIII. to be the supreme head, spiritual and tem-
poral, of the Church of England and Ireland, and the fountain-
head of the English succession.

Second, That by acts of parliament (27th j'ear of Henry, A.D,
1535, and 81st do., A.D. 1539), all the vast possessions of the
Romish monasteries were put into his hands, to be disposed of
accoriling to his good-will and pleasure.

Third, That in the exercise of these rights, and in direct viola-
tion of the plea by English Churchmen, that the parliament, though
holding these vast possessions by virtue of her prescriptive rights,
yet could not alienate them from the Church ; Henry VIII. did
nevertheless distrib-.ite them among the lay aristocracy of England;
and, that the people were comjoelled, bv acts of parliament (27th
Henry VIII., chap. 20 ; and 2d and 3d Edward VI., chap. 13),
under the severest penalties, to pay tithes to laj'men, upon the
same footing with those of the clergy.

Fourth, That the people were coerced into the sheep-fold — ■" the
Protestant Church of England as by law established" — by the
sheer force of parliamentary acts (1st Edward VL, chap. 1, A.D.
1517). And,

Fifth, That by similar parliamentary acts, they were coerced
into the adoption and use of " the Book of Common Prayer" (1st
and 2d Edward VL).

" The Protestant Church of England" ! The only true Church
of Christ now on earth, or that ever was on earth : compared with
which, all others are either usurpations (as the Roman Catholics and
the Greek Church), or human inventions, unauthorized conventi-
cles, etc. (as the Presb\ terians. Independents, Baptists, etc.), and
therefore unworthy so noble and dignified a title. As so many

* Cobbett's Legacy, etc., pp. 19-21. f lb., p. 21. % lb., p. 50.

400

broods of non-conforming, dissenting sectaries, their character and
their doom arc typified in those of the schismatical rebels in the
camp of Israel !

And then, too, " the Book of Common Prayer," " the. golden
language of our liturgy."* How sublime ! " The wit of men and
angels could not mend it."f " Our liturgy is " so divinely com-
posed, that if the angels in heaven needed prayer, they might use
it.";}: Our Parliament (composed of " the lords" — the lay aris-
tocracy, and the bishops — " spiritual and temporal, and the com-
mons) has declared, that Cranmer and his companions composed
the Prayer-Book," hy " aid of the Holy GTiost^'' and "for the honor
of God," etc. And the learned Bishop Beveridge says : "I can't
but ascribe to the same extraordinary aid and assistance from
God," the "compiling the Book of Common Prayer, whereby they
were afterwards enabled to suffer, and confirm what they had done
with their blood."§

High pretensions, these. Indeed, what could be more so ?
Surely, then, from such a divinely-constituted Church, and from
such a heaven-inspired Prayer-Book, their original founders and
authors could never have turned their faces ? Though the one had
been built up, and the use of the other enforced, by confiscations,
imprisonment, and death in its varied and most horrid forms, yet
Parliament, " representing the whole body of the realm of En-
gland, and the dominions of the same," acting by virtue of a pre-
scriptive or divine right in all that they either ever said or did in
these matters; surely, we repeat, this Parliament could never have
proved so recreant, as, under any circumstances^ to denounce and
turn their backs upon such a Church and Prayer-Book ?

SECTION n.

II. — Mary, a Romanist. — Conduct of Parliament on her accession.— Renounce the
Protestant Church and Prayer-Book, acknowledge themselves schismatics, and
pledge their return to the bosom of Holy Mother, on condition of their being
permitted to retain the monastic estates. (See their petition to the queen, Appen-
dix F.) — The pope grants absolution. — Popery again restored. — Arch-
bishop Cranmer, the most distinguished of the English reformers. — Held in high
repute as such. — Our duty. — His true character. — His end.

II. Mary.

Let us see. The throne of England, vacated by the death of
Edward YI., a.d. 1553, is filled by Mary, who, though coerced by

* Bishop Burges.s's Charge, etc. Protestant Churchman^ August 17, 1850.

■}■ Abbot against Church Forsakers, p. 13.

\ Norris's Sermon before the Oxford University.

§ Beveridge's Discourse on the Excellency of Common Prayer. 2d Ed., 4to., p. 32.

401

ner royal father Henry YIII. into an acknowledgment of his
supremacy as the spiritual and temporal head of the English
Church,* 3'et having, under Edward, adhered to the Roinisli
faith and communion, and acting upon "the settled constitution
and laws of the country," resolves upon a restoration of the Catho-
lic religion.

This resolve is to be viewed as a test oJ the integrity of the origi-
nal founders of '■'■ the Pjjotestant Ghurch of England as hj law es-
tablished.^^

The result is before us. The convocation being assembled,
Weston, dean of Westminster, acting as prolocutor, sounded the
tocsin of war to the reformers — " You have the ivord^ but we have
the SWORD." Panic-stricken at this announcement, these very
Protestant reformers enter "into a negotiation with the queen,
agreeing to give up their Booh of Common Prayer.^ and with it
" the Protestant Church of England^ as hy lavj established /" td
restore the Catholic 7'eligion by coercion, if necessary ; to ac-
knowledge themselves to have been schismatics / to receive abso-
lution from the pope as rehels against his authority, though they
had declared his supremacy in England a usurpation, and had de-
nounced his holiness as the Antichrist and Lucifer ; and above all
things, agreeing to abrogate, as schismatical, that very Prayer-
Book which they had before declared in the preamble to an act of
parliament, to have been composed by the " aid of the Holy
Ghost," and which was, they said, made " to the honor of God ;''''
agreeing to all this, * * * Upon what condition ? Answer.
They would do all this, if the queen would obtain the consent of
the pope, and give her own consent, to suffer them to keep the im-
mense masses of property in land and in tithes^ which, diu'ing the
two preceding reigns, they had grasped from the Church and the
poor.f

Suffice it to say, the queen assented. The pope's pardon was
obtained. These once zealous Protestant parliamentary reformers
are secured in their possession of the " golden wedge," and Cardi-
nal Pole, the pope's legate, is sent to England to absolve them and
the nation from the sin of apostasy, and again to restore England
to the communion of the papal See.

But Cranmer, the archbishop of Canterbury under Henry and
Edward. Surelj^ he did not apostatize ! Let us see. In speaking
of this English reformer, we must premise, that such is the estima-
tion in which he is held by all classes of Protestants for his emi-
nent learning, probity, moderation, piety and zeal, that it cannot
be deemed otherwise than perilous to one's reputation, even to
allude to the best authenticated facts, which might in the least
derogate from his fair fame. The work assigned to us in the
providence of God, however, is to lay open to the view of the

* Burnet's History of the Reformation. Vol. I., p. 335.
t See copy of tiicir Petilioii. Appendix, F.
2o

402

reader the true character of the AngUoan^ in contradistinction from
the Continental,, reformation. But these receive their impress from
the character and the motives by which their agents respectively
were actuated, and which, of course, can only be known by their
acts. And, as of the acts of parliament, so of the acts of an indi-
vidual, than whom, no one bore so conspicuous a j^art in the ranks
of the English reformers, as Thomas Cranmer.

That Cranmer's lot was cast in troublous times — times which
tried men's souls — is true. It is equally true that God knows best
when, and how, and to what extent, to extend His mercy toward
the frailties and infirmities of his creatures. We, however, have
to do with facts. Of these, as it regards this distinguished person-
age, we cannot here enter into detail. "We remark then in brief: —
History affirms that Cranmer was a polygamist, his first wife, whom
' he married while a Fellow in Cambridge College, being yet alive,
when he married a second from Germany, and both, in known
violation of the laws both of the College and of the Church, which,
at the time, enjoined celibacy. As archbishop of Canterbury, he
divorced Ilenry VIII. from three v/ives, though he had declared
the marriages of the first two to be valid ; while of one (Anne
Boleyn), though he denied that she had ever been the king's wife,
he yet voted for the death as an adulteress ! Under Henry he burnt
men and women for not being Catholics, and Eomanists for not
acknowledging the king's supremac}^ ; and under Edward, he
burnt Protestants,, because their grounds of protesting were differ-
ent from his. On the death of Edward, he attempted to divert the
crown of England from his legitimate successor, Mary, in favor
of Lady Jane Grey ; (who, in consequence, fell an innocent, be-
cause an involuntary, victim, to his false zeal;) and afterwards,
being defeated, he plotted with traitors in the pay of France to
overset her government. Brought at last, however, to trial, and
being condemned as a heretic, he professed himself ready to recant !
He was respited for six weeks, during which time he signed six
different forms of recantation^ each more ample than the former.
He declared that the Protestant religion was false; that the
Romish Church was the only true one; that he had been a horrid
blasphemer against the sacrament; and concluded by imploring
their mercy, and their prayers in behalf of his poor soul ; declar-
ing, that what he then did, was for the discharge of his conscience^
and as a warning to others.

All this, however, as wo know, was in his case of no avail.
Right or wrong, on the part of his judges, he was condemned to
the stake.

And now, being brought to the public reading of his recanta-
tion, seeing the pile ready, and finding there is no escape for him,
(without pretending to arbitrate upon the motive which prompted
this closing act of his life), he recanted his recantation ; and, thrust-
ing into the fire the hand that signed it, expired, protesting against

403

that very religion in which, only nine hours before, he had
called God to witness that he firmly believed !

If the reader will pardon the paradox, the Reformation now
advanced backward. All Protestant preaching was prohibited.
Gardiner and Bonner were restored to their places. The same
Parliament which had declared that the Prayer-Book was com-
posed by " aid of the Holy Ghost,^^ now pass an act denouncing it
as heretical. The same Parliament also repeals all the former acts
of Edward VI. which bore a Protestant character. The law of
celibacy is again enforced against the clergy, and vast numbers of
them are ejected from their livings. And these acts are followed
up by a most violent persecution against all who refuse to ac-
knowledge allegiance to Rome ! The Romish Cardinal Pole is
raised to the archiepiscopate of Canterbury. Persecution continues
to rage with unabated fury, till the death of Mary, A.p. 1558.

SECTION in.

III. Elizabeth. — She also a Romanist. — Surely, then, Parliament continues to adhere to
the Romish Faith ? — Not so. — The Monastic Estates are jeoparded by the illegiti-
macy of the Queen ! — And, all again, by Acts of Parliament, become Protes-
tant ! ! ! — Act 1st of Elizabeth, chap. 1, restored to her the same title held by
Henry and Edward (and which is retained to this day), and secured to the Aris-
tocracy the Monastic Estates, clauses 17, 18, 19, enacting the severest penalties
against all malcontents. — The " Commission." — Second Act, 1st Elizabeth, chap.
2, restored the Prayer-Book, designed more especially for the benefit of Romanists,
enforced by the severest penalties. — Another Act, 35th Elizabeth, chap. 1, en-
titled, " An Act to retain the Queen's subjects in their due obedience," etc., de-
signed for the benefit of Dissenters. — Enforced by the gentle penalties of banish-
ment for life, and death ! — These horrid enactments remained in full force until
the time of James II., and for attempting to mitigate which, he lost to himself and
his posterity for ever, the British throne ! — Partially modified under Williani and
Mary. — Less rigidly enforced now. — Conclusion. — Present aspect of" the Protestant
Church of England as by Law Established."

The bloody Mary was succeeded by

III. Elizabeth.

This queen also, was a Roman Catholic, both by profession and
public worship. She had been crowned by a Catholic Bishop,*
and, as by several acts of parliament, " the Protestant Church of
England as by law established," together with the " Prayer-Book,"
had been most solemnly abjured ; and both Parliament and people
(by their own confession, — acknowledging their schismatical apos-
tasy from the true and only Catholic ChYirch of Christ on earth ;

* Burnet's History of the Reformation, Vol. II., pp. 589, 590.

404

and that Henrj VIII., in assuming the supremacy over the Church
of England, was a rebel, and a usurper of the rights of his Holi-
ness the Pope), having been takeji back into the bosom of " Holy
Mother Church ;" they, surely, noiv remained lioman Catholics to
the end of their days ?-'

But, again, we repeat, Let us see. Elizabeth's first intentions
unquestionably were, to maintain the Romish religion. She, how-
ever, was an illegitimate, having been born of Aimc Boleyn during
the lifetime of Henry's first wife Catharine, whose divorce from
that king the Komish See had ever declared to all intents and pur-
poses, invalid. More than this, she had been so declared by an
act passed during the reign of Henry. Aware, therefore, that the
pope would not recognize her legitimacy ; and, of course, would
not acknowledge her right to the throne of England, she resolved
to turn Protestant herself, and to Protestantize her subjects also.f

The reader, if he has a genuine enlightened Protestant head and
heart, making little account of Rome's objection to Elizabeth's
title to the English crown, and hailing with joy this new prospect
of England's redemption from the tyrann}^ and superstition of pa-
pal Rome, eagerly inquires, — How was this great Avork accom-
plished ? Was it by the revival and promotion of the primitive
faith and order of the gospel by means of persuasion? By appeals
to the understandings and consciences of men ?

So far from it, the ver}^ first act of parliament under this queen,
(1st of Elizabeth, chapter 1,) swept away the whole of what had
been done during the reign of Mary, Avith the exception that it
secured to the aristocracy the plunder of the Church and the poor ;
and those same men, who had so recently received absolution from
the pope as schismatical rebels against his authority, now enact
that the supremacy of England, spiritual and temporal, had ahodys
belonged to the king ; and actually required an oath from ev^'
Englishman, declaring a firm belief in the supremacy of the queen,
the full title, as it existed under Heur}^ and Edward, including
that of " Defender of the Faith," being now restored to' her. The
oath (in use to this day) begins thus : " I, A. B., do utterly de-
clare and testify in my conscience, that the Queen's Highness is
the only supreme governor of this realm, as well in all spiritual
and ecclesiastioal things, or causes, as temporal.":}:

But further. This first act of parhament (clauses 17, 18, 19)
gave to the queen full authority to ap})oint a commission, consist-
ing of certain hisJiops and others, whose powers extended over the
whole kingdom, and over all ranks and degrees of people. They
were empowered to have an absolute controls over the opin-
ions of all men, and, merely at their own discretion, to inflict any
punishment short of death, on any person whatsoever, Thej^
might proceed legall}'' or otherwise, in the obtaining evidence
against parties ; and, upon mere hearsay, by imprisonment or tor-

* Cobbett's Legacy, p. 28. f lb., pp. 28, 29. J lb., p. 29.

405

ture, to extort an accusation against himself, his friend, his brother,
his father, upon pain of death.*

With the above powers of this commission before us, we pass
now" to the second act of parHament. (1st Ehzabcth, chap. 2.)
This was an act to restore " the Book of Common Prayer." For
a refusal to use this Prajer-Book, the above act enforced the penal-
ty of confiscation, the loss of ecclesiastical preferments, and impris-
onment— for tlie first offense, six months ; for tlie second, during
life. For speaking in derogation of the Prayer-Book, or for ridi-
culing the new religion by songs, jests, plays, etc., it enacted the
heaviest tines, and imprisonment for life, according to the number
of offenses.

These acts of parliament were designed more particularly to
reach the liomanists. But now, another act (35th Elizabeth,
chap. 1) was passed, designed for the more especial benefit of the
Dissenters. It is entitled, " An Act to retain the Queen's Magis-
ty's Subjects in their due Obedience," (alias) the notable " Act of
conformity'''' to " the Protestant Church of England, as by law
established." This act begins thus: "For the preventing and
avoiding of such great inconveniences and perils as might happen
and grow by the wicked and dangerous practices of seditious sec-
taries and disloyal persons, be it enacted," etc. Under this act,
all persons, of whatever rank or degree, above the age of sixteen
years, Avho refused to go to some church or chapel, or place of
conunon prayer, or who persuaded any other person not to go, or
who should be at any conventicle, or meeting, under color or pre-
tense of any exercise of any religion other than that ordered by
the State ; then every such person was to be committed to prison,
there to remain until he should be ordered to come to such church
or usual place of common prayer, and there to make an open sub-
mission and declaration of his conformity, in these folloAving
words : — " I, A. B., do humbly confess and acknowledge that I
have grievously offended God, in contemning her majesty's lawful
government and authority, by absenting myself from church, and
in using unlawful conventicles and assemblies, under pretense and
color of exercise of religion ; and I am heartily sorry for the
same ; and I do acknowledge and testify in my conscience that no
person hath, or ought to have, any power or authority over her
majesty ; and I do promise that I will, from time to time, repair to
the church and hear divine service, and do my utmost endeavor to
defend and maintain the same."

Now, let us look at the 'penalty^ in case of disobedience. The
offender was to " abjure tlie realm ;" that is to say, he was to
banish himself for life ; and, if he failed to do this, — if he did not
get out of the kingdom in the course of such time as should be
appointed by the authority of the queen ; or if he returned into

* Cobbetl's Legacy; pp. .52, 53,

406

the kingdom without her leave, such person so offending " was to
be adjudged a felon, and was to suffer, as in cases of felony, with-
out beneiit of clergy :" that is to say, suffer the sentence due to
arson or murder ; to he hanged hy the ixeck till he was dead /'*

It only now remains that we^add in conclusion on this subject,
that those horrid enactments of Parliament remained in full force
through the remainder of the reign of Elizabeth ; through that of
James I., Charles I., and Charles II., and Avere never attempted to
be mitigated until James II. made' the attempt, and which attempt
was the real cause of the loss of the throne to him and his pos-
terity, forever. They were first successfully, but then only very
partially, mitigated, under William and Mary.f

If it be urged that these acts were not the acts of the Church,
but of the king or queen, as the case might be, we reply, that
they could not have passed without the concurrence of the bishops
and the clergy ; they were to be the executors of the law, or to see
the law executed ; they were to receive the submission and declara-
tion of conformity ; the minister of the parish was to make a re-
cord of the submission, and he was to make a report of it to the
bishop. It was hence clearly a church affair altogether.:{: And,
as all know, who are even but partially acquainted with the more
modern doings of that Church, it is but recently, comparatively,
that, forced by the increasing light and intelligence of the times,
and the loud clamor every where raised against the monstrous in-
justice and cruelty of infringing upon the rights of conscience by
imprisonments, fines, confiscations, and death ; the dissenters of
England of the present generation have obtained any thing ap-
proaching to a substantial relief from that galling yoke of confor-
mit}^ to a parliament-made Church, which, from the period of
Henry's usurpation of the papal prerogatives in his dominions,
down to this present hour, still rests on the triple-columned basis,
— " a Calvinistic creed, a Ponish liturgy, and an Arminian
clergy !"

* Cobbett's Legacy, pp. 47-49.
t lb., pp. 49, 50.
X lb., pp. 52, 54.

407

CHAPTEE IX.

THE ALLEGED SUCCESSION OF THE AMERICAN EPISCOPAL CHURCH.
SECTION I.

Reference to the proofs of its derivation fronn the Ecclesiastico-political lay supremacy,
spiritual and temporal, of the Anglo-English crown. — Four conditions, as the only-
methods of escape therefrom, and of the refutation of the charge of its Romish
origin, etc.

I. It must suffice that we refer the reader to what we have
already offered on this subject,'^ demonstrative .of the derivation
of the American succession of bishops, not, as Prelatists allege,
from Christ and his apostles, but from the Politico-Ecclesi-
astical Headship, the lay supremacy, spiritual and temporal, of
the Anglo-English crown. Not however that we feel any, the
least, tenacit}^ on this point, as though the question of the validity
of the Episcopal claim to an unbroken apostolical succession as
urged by American prelatists, was suspended upon the single cir-
cumstance here brought to view. So far from it, even admitting
that the Anglo-English succession from the time of Henry VIIL,
in the line of the archiepiscopate of Canterbury, derived its alleged
validity, not from the declared "prescriptive right," ^w^^e divino^ as
vested in the crown, but from their episcopal consecration ; yet it
will be incumbent on them to prove that that line, as derived from
Augustine, as " the first Saxon bishop, and the first archbishop of
Canterbury," as alleged by the Rev. Mr. Chapin,f xoas not of
Romish origin, not only, but also that " it is evident unto all men
diligently reading Holy Scripture and ancient authors," First, that
Christ transferred his " headship" to his twelve apostles. Second,
that he delegated to them, and they to their successors, the autho-
rity to continue " the very same" headship, office, and functions,
to the end of time. Third, that the validity of each consecutive
link, — "the collation of holy orders" — (Bp. Jer. Taylor), depends
upon tlie transference of the Holy Ghost (the highest miraculous
act apostolic) by the imposition of the hands of tltree bv^hops^ them-
selves episcopally baptized, and ordained deacon and priest. And
Fourth, that that alleged unbroken succession, exhibiting the
names of the consecrated and their consecrators, together with the

* See pp. 231-234 ; and also pp. 386, 387.
t The Primitive Church, p. 29L

408

circumstances of time, place, etc. when each act was performed,
furnish a duly authenticated register of its authenticity, showing
it to have been "preserved as inviolate as the line of the descent
of Adam, or the succession of seedtime and harvest, of day and
night, of summer and winter" !* Yea, — according to the true and
only consistent theory of preTacy, that " register" must exhibit a
less degree of uncertainty than those of the descent of our Lord, or
of the Commonwealth of Israel, from Adam ; or of the succession
of the high priesthood in the line of Aaron. Or, "like the chil-
dren of liebaiah, of Koz, and of Barzillai," failing to jQnd "their
register among those that were reckoned by genealogy," they must
be pronounced " as polluted,''^ and be " put from the priesthood" ! '
Yea, more. Agreeably to the theory of Bishop McCoskrey, they
must, in case of failure to produce such a " register," be placed in
the rank of ^^ gross impostors f''\ and occupy the position in the
Church, Christian, analogous to that of the rebellious schismatics,
Korah, Dathan, and Abiram, in the camp of Israel ! We repeat :
Nothing short of such a " register" will satisfy the demands and
verify the claims set up by that powerful champion of LOW
CHURCHiSM, the Right Rev. Charles Petit Mcllvaine, Bishop
ol the diocese of Ohio, that the line of prelates of which he claims
to form the tioenty-seventh link in the line of American bishops, is
"fastened at its beginning, upon the THRONE OF
GOD "!:}:

When the above four conditions demonstrative of the claims of
Prelacy shall have been fully met, the author of this Treatise, for
his own part, will pledge himself to the performance of any act of
penance consistent with the discipline of " the gospel and the
Church," which may be prescribed to him as the condition of his
restoration to the true fold ; and will also venture to prognosti-
cate, on the behalf of every honest anti-jDrelatist, an acknowledg-
ment of his error, and an earnest seeking to place his head under
the all-potent alembic of prelatical hands.

On the other hand, till these conditions be fully met. We, (that
is, 7J the author of this Treatise) under a deep sense of our respon-
sibility to God, according to "the measure of the Spirit"^ vouch-
safed us in " diligently reading the Holy Scripture and ancient
authors" in our search after truth in the premises, do hereby de-
clare our deliberate and solemn conviction and iDclief, that all who,
from the apostles's times down to this day, have said or do now
" say they are apostles" — alias Prelatical Bishops, " are not, but
are found liars."

Thus decided the Holy Ghost, in his commendation of the
Ephesian angel, for his fidelity in testing and exposing the daring
imposture of those who, in his time, arrogated to themselves a
place beside " the twelve apostles of the Lamb."

(1) Ezra 2 : 61, 62. (2) 1 Cor. 12 : 7.

* Bp. Mclh'aine's Ari^ument tor the Apostolical Succession, p. 9.
t Bp. McCo.-krey, Episcopal Bishops the Successors ofthe Apostles, p. 12.
1 Bp Mclhainc's Arnumcnl lor the A'X)stolical Six-ct-s.^ioi- •> '^

409

CHAPTER X.

OF THE FRATERNAL CHARACTER OR PERFECT EQUALITY OF THE
OFFICE AND FUNCTIONS OF ELDERS OR PRESBYTERS, AND
BISHOPS.

SECTION I.

Importance of a further exhibit of the subject of this Chapter, in contrast with the pre-
latical theory. — Proofs of the parity or perfect equality of the ordinary ministry of
divine appointment, as derived, 1st : From the interchangeable use of the titles,
Elder and Bishop. — 2d : From the declarations of prelatists themselves. — Also
from the writings of the purest ages of antiquity. — The terms Ordo, Gradus, Offici-
um, defined. — Circumstances which originated a diversity in ecclesiastical func-
tions,— Elfric, Ambrose, etc.

The important bearing of the subject of this chapter on the general
issue involved in these inquiries, demands for it a farther consider-
ation at our hands. After what has been already offered in Parts II.
and III. of this Treatise, demonstrative of the fallacy of the alleged
"divers orders" of Prelatists, Romish, Tractarian, and High and Low
Church ; all that is now designed, is, to show that, contrary to the
prelatical dogma, namely, that bishops are now what the apostles
were in their time (minus their extraordinary endowments as in-
sisted on by some) ; they, that is, presbyters and bishops, in office
and functions, are one and the same Order ; which order, with
that of deacons, constitute the two, and these, the only divinely-
appointed ordinary and standing orders of the Church of Christ,
for all time.

I. Our first evidence is derived from the interchanojeable use of
the names or titles, elder^ TrQeajSvreQog, presbyter; and bishop,
emoKOTTog, overseer ; in the New Testament, to denote the same
offtce. In proof, to save space, Ave refer the reader to Part II. of
this Treatise, p. 159 ; and Part III. pp. 274, 275.

II. This is corroborated by the declarations of Prelatists themselves.
These are collected from those passages in their Avritings in which
they attempt to account for the substitution of the name bishop, in
the place of apostle. Thus, Theodoret : — " The same persons
were anciently called promiscuously both bishops and presbyters,
whilst those who are noio called bishops, were" (then) "called apos-

410

ties. But shortly after, the name of apostles was appropriated to
such only as Avere apostles indeed," etc.* " They who are now
called bishops, were originally called apostles ; but the holy apos-
tles being dead, they who were ordained after them, were in many
respects inferior to them. Therefore they thought it not decent to
assume to themselves the name of apostles," etc.f The learned
Hammond says, " that in Scripture times the name of presbyter
belonged principally, if not alone, to hishops,^^ etc.ij: Bishop Gris-
wold, spcalving of the New Testament age, says, " the elders, pres-
byters, or priests, . . . were tlie7i also styled hishops.^^^ And

again : " The name of apostle was not long continued

Alter their death, their successors in office modestly assumed the
name of ,bishop."||

Here, then, in the first place, it is conceded that, during the
apo.s'tles^s times, and also " after tJteir death^'' the titles Presbyter
and Bishop were applied " promiscuously" to the smne jperson^ and
denoted the sam.e offi.ce and functions.

In the next place, we concede and contend for, Avhat prelatists
affirm, namely, that the persons known by this double title of
preshyter-hisJw]) during and "after" the apostolic age, filled an
office, and exercised functions entirely different, both from the
New Testament apostles, and from those whom Theodoret in his
time, and they now, call bishops.

But Theodoret affirms that the hisJiops of his time filled the
office of, and performed the functions peculiar to, the apostles in
their own times.

It follows, that, as those who bore the title of hisJi op during, and
for some time "after" the New Testament age, filled an office,
and performed functions notoriously inferior to those of the apos-
tles, the bishops contended for by prelatists must be an entieelt
NEW OKDER in the Church of Christ. And we remark.

Finally, of human origin, and that, according to their own
showing. Thus St. Ambrose, as quoted by Amalarius. " The
holy apostles being dead, they who were ordained after them to
govern the churches," etc. Surely then, if these bishops apostolic
were not " ordained" till " after" the death of " the holy apos-
tles," they could not have been ordained hy apostolic hands.

What now, we deferentially ask, becomes of Bishop Mcllvaine's
apostolical chain, "preserved," as he alleges, "as inviolate as the
line of the descent of Adam, and " fastened, at its beginning,
upon the throne of God" ?^

* Theodoret, as quoted by Bingham. Antiquity of the Christian Church, Vol. I., p.
21, fol. London: 1726.

t St. Ambrose, as quoted by Anialarius. Bingham, Vol. I., p. 21.

% Bingham, lb

§ Bishop Griswold on the Apostolical Succession, p. 8.

II lb., p. 7.

1[ Argument for the Apostolical Succession, p. 9.

411

m. The same fact is conjh'mcd hy tlie writings of tJis purest
ages of antiquity. The extracts here given from the writings of
" the early fathers," we would remind the reader, are, for the most
part, the very passages on which prclatists mtist and do rely (so
far as the testimony of tradition is concerned) for the support of
their episcopacy of three orders. We shall content ourselves to
present them almost without comment, leaving the reader to make
his own inferences respecting them, only begging to premise by
the way that, in order to a proper understanding of these ancient
writers on the subjects quoted, it is necessary to fix the meaning
of the terms or^o, gradus^ officium^ (order, degree, and office,) etc.

These terms, we remark, were employed by them, not as imply-
ing the origin of difterent ranks of officials, jure dlvino^ but sim-
ply to denote distinct classes of persons, who, though they per-
formed different acts, were, nevertheless, of the same order^
degree^ or ojjice. Hence, Bishop Taylor : " It is evident that in all
antiquity, ordo and gradus (order and degree) were used promis-
cuously." So Bingham : " St. Jerome, who by all will be allowed
to speak the sense of the ancients, makes no difference in these
words, ordo, gradus, offidum,'''' etc.*

With this fact in view, we are furnished with 9, hey explanatory
of those passages of the fathers which would seem, at first, to
countenance the prelatical theory of the superiority of bishops, as
an order, over that of presbyters. The circumstances which
originated this diversity of ecclesiastical functions among those
holding, de facto, the same scriptural office, may be gathered
from the following, out of many similar passages which might be
given. Elfric, who, according to Fox the martyrologist, was
archbishop of Canterbury about a.d. 996, says: "There is no
more difference between the mass-presbyter and the bishop than
this, that the bishop is appointed to confer ordinations, etc., which,
if every presbj^ter should do it, would be committed to too many.
Both, indeed, are one and the same order, although the part of
the bishop is the more honorable. Ambo siquidem unum eun-
demque tenent ORDINEM quamvis sit dignitor ilia pars ep)i8copi.''''\
But long before this, as early as about a.d. 370, in Ambrose's
Commentaries on Paul's Epistles, may be found the following : —
" The apostles' s writings are not altogether agreeable to the order
of things as nov) -practiced in the Church. For Timothy, who
was ordained a presbyter by Paul [? see pages 149-151 of this
Treatise, Part II..] he calls a bishop ; because, at the first,
presbyters were called bishops ; and, as one departed, the next
succeeded to the office. But because the next in succession were .
found unworth}^ to hold the primacy, the custom was changed by
the provision of a council, so that, not the next in order, but the
next in merit, should be made bishop, and constituted such by the

* Bingham's Christian Antiquity, Book II., c. 1, p. 17

t Canons, etc., a Laur. Howell, A.M., pp. 66, 67, folio. London : 1708.

412

judgment of a number of the priests" [presbyters], " lest an un-
wortliy person should usurp, and become a general scandal."*

It will be well for the reader to mark the two points here pre-
sented. The first, that gospel truth and purity^ and not an un-
broken genealogical succession, is the criterion of a true succes-
sion. The second, that, as a prudential arrangement, — a matter of
EXPKDiENOV,t — one presbyter was selected fi'om among the rest, and
by them placed over the body as superintendent, called by Am-
brose, " inter Presbjrteros primus," or " Primus Presbyter, ";}; and
to whom was given the name of bishop.

SECTION n.

Extracts from the Fathers. — Clem. Romanus, Ignatius, Justin Martyr, Irenseus, Tertul-
lian, Origen, Cyprian, Firmilian, Ambrose, Chrysostom, Jerome

III. Now for our extracts from " the Fathers^ We shall be-
gin with,

1. Clemens Romanus, a.d. 70.§ The earliest writer after the
apostles. In his epistle to the Church of Corinth, the apostles, he
says, " preaching through countries and cities, appointed the first
fruits of tlieir conversions to be bishops and deacons over such as
should afterwards believe, having first proved them by tlie spirit,"
And he adds : " Our apostles knew, bj^ our Lord Jesus Christ,
that there would be contention about the name of Episcopacy :
and therefore, being endued with a perfect foreknowledge, they
appointed the aforesaid officers, namely, hishop)s and deacons^ and
gave regulations|| for these offices separately and mutually, that so
when they died, other proved men might succeed to their minis-
try." " Bishops, Avith St. Clement," says Lord Barrington, " are
always the same with elders or presbyters, as any one must see if
they read the Epistle." Of presbyters, he speaks thus: "Ye
walked according to the laws of God, being subject to those who
had the rule over you, and giving the honor that was fitting to
such as were presbyters among you."^" And again : " Only let

* See our exhibit of the adverse views of modern prelatists, pp. 218, 219.

t See Chap. VI., Sec. I. \ Ambrose's Com. 1 Tim. 3 5 and Eph. 4.

\ Cave's Lives of the Fathers.

II Prelatists make the " regulations" to refer to the succession: for example: Arch-
bishop Usher has it, '^ ordincm prcescriptum;'" Dr Hammond, '' scricw succcssionis, cata-
logum;'' Archbishop Wake's translation, ^' gave directions, how, when they [the apos-
tles] should die, other chosen men should succeed in their ministry." But, if Clement
had meant '■^ catalogus,'^ a catalogue, he would have written KuraXtyoi; i{ ^- series succes-
stows," .'iii'I»Y'/ ) if ordo, rain. His expression, /it-,,'- trira/<;|, following immediately
upon his mention of bishops and deacons, evidently implies, ''a law or regulation of
these offices separately and mutually." Hence the above translation.

1 Epistles, sec. 1.

413

the flock of Christ be in peace with the ^?re5Jy^(er5 that are set
over you."*

2. Ignatius, a.d. 101. + The writings of this father form the
stronghold of prelacy. But the " weak silly rant and rhodo-
montade'' with which they abound, together with the fact that
some parts of his first reputed Epistles have been rejected as he-
retical by some of the most learned of the English Church, render
it impossible to resist the suspicion, if not the conviction, that they
have been fabricated, at least for the most part, under the name of
that valuable witness and eminent martyr, purely out of subserv-
iency to a favorite theory. Let them, however, be taken as genu-
ine. The strongest passages in favor of prelacy are the following :
He says, the deacon " is subject to the presbyters, as to the law
of Jesus Christ" — " the presbyters j9/'£'s*<:Z<3 in the jDlace of the
councils of the apostles."^ " Be ye subject to your presbyters as
to the apostles of Jesus Christ our hope :"§ " Let all reverence
the presbyters as the sanhedrim of God, and college of apostles :"|
"Being subject to your hisliop as to the command of God ; and
so likewise to the presbytery."^ Again: "Let no man do any
thing of what belongs to the Church, separately from the bishops.
Let the Eucharist be looked upon as well established, which is
either offered by the bishop, or by him to whom the bishop has
given his consent. Wheresoever the bishop shall appear, there let
the people be also ; as where Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic
Church. It is not lawful without the bishop, neither to baptize,
nor to celebrate the holy communion ; but whatsoever he shall
approve of, that is also pleasing unto God ; that so whatever is
(done, ma}- be sure and well done."

Now, after allowing the utmost that can be justly claimed in
behalf of the sujyeriority of bishops over presbyters from these
passages, there is no ground for the inference, that that superiority
is founded in divine riglit. A^iewed as an ecclesiastical arrange-
ment predicated of expediency, all that can be said of the above
bishops of Ignatius is, that they exercised the functions of the
" primus presbyter," or sujyerintendent of, Clemens Eomanus.
(See 1, Clemens Eomanus, opposite.)

3. Justin Martye. About a.d. 155. In his Apology, from
chapter 85 to 88 inclusive, he six times uses the title nQoeorcjg, to
denote the p}v side }it of the Christian assembly. Neither the term
bishop, nor presbyter, is used at all. Beeves (a prelatist), his trans-
lator, allows the term to denote the same as the ^^prohati seni-
ores''' of Tertullian;** the ma^oves natu of Cyrian ;f f and the

♦Epistles, sec. 54. ■{• Cave's Lives of the Fathers.

X Epistle to the Magnesians. 4 Epistle to the Trallians.

H Same Epistle.

1" Epistle to the Smymians. From Archbishop Wake's translation.
** Apol., c. 32. tt Epistles, 75.

414

ngoearuTeg ttq£oPvteqol, or presiding presbyters, of Paul (1 Tim,
4 : 17) ; that is, that they were all one and the smne. " Pres-
byter," says Bishop Jewel, *' is expounded in Latin by natu ma-
jor ;^^* proof, that Tcrtullian, Cyrian, and Paul, all mean presby-
ters^ the Trpoearw^- of Justin, and to whom, as presiding, not over
other ministers^ but over the people^ he assigns the ordinary func-
tions of pastor of the flock.

4. Iren^eus. About A.D. 184. Claimed also by prelatists as
another stronghold. Their quotations of him would make him
the advocate of a succession, j/wr<3 divino^ by lishops alone. But,
so tar from this, we shall show, that Irenteus not only iiscs the
terms presbyter and bishop promiscuously, as constituting the
same order^ but that the t7'ue apostolical succession is continued
through them. We admit that in chapter third of Lib. *3, he
speaks explicitly of a succession by bishops. But on the other
hand, speaking of several of the bishops of Eome in a letter to
Victor — namely, Anicetus, Puis, Ilyginus, Thelesphorus, and
Sixtus — he calls them in three different places, presbyters^ and
NOT bishops. Of the claim of prelatists, therefore, to impartiality
and fairness in their dealings with this writer, we shall leave the
reader to judge, when he shall have read the following. Alluding
to some who had resorted to tradition in the place of Scripture to
support their errors, he says : "But when we appeal to that tradi-
tion which has been preserved to us, the successio7is of pkesby-
TEKS in the churches — quae per successiones pkesbyterorum in
ecclesiis custoditur — they presume they are Aviser, not only than
the presbyters, but even than the apostles, and that they have
found the truth in a purer form. "f Again: "Wherefore obedi-
ence ought to be rendered to those who are presbyters in the
Church, who have, as we have shown, successio7i from the apos-
tles, and who, with the succession of their Eiyiscopacy^ have a
sure deposit of the truth divinely granted to them according to the
good pleasure of our heavenly Father.":}; Another : "Now those
who are by many received as presbyters.^ yet serving their own
lusts, etc., J3ut being puffed up with the chief seats {principalis
concessio)^ use others v.dth contumely, and say to themselves,
' None see the evils we do in secret ;' these are reproved by the
Lord, etc. From all such we ought to depart, and to cleave to
those who preserve, as we have said, the DOCTRINE of the
apostles, and, along with their order of presbyter, maintain
sound words," etc.§ .Pretty fair Presbyterianism, this 1

5. Tertullian, A.D, 198. In his treatise, De Baptismo, he
says : " The highest priest, who is the bishop, has the right of ad-
ministering baptism. Then the presbyters and deacons, yet not

* Defence of the Apology, Part 6, p. .527, folio edition, 1609.

t Lib. 3. c. 2. t Lib. 4, c. 43. § Lib. 4, c. 44.

415

without the authority of the bishop, because of the lionor of the
Church.-^ Decisive, say prelatists, for episcopacy, by Divine
Eight. Not so. Tertullian, as we shall see, from the other part
of the same passage, (and which these writers generally omit,)
places the whole upon the ground of a mere ecclesiastical regula-
tion. " Otherwise,^^ says he, " the r/^/<^ belongs even to layisien. —
Alioquin etiam laicus jus est. — However the laiti/ ought especially
to submit humbly and modestly to the discipline and ecclesiaatical
regulations of the Church in these matters, and not assunae the
office of the bishop," etc.* And again. In his Apology, whilst
describing the order and government of the Church, he says,
" Pra^sident probati quique seniores,"f etc. 'Approved elders or
p-eshyters preside amongst us ; having received that honor, not by
money, but by the suffrages of their brethren.":}; These passages of
Tertullian, then, taken together, and what becomes of the theory
of episcopacy by divine right, so confidently built upon them by
prelatists ?

6. Origen. Between a.d. 204-250. The following passages
will show, that presbyters and bishops, with Origen, were the
same order ; that they ruled the Church in common, the presby-
ters presiding toith the bishops, the latter, bearing that name, occu-
pying the higher chair, only as an ecclesiastical arrangement.
"Dost thou think," says he, " that they who are honored with the
priesthood, and glory in their priestly order, walk according to
that order ? In like manner, dost thou suppose the deacons also
walk according to their order ? Whence then is it that we often
hear reviling men exclaim, ' What a bishop !' ' What a presby-
ter !' or ' What a deacon ! is this fellow.' Do not these things
arise from hence, that the priest or the deacon,^^ [tiuo orders only,]
" had, in something, gone contrary to his order, and had done
something against the priestly, or the Levitical order ?" § Again.
" Imagine the ecclesiastical order, sitting in the seats or chairs of
bishops and presbyters. She [the Queen of Sheba] " saw also the
array of servants standing to wait in their service. This (as it
seems to me) speaks of the order of deacons standing to attend on
divine service." || And again. " We of the clerical order, who
preside over you."^ Origen was himself no more than a presbyter.
Further comment would be superfluous.

7. Cyprian. About a.d. 248-258. A great and good man,
and a martyr to the cause of Christ. But, though prelatists, from

* De Baptism, c. 17.

t '■' Seniores are, in the Greek language, called Presbyters.'" (Rom. Cabbassantius,
Notitia Eceles. p. 53). UocaiivTipoi, senior; (Scapula). \lo:<TiJvri(j>s, presbyfc-^ senior;
(Schre villus) ; "rp'a/?ur;<);s, id est, semot- ; (Suicer) . And Reeves, a rigid Churchman,
says : " The presiding elders here, are undoui)tedly the same with the npotcTun m Justin
Martyr." (See 3, Justin Martyr.)

t Apology, cap. 39. § Homily 2, in Numb.

II Homily 2, in Cant. IT Homily 7, on Jer.

416

his somewliat inflated views of the dignity of a bishop, may quote
him with additional confidence compared with the other fathers ;
yet it should not be overlooked, that Tertullian was his master.
Accordingly, writing to \i\s presbyters and deacons during his seclu-
sion from the rage of his persecutors, he says : " I beseech you, ac-
cording to your faith and religion, that you perform your own
duties, and also those belonging to me, so that nothing be wanting
either as to discipline or diligence."'^ Again, having mentioned
matters of Church government : "I rely upon your love and your
religion, which I well know, and by these letters I exhort and
commit the charge to you, that you whose presence does not ex-
pos^ you to such peril, would perform all those things which the
administration of the Church requires,"f Besides, he speaks of
*' the most illustrious clergy presiding with the bishop over the
Church ;":|: and he denominates them "the sacred and venerable
consistory of his clergy. "§ He also applies the term jorcepositus^
president, as well as pastor, to the presbyters and bishops ii.
common. And, finally, in his epistle to Pupian, contending for
the divine authority of his OFFICE in the Church, he places it upon
this, that he Avas a priest, sacerdos, that is, a presbytek.

8. FiRMiLiAN. A famous bishop of Cossarea, and a contem-
porary with Cyprian. Eusebius says : "He was very famous ;
equal, if not superior authority to Cyprian himself" In a letter of
his found in Cyprian's works, he says : " All power and grace is
in the Church, in which jDresbyters preside, and have the power of
baptizing, confirmation and ordination. Om7iis potestas et gratia
in ecclesia constituta sit, ubi pk.esident majokes natu, qui et
haptizandi, et manum iiwponendi.^ et ordinandi, possident potesta-
temP

9. Ambrose. About a.d. 370. In addition to what we have
already quoted from this father, we shall onlv add the following :
" The presbyter and bishop had one and the same ordination. '''I

10. Chrysostom. Between 870-407. In his commentarj^ on
1 Timothy 3, he says : " Paul, speaking about bishops and
their ordination, what they ought to possess, and from what they
must abstain, having omitted (1 Timothy 3) the order of presby-
ters, he passes on to that of deacons. Why so, I ask ? Because
the difference between the bishop and the presbyter is almost
nothing. For the care of the churches is committed to presby-
ters, and the qualifications Avhicli the apostle requires in a bishop,
he requires in a presbyter also, being above them solely in the
performance of ordination; and this is the only thing they, the
bishops, seem to have more than presbyters." A rather rickety

* Epist. 5. t Epist. 6. \ Epist. 55. § Epist. 55, p. 107.

11 Conimentavy in Ephesiane, cap. 4.

417

foundation, this, for the support of Episcopacy as alleged to rest
upon divine right. They, the bishops, "seem to have," etc. Chry-
sostora says not one word respecting this ordaining power of the
bishop as founded in divine riglit. He speaks of it simply as a
fact, as it existed in his day, agreeably to that ecclesiastical
arrangement which, to prevent divisions and discord in the
Church, had been j^reviously introduced. We shall now introduce
to the reader one other of these " early fathers."

11. Jerome, of Rome. He flourished between a.d. 363-420.
He is acknowledsred to be " the most learned of the Latin fathers."
St. Augustine says of him : '■'■JSfemo noimnmn sciv^t quod liter o-
nynius ignoravit — Jerome knew every thing known by man."
We introduce him into this 23lace, on account of his being held, in
his writings, rightly to interjjret the sentiments of his more ancient
predecessors. Bingham, a high authority with Churchmen, says :
" St. Jerome will be allowed to speak the sense of the ancients."
Let us then hear him. "Presbyters and bishops were formerly the
same. And before the devil incited men to make divisions in reli-
gion, and one was led to say, 'I am of Paul, and I of Apollos,'
churches were governed by the common council of the pkesbytees.
But afterivards^ when every one in baptizing rather made prose-
lytes to himself than to Christ, it was every where decreed that
one person^ elected from the rest of the presbyters in each church,
should be placed over the others; that, the chief care of the church
devolving upon him, the seeds of division might be taken away.
Should au}^ one suppose this opinion, namely, that bishops and
presbyters are the same^ and that one is the denomination of age,
and tiie other of office., is not determined by the Scriptures, but is
only a ijrirate opinion, let him read over again the apostle's
words to the Philippians, saying : ' Paul, and Timotheus, the ser-
vants of Jesus Christ which are at Philippi, with the hishops and
deacons: grace be unto j^ou, and peace,' etc. Philippi is one of
the cities of Macedonia ; and certainly, as to those who are now es-
teemed bishops, not more than one at a time can be in one and cthe
same city. But because bishops at that time were called the ^me
as presbyters, therefore the apostle speaks of bishops indifferently,
as being the same as presbyters. And here it should be carefully
observed how the apostle, sending for the ^ p/resbyters' (in the
plural) ' of the single city of Ephesus only, afterwards calls the
same persons bishops. (Acts 20 : 17, 28.) Pie who receives the
Epistle of Paul to the Hebrews., there finds the care of the Church
divided equally amongst many : ' Obey them which have the rxde
over you," etc. And Peter, who received his name from the
firmness of his faith, says in his Epistle : ' The presbyters, who
are among you, I exhort, who am also a presbyter,' etc. ' Feed
the flock of God which is among you, taking the oversight thereof

(1) Heb. 13 : 17.

418

{ismoKOTrovvTeg, that is, superintending it), not by constraint, but

willingly." These passages we have brought forward to show,

that, WITH TiiK ANCIENTS, PEESBYTERS WfiRE THE SAME

AS BISIIOPS. But that the roots of dissension might be plucked

.p, a usage yradually took place that the chief care should devolve

.pon ONE. Therefore, as the presbyters know that it is by THE

)[JSTOM of the Church {eoclesice consuetudine) that they are to

•e subject to him who is placed oveV them ; so let the bishops

:now that they are above presbyters rather by custom than by

',ivine appointment^ and that the Chui'ch ought to be ruled in

ommon."

As we have said, we leave the reader to draw his own inferences
^rom the preceding extracts, as derived from the writings of the
" early fathers," in support of the proposition, that the office and
functions of elders or presbyters and bishops, were, from the be-
ginning, based on the fraternal platform of perfect equality.

SECTION III.

Subject continued. — IV. The same corroborated by the testimony of all the Christian
Churches in the world. — The African, Greek, Western or Roman, Lutheran, Ger-
man Reformed, French, Waldensian, Scotch, and Dissenting.

We now proceed to show that the same doctrine is borne out,

lY. — By the testimony of all tlie Christian Churches in the
world.

1. The African Church. See Tertullian, as above, who was
one of the most illustrious African fathers. Gregory iSTazianzen,
speaking in his oration upon Athanasius, about the importance of
the See of Alexandria, says, it is " as though you should say that
its bishop is bishop of the whole worlds

2. The Greek Church. See Firmilian, as above. So, the
Council of Ancyra, third century ; epistle of the Council of Nice ;
and Theodoret, fifth century.

3. The Western Church, or Church of Eome. Mr. Johnson,
the translator of the canons of the Greek and Latin Churches, and
a learned prelatist, affirms that the Church of Rome never main-
tained the order of bishops by divine right. He says : " That
opinion, that the order of priests and bishops was the same, pre-
vailed in the Church of Rome for four or five ages (centuries) be-
fore the Reformation !"* The Council of Trent, though insisting
on a distinction between presbyters and bishoj^s, yet strenuously
opposed the doctrine of the divine right of bishops.f

4. The Lutheran Church. She never maintained the divine

* Clergyman's Vade Mecum, Vol. II., Preface, 54.

t See our remarks on this subject, in the Address to the Reader.

419

rigid of bishops over presbyters, but taught aud practiced the con-
trary, Haynes quotes Luther as saying, in reference to the visita-
tion of the churches" in Saxony, " We are visitors, that is, bishops."
Now, Luther was no more than a. presbyter. Yet we have the fol-
lowing account of his having ordained a bishop : — " About this
time (a.d. ^5-12), the bishopric of Neoburg, by Sala, was void ;
there iSTicholas Arasdorf, a divine, born of a noble family, was in-
stalled by Luther," etc.* That is, he was " ordained bishop) by
Luther : Nicholas Medler, the pastor of Neoburg, George Spalatinus,
pastor of Aldenburg, and Wolfgang Steinius, another pastor, join-
ing with Luther in the iryiposition of hands. ''''\ " The gosjjel," says
one of the Lutheran articles, "gives to those that are set over the
churches, a command to teach the gospel, to remit sins, to admin-
ister the sacraments, and jurisdiction also, and by the confession
of all, even our adversaries, 'tis manifest, that this power is, by
divine right, common to all that are set over the churches, whether
they be caWedi pastors^ or presbyters^ or bishojjs."

5. The German Eeformed Church. This Church adopted the
Helvetic Confession of Faith. The 31st article contains this state-
ment : — " As regards the ministers of the divine word, they have
every where the sayne power and authority.''^

6. The French Church. The pastors aud seniors of this church,
in the national council of Yitry, a.d. 1682, adopted the same con-
fession, and with it, of course, the 81st article, as above.

7. The Waldenses. Prior to the year 1467, the Waldenses, on
the subject of the ministry, hold the following language : — " They
who are pastors ought to preach to the people, and feed them often
with divine doctrine, and chastise the sinners with discipline."
Written a.d. 1100. " Feeding the flock of God not for filthy lucre's
sake, nor as having superiority over the clergy." " As touching
orders, we ought to hold that order is called the power which God
gives to man, duly to administer and dispense unto the Church
the word and sacraments. But we find nothing in the Scriptures
touching such orders as they" (the papists) " pretend, but only the
custom of the Church.";]: Speaking of " pastors" without any dis-
tinction, in an ancient MS., they say : " TFe^jcwtors do meet together
once every year, to determine our affairs in a general council.
Amongst other powers and abilities which God hath given to his
servants" [i.e., the pastors'], " he hath given authority to choose
leaders to rule the peojjle, and to ordain elders (i^resbyters) in their
charges," etc., agreeably to the direction to Titus, " For this cause
left I thee in Crete," etc. The monk Eeinerus, who wrote of them
a.d. 1250, says : " They considered prelates to be but scribes and
pharisees; that the Pope and all the bishops were murderers,

* Haynes's Transl. of Melchior Adam's Life of Luther, 4to., Lond. 1041, pp. 71, 83,
84, 102.

t Melchior Adam's Life of Amsdorf.

t Treatise on Antichrist, a.d. 1220. . ■

420

because of the wars they waged; — that the}'' were not to obey
the bishops, but God only ; — that in the Church no one was greater
than another ; — that they hated the very name of prelate, as pope,
BISHOP," etc.

Stephen, through whom the Moravians allege to have derived
their E])iscopacy, in the history of him as given by Perrin, is styled
A simply " an elderly man,^^ who was burnt at the stake during a violent
'a. •.* perseculion of that people. Indeed, from their hatred of the very
name of prelate, the title of hishoj) seems to have been entirely foreign
to their ecclesiastical vocabulary. Evidently, it should have been
translated, " one Stephen, a presbyter, or elder." The English
Church, whom the Moravians are pleased to call " their only Epis-
copal sister," does not acknowledge the relationship !

8. Of the theories of the Scotch and Dissenting Churches on
the subject of the equality of presbyters and bishops, being " known
and read of all men," it is unnecessary to enlarge by a reference to
proof

SECTION IV.

Subject continued. — V. Additional testimony from the greatest divines of nnodem
tinnes, since the period of the Continental and Anglican Reformations. — Wickliffe,
Erasmus, Cranmer, Calvin, Beza, Melancthon, Blondell, M. Flaccius Illyricus,
Claude, Bochart, Grotius, Vitringa, Mosheim, Suicer, Schleusner, Archbishoj)
Usher, etc.

To- the preceding we now add,

V. The testimony of the greatest divines of modern times, since the
period of the Continental and Anglican Reformation. These will be
found to bear a testimony to the fact for which we contend,
equally emphatic with that of the early fathers, — Clemens Eoma-
nus, Ignatius, Justin Martyr, Irenasus, Tertullian, Origen, Cyrian,
Firmilian, Ambrose, Chrysostom, and Jerome, of whom the learned
Stillingfleet says : " I believe, upon the strictest inquiry, Medina's
judgment will prove true, that Hieron, Austin, Ambrose, Sedulius,
Primasius, Chrysostom, Theodoret, Theophylact, were all of
Atriush* judgment as to the identity of both name and order of
bishops and presbyters, in the Primitive Church, but here lay the
diiference : Aerius from thence proceeded to separation from the
bishops and their churches because they loere (prelatical) bishopsy-\
Eight !

* Irenicum, p. 276, 2d ed., 16G2.

+ Aerius was a Presbyter (orthodox) under Eustathius, Bishop of Sebaste in
Armenia, a.d. 3GS. He steinly opposed ''^ the pre-eminence'^ of bishops over presbyters,
which had obtained in the Church in his time, contending that there was no distinction
of rank or office between them. He also opposed the prevailing practices of fasting
and praying f )r the dead.

421

1. WiCKLiFFE. Having already quoted Luther on this subject,
we begin with Wickhlle, who says : " I boldly assert one thing,
viz., that in the primitive Church, or in the time of Paul, two
orders of the clergy were sufficient, that is, a ;priest and a deacon. - ^i^i
In like manner, I affirm, that in the time of Paul, the presbyter *^^^'
and bishop wci'c names of the same ajJiceP Jerome is quoted in

proof*

2. Eras:\ius. " Anciently none Avere called priests but bishops
and presbyters, who tvere the same^ but afterward presbyters were
distinguished from the priest"f (or bishop).

3. CRAN.MER. " The bishops and priests (presbyters) were at
one time, and Avere no two things, but both one in the beginning
of Christ's religion,":}:

4. Calvix.§ "The reason why I have used the terms bishops,
and presbyters, and pastors, and ministers, promiscuousl}^, is, be-
cause the Scriptures do the same ; for they give the title of bishops
to all persons whatsoever who were ministers of the Gospel. "|

5. Beza. " The authority of all pastors is equal amongst them-
selves, so also their office is the same."^

6. MELANCTHoisr. " They who taught in the Church, and bap-
tized, and administered the Lord's Supper, were called bishops
ov presbyters ; and those were called deacons y^ho distributed alms
in the Church,"** etc.

7. Blonde r.L and Dalleus. "Episcopacy, as no ?y distinguished
from presbyters, according to the custom of the Church fkom the
THIRD CENTUKY, is uot of apostolical, but merely of human insti-
tution."ff

8. M. Flaccius Illykicus. Treating of the time of the apostles,
he says : " A presbyter was ilien the same as a bishop." Speaking
of the primitive Church, he says : " The bishop was the first pres-
byter among the presbyters of each church, and this was done for
the sake of order, ":{::{: etc.

9. Claude. " As to those who were ordained by mere priests
(presbj^ters), can the author of the Prejudices be ignorant that the
distinction of a bishop and a priest, or minister, as if they had
two different offices, is not only a thing that they cannot prove out
of the Scriptures, but that even contradicts the express words of
Scripture, where bishops and priests are the names of oyie and the
same office^ from whence it follows that the priests have, by their

* Vaughan's Life of WicklifFe, p. 100, Vol. II.

t Scholia ill Epist. Hieron. ad Nepot, fol. 6, Vol. I., Ed. 151

X Burnet's History of the Reformation.

§ See Appendix. B.

II Calv. Inst., Lib. IV., sec. 8, p. 8.

^ De Eccles., cap. 29. See also address To the Reader.

** Loc. Com. limo . Basil, 1521.

tt Viil. Beverigii Code.x Can. Eccles. Prim. Vind. Proem.

it Catalog. Test. Veritat. Vol. I., p. 84.

422

first institution, a right to confer ordination that cannot be taken
from them by mere human rules."*

10. BociiART. " If the question be as to the antiquity, I am
plainly of opinion, with Jerome, that in the apostles's age there
was no difference between bishops and presbyters, and that the
churches were governed by the common council of the presbyters.
Therefore J9r6-6%ters are moke ancient than iis/io^s,"f etc.

11. Gkotius. " ETnoKOTTT], or the office of a bishop, signifies in-
spection or oversight of any kind. The inspectors, or those who
preside over the church, are presbyters. The chief of these presby-
ters, AFTERWARDS, by way of excellence, began to be called lisliop^
as is evident from those canons which are termed apostolical
canons in the epistles of Ignatius, .in Tertulliau, and others.":}:

12. YiTRiNGA. " All the rulers or governors of the Church of
Ephesus were equally, and without the least difference, called
bishops, presbyters and pastors." (Acts 20 : 17, etc.) These, he
says, " according to the style of the sacred Scriptures, are names
distinguishing one and the same order of men ; they are distinguished
neither in the kind of their order, nor their office. This position
will stand, I am persuaded, as long as the Acts of the Apostles and
their Epistles shall be read without prejudice."§

13. MosnEiM. " The rulers of the Church were called either
presbyters or bishops, which two titles in the New Testament
undoubtedly applied to the same order of ?/iew."||

14. S DICER. " At the first, therefore, all presbyters were equally
over the fliock, and had none over themselves, for they were called
bishops, and had Episcopal power,"!" etc.

15. ScHLEDSNER. " FoT at length, after the apostolic age, that
difference was introduced between bishops and presbyters, that the
bishops should have the greater dignity, as Suicerus rightly states
in his Thesaurus Ecclesiasticus."**

16. Archbishop Usher. "I asked him (Archbishop Usher) also
his judgment about the validity of presbyters' s ordination, which he
asserted, and told me that the king (Charles I.) asked him, at the
Isle of Wight, wherever he found in antiquity, that presbyters
alone ordained any ? And that he answered, I can show yoiir
majesty more, even where presbyters alone successively ordained bishops ;
and instanced in Hierome's words, — Epist. ad Evagrium, — of the
presbyters of Alexandria choosing and making their own bishops,
from the days of Mark till Ileraclas and Dionysius."-|'f

* Defence of the Reformation, Part IV., p. 95.

t Abridg. of Mr. James Owen's Plea, p. 39.

j Annot. in I. Tim. 3 : 1.

§ De Synag. Vet. Lib. 2, c. 2, pp. 447 and 485.

II Ecclesiastical History, Vol. I., p. lOL

H Thesaur. Eccles. Tom. L, col. 1180.

** Lex. Gr in Nov. Test. Sub. Loc. voce sTriaKomg.

ft Life of Baxter, by Sylvester. FoL, Lib. L, part 2, sec. G3, p. 206.

423

SECTION V.

We add, in conclusion, and as further confirmatory of the truth,
of the principle here advocated, that it formed the basis of the
theology, on this subject,

VI. Of the Anglican Reformers themselves.

1. We here in the first place, refer the reader to the opinions,
on this subject, as expressed by Wicklifie and Cranmer, the
archbishops of Canterbury, as given on page 421. We refer
him,

2. To " A Declaration made of the functions and Divine Institu-
tion of bishops and priests, — an original" document. It says —

" As touching the sacraments of the Holy Orders, we will that
all bishops and preachers shall instruct and teach our people com-
mitted by us unto their spiritual charge,"

First. How that Christ and his apostles instituted certain min-
isters or oificers, with spiritual power to order and consecrate
others to the same order, etc. " Itera^'^ which sets forth, that this
office, ministration, power and authority, is " restrained unto
those certain limits and ends for the which the same was appointed
by Qod^s ordinance^'' etc. '''■Item, that this office, this power and
authority, was committed and given hy Christ and his apostles unto
certain persons only, that is to say, unto priests OR BISHOPS, whom
they did elect, call, and admit thereunto, by their prayer and im-
position of hands." And, having affirmed, that "the invisible
gift or grace conferred" by that act " is nothing else but the power,
the offices, and the authority before mentioned ;" and alluding to
the introduction into the Church of many ceremonies and orders
connected with " the Temple of the Jews," the above " Declara-
tion" adds : " Yet the truth is, that in the New Testament there is
no mention made of any degrees of distinction in orders, but only of
deacons or ministers, and of priests or bishops : nor is there any
word spoken of any other ceremony used in the confirming of this
sacrament, but only of prayer, and the imposition of the bishop's
hands."

Let it here be particularly noted, that this " Declaration" was set
forth by " those who actually formed the Articles, the Book of

Thomas, (Lord) Cromwell, {the King's

Vicar General).
T. (Craumer), Archbishop of Canterbury.

424

Orders, and the plan of the Government of the Church of En-
gland," A.I). 1587 or 1538; and as such, was signed by

Geoffrey Downs.

John Skip.

Cuthbcrt Alarshall.

Marmaduke Waldeby.

Robert Oking.

Nicholas Heyth.

Kalph Bradford.

Richard Smith.

Simeon Matthew.

John Prynn.

Wm. Buckmaster.

William Maj^e.

Nicholas Wotton.

Richard Cox.

John Edmonds.

Tho. Robertson.

Thomas Baret.

John Nase.

John Barber.

do.
Bishop
do.
do.
do.
do.
do.
do.
do.
do.
do.
do.

York.

London.

Durham.

Lincoln.

Bath.

Ely.

Bangor.

Salisbury.

Hereford.

Worcester.

Rochester.

Chichester.

Edward,
John,

Cuthbert,

John,

Thomas,

John,

Nicholas,

Edward,

Hugo,

John,

Richard,

Richard Wolman,

John Bell.

William Clyffe.

Robert Aldridge.

(Some other hands there are that cannot be read.)
Doctors of LaAv and Doctors of Divinity.*

3. Another book was published, called a " Declaration of the
Christian doctrine for necessar}^ erudition of a Christian man." It
was published by Iktyal Authority^ and hence was usually called
the King's Book. In the chapter on Orders, it expressly de-
clares: " That 2>r/e.sfo and hishops^ BY GOD'S LAW, are one and
THE. SAME ; and that the power of ordination, and excommunication,
belongs equally to both." This book was issued a.d. 1543,
Burnet derives his account of it from Fuller, who " assures the
world that he copies out of the Records with his own hand what
he published."

With these facts, then, under our eye, what are we to think of
those advocates of prelacy who deny that bishops and presbyters are,
by divine right, according to the doctrine of the Church of England,
ono and tJte same office j and who denythiii ordination by presbyters
is, by divine institution, equally valid as that hy bishops? The mode
adopted in the drawing up of these "Declarations," cannot but en-
title them to our highest confidence. Not only was ample time
given, but the most eminent learning of the age was engaged, in
their production. Burnet tells us, that " the whole business they
(that is, those named in the above catalogue) were to consider,
was divided into so many heads, which were proposed as queries,
and these were given out by the bishops and divines ; and at a
■fixed time, every one brought in his opinion in writing, on all the

* Burnet's History of the Reformation. Collection of Records, B. 3. Add. No. 5.
See also Applelon's Edition, 1843, Vol. I., p. 585.

425

questions,"* Several of tliese opinions arc now before us — Cran-
mer, the bishop of London ; Dr, liobertson ; Dr. Cox ; and Dr.
Redmajne ; of ■\vliich, that of Cranmer is a specimen. (See page

The Rev. Mr. Chapin, however, felicitates himself in having dis-
covered a mode of escape from the unpleasant dilemma in which
his favorite theory of the so-called divine right of bishops is involved,
by the facts here brought to light. Having alluded to the infer-
ences drawn from, and the use made of, the above declarations by
anti-prelatists, namely — " that the English Reformers believed,
and the Church of England taught, (1.) that episcopacy did not
exist by divine right, that is, they believed it to be a human insti-
tution ; and (2.) that bishops and priests are not different orders
of clergy; he says: "Now if these charges are true, tlie Emjlish Re-
formers gave up one fundamental principle of primitive order, and
loere, in fact, Pjbesbtteriaxs, And if the Church of England is
Presbyterian, then there can be no doubt that others have a right
to separate from her; for those who have themselves separated
from apostolic order, cannot complain if others follow their ex-
ample, "f

Now, what, we ask, is Mr. Chapin's attempted method of escape
from these results ? We answer. Speaking of " The Institution of
a Christian Man," as compiled from the above " Declaration," and
which, he says, was " signed by Cranmer and thirty of the most
learned of the clergy," it established the Romish doctrine of '' Tran-
substantiation, communion of one kind, celibacy of the clergy, auri-
cular confession, seven sacraments, and purgatory." In all things
they proved themselves stanch papists, save in the single article
of the pope's supremacy, and perhaps the subject of monastic
vows. " This, therefore," he adds, " was the opinion of these men
as Romanists, not as Reformers, and the man who quotes them
as such, is either too ignorant to write, or too dishonest to be
trusted."^

To assert that for truth, which is not founded on known autho-
rity, involves both ignorance and dishonesty. Which of the
parties in these premises is justly liable to these imputations, we
leave the reader to decide, when he shall have carefully and im-
partially weighed the following :

In the first place. Mr. C, in order to fasten upon anti-pre-
latists the charge of ignorance and dishonesty, speaking of " The
Necessary Erudition of a Christian man," in which is contained the
chapter on orders in which it is declared, " ThoX piriests and bishops,
BY God's law, are one and the same,^^ etc., and which was put
forth A.D. 1543 ; he affirms, that " With this book, published five
years before the death of Henry VIII., and seven years before the
compilation of the Book of Common Prayer, ends the chain of

* Burnet's History of the Reformation, Vol. I., p. 372.

t The Primitive Church, p. 387. \ lb., —

426

authorities by wliich tlie reformers of the English Church are to
be proved Presbyterian."* Then, iu proof of the divine institution
of episcopacy of three orders, viz., bishops, priests, and deacons,
as the doctrine of " the Church" ajfler that time, he refers us to the
" Book of Common Prayer,"—" Art. 19, on the Church ;" *• Art.
23," on " the Ministry," and to sundry collects and prayers ; the
litany, and the preface to the ordinal, etc., etc.f Now, in reply
to the "above, we remark —

1. It is conceded by us, that the English Reformers did make a
class of ministers called archbishops and bishops, as distinct from
priests or presbyters. But the question is, did they do this on the
principle of the divine eight of the order of bishops as distinct
from, superior to, and incompatible with, presbyters as presbvters ;
or did they do it as an ecclesiastical arrangement, for the honor of
the bishops and the church? etc. Indeed,. so far as the question of
divine right in the premises- is concerned, we have the admission of
Mr. C. himself, that these Reformers, on the article of the perfect
equality of presbyters and bishops, till within five years:}: before
the death of Ileury VIII., were "Presbyterian."

2. The next important point to be determined is, whether " the
chain of authorities^^ in support of this doctrine of the Reformers,
as Mr. C. alleges, " ends" with the abov.e date ? So far from it,
we affirm, that, so late as the time of the revision of the ordination
service under Charles II., a.d. 1662, a period of one hundred and
nineteen years after the date when Mr. C. affirms the above " au-
thorities" ended, there was no difference in the words of ordaining
a bishop, to distinguish his ofice from that of a presbyter. The
old order, as it stands in the original book, remained unrepealed.
Indeed, those passages of the New Testament that speak so ex-
pressly of the duties of scriptural bishops, were made part of the
office of ordaining a priest or presbj'ter, down to a.d. 1662. The
whole process was founded on Acts 20 : 17-35, or in its place
1 Tim. 3, entire. The commission was based on Matt. 28 : 18, and
other passages out of John, chaps. 10 and 20, all of which pas-
sages they applied to presbyters in the solemn act of setting them
apart to their office, clearly showing that the book of orders, up to
1662, bore solemn testimony to their being, by divine rigid, scrip-
tural bishops. And the very commission (Matt. 28 : 18) about
which prelatists make such a parade as belonging solel}' to bishops
as a distinct order, superior to, and incompatible with, presbyters,
simply as such, — this very commission is, in this solemn act, given
to Presbyters. Bishop Burnet, speaking of this very period, says,
" there was then no express mention made in the words of ordain-
ing them, that it was for one or the other office." More than this.

*The Primitive Church, p. 391.

I- lb., pp. 391-394.

j Not fo. From Mr. C.'s own Chronology, it is only four years. The "Necessary
Erudition," he says, " bears date a.d. 1.')43." Henry VIlI.'s death occurred a.d. 1547.
(The Prim. Church, p. 390. Riddle's Chron., p. 354.)

427

We challenge any advocate of prelacy to produce tlie documents
published by the Church, met in solemn convocation, showing
that she has repealed the above, and as plainly declaring the order
of bishops to be by divine institution superior to, and incompatible
with, the ollice of presbyters as such ; and that such bishops alone
have power, authority, and commission, under Christ, to appoint
that ministry in his Church, which alone is entitled to the claim of
being a lawful and valid ministry.

Will Mr. C. please accept at our hand, as a gratuity, this small
item of an addition to his seven years " chain of authorities," oi one
hundred and nineteen years, in proof that the English Chukch, on
the subject in cjuestion, was PRESBYTERIAN ! More than this.
Although, in the revision of 1662, these passages were omitted in
the form of ordaining a presbyter, and were generally transferred
to the form of consecrating a bishop, yet it is clear, that the Re-
formers looked upon it only as a decent ceremon}^, but as having
no scriptural authority, nor as conferring any additional divine
authority.* To the above may be added the fact, that the English
reformers also appointed presbyters to lay on hands, with the bishops,
in ordaining pjresbyters. The ordinal directs, "when this prayer is
done, the bishop, ivith the priests present, shall lay their hands se-
verally upon the head of every one that receiveth the order of
priesthood,"! etc. Will Mr. 0. adopt the hypothesis of Bishop
Griswold . respecting the Ephesian " presbyters" who ordained
Timoth}', that these " priests" are " a college of apostles" ?:{: Such,
we have shown, was not the opinion of the English Reformers,
who, holding " That priests and bishops, by God's law, are one and
the same, and that the power of ordination and excommunication
belongs equally to both ;" it follows, that Pkesbtters arc actually
ordainers in all the scrijytural ordinations that have ever taken
j>lace in the Anglican and American churches, and on which
ground it is the happiness of all who are generically Presbyterian,
to admit the validity of their ordination.

Finally, on this subject. Several acts of parliament, viz. : the
13th Elizabeth, c. 12 ; and the 12th Carol, II., c. 17, have ratified
the ordination of such as were ordained by jpreshyters only. Hun-
drediJ of such were confirmed in their livings as true ministers in
the Church of England. Archbishop Grindal gave a license, " ap-
proving and ratifying the form of ordination by a Scotch presby-
tery, of Mr. Morrison, a Scots divine, and gave him commission
" throughout the whole diocese of Canterbury, to celebrate divine
offices, to administer sacraments, etc."§ " No bishop in Scotland,
during my stay in that kingdom" (says Burnet, bishop of Sarum),
" ever did so much as desire any of the Presbyterians to be re-

* Vide Burnet's Records, B. 3, No. 21. Qu's. 10-14; and Appleton's Ed., VoL I^
Addenda, p. SS-'i.

t See Book of Common Prayer. Form of Ordaining Priests.

% See pp. 274-276.

\ Neale's History of the Puritans, Vol. I.

428

ordaiaedy* And, of those Preshyterkdly ordained ministers of
the French churclies who sought admission into the English
Church, and of whom, says Bishop Cosin, there were some both
before, and many during his own time ; the English bishops, says
he, " did not re-orditin^^ such, nor did the English " laws require
more" of them than to declare "their ^uWtc consent to the reli-
gion received by" that Church, "and to subscribe the articles
established," etc.f

In conclusion : Inasmuch as Mr. C. insists, that those with whom
originated the two above-named "Declarations" in 1538 and
1543 " were then Romanists, and hence," that their " opinions
are no evidence of what they thought as Reformers," we are to
infer that the English Reformation as contradistinguished from
Romanism, must have awaited the development of their thoughts
as reformers at a subsequent period, not only, but, that there is a
wide and impcissable gulf between the English Church, as reformed,
and the Romish, And Mr. C. would make the incorporation, into
the ordination ofl&ce, of the recognition of the diuine right of
bishops as distinct from that of presbyters in the article of the or-
daining power, etc., as the mark, the hinge, of their transit from
Romanism to the character of Protestant Reformers. The only
clew, however, which he condescends to fnrnish to the reader as to
the date of said transit (and the very circumstance, too, on which
depends the evidence that he is not " either too ignorant to write,
or too dishonest to be trusted" on this subject), is, that " the
chain of authorities by which the reformers of the English Epis-
copal Church are to be proved Presbyterian," " ends" '■^ seven years
before the compilation of the Book of Common Prayer," which
places it a.d. 1543.

In addition, therefore, to the evidence already offered, shoAving
that the " English Reformers," long after this, still adhered to the
great and fundamental principle of Presbj- terianism, we remark,
that the most distinguished bishops who were concerned in the
drawing up, etc., of the two declarations of 1538 and 1543, were
also concerned in the compilation of the Book of Orders, is-
sued under Edward VI. We further quote Bishop Burnet in
proof. Speaking of a movement made by act of parliament for
"anew office for ordinations," a.d. 1549,:}: "a bill," he tells us,
" was brought into the House of Lords" the following year, 1550,
" the substance of which was, that such forms of ordaining minis-
ters as should be set forth hy the advice of six prelates and six
divines, to be named by the king, and authorized by a warrant
under the great seal, should be used after April next, and no

* Bishop of Sariim 8 Vindication ; printed London, 1696, pp. 84,85, quoted by Owen, in
his " Ordination by Presbyters." Introd.

t Bishop Cosin's Letter to Cordel, inserted in the '' Two Treatises on the Church,"
published by Hooker, Philadelphia. 1844.

I Burnet's History of the Reformation, Vol. IL, Part IL. B. I., p. 22.3. Appleton's
ediiiou

429

other."^' "What was this '■'■ new office V He replies: " So they"
(the above six prelates and six divines) " agreed on a form of
ordaining deacons, priests, and bishops, which is the same we yet
use, except in some few words that have been added since in the or-
dination of a priest or a bishop. For," he adds, " there was
THEN," that is, A.D. 1550, ^^7io express tnentioii made in the or-
daining of them, that it was for the one or the other office ;"
in BOTH it was said, " Receive thou the Hol}^ Ghost, in the name
of the Father," etc.f When were the above additions made?
Not in the Book of Common Prayer of Elizabeth, a.d. 1560.
For, in speaking of it, Bishop Burnet says : " But for the book of
ordination, it was not in express terms named in the act, which
gave an occasion afterwards to question the lawfulness of the or-
dinations made by that book. But ly this act, the book that was
set out by King Edward, and confirmed by Parliament in the fifth
year of his reign, was again authorized hy law, and the repeal of
it in Qaeen Mary's time was made void. So the book of ordina-
tion being iji that act added to the Booh of Common Prayer, it
was NOW LEGALLY IN FORCE AGAIN, as was afterwafds declared in
Parliament, upon a question that was raised about it by Bonner.":}:
What now think you, reader, either of the accuracy or the
honesty of Mr. C, as an historian ? No. As we have said, if, as
Mr. C. afiirms, the Anglican Reformation is made to commence at
that point of time when the English reformers effected their transit
from Presbyterianism, as above, to the incorporating into the ordi-
nation office of the Book of Common Prayer, what is now claimed
to be the divine right of hishoj^s as an order superior to, and dis-
tinct from, those of presbyters ; then, inasmuch as we have proved
that that transit was not made till a.d. 1662, it follows, that the
English Tteformation could not have commenced till that date !
A conclusion, we opine, which few prelatists will be prepared to
admit.

• As it regards the other point, — the d.ifference between the En-
glish Church as reformed, and the Romish, it has been the design
of this Treatise to demonstrate, on the combined authority of
"IIol}' Scripture and ancient authors," in conjunction with the
writings of the advocates of prelacy of modern times, that,
inasmuch as, inherent in the very texture of prelatical Episcopacy
is the germ of the Papac}- ; so, the early j^o^^apostolic so-called
Episcopacy, having produced that " infinite superstition ;" modern
Episcopacy, even in its mildest and most diluted form, preserving
the elements of the original germ, — a love for "the pke-emi-
nence," has the same tendenc}^ Romeward, as that of the magnetic
needle to the body which attracts it. As the fountain, so the
streams.' As the tree, so the fruit.^ That distinguished oracle of

(1) James 3 : 11. (2) Matt 7 : 17, 18.

* Burnet's History of the Reformation, Vol. IL, Part II., B. I., p. 22.5.
■f lb., p. 229. X I!)., p. 607.

430

prelacy, the Rev. Dr. Hook of Leeds, England, speaking of " the
Protestant Church of England as by law Established," says :
" The Chubcu remained the same after it was reformed as it
WAS BEFORE." Truc, hc adds, "just as a man remains the same
after he has washed his face as he was before."^' But we desire
the reader liere to bear in mind what we have offered in proof of
t?ie a7itichrutian cliaracter of the usurped lay headship, spirit-
ual, temporal, and supreme, of the British monarch down to the
present female incumbent of that tlirone, and then ask : Is "the
Man of sin" less " the Man of sin," because, forsooth, he is "trans-
formed" into a Protestant " angel of light" ? Does the " Harlot"
become a pure virgin, simply by washing her fiice ?

"^ little leaven leaveneth the whole lump." (Gal. 5 : 9.)
Wherefore, "come ye out of her, my people, that ye be not
partakers of her sins, and that ye receive not of her plagues."
(Rev. 18 : 4.)

* Sermon, " Hear the Church." Preached before the queen, June 17, 1838, p. 12.

431

CHAPTEE XI.

ON THE CATHOLIC CHURCH OF CHRIST.
SECTION I.

Introductory. — The prelatical theory, " nulla ecdesia sine cpiscopo.^^ — Marks or notes by
which the Church Catholic is to be known : namely, Apostolicity, Catholicity,
Unity, Sanctity, Discipline. — Prelatists not agreed as to what constitutes these notes,
their differences varying from four to four hundred. — Valentia, Dreido, Sanders,
Pisteria, Bellarmine, Bossius, etc. — So also in regard to authorities. — Canus, Bannes,
Suares, Duvall, Conink, Arriaga, Usamburtius, Gillius, Amiens, Rhodius, etc., of the
Romanists. — Palmer, Field, Bishop Jeremy Taylor, Dr. Sherlock, Dr. Freeman,
Dr. Payne, the Homilies, etc., of the Protestants. — The two notes, apostolicity and
catholicity, applied to the Roman, and the Anglican and American Episcopal
Churches.

A FEW remarks on the subject of this chapter will conclude
what we have to offer regarding the constitution of the Church
and ministry, discussed in the foregoing Treatise.

As we have seen, the suhstratum of the prelatico-episcopal
theory as put forth by its advocates, Eomish, Tractarian, and
High. and Low Church, is, '•^ nulla ecdesia sine episcqpo / without
a bishop, there is no Church,"

Now, in testing this, or any other principle connected with the
questions. What is the Church? Which is the true Church?
Where is it to be found ? we must rely upon certain infallible
marks, or notes, by which it is to be known.

Then, too, these marks or notes must possess the following attri-
butes : First., they must be plain, or well defined. Second., they
must always exist where the Church is. Third., they must apply
to the Church in a sense in which they will aj^ply to no other
body. In a word, they must be simple, inseparable, incommuni-
cable. And, fourth^ they must be authenticated by an undoubted
or certain standard of appeal. Any marks or signs which, upon
examination, will be found to bear the test of these conditions, will
enable us to determine with certainty what is the "essence" of the
Church ; which is the true Church in contradistinction from the
false ; and where that Church is to be found.

What, then, are these marks or signs f For the purposes of
force and perspicuity, let us adopt the following: first, Ajjostoli-
city ; second, Catholicity ; third, Unity ; fourth, Sanctity ; fifth,
Discipline.

432

The point to be decided, is, whether these marks or signs are
true, according to the prelatico-episcopal, or the t^n-^e-prelatico-
episcopal or Presbyterian theory, of what constitutes the Church.
Our plan requires that we test them in their aj)plication to the
claims,

I. Of the Prelatico-Episcopal theory, as advocated both by Eo-
manists and Protestants. Here, however, in the very outset, the
pretensions to the exercise of " authority in controversies of faith"
and to infallibility as a guide, of the "one holy Catholic and
apostolic" Church to the contrary notwithstanding, neither class of
the above writers are any more agreed among themselves as to
what constitutes the true marks or notes of the Church, nor of the
standard of appeal by which they are to be known, than they are
on the subject of prelacy itself As it respects the Romanists^
in regard to " the notes of the Church," Valentia reckons four ;
Dreido six ; Medina ten : Sanders and Pistorius twelve ; Bellar-
mine fifteen ; and Bossius one hundred. The same diversity holds
true of the " standard" by which they are to be known : Canus,
Bannes, Suares, Duvall, Coniuk, Arriaga, Usambertus, Gillius,
Amicus, and Rhodius, hold that they are to be determined "by
the light of reason" alone. Dreido and Cardinal Richelieu contend
that they are " marked out and taught in the Scripture;"* while,
according to the Tridentine decrees, they are only to be deter-
mined by " the unanimous consent of the fathers," alias Tradition.

Nor will Pkotestant prelatists be found to exhibit any more of
harmony in regard to either, than the Romanists. Palmer adopts
the " notes" of " the Constantinopolitan Creed" after Valentia as
above ; namely, that the Church is " one, holy, catholic and apos-
tolic," On the other hand, " Dr. Field admits truth of doctrine, use
of sacraments, and means instituted by Christ ; union under law-
ful ministers ; antiquity without change of doctrine ; lawful suc-
cession, that is, with true doctrine ; and universality in the suc-
cessive sense — that is, the prevalence of the Church successively
in all nations." And " Bishop Taylor admits as notes of the
Church, antiquity, duration, succession of bishops, union of mem-
bers among themselves with Christ, sanctity of doctrine," etc.f to
which Mr. Palmer objects. Dr. Sherlock says : "To begin. Avith
the Protestant Avay of finding out the Church by the essential pro-
perties of a true Church ; such as the profession of the true Chris-
tian faith, and the Christian sacraments rightly and duly adminis-
tered,":}: etc. Dr. Freeman says ; "That the sincere preaching of
the faith or doctrine of Christ, as it is laid down in the Scriptures,

* See on this subject, article, " Tlie Church," Methodist Quarterly Review, by Rev.
Georiie Peck, D.D., p. 216.

t Palmer's Treatise on the Church of Christ, etc.. Vol. I., pp. 47, 48.

X Cartiinal Bellarmine's Notes of the Church, examined and refuted in a series of
Tracts, pp. 3, 4.

433

is the only sure, infallible mark of the Church of Christ/'* etc.
Dr. Payne says : " We desire nothing more than to find out the
true Church by the true faith,"f etc. And the homilies say, the
Church " hath always three notes or marks whereby it is known :
pure and sound doctrine, the sacraments ministered according to
Christ's holy institution, and the right use of ecclesiastical disci-
pline," etc.:}: Now, by a comparison of the above, it will be seen,
that Mr. Palmer has " rejected every one of those drawn up by
the reformers, and adopted by his own Church." So much for the
"notes."

And so, of the autliorities relied upon to determine them. Some
rely on " Scripture" alone ; others, on " Scripture and tradition,"
" holy Scripture and ancient authors," etc.§

With these facts before us, let us proceed to apply the above
marks or notes of the Church to the prelatico-episcopal theory.
And,

1. AposTOLicrrT. It is scarcely necessary to say, that this mark
or note of the Church, on the prelatico-episcopal hypothesis of
" No bishop, no Church," involving, as it does, the dogma that
prelacy is of the "essence" of the Church ; that is, that the Church
cannot exist where there is no hisJiojj j with it also involves the
dogma of a seminal or genealogical unbroken succession apos-
tolical, from the New Testament age down to the present time.
And having shown that, how much soever prelatists, Romish,
Tractarian, and High and Low Church, may differ as to the pre-
cise channel of its transmission, yet agreeing, as has been proved,
in all that constitutes its essential elements as a Christian priest-
hood, and also, that the Anglican and American successions are
derived from that of Eome ; this " note" being alike claimed by
all, may be considered as equally applicable to all, and hence re-
lieves us from the necessity of applying it to them separately.

For the proof the fallacy of this dogma as a " note" of the
true Church, it must suffice that we refer the reader to what we
have offered in Part II. of this Treatise, and also in Part III., par-
ticularly the eleven arguments against the Romish succession,
pages 285 and 802 inclusive ; and those against the Anglican suc-
cession, page 832, et seq.

But, should the Anglican and American successionists, per-
chance, demur at this summary disposal of the above " note" as
applicable to them, we are willing to allow them the full benefit of
a further test on their own ground — that of antiquity or tradition,
alias " apostolical documents," such as they, in common with
Romanists, acknowledge to be authentic. Take, for example, the
fourth and sixth canons of the Council of Nice, a.d. 325, wherein
it is enacted, that no bishop should be constituted except by all

* Bellarmine's Notes Examined, etc., p. 69. t fb., pp. ISO, 151.

X Homily on Whitsunday. ' § See Part I. of this Treatise.

434

tlie bishops of the province, or by at least three bishops, the ab-
sentees giving their suffrages, and the whole to be considered
valid, only as confirmed by the metropolitan. Query. In how
many instances have these conditions been verified in the consecra-
tions of the Amenca7i bishops ?

Again. The thirty-fifth of the " Apostolical Canons" is quoted
to nullify the papal authority in England, upon the strength of its
assertion of the independence of bishops. That canon enacts, that
a bishop who dared to ordain beyond his own limits should be
deposed. Now, Mr. Chapin affirms, that the Komish monk, Au-
gustine, sent into England by Gregory I., a.d. 600, " owed sithnis-
sion to the inetroj^olitan of Britain^^ But, we have proved
(and that by the admission of Mr. C. himself), that the entire line
of the Anglican succession commenced with and descended from
this very Augustine, as " the first Saxon bishojD and the first arch-
bishop of Canterbury."! Therefore, Augustine's consecrations,
according to the above " Apostolical Canon," being void^ it nul-
lifies, at a single stroke, defacto^ the consecrations of all the arch-
bishops and bishops, and the ordinations of all the priests and
deacons, that have ever held a name in the ENGLISH CIIURCH.

Once more. The same authority throws another difficulty in the
way of the English succession : " XXX. If any bishop obtain
possession of a church by the aid of the temporal powtv, let him be
deposed and excommunicated, and all who communicate with
him." Now, recalling to mind the fact, that by ^'' act of jKtrlia-
-ment^'' as already shown, the fountain or source of the English
succession of bishops resides in the lay headship, supreme and
absolute, spiritual and temporal, of the monarchs of the British
throne as alleged to be founded in a " prescriptive" or " divine
right," what archbishop, etc., can be named who has not thus ob-
tained possession of his church ? How, we ask, came Cranmer
under Henry VIII., Parker under Elizabeth, and Tillotson under
William and Mary, to possess the See of Canterbury ? Was it
not " by the aid of the temporal powers" ? The prelates of that
hierarchy, we affirm, " are all, de facto, deposed by what they ge-
nerally allow to be apostolical authority."

So far, then, as a^ostolicity is a mark or note of the true Church,
neither the Eomish nor the Anglican Churches possessing it, clearly
they are not that true Church. We pass to the next "note."

II. Catholicity. " I believe in tlie holy Catholic Church^'' as
it stands in the so-called " Apostles's Creed," forms the united lan-
guage of all who bear the Christian name. The word KadoXtnog^
Catholicos, which signifies general, universal, aptly designates what
the true Church of Christ must be, that is, " Catholic."

But it turns out that of those . who bear the Christian name,
Christendom is divided into two great bodies, the Pajpal and the

* The Primitive Church, p. 360. f lb., p. 291.

485

Protestant ; the former of whom, and a portion of the latter,
each in turn appropriating to themselves the term as a mark or
note by which theirs, respectively, is to be known as the only true
Church. This circumstance, therefore, will require that we con-
sider it in its application to the claims as well of the Romish as of
the Anglican and non-prelatical Churches.

1. Of the Romish Church.

Of the word itself, we remark,

(1.) That whatever may be claimed in its behalf on the score of
antiquittj^ yet, as it is not found connected with the Church in
the New Testament, it is not authoritative. Though it appears in
the titles of several of the Epistles^James 1st, and 2d Peter,
those of John, and that of Jude — yet it is not in the original. It
was first employed to distinguish the aggregate body from the
several branches of the church which composed it. Then, as a
line of demarkation between orthodox and heretical churches. At
length, however, it came to be adopted by Papists, etc., in an
exclusive sense, they claiming under the appellation of " The Ro-
man Catholic Church," to constitute the Jirst^ not only, but the
only true Church of Christ on earth to the exclusion of all others.
In evidence of the fallacy, to say nothing of the arrogance of this
unchurching dogma, we remark,

(2.) That the ver}^ title above assumed is a sopMsm,. We would
here remind the reader of the saying of Pacian, " Christian is my
name and Catholic my surname." And the learned Du Pin in-
forms us, "that at the present time, the /jame of the Church of
Rome is given to the Catholic Church, and that these two terms" —
that is, Roman and Catholic — " pass for synonymous." But by
what logic, pray, can they be made synonymous ? The name
Roman indicates that which is limited and local, as the Church in
the city of Rome. The word Catholic means universal. The
above title, therefore (designed, we know, to impress upon the too
credulous masses the idea of the primitive origin and universal
extension over all nations of the Romish, as " the mother and mis-
tress of all churches"), if there is any meaning in language, in-
volves the absurdity of 2^ particular universal church. Proceed
we now to the proof, that so far from the term Catholic being
applicable to the Church of Rome,

(3.) It is a misnomer^ she being, de facto, no more than a sect,
unknown in history, as she is now constituted, until about the
middle of the eleventh century. • Look at the Church of Rome,
with her popes, cardinals, patriarchs, primates, metropolitans, arch-
bishops, archdeacons, monks, friars, and nuns, etc., inculcating the
worship of images and relics, penances, prayers to and for the
dead, mariolatry, etc., and the doctrine of priestly absolution, au-
ricular confession, purgatory, transubstantiation, extreme unction,

436

etc. ; and then ask, Can this be the primitive, Catholic Church, as
instituted by Christ and his apostles more than 1800 years ago ?
The learned Da Pin, an authentic historian of that Church, proves
the spuriousness of certain decrees and writings of the so-called
first popes, claimed by Romanists as genuine in the ninth century,
by exhibiting the absence, in them, of any reference to the exist-
ence, at the times spoken of, of the offices and customs which now
prevail.* For example. He says, " We find several passages in
the letter attributed to Anicetus," (a.d. 155, Chapin's Chronicles,)
"which do not agree with the time of that pope ; as, for instance,
what is there laid down concerning the ordinations of bishops,
sacerdotal tonsure, archbishops, and primates, which were not in-
stituted till long after ; besides many things of the same na-

ture."t

Again. No command can be put in language more explicit than
that of Christ, " Call no man your Father upon the earth ;'" Gr.
pappas; Lat. papa,— /ai!A<3/" 4 in other words, "call no man
POPE." Yet, this very name is applied to the Bishop of Rome,
who arrogates to himself the title of Catholic, or " universal fath-
er ;" and that, in the very face of the above prohibition, which
was designed to effect the double work of reproof to the proud
and self-righteous Rabbis of Jerusalem, and of warning to his own
disciples against similar aspirations, and of whom the first were
called, not pope, but " apostle.'" Indeed, the title of "pope" was
unknown and unthought of in the Church, until towards the close
of the sixth century. Du Pin, speaking of the 6th canon of the
Council of Nice, held a.d. 325, says, that it " does not establish
the supremacy of the Church of Rorae."^ The same is true of
the Council of Chalcedon, held a.d. 451, the 28th canon of
which places the metropolitan of Constantinople on a footing of
equality with the bishop of Rome. The fact is, the title of
" pope" as now used, was a novelt}^ even at Rome, as late as a.d.
588. Gregory I. remonstrated against it when assumed by John,
the patriarch of Constantinople, calling it "a singular name," and
declaring that " the bishop of Rome neither ought, nor can assume
it."| And Du Pin, in his life of Gregory, says, " He did often
rigorously oppose the title of universal patriarch, which the patri-
archs of Constantinople assumed to themselves," calling it " proud,
blasphemous, antichristian, diabolical," and says, the bishops of
Rome rcfased to take this title upon them, " lest they should seem
to encroach upon the rights of other bishops."!"

(4.) Then, in addition to the above may be named the fact, that

(1) Matt. 23 : 9. (2) 1 Cor. 12 : 28 ; Eph. 4 : 11.
* Du Pin's Ecclesiastical History, Vol. I., pp. 173-178.
t lb., Vol. I., p. 177.
X See pp. 285, 286.

§ Du Pin's Ecclesiastical History, Vol. II , p. 252.
11 Gre^. Epi.stles. B. IV., Epi-st. .32 and 36.
i Du Pin's Life ol" Gregory I., Chap. I.

437

the Greek CHURcn, which also claims to be " the only true, Cath-
olic, and apostolic Church," has superior claims over that of Rome.
Take the following in proof. The Greek language has the same
priority over the Latin, as the Hebrew has over it ; which circum-
stance furnishes the evidence, that, " all the leading ecclesiastical
terms in the lloman Church, — for example : '•'■ jpope^^ ^'' patriarch^''
'"'■ synocl^'' '•'•ecclesiastic^'' '■'■ scJiism,^'' ^'- heresy^'' '•'■catechumen^''
'■'■hierarchy^'' '•''church^'' '•'•chrism^'' '■'■ exorcism,^'' '•'• diocese^'' '•'• pres-
hytery^'' '•'• trinity i^'' '•'•mystery^'' '•'•catholic^'' '•'• canon ^'^ etc., being
derived from the Greek, the Roman Church came out of the
hosom. of the GreeJc. All the ancient ecclesiastical historians were
Greek, such as Eusebius, Socrates Scholasticus, Evagrius Scho-
lasticus, Sozoraon, Theodoret. The most ancient and primitive
fathers were also Greek. They were models to the Latins, and
imitated in their writings. And, the first seven general councils
were all Greek. The followina; table will show this :

Whole 1

No.

Name.

Year.

Place.

No. of
Bps.

Gr.

Ro-

man

1. (1.)

Nice,

A.D.325

Nice, the Metrop.
of Bithynia,

318

315

2. (1.)

Constantinople,

" 381

Constantinople,

150

149

Ephesus,

" 431

Ephesus,

(^Q

Chalcedon,

" 451

Chalcedon,

353

350

5. (2.)

Constantinople,

" 553

Constantinople,

164

156

6. rs.)

do.

" 680

do.

7. (2.)

Nice,

" 787

Nice,

Total,

377

370

1486

1458

Now, these councils were all convened, not by the Pope of
Eome, but by eastern emperors. They met in Greek cities, were
composed, with the few above named exceptions, of Greek bishops,
and were employed about Greek questions. It follows, that if
there be any virtue in councils to establish doctrines and the p7'i-
ority of churches, the Greek Church must be considered the
MOTHER of the Roman, rather than her daughter.

We have neither time nor space now to canvass the question,
as, to the precise date when the bishop of Rome was first constitut-
ed the Catholic or universal head of that Church ; whether it was
by the edict of Justinian, a.d. 533, or by that of Phocas, a.d. 606.
Nor is it important. Sufl&ce it to say, that at the time of the great
schism between the Eastern and Western Churches, the former, or
the Greek half, did first anathematize the latter, or Roisian half;
from which period, — a.d. July 16, 1054, the Romish Church
formed a separate communion, as a religious sect. And if a sect,
then she is not Catholic.

So much then for the Catholicity of tlie Roman Church.

438

But, on the above hypothesis, does it not follow that the Greek
being prior to the Komish, is the only true and uncorrupted
Church of Christ ? To this we reply, that such would not neces-
sarily follow, even were the question one of separation from^ in-
stead of a scJiism in, the body. The circumstance of the priority
of the Greek over the Koman branch in the order of time, would
seem to have entitled her patriarch to a precedence over the bish-
op of Komc, in the article of Catholic supremacy. And, the cir-
cumstance on which hinged said schism, was the refusal of the
Greek branch to yield that claim in favor of the Komish. But,
minus the repudiation, by the Greek branch, of the Romish Papal
claim to infallibility, both, at least in all the essentials of faith,
ceremonials, etc., are identically the same. We hold, therefore,
that both are equally corrupt. And hence, that, to neither branch
will apply the " note" of true Catholicity. Nor, on the other
hand, does the mere act of separation from either the one branch
or the other, necessarily entitle the seceding body to the claim of
true Catholicity. Let us proceed to test this principle in its appli-
cation to the claims in these premises,

2. Of the Anglican Church. This Church, under the title of
"the Protestant Church of England as by law established," assumes
the position, that, having separated from the Church of Rome, she
is, by " prescriptive" or divine right, par excellence, the true " Ca-
tholic Church."

Now, a reformation, in the sense of which we here speak, involv-
ing separation from another body, implies a cause. Even under
Henry VIII., as we have seen, the English reformation was al-
leged to have been produced by the antichristian character of the
popedom and of the papal system. The same holds true of the
subsequent reformers of that Church. Consistency, therefore, re-
quires that she, as a church, in order to sustain her claim to true
Catholicity, should hold the Church of Rome to form no part of the
true Church Catholic. But, the same Protean character marks the
nomenclature of " Churchmen" on this subject, as that which we
have shown to characterize the theory of prelacy, as advocated by
them. Indeed, the prevailing doctrine in the Church Episcopal is,
that both the Greek and Roman branches form constituent j^arts of
the true Catholic Church. While, in the days of Cranmer, and
Field, and Taylor, etc., the Enghsh divines considered the Church
of Rome an cipostate church ; Dr. Jackson, of High Church repute,
quoting from the Romish author of a work entitled " Guide of
Faith," as follows : — " Now I come to the great character of our
glory, and renowned title of our profession, the name Catholic,"
etc. answers : " For this very reason, we Protestants of reform-
ed churches, who are, if not the only true Christians on earth, yet
the truest Christians, and the most conspicuous members of the
'loly Catholic Church, as militant here on earth, dare not vouch-

439

safe to bestow the name of Catliolic upon any papist, but with such
an addition or item, as we give the name of angels to infernal
fieiuh^ which we term Satan's angels, or collapsed angels," etc.*
Dr. Sherlock, in commenting upon Bcllarmine's Notes of the Church,
says : " His first note concerning the name Catholic, I observe,
makes every church a Catholic Church which will call itself so."
Again : Bellarmiae says, " It is not without something of God,
that she keeps the name still." To this the learned Churchman
replies : " But how does she keep it ? She will call herself Catho-
lic when nobody else will allow her to be so" [which, as we have
said, was true of the Churchmen of his day] ; " and thus any
Church may keep this name, which did originally helong to all
true orthodox Churches,^'' etc.f And Dr. Freeman afiirms, that
" no argument can be drawn from the hare name of Catholic, to
prove a Church to be Catholic.":J:

In conclusion on this subject, it must suffice that we add, that
the theology of the Churchmen of this age, in the use and applica-
tion of this " note" to their Church as evidence of its Catholicity,
stands diametrically opposed to that of their own most eminent
reformers ; who maintained, that the reformed churches of the Con-
tinent, though under Presbyterian government, were true Churches
of Christ, and consequently true branches of the Catholic Church.
It will avail nothing to urge in reply, that Romanists assume and
use the name " Catholic" exclusively, while Churchmen only claim a
common title to it with other apostolical, that is, prelatical churches.
Admitting this difference, to what does it amount? It still re-
stricts the Catholic Church to the prelatical Churches" — Romish^
Tractarian, and High and Low Church — " and so excludes the
Reformed Churches of the Continent of Europe" (to the learning,
piety, and wisdom of several of whose most eminent divines, the
English Church will he forever principally indebted for what of
Protestantism she can boast of\ " and the Presbyterian, Dutch
Reformed, Congregational, Methodist, and Baptist Churches of all
parts of the world, from any share in the Catholic Church;" and,
in the exuberance of her Christian charity, consigns them over to
the " uncovenanted mercies of God .^" We affirm, then, that in
the article of exclusiveness, if we except a difference of form, it is
identical with that of the Romish Church. " And forsooth, be-
cause our Churchmen assume to be true Catholics, such they must
be conceded to be ! For it would seem that in these days, what-
ever was the case in the days of the old English fathers, the me^'e
assumjjtion of the name Catholic is a veritable note of " tke
Church !" But it will be found, after all the bluster which is
raised in these days over this venerable word, that it has no talis-
manic power to raise from the dead, and to adorn with apostolical

* See his Treatise, Of the Holy Catholic Church and Faith, Chap. XX. Ed. 1627.
t Romish Notes of the Church Examined, p. 56.
t lb., pp. 72-76.

440

simplicity and beauty, a trio of fallen churches^'' — Greek, Ro-
man, and Anglican, "among whom scarcely a vestige of the ori-
ginal signs of a true Church of Christ remains."* Pass we now to
the third " note."

SECTION II.

Subject continued,— The three " notes," namely, Unity, Sanctity, and Discipline, ap
plied to the Roman, the Anglican, and the American Episcopal Churches. — Fal-
lacy of. — On the last note, Ellcsby's caution, Bingham's Origines Ecclesiastica and
Bishop Burgess, of Maine, compared with Dr. Aydelott and Dr. F. L. Hawks, etc.

III. Unity. Eegarding this " note" we observe that, as all Catho-
lics, Greek, Eoman, Anglican, and American, tell us there can be
but one Catholic Church ; so that Church must be in visible unity
with itself; and that, in respect both oifaitli^ or doctrine^ 201^ fellow-
ship. Also that, voluntary separation, or excommunication, from
said Catholic Church, excludes from the kingdom of Christ, etc.f

Now, the incessant boast of Catholic unity, as the inheritance of
each and all those herein named, and which they are particularly
careful to place in contrast with what they are pleased to term the
endless diversities and divisions of discordant and self-constituted
sects ; and which, like the evanescent smoke, are passing away :
this constant boast of unity, with them, we repeat, is as familiar as
household words. Aye, as in the poetic effusions of Byron, while
they contemplate with self-complacent and admiring gaze, the
mighty structure, they are wont to exclaim —

" But thou of temples old, or altars new.
Stand alone — with nothing like to thee —
Worthiest of God, the holy and the true !
* «■ * * -;«•

Power, glory, strength, and beauty, all are aisl'd
In this eternal ark of worshij) undefil'd."'

So 1 But, — This boasted unity to the contrary notwithstanding,
the reader perceives, on the very article indispensable to a deter-
mination of what constitutes true Catholic unity, a diversity and
discordancy of views among these writers, totally incompatible
with, and destructive of, their own theory : their " marks or notes"
of " the Church," varying, as we have said, horn, four to one hun-
dred !

Again. These advocates of Church Catholicity, in their appli-
cation of this " note," Unity, proceed on the hypothesis, as re-
marked above, that the Greek, the Eoman, and the Anglican and
American churches are true branches of the Catholic Church, and

* Methodist Quarterly Review, April, 1S44, pp. 237, 238.
t Palmer's Treatise on the Church, Vol. (., p. 63.

441

that this Church is " one." The following exhibit will furnish to
the reader somewhat of an idea of the quadruple cord of unity
which binds them. " The Greek and Roman Churches mutually
excommunicated and anathematized each other more than a thou-
sand years since, and still persist in mutual charges of heresy and
schism. In 1569, by a bull of Pope Pius V,, "the supreme Head
on earth" of the English Church, with all who adhered to her,
were excommunicated and anathematized : since j\'hich the whole
English Church" (and with her, her American daughter), " has
been considered by the Church of Rome as involved in damnable
heresy and schism ; and the Church of Rome stands to this day
charged with the same offenses in the authorized documents and
formularies of the Church of England. Nor is there a whit more
unity between the English and Greek churches, than between the
English and Roman. The Greek Church annually, on " the festi-
val of orthodoxy," " anathematizes those who refuse adoration to
the saints, or obeisance to their pictures, with all who pay them
merely feigned homage, and all who regard the Lord's Supper as
merely figurative and sjanbolical, and all who deny subjection to
the first seven general councils,"* etc.

1. Then of the Church of Rome separately. What a united
body ! When, in addition to the numerous schisms in the popedom
and breaks in the chain of her alleged uninterrupted succession,!
she has no less than seven different modes of electing her popes ;
so, on the subject of the supremacy^ she is " divided into four par-
ties— one affirming that the pope is the fountain of all power politi-
cal and religious — another teaching that he has only ecclesiastic
supremacy — a third party affirming that this ecclesiastic dominion
is over all councils, persons, and things spiritual — and a fourth
party limiting his jurisdiction to a sort of executive presidency."
And, "history deposes that she has changed, in whole, or in part,
her tenets and her discipline, no less than eighteen times in all —
that is, once, at least, for every general council :" While, in the
very article of that infallibility on which she alleges to build her
faith, etc., four classes of opinions have obtained. The first party
affirms that it resides in the head of the Church, that is, the pope ;
the second places it in a general council, in which the Church is
represented, albeit such a general council has never yet been held ;
the third insists that it is to be found in the pope and the general
council united ; and the fourth say, that it is to be sought in
neither of these, but in the whole Church responding to any
question, etc.

Thus much for Romish Catholic unity. But, perhaps we may
be more successful in our search for it within the pale of

2. The Anglican and American " Protestant Episcopal," «/m.?,
" Catholic Church." And here, let it be noted, first, their position

* Methodist Quarterly Review, April 1844, pp. 229, 230,
t See Catalogues of the Popes, etc.

442

in regard to the very title of their Church. A portion of " the
Church," — but, as we shall see, an inconsiderable portion — ex-
hibit a zealous adhesion to the name, " Protest ant," knowing that
that name erased from their escutcheon, the appellation of " Evan-
GKLicAL," of which they hold it to be the index, would pass from
their midst as "the morning cloud and the early dew." By far
the larger portion, however, either directly or by implication, look
upon its occupaiicy " in the title page of the Book of Common-
Prayer, as prima facie evidence of schism !" Wherefore ? Oh, it
denies^ by implication, on the one hand, that the Greek and Romish
are true branches of the one Catholic Church, hol}^ and apostolic ;
and on the other, it admits as such, those «7i^i-prelatical sects,
on the continent of Europe, in England, and in America, who
bear the same title! And, that "the British Critic," that heau
ideal of High Churchism, is not alone in this matter, in the
" Protestant Churchman^'' bearing date Sept. 14, 1850, page 26,
a correspondent, over the signature of " An Old Churchman,"
in an article entitled " Catholic and Evangelical," complains to
the "editor," that the "junior clergy" in the Church are "so
tenacious of the word '■Catholic^ " and at the same time seem almost
to shudder at the word " Evangelical^'''' and calls upon him for a
"rational account" — "if, in his ample means of knowledge, he can
find, and present his many readers with any" — " of this strange
anomaly."

Now, if the reader, and " an old Churchman," will tolerate this
single digression, we would offer what we consider to furnish the
only "rational account" of said "strange anomaly," and in doing
so, we would first make use of his (the old Churchman's) own lan-
guage : " For my part, I must say, as a Christian and a Protestant,
I know no standard of Catholicity but the Bible." And again.
" The word evangelical I find to be of Bible origin in the original
tongue, while the other, namely, Catholic, " is an exotic^ But the
"junior clergy" and Co. as above, uniting with "an old Church-
man" in using the words " Evangelical" and " Protestant" as con-
vertible terms, cannot reconcile them with the hasis of their Babel-
theory of Catholicity, namely : " Nulla ecclesia sine Episcopo —
No Bishop, No Church." In other words, as the consistent advo-
cates of the prelatical dogma of an unbroken apostolic succession,
they can find no Churchy except as acknowledgedly derived from
and dependent on it, for its very Being. They, therefore, insist,
that, as the , logical sequence of their hypothesis, as consistent pre-
latists, the charge, " strange anomaly," must exchange hands : that
it belongs to the theory of those in "the Church," who, on the
principle of the absurd attempt to unite " oil and water," fling
out to the breeze their banner, bearing the imprint of the illogical
and sophistical motto bequeathed to " the Church" by the illustri-
ous Hobart on his death bed, " Evangelical truth, apostolic
ORDER." We must hence contend that, until those in " the Church"

443

who hold that the Evangdico-Protestant principle constitutes a
" note" of tnie Catholicitj^, — and which they admit encircles within
its ample embrace, those sects whom the "junior clergy" and Co. are
pleased to style " wZ^ra-Protestants," as welj as themselves — can re-
concile it with the dogma of an alleged unbroken apostolicity, which
affirms that there can be no true Church, no true ministry, no true
sacraments without it ; in other words, that, independent of a de-
rivation fron, througk, and hy IT, we have no evidence that " the
Church" "is " fastened to the throne of God :" (Bishop Mcllvaine !):
We repeat : Until these two palpably contradictory hypotheses be
reconciled, we must contend that the "junior clergy" and Co. have
the decided vantage-ground of their adversaries.

But, to return. This diversity, commencing with the title
inscribed over the portal of " the Church," albeit her boasted
unity and concord, is carried into the inner temple, and per-
vades the entire camp. Indeed, Ave affirm, without the fear of
successful contradiction, that there are at this very moment
within the pale of the Anglican and American Episcopal Churches,
no less than four separate and distinct parties, each naturally
charging the other with having embraced "another gospel."*
Our space of course will not here allow of a detailed exhibit
of their diffisrences. Tractarians denounce all who refuse to come
up to their standard, as recreant to the cause they profess to
love. High Churchmen (Hobartists) refuse the appellation, Pu-
seyite or Tractarian, on the ground that theirs was and is the only
true theor\\ Low Churchmen hold that High Churchism is the
sluice, through which Tractarian " novelties" and " heresies" have
flooded " the Church," to the interruption, if not the destruction, of
her peace. While a fourth party, lower than the lowest^ scouting
the dogma of an unbroken apostolicity as the only " note" or as
any " note," of the true Church ; complain that all who occupy
higher places on the ladder of Catholicity, are so blinded by igno-
rance and stultified by prejudice, as to refuse to descend to their
Evangelico-Protestant level. The war and the strife of words
which have thus been carried on among themselves, especially for the
last ten or twelve years, for severity of invective, personal abuse,
and mutual denunciation, through the mediums both of the press
and the pulpit, stands without a rival in the annals of the past !
Not to tax the reader with a tedious thumbing over of the various
weekly issues of their periodical literature for that space, we ven-
ture our reputation on a verification, to him, of the above, by the
perusal of any forth-coming single sheet, ujjon which he may
please to lay his hand.
The next note.

IV. Sanctity. In the application of this note,

♦ See the Introduction to this Treatise, pp. 31-34.

444

1. To the Church of Rome^ in addition to wliat has been al-
ready offered on the morals of the popedom and of the papal
Church (see pages 297-300), and to which we refer the reader,
we add the following,, as a few of the specimens of doctrines
taught by their standards for the spiritual benefit of " the faithful."

On the subject of the second commandment, which prohibits
image worship, it is omitted by the Church of Home, she dividing
the tenth into two parts, to keep up the complement.

On Auricular Confession^ the catechism of the Council of Trent
teaches, that " according to the Council of Lateran, which begins :
Omnes^ utriusque sexus^ it commands all the faithful to confess
their sins at least once a year,"* which confession she makes "ne-
cessary for the remission of sins."

On Priestly Ahsolution. " The voice of the priest is to be
heard as that of Christ himself, who said to the lame man, " Son,
be of good cheer, thy sins are forgiven thee."f " The form of the
absolution or pardon granted by the priest is this : I absolve thee.^''X
" Humbled in spirit, the sincere penitent cfists himself down at the
feet of the priest," in whom, as "the minister of God, who sits in
the tribunal of penance as his legitimate judge, he venerates the
power and person of our Lord Jesus Christ ; for in the administra-
tion of this, as in that of the other sacraments, the priest repre-
sents the character, and discharges the functions of Jesus Christ."§

On Penance. Its efficacy, etc. " Penance is the channel
through which the blood of Christ flows into the soul, and washes
away the stains contracted after baptism." " There is no sin, how-
ever grievous, no crime, however erroneous, or however frequently
repeated, which penance does not remit."||

Leaving the Tridentine Catechism, we pass to another standard
authority, the authentic works of the Saint Ligori, who was canon-
ized by Pope Pius VII. Let us hear him on the subject,

Of Common Cursing or Damning. " To curse insensible crea-
tures, such as the wind, rain, etc., is no blasphemy, unless the one
who curses expressly connects them in relation to God," etc.^"
" To curse the living," without " reflecting about his soul, in
cursing him he does not commit a grievous sin."** " To swear
with equivocation, where there is a good reason, and equivocation
itself is lawful, is not wrong," etc.ff

Of Gambling^ as consecrated for priests and people by the law
of custom. " The canons," says Ligori, " which forbid games of
hazard, do not appear to be received, except inasmuch as the gam-
bling is carried on with the danger of scandal. Be it known, that
the above mentioned canonical law is so much nullified by the
contrary custom, that not only laymen, but even the clergy, do not

* Catechism Council of Trent, p. 193.

t lb., p. 180. t lb., p. 181. § lb., p. 182.

II Catechism Council of Trent, pp. 180, 183.

IT Ligor. Practical Confessions, N. 30. ** lb., p. 29.

tt lb.. Lib. III., N. 151, Synopsis, 159.

445

sin, if tliey play cards principally for the sake of recreation, and
for a moderate sum of money." Again: " lie who makes use
of knavery and cunning Avhich is usually practiced in gambling,
and which has the sanction of custom, is not bound to restore what
he wins," etc.*

Of the SahbafJi. "Poverty can excuse from sin in working on
the Sabbath."f " Merchandizing, and the selling of goods at auc-
tion on Sundays, is, on account of its being a general custom, alto-
gether lawful.":}: " Bull lights and plays allowed." " On the en-
trance of a prince or nobleman in a city, it is lawful on a Sunday
to prepare the drapery, arrange the theater, etc., and to act a
comedy ; also to exhibit the bull- fights ; the reason is, because
such marks of joy are morally necessary for the public weal."§

The Commission of Sin made Laivful. " It is lawful to induce
a person to commit a smaller sin, in order to avoid one that is
greater."! This law licenses drunkenness. " It is no sin to get
drunk by the advice of a physician," etc.^ And admits them to
the communion. " It is lawful to administer the sacrament to
drunkards, if they are in the probable danger of death, and had
previously the intention of receiving them."*"

Finally, this Saint Ligori has told us, speaking of the Romish
clergy, " That, among the priests Avho live in the world, it is rare,
and very rare, to find any that are good."f f

We shall offer no comment on the above, but leave the reader
to his own inferences as to the alleged immaculate sanctity of the
Romi-jh Church, and pass on to apply this note, Sanctity :

2. To the Protestant E^nsco-pal Churcli^ Anglican and Ameri-
can. Mr. Palmer, in his "Treatise on the Church of Christ, de-
signed chiefly for the use of students in theology," defines the
above " note," Sanctity, to consist in, " first, the sanctity of its
Head, and of those who founded it ; secondly, the holiness of its
doctrine ; thirdly, the means of holiness which it has in the sacra-
ments : fourthly, the actual holiness of its members ; and fifthly,
the divine attestations of holiness in miracles.":}::}:

Now, of these several particulars, w^e remark :

First, that of the actual sanctity of Christ and his apostles^ there
is no room for remark.

Second, " Holiness of doctrine." This claim, as put forth by
"the Church," Protestant Episcopal, if views the most incon-
gruous and conflicting, — Evangelical and Romanistic, Calvinistic,
semi-Calvinistic, Arminian, and Pelagian and Universalist, — are to
be taken in evidence, then, we confess she is entitled to it. To a
careful observer, all these differences may be seen to float on the
surface of those troubled waters of controversy which for years

* lb., n. 882, 883, Synopsis, p. 235. t Vo., n. 32, 33, Synopsis, pp. 52, 53.

X lb., n. 293, Synopsis, p. 192. § lb., n. 304, Synopsis, p. 193.

II lb., n. 77, Synopsis, p. 255. ^ lb., n. 76, Synopsis, p. 254.

** Ligori, 6. n. 81, Synopsis, 260. ft lb., Synopsis, p. 180.
XX Treatise, etc., Vol. I., p. 137.

446

past have shaken, and which still continue to shake, that Church
to its very center. But here again, for want of space, we cannot
enter into detail. It must suflice that we single out two articles of
difference, by way of illustration. These are, "the religion of
Baptismal regeneration, and the religion of A§j?V/ifua^ regeneration."

Now, speaking of these, the Eev. Dr. Aydelott, a distinguished
presbyter of the Protestant Episcopal Church, Cincinnati, Ohio, in
a work published by him in 1844 on " The Condition and Pros-
pects" of his Church, quotes from an article which apj^eared in
" The Churchman^^ of April 10th, 1847, under the caption of
" Bishop IVIeade and Baptism," and bearing the signature of
" Occidentalis," in which Bishop Meade, having written in opposi-
tion to the "baptismal regeneration" theory, said "Occidentalis"
demands to know hoAV "a Christian bishop dares openly, through-
out the Church, to impugn the Church's teaching upon baptism,"
etc., to which he adds, "one or the other of us must he wrong,
and why not have it declared at once which of us it is ? The
Christianity of him who holds the principle of baptism con-
sistently, is, throughout, a different religion from that of such men
as Bishop Meade. There is no reconciling them, they cannot live
together, except in the end, the house that holds them fall," etc.
" Yea," says Dr. Aydelott, " most true, this, Occidentalis ; and
most manly spoken." But the learned doctor goes on to concede,
in the view of these differences, the existence of " Two entirely
different gospels and kinds of religion'''' in " THE Church," and says
that " The church that is made up of such heterogeneous materials
must GET RID of one or the other or come to naught. There is no
possibility," he adds, " of two such sj^stems always living together.
They are mutually destructive. Just as the one flourishes, must
the other go down. The church that attempts to comprehend both,
instead of being a garden of the Lord, exhibiting throughout
fruits fair to the eye and good for food, must, sooner or later, be-
come little else than a vast moral desert, fall of noxious beasts
and all unclean things — a hideous spiritual aceldama."*

Third. " The means of holiness lohich it has in the sacraments^
The doctrine of the opus operatum of the sacraments, or sacra-
mental grace, is here intended. " The Church" divided on, the
same as above.

Fourth. " The actual holiness of its members.'''' Of course, these
comprehend the members clerical, as bishops, etc., and lay. See on
pages 218, 219, the evidence that according to the theory of all
classes of prelatists, no amount of ignorance, heresy, or moral tur-
pitude of character of any of the links can, by any possibility,
vitiate, nullify, or destroy, the succession apostolical ! Then turn
to Mr. Palmer, who, on the subject of Church-membership, so
zealously advocates the necessity of their actual holiness," tells us
as follows: —

* See above work, pp. 121-129, New York, Mark H. Newman.

447

" Those who arc sinners, and devoid of lively faith, are some-
times externally members of the Church. Manifest sinners are
sometimes external members of the Church, and exercise the pri-
vileges of its members. Visible sanctity of life is not requisite for ad-
mission to the Church of Christ.''^

No. Not on the part of parents who present their children for
incorporation into the Church by baptism. For, " visible sanctit}'-,"
as a qualitication for such presentment, can be dispensed Avith in
virtue of their alleged regeneration " with" God's "Holy Spirit"
at the baptismal Ibnt, and their consequent " adoption" as a
" child" of God, and incorporation into his " holy Church," when
infants.* No want of " visible sanctity" on the part of parents or
sponsors after baptism can forfeit or alienate their claims to bap-
tism for their children. That this leaven leavens the whole lump,
in other words, that it is a principle of common operation in the
whole Church, we quote in evidence from an Episcopal charge de-
livered by Bishop Burgess before his Convention in Maine, July
10th, 1850, on " Great Principles." In alluding to the subject of
present remark, he speaks of " the rejection of infant baptism
by many," — the Baptists, of course, — and of " its limitation by
others,"f that is Presbyterians. Presbyterians plead guilty to the
charge. Yes. They do insist on a reasonable amount of evidence
of their possession of internal grace by " their visible sanctity," as
a qualification to assume the solemn vows and perform the momen-
tous obligations devolving on parents, etc., in behalf of their bap-
tized children. Their language to all others is : " But unto the
wicked, God saith, what hast thou to do to declare my statutes, or
that thou shouldest take my covenant in thy mouth?"' To this
" limitation" of the right of baptism to the children of parents
furnishing the evidence of " visible sanctity," however, the bishop
objects that it " severs the ties which ought to bind the rising ge-
neration to the Christian name and covenant." It is a species of
" exclusiveness" of which the Protestant Episcopal Church may
proudly boast that she is " not guilty." She has seen her account in
it. She has made broad capital out of it. Bishop Burgess's objection
to the Presbyterian " limitation" in these premises, we repeat, in-
volves the hypothesis of the hirth-rifjlit baptism of all within the
pale of " THE Church," not only, but, founded as it is on the
P.aseyite canon of Mr. Palmer, that " visible' sanctity of life is not
requisite for admission to the Church of Christ b}'" baptism;
hundreds, yea, thousands, have been seduced within her pale, to
escape the application in the so-called " wZim-Protestant" Churches
in which they were the baptized members, of the above scriptural
" limitation" of their baptismal rights.*

(1) Psalm 50 : 16.
* Book of Common Prayer. Office for Public Baptism of Infants,
t Proleslant Churchman, Au^. 17, 18.50. See also the Introduction to this Treatise,
t See Introduction to this Treatise.

448

Thus much, then, of one of the "Gi'cat Principles" of this very
learned, pious, amiable, and zealous LOW OHUKCH prelate of
the diocese of Maine. Let us, however, advance another step. Is
" visible sanctity of life" esteemed to be requisite "for admission"
to confinnatimi f Answer. — " The Church hath thought good to
order that none shall be confirmed but such as can say the Creed,
the Lord's Prayer, and the Ten Commandments ; and can answer
to such other questions as in the short catechism are contained,"*
etc. The same qualifications are specified in the closing address to
sponsors in the baptismal service. What, then, is the practice ?
The Eev. Dr. Aydelott already quoted, furnishes us with the fol-
lowing as a specimen: "The Eev. Mr. ■ had notice of an

Episcopal visitation in his parish. The bishop arrived, and when
the list of candidates was handed to him, aj)peared much cha-
grined that the number was so small. He added, however, ' Never

mind, never mind ; I recollect that in the diocese of , the

bishop, in the course of his visitation, once came to a church,
where he found to his great disappointment very few to be con-
firmed. He appointed another day, a few weeks after, to hold a
second confirmation, and upon returning he had the satisfaction of
confirming over a hundred Tnore. And as I intend to stay here
another Sunday, then we can have a larger confirmation.' "f Now,
true. Some few of the clergy, like the above, wall present none
for confirmation but on the ground of their personal Christian ex-
perience. This circumstance accounts for the "chagrin" of the
bishop, as above, in finding so few to be confirmed. And the
pastor, having complained to the bishop that " the thoughtless,
the worldly, and the self-deceived have been pressed forward in
throngs to the altar!" said to him, "I can see no reason to expect
that the catalogue will be much, if at all, increased by next
Sunday.":}; Li the next place.

Is " visible sanctity" required as a condition of admission to the
Lord''s Su2y£)er ? The common sentiment is, that no other qualifi-
cations are required as a passport to the Holy Communion, than
those required for confirmation. Dr. Aydelott informs us, that
" he himself was admitted to the communion by one of the most
distinguished ministers of the Church without the slightest ex-
amination, either as it respected his views of the gospel, or his ex-
perience of its power. He might have been not only spiritually
dead, but utterly ignorant of the truth as it is in Jesus, and even
an infidel, for aught his pastor knew." It is in this way he ac-
counts for the fact, that " very many unconverted men" having
" found their way into the churches, — some thoughtless, some
self-deceived, and others still worse, but all worldly, worldly ;" the
" religious world about them verj^ generally suppose that the

* Book of Common Prayer, Order of Confirmation.

t Aydelott's Cond and Pros, of the Protestant Episcopal Church, pp. 47, A8.

X lb"., p. 48.

449

standard of piety is lower in their Clmrcli than in the other ortho-
dox denominations." And, it should be particularly noted in this
connection, that he affirms " his sense of the evil" to have been
enlarged to a sad extent," over a period of " thirty years"! "The
influence of such communicants," says he, "is peculiarly disastrous."
And he adds: — " Better, we have often thought, better to go out
into the highways and hedges and preach the gospel, than minis-
ter in a Church where a large majority of its community are of
such a character.''''^ Finally, we ask,

Is " visible sanctity of life" required as a condition of admitting
candidates to the ministry ? Here again we quote Dr. Aydelott.
Speaking of " the spiritual character and call of the candidate,"
he asks : " Have we been sufficiently careful to ascertain, so far as
man in the light of God's word can judge, whether those who ap-
ply to be admitted to the ministry are really regenerated men, and
called by the Holy Ghost to preach the gospel?" etc. And he re-
plies : " Would that we could say, we had ! But," he adds, " mul-
titudes of facts at this moment crowd upon the mind of the writer,
all bearing alarming testimony to past unfaithfulness. But one
will he here state. He has been somewhat conversant with ex-
aminations for the ministry in various parts of our Church, cmd
Tievcr^ except on a single occasion^ has he known a question put to
a candidate, the object of which was, to ascertain whether he had
proper views of the sacred office and of a call to it, or had been
himself the subject of that spiritual, holy change which is essential
to Christian character:" and "he cannot but fear that many un-
converted men,— men who know nothing spiritually of the truth
and grace of the Lord Jesus, have been admitted to the ministry
of our Church."

We here again make no comment, further than to remind the
reader, that the author from whom we quote, as above — the _Kev.
B. P. Aydelott, D.D. — ^lias long been known as a distinguished
presbyter in the Protestant Episcopal Church, and was for years
rector of one of the principal churches of that denomination in the
city of Cincinnati, Ohio.f

Pass Ave now to the last " note" of true Catholicity.

Y. DlSCIPUNE.

1. Of the existence and application of Discipline in the Gliurch, of
Rome, no one in the least acquainted with her history and the
practical workings of her system, can be ignorant. The fear and
dread of " the faithful, lest, at the confessional, the acknowledg-
ments of sins of omission and of commission should subject them
to the priestly power of " the keys," evidence that its administra-
tion keeps pace with every pulsation of her heart. It is the very

* Aydelott's Condition and Prospects, etc., pp. 48. .

t He has since seceded, and united himself to the New School Presbyterian Church.

21)

450

life of that " spiritual despotism" which for so many centuries has
exercised an unlimited dominion over the consciences of her mil-
lions of enslaved subjects. Protestants, however, holding that
discipline consists in, (not that those " who rule," have dominion
over the faith," but) that they " are helpers of the joy,"' of the
members of Christ's nock, by admonition, and the exscinding of the
heretical and immoral ; ' view the discipline of the Church of Eome
as defective, not only, but that it is for the most part wholly un-
scriptural. But, next —

2. Of the Discipline of the Protestant episcopal Church. And,

First. The Anglican branch. True. The homily for Whit-
sunday makes " the right use of discipline," a note of the true
Church. But we now affirm that the English Church, as a Cliurch,
is totally destitute of all scriptural discipline. Yea, " the keys of
discipline" have long since by her been given, or rather sold, to
the State ! The entire administration of what they have of dis-
cipline in that Church, is vested in the chancellor, a layman, and
in the Court of Arches, whose judicial powers extend not only over
the clergy and laity, but even over bishops themselves. Proof:

Bishop Croft, in a work entitled, " The Naked Truth," etc.,
speaking of " the authorit}^ of bishops to govern as well as to or-
d!ain," in virtue of Christ's commission to them, ' whose soever sins
ye remit,' etc., says, "yet this is in a manner quite relinquished
unto their chancellors, laymen," etc. And he exclaims : " Good
God ! what a horrible abuse is this of the divine authority ! —
When was it ever heard of since the beginning of the world, that
laymen should judge of sjnrituals .'" — And he says : " By this au-
thority the chancellor." — whose " pretended power is sometimes
purchased with a sum of money" — " takes upon him to sentence
not only laymen, but clergymen also, brought into his court for
any delinquency, and in the court of arches there they sentence
even bishops themselves." Bishop Croft narrates the following in-
cident in illustration. " I remember," says he, " when the Bishop
of Wells, hearing a cause corruptly managed, and coming into
the court to rectify it, the chancellor, Dr. Duke, fairly and man-
nerly bid him begone, for he had no power there to act any thing,
and therewithal pulls out his patent sealed by the bishop's prede-
cessor, which, like Perseus's shield with the Gorgon's head, fright-
ened the poor bishop out of the court."* The recent cases of the
Rev. Mr. Sales vs. the Bishop of Exeter, and who, it will be recol-
lected was imjmsoned by said court ; and of the Rev. Mr. Gor-
ham V8. the Bishop of Exeter, may also be quoted to the same
end.

But, in addition to the above, as decisive of what is here alleged
in reference to the absence of all scriptural discipline in the English
Church as such, is her own acknowledgment of ike total loss., to her.,

(1) 2 Cor. 1 : 24. (2) Col. 2 : 21.

* The Naked Truth, etc., Collection of Tracts (scarce) , pp. 381-383.

451

of all " godly discipline!'^ In the " communication," it is said,
that " in the primitive church there was a godly discipline, that at
the beginning of Lent, such persons as stood convicted of notori-
ous sins were put to open penance," etc. " Instead whereof, (until
the said discipline may be restored again, which is much to be
wished,) it is thought good," — What? Why, "that provision is
made for a confession, and praj^er for its restoration, in the begin-
ning of Lent, once a year "/ Why, then, we ask, has not this
" godly discipline" of the " primitive church" long since been re-
stored? Take the following, which we quote from the best Church
authorities : —

" It ought surely to be taken into consideration, whether those
who are intrusted on behalf of the Church," [namely, the two
houses of convocation,] " do enough towards the discharge of a
good conscience, in wishing, once a year, at reading the office" [of
commination] " on Ash- Wednesday, that the discipline of the
Church Avas restored. Or whether it lie not upon them to do
something toward regaining it, that the Church may be restored
to the power it hath from Christ," etc. — "Wishes are indeed
marks of a good intention, and an acceptable zeal, where no more
is possible to be done ; but ever to wish and make no attempt to-
ward the thing wished for, if it be zeal, is such as is a reproach to
itself"-

Again. " The restoring of the ancient discipline is earnestly
desired by the Church of England in her office of coinmination /
the performance of which pious wish, or the endeavoring it at
least, is a duty incumbent on our governors," etc. — " But, wi^h
due submission be it spoken, methinks it looks too much like dis-
sembling with God, and imposing on the people, to have this pas-
sage stand in our public liturgy, and read solemnly in our congre-
gations once a year, — and yet no attempt made toward the restor-
ing of this godly and much wished for, but still neglected disci-
pline."!

Finally, says the learned Bingham, " The Church of England
has for tvio hundred years wished for the restoration of discipline,
and yet it is but an ineffective Avish. For nothing is done toward
introducing it, but rather things are gone backward, and there is
less of discipline for these last sixty years^ since the times of the
unhappy confusions, than there was before. ":j: Turn we now,

Second, to the American branch of the Protestant Episcopal
Church. " She is wholly unconnected with the State. She has
no difficulty in the way of enacting and executing such canons of
discipline as would preserve her purity." But, let us see.

This Church claims to have such " godly discipline." Bishop
Burgess of Maine, in the "charge" already alluded to, speaks "of

* Church of England, Wish, (1703,) pp. 4, 5, etc.

t Ellesby's Caution against III Company, (1705,) Preface, pp. 2, 3.

{ Bingham's Origines Ecclesiaslica, Book XV., Chapter IX., Section 8.

452

the cautious rules of our discipline,"* etc. Let us now see what
Dr. vVydelott has to ofier on this subject.f He is treating of the
spiritual character required by Scripture, of those " who under-
take to manage the affairs of the Church." " Except a man be
born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God," etc. ; and hence
argues that, " to spiritual men belong spiritual things." He then
applies this principle to their ecclesiastical arrangements, and in-
quires,— " Have we, as a Church, kept this plain Bible principle
ever in view, and been duly careful to carry it out in all our ar-
rangements?" And then asks : "How is it with our vestries ? To
these, he says, belongs the management not only of the " temporal,"
but much also of the spiritual " affairs of the Church ;" for exam-
ple, chosing the minister, electing delegates to the convention, tak-
ing one of the first steps towards the admission of candidates to
the holy office, etc. "Now," asks he, " are we careful to provide
that none but pious men should be chosen to so important an
ofiice ?" And he answers : " Scarcely ever is this done. The
writer knows of not a single diocese in which, if his recollections
are correct, the vestry must be chosen from among the communi-
cants of the Church."

Again, he asks : " And what is the constitutional safeguard of
our diocesan conventions? These elect the bishop, present him
for trial, and appoint the standing committees, and delegates to the
general convention," etc. "Surely," says he, " such a body ought
to be composed of wise and good men, in the highest, the Christian,
sense of these terms. And yet," he adds, " the writer, after many
years acquaintance with most parts of our Church, can find but
two dioceses in which members of the convention are required to
be communicants. He is confident indeed of only one / it is to be
hoped, however, there may be others."

Again. " How is it with our standing committees ? Their
duties are almost entirely spiritual. — And yet," he asks, " are there
more than two or three dioceses whose legislation requires the
members of this body to be professors of religion ? The writer
knows not of so many," but speaks of " signs" and indulges hopes
of improvement, etc.

Then, of " the General Convention. '''' " This," says he, " is the
grand council of our Church. It is our supreme legislative body.
— Its decisions are final and universally binding." " Here," he adds,
" will it not naturally be expected by every intelligent, pious per-
son, that we shall find in our Constitution, the most clear, careful
and strong provisions made to guard against the admission of any
into this body, but men of eminent religious character — men full of
faith and of the Holy Ghost? Would," he exclaims, " that it
were so ! But let one closely examine the last edition of the Con-
stitution and Canons of the General Convention, as published in
Swords's Almanac for 1845, and he will discover not a single line,

* See " Charge" etc., published in the Protestant Chii.rchmnv, Ang:i)st 17, 1850.
t See his Work, Stale and Prospects of the I'roteslant Epis-i^pa! Church.

453

not a ward, reqtdHng even a prqfessimi of religion as necessary
to mcmbersMp in that body. So that a layman, without even the
form of godliness, a perfectly worldly man, even an infidel, may
take his seat in this our grand council, and thus exercise a con-
trolling influence in the most vital matters affecting our whole
Church " !

Finally, Dr. Aydelott throws into contrast with this organiza-
tion of their " ecclesiastical fabric" " from the Vestry upward to
the General Convention," and the " evils" thence resulting, those
of other " ecclesiastical bodies," namely : " sessions, associations,
presbyteries, councils, synods, conferences, consociations," etc. :
and says, " It ought to be to us all, and certainly to every en-
lightened, pious member of our Church it will be, a matter — not
of envious reflection but — of sincere thanksgiving to the Great
Head of the Church, that scarcely any, if any, of the various other
evangelical denominations have been betrayed into our organic
error."

Let us then, in conclusion on this subject, look in the face the
practical workings of the ecclesiastical organization of the P. E.
Church in the article of " Disciplines^'' on the testimou}' of that emi-
nently distinguished preacher, divine, ecclesiastical historian and
canonist, the Kev. Francis L. Hawks, D.D., now Rector of Cal-
var}- Church in the city of New York.

The learned doctor, in his " Ecclesiastical Contributions," speaking
of " Article YI," of " the Constitution," etc., on *' the mode of trying
clergymen^'' — " whether bishop, or presbyter, or deacon," says :
" In fact, the weakest and most defective part of our whole eccle-
siastical system, is the department of the judiciary.'''''* And, on the
subject of the general discipline of the Church, under " Canon
XLIL," which treats " Of crimes and scandals to he censured^'' the
doctor says : — " It is true the power of excommunication does be-
long to the Church, it does, too, deprive of all privileges of Church
membership, and it is the most awful power ever confided by
Heaven to man ; rightfully exercised, its consequences (though the
world may scorn them) are of the most terrific character, if Scrip-
ture be true: but," he demands, ^'"who ever Jteard of the excommu- .
nication of a layman in our branch of the apostolic Church f The
LAW IS A DEAD LKTTEE. Neither the General Convention, nor any
State Convention, have ever provided any " rules or process" for
excommunication. There is not a clergyman in the Church, who,
if he were desirous to excommunicate an offender, would know how
to take the very first step in the process. It certainly is not to be
done according to his mere whim, and if it were so done, it is as
certainly invalid. Shall, then, the presbyter alone do it, or shall
it be done by his bishop, or by a conclave of bishops, or by
bishops and presbyters, or by a State Convention including the
laity, or by the General Convention including the laity again ?

*" Ecclesiastical Contributions." Swords and Stanford, New York, IS 11 ; pp. 33. "-

45^

No man can answer, for there is no rtjle on the sub-iect, AND
WE ARE GLAD THAT IT IS SO : for our excommunication
bringing with it no penalty which would be felt :" — no, Rev. Sir,
even though it were to " deprive of all privileges of Church mem-
bership"— " depriving a man of no civil rights, would be laughed
at as a mere brutum fulmen.''^*

AVhat now think you, reader, " of the cautious rules of disci-
pline" of the P. E. Church, of which Bishop Burgess speaks?
Surely upon us devolves not the task of an attempt to reconcile
the claim of the learned bishop in these premises, with the con-'
flicting statement of facts of the Rev. Dr. Aydelott, and the expo-
sition of the canons by the Rev. Dr. Hawks. "We, therefore, sub-
mit the subject to the decision of the candid, without further
comment.

SECTION ni.

Conclusion. — " The Holy Catholic Church" — How known 1 Where found ? Scrip-
turally defined. — Line of designation between the True and the False Church. —
Adopted by Luther.— The Continental Reformers.— The XlXth of the XXXIX
Articles of the Church of England. — Cranmer, Hooker, Bishops Sanderson and Cosin,
" Statement of the Distinctive Principles of the Protestant Episcopal Society for
the Promotion of Evangelical Knowledge," Bishops Meade, Mcllvaine, Lee, Bur-
gess, etc.. Dr. Stone, etc, etc. — Incongruity of their statements with the admitted
theory of Prelacy, etc. — Application of the above marks or notes of "' the Holy
Catholic Church," to the Anti-Prelatical theory of — I. Aposlolicity — In the sense of
an U.NBROKEN Succession — Not, however, in a Genealogical line of Persons, but
of the perpetuity of the Apostolic Doctrine, etc. — Irenasus, Tertullian, Cyprian, Gre-
gory Nazian., Ambrose, etc., on. — II. Catholicity. — Preliminaries. — Novatians —
Waddington on. — Donatists — Waddington on. — Pauliceans — Gibbon on. — Waldeiisex.
— Reinerius Sacchoon. — Inference. — III. Unity. — The Harmony in Doctrine, Polity,
etc., of Anti-Prelatists, contrasted with the discordant systems of Prelacy. —
IV. Sanctity. — See Standards of all Evangelical Churches. — V. Discipline. — See
Standards of all Evangelical Churches.

We are, then, in conclusion, brought at length to the all-impor-
tant inquiry in reference to the subject of this chapter, namely :
do the marks or notes of that "Holy Catholic Church" in which
we all profess our " belief," — Apostolicity, Catholicity, Unity, Sanc-
tity, and Disciphne, — in their application to the claims of the
Greek, the Roman, and the prelatical Anglican and American
portions of Christendom, prove that they, either sej)arately or to-
gether, constitute that Church ?

As we have seen : Romanists and Churchmen, generally holding
that the promises of the gospel are made to the visible Church, and
that the visible Church is a united corporate body, affirm that

* Ecclesiastical Contributions, etc., pp. 359, 360.

4So

their church is that body. And yet each claims to be, par excel-
lence, "the Church, independently of the other! In other
words, each, with hearty good- will, excommunicates the other as
heretical and schismatical ! How, then, is it attempted to dis-
pose of this dilemma ? " The difficulty, it seems, is fully met," at
least, in the estimation of these redoubtable champions of Catho-
licity, '* by providing for an ' interruption of urdty^ " For though
" the external communion of the Catholic Church" is essential to
its being, and unity with each other is a "note" of all its true
members, yet this unity may " be interrupted." Yes. Catholic
Unity " interrupted" — the Church of Christ, rent asunder by the
direst heresies, the most revolting moral corruption, the most
deeply-seated enmities, followed by the heaviest anathemas each
against the other, and yet that Church, " one " !

Where tlien, it will be demanded, are we to look for " the Holy
Catholic Church ?" Prelatists of all grades and sects, with an air
of the most triumphant self-complacency and confidence, demand,
— ' Where was your Peotestant Church before the time of Luther f
Where was the true Church, prior to the period of the Greek
and Eoman schism ?'

Now, to all such and similar interrogatories, it might be suffi-
cient to return the " retort courteous,'''' and demand,— Where waa
Prelatical Episcopacy before the substitution of the name bishop
(a title which, on the authority of the New Testament, and the
testimony of the " early fathers," we have shown to have been
used interchangeably with that of presbyter, to denote one and the
same person and office) for that of ajyostle, an innovation unknown
to the earlier and purest ^05^apostolic age? Where was pre-
latical Catholicity prior to the alliance of the Church with the State
under Constantine ? Where was the first pope before a.d. 533, or
606 ? And, finall}^, where was Protestant prelacy anterior to the
time of Henry Yl'lL, or, if it be preferred, of Edward VI. ?

But not to fight, as those who beat the air, on the points in-
volved in these interrogatories pro and con, we shall proceed at
once to assume and defend the following, as constituting the
true scriptural idea of " the Church of God," " ffoly'' and " Catholic:'

"The Holy Catholic Church" is constituted of "them that are
sanctified in Christ Jesus, called to be saints, with all that in every
place call on the name of Jesus Christ our Lord."'

The " Eock" on which it rests, and against which " the gates of
hell shall not prevail," is that confession of Christ as " the chief
corner-stone," made by " the twelve apostles of the Lamb," in
conjunction with the "prophets.""

Its visible bond of union is, "steadfast continuance in the apos-
tles's doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in
prayers."'

(1) 1 Cor. 1 : 2. (2) Compare Matt. 16 : 13-18 ; Eph. 2 : 20 ; with Isa. 28 : 16 ; 1 Pet. a : 0.
(3) Acts 2 : 41, 42.

456

Briefly, then, the true Church of God, though visible, is made
up of such congregations of Christians throughout all nations and
in every place, as have received and retain purity of doctrine and
holiness of life ; while the false Church is composed of all who are
irreguhir in their lives, and who are promoters of "error, heresy
and schism."

In correspondence with this representation, holy Scripture de-
clares, " that all are not Israel who are of Israel.'" " Circumcision
availeth nothing, nor uncircumcision, but a new creature."'" The
only index to our knowledge of the existence and strength of the
true Catholic, is, external conformity to and with a professed pos-
session of the internal grace. " By their friiits ye shall Jc7iow
them."' Still, man can only "judge according to the outward ap-
pearance."* " We cannot fathom the depths of the human heart,
nor are our decisions in relation to external developments infallible.
The garb of hypocrisy may long cover a corrupt heart, and our
most honest judgments may be prejudiced." There ever have
been and still are those in the Church who " have the form of
godliness,"' and make "a fair show openly in the flesh."' But
towards " all those who attach themselves to a Christian Church,
whose profession of faith and course of life harmonize with the
great moral precepts of the Gospel, we are bound by the laws of
Christian charity to presume they are genuine Christians." It is
in this asptect of the embodiment, with the true Israel of God as
known to Him alone, of the self-deceived and the deceivers of
others, and whose external conformity places beyond the reach of
discipline, that we are to apply the two parables of the net cast
into the sea,'' and of the wheat and the tares. ° The Church is to
*' let both grow together until the harvest."

But of those of the false Church, w^hose viciousness of life, and
the prornoters of " error, heresy, and schism," or, to use the lan-
guage of Mr. Palmer, "manifest sinners," the command of holy
Scripture is, '■'■from such withdraw thyself."' In opposition to
the canon of Mr. Palmer, that " visible sanctity of life is not re-
quisite for admission to the Church of Christ ;"* holy Scripture
teaches, tliat just in proportion as the absence of that " visible
sanctity" is discovered, it is the duty of all "that are sanctified in
Christ Jesus, called to be saints, with all that in every place call
on the name of our Lord Jesus Christ," either to " put away" from
them such "wicked persons,"'" — "manifest sinners,"— or if, per-
chance, apostasy from the faith and corruption in practice pervade
the aggregate body, then, and in such case, to " come out of her.""

It was on this great scriptural principle of true Church Cathol-
icity, that the Reformation on the Continent of Europe was con-
ducted. "Luther," for example, "denied that the Romish Church

(1) ];om. !) : (i. (2) Gal. 0 : 15. (3) Matt. 7 : in. (4) Jolin 7 : 24. (:,) 2 Tim. 3 : 5. (6) Gal. 6 : 12.
(7) Matt. 13:47. (6) Matt. 13 : 25-29. (9) 2 Tliess. 3 : 6; 1 Tim. 6:5. (10) 1 Cor. 5:13
(H) Rev. 18 : 4.

* Treatise on the Church, etc., Vol. I., pp. 139, 141, 144.

457

was the true Churcli of Christ, The Eomish doctors then de-
manded, Where was the true Church before the Reformation f To
this he answered, that it was invisible. By this he meant that the
true Church, during the reign of superstition and corruption
which he was laboring to reform, had been confined to those Chris-
tians who had " worshiped God in spirit and in truth," but had
been under the necessity, from the pressure of circumstances, of
seeking retirement, as in the days of EHjah, amidst the general
prevalence of corruption, there were "seven thousand" true ser-
vants of God who were not even known to the prophet."

Nor is this view of what constitutes the true Church peculiar to
Luther and the Continental Reformers. The XlXth Article of
the Church of England stands thus:— "The visible Church of
Christ is a congregation of faithful men, in which the pure word
of God is preached, and the sacraments be duly administered in
all things that of necessity are requisite to the same." Now, what-
ever may be urged by prelatists in regard to the "all things" in-
dispensable to a due administration of the sacraments, etc., the
above article in Latin, compiled and published simultaneously
with the English by the same authority, has it, " ' Cwtus creden-
tium^ a congregation of believers, plainly showing that by faith-
ful men the compilers meant men endued with living faith."* So
Cranmer. " This holy Church is so unknown to the world that
no man can discern it, but God alone, who only searcheth the
hearts of all men, and knoweth his true children from others that
be but bastards, etc. For if the Church make any new articles of
faith, besides the Scripture, or contrary to the Scripture, or direct
not the form of life according to the same, then it is not the pillar
of truth, nor the Church of Christ, but the synagogue of Satan,
and the temple of Antichrist, which both erreth itself, and bringeth
into error as many as do follow it." And he condemns the
" Papists" for their " arrogant boldness," in " that they are bold
to affirm no Church to be the true Church of God, but that which
standeth by ordinary succession of bishops, in such pomp and
glorious sort as now is seen."f So the judicious Hooker. " That
Church of Christ, wliich we properly term his body mystical,
can be but one / neither can that one be sensibly discerned by any
man, inasmuch as the parts thereof are some in heaven already
with Christ, and the rest that are on earth (albeit their natural per-
sons be visible), we do not discern under this property whereby
they are truly and infallibly of that body. Only our minds, by
intellectual conceit are able to apprehend that such a body there
is, a body collective^ because it containeth a large multitude ; a

* Sermon on the Church, by Wesley. Works, Vol. II., p. 157, (as quoted in Method-
ist Quarterly Review, April, 1S-J4, p. '209.)

t See Cranmer's Works, Oxford edition. Vol. HI., pp. 18, 19, 20 ; and Vol. IV., pp.
154, 155. (Methodist Quarterly Review, pp. 213, 214.)

458

body mystical^ because the mystery of their conj unction is removed
altogether from sense," etc.*

We might quote to the same effect from Bishops Sanderson and
Cosin, and from the learned Dr. Jackson, whom Dr. Pusey com-
mends as "one of the best and greatest minds the Church has
ever produced. "f But passing these, we shall simply add, on this
subject, the following, contained in a recent " Statement of the
Distinctive Principles of the Protestant Episcopal Society for the
Promotion of Evangelical Knovvledgo." Speaking of " the Church,"
the Society says : it holds that the Church is " the blessed company
of all faithful people," or of all true believers in Jesus, abiding in
communion with Christ by a living faith. Of all, and ooily sueh^
does the Church, as " the body of Christ," consist. This Church
is made visible to man under the form .of " sacraments duly ad-
ministered," etc. " This we hold, in distinction from those who
teach that the Church, as " the body of Christ," is composed of
all professing Christians, Avho are united together under a particu-
lar external ministry, to which exclusively is committed and con-
fined the power of making and ministering the sacraments," etc.
And, after quoting Drs. Barrow and Jackson in support of the
above, the Society adds : — " Indeed, it would be necessary to re-
write the whole Bible, as well as the most important parts of En-
glish ecclesiastical literature, before that restricted view of the
Church could be maintained, which limits this body of Christ to
those who hold communion with one form only of an external
ministry.":]:

This same view of what constitutes the true Church of Christ,
in one form or another, has been advocated by several of the most
distinguished members of said " Society" — Bishops Meade, Mc-
Ilvaine, Lee, Burgess, etc. ; and Drs. Stone, Tyng, Bedell, etc., etc.

We come then to ask with all deference : — Will the said " Pro-
testant Episcopal Society for the Promotion of Evangelical Knowl-
edge" (as the organ of the doctrinal views of the Low Church
portion of their communion), in the light of their Teimdiation of
that view of the Church " which limits it to those who hold com-
munion with one fonn only of an external ministry," (which sen-
timent we understand to be borrowed from that of Cranmer.) tho.t
the true Church does not stand "Jy ordinary succession of bish-
ops in such pomp and glorious sort as now is seen" ? Will that So-
ciety allow us to consider them as admitting the validity of other
forms of an external ministry in that Church which they contend
is composed of " the blessed company of all faithful ppjople" ?
If not^ then we ask : In what consists the difference between
THEIR " exclusiveness^''^ in its bearings on other forms of ministry ;
for example, Presbyterian^ Methodist^ etc., and that of their High

♦ Hookers Eccles. Pol., Vol. I., pp. 2S.5, 2SG, Oxford edition.

t See Two Treatises on the Church. Hooker. Philadelphia: 1844.

t See Protestant Cliurchman^ Septennber 21, 1S50.

459

Chiircli. and Tractorian brethren, which they so zealously con-
demn ? If they do intend to be understood as admitting the va-
lidity of other forms of ministry equally with their own^ then we
ask,

1. How is that admission to be reconciled with the continued
advocacy, by their own Low Chukch party, of the necessity of
ordination by the laj'ing on of hands as involving the gift of " the
Holy Ghost," through an uninterrupted succession of bishops from
Peter, Paul, John, James, etc., in order to the jpe'r2?etuity of a

VALID MINISTRY ?

2. How will said " Society" reconcile the above admission with
the invidious reflections, imperious tone, and spirit of exclusive-
ness and denunciation against other churches and forms of minis-
try, which mark the columns of their numerous publications?
Why, from the pages of their principal organ — the " Protestant
Churchman" alone — might be culled " muck and mire," thus con-
descendingly thrown at those y^rj neighbors whom they admit
to belong to the same " Catholic" " household of faith" with them-
selves, sufficient to fill a volume !

3. How is this admission by said " Society" to be reconciled
with their refusal to recognize other forms of an external ministry
as valid, hy closing their jptdjnts against them? Is not this schis-

» MATiCAL ? Finally,

4. Will said " Society," organized "for the Promotion of Evan-
gelical Knowledge," within the communion of "the Protestant
Episcopal Church," prepare and publish, for the benefit of the
Christian world, a work in which it shall be plainly shown,
whether, in the " external ministry" of the Church, there is any
other via media between the substratum of prelacy — ^'■JSfulla eccle-
sia sine ejjiscopo — without a bishop there is no Church ;" and its'
opposite — " Ecclesia, sine episco2:)o — a Church without a bishop,"
than that form denominated PEESBYTERIAN ? And if so, to
point out in what said form consists ?

Until this be done — as it has been the entire design of this Trea-
tise, in its three parts, to demonstrate — it is in vain to attempt to
occupy any otlier ground in the defense of the prelatical theor}-, than
that contained in the motto^ " No Bishop, no Church." This theo-
ry, depending, as it does, on an xiribroken aposlol/ical succession for
its support, constitutes the bulwark of prelatical catholicity. Be-
tween it, and the theory of the true catholicity of the Church as
advocated by us, and which is acknowledged to be the only
Scriptural them^y \>y Cranmer, the judicious Hooker, Jackson,
Bishops Sanderson, Casin, Meade, Mcllvaine, Lee, Burgess, and
others, and by " the Protestant Episcopal Society for the Promo-
tion of Evangelical Knowledge," as shown above, the distimce is
wide as the poles. There is no aflinity between them. They are
totally, and must remain forever, irreconcilable, Prelatical catho-

460

licity is human ! Originating, as we have seen, at an earl}'^ period
of the ^>c>.>?^ apostolic age, in an innovation upon the scripturally
appointed ordinary and standing orders of presbyter-bishops and
deacons, by the erection, in its place, of an episcopacy on the
ground of expediency ', the door thus opened to ecclesiastical
aspirants, that ground of expediency was soon exchanged for the
higher, because more dignified claim, of EpiscorACY by divine
right. Thenceforward, " by little and little," its assumptions of
power continued to increase, until it attained to its fall iiiaturity,
in the erection of the Popedom. And in its nature and ten-
dency, it is ever the same. Modify or dilute it — talk, write,
preach, and wrangle about it as you may, its fermentation in the
lump, wherever, and under what circumstances soever found, is but
the result of the ecclesiastico-chemical process of cause and effect^
the which remarks, taken in connection with what immediately
precedes, we design as preliminary to what we have to offer, by
way of an application of the five marks or notes, as above,

To our theory regarding the true Church, which we claim, in
its origin, to be, divine.

I, First, then,— Apostolicity.

Yes, apostolicity, and that in the sense of an uninterrupted suc-
cession from the New Testament times down to the present day,
we claim to constitute a cardinal " note" of the true Church. But
this uninterrupted succession, we affirm, consists not in an un-
broken transmission of the office and functions apostolical from
them to others by manual impositions ; thereby making the " esse^^
— the Being of the Church, etc., to depend on a seminal or genea-
logical succession of persons : but in the continued preservation of
the " truth" — " the faith once delivered to the saints" — in other
words, " The apostles's doctrine and fellowship, and in the breaking
of bread and in prayers," by such " a ministry generally^'''' as, deriv-
ing their appointment from, and according to, the divinely-pre-
scribed model apostolic, have been perpetuated along with that
truth. In a word, what we affirm is, that the true apostolical suc-
cession depends, not on any order of men, as ministers of reli-
gion, but on the preservation of "religion, pure and undefiled
before God."' A religion, doctrinally, experimentally, and ecclesi-
astically " built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets,"
and of which " Jesus Christ" is " the chief corner-stone." " Against"
Q.2je7'sonal succession., " the gates of hell" not only 7nay^ but as has
been abundantly demonstrated in these pages, they have " prevail-
ed." This, as "we have shown, has been the result of the trial
of mere creaturehood under every dispensation. It was so with
" the angels in heaven, who kept not their first estate." It was so

(1) James 1 : 27.
* See Chapter VII., Section I.

461

witli Adam in Eden. It was so with the Cainite race. It was so
Avith Israel under the Theocracy. And it was, and is, and ever
will be, so, with all who, lusting after " the pre-eminence, "and who
seek to " magnify their office" beyond the divinely-prescribed
mode], set up the claim that they " are apostles," when they " are
not." Not so with the apostolical succession of truth, of doctrine, and
purity of life. No. Against this succession, the machinations and
opposition of men and the malice of devils have proved alike un-
availing. We challenge, on this point, the production of evidence
from " Holy Scripture," that it ever, under any dispensation, form-
ed any part of the divine plan, that the preservation of the truth
of God in the Church of God, was made to " stand in the wisdom
of men," linked together in an unbroken genealogical descent, ra-
ther than " in the power of God." ' The truth of God, or in other
words, true religion, was preserved between the Fall and the De-
luge. Not, however, by an uninterrupted succession of men^
divinely appointed to that end. And yet Scripture informs us
that there were thex preachers of righteousness. " The same holds
true of the period from the Flood to Moses. And, though, in the
institution of the Aaronic priesthood, a personal succession was
appointed, still that priesthood, as we have shown at length,*
being exclusively designed as a type of the priesthood of Christ,
was, in itself temporary, not only, but was sometimes changed by
divine direction, and, what is more, was broken and interrupted
by men. Of this fact, so frequently adverted to by the Jewish
historian Josephus, no scholar can be ignorant.f And yet, as
though to admonish the Church in all ages, that it formed no
part of our Lord's design, — as we have proved it formed no part of
the design of his apostles, — rthat the perpetuity of his gospel in
its truth, and purit}", and power, should depend on an unbroken
succession of men, it is notorious that, during his public ministry,
he did not repudiate the ministry of those who performed the
functions of the Aaronic order, though not of the succession.

And now, to vindicate ourselves against the charge of " novelty^''
" heresy^'' and the like, in the advocacy of the sense which we
here attach to this iirst " note," Apostolicit}^, in its application to
the true Church ; we shall proceed without further delay, to in-
troduce to the reader's notice, the views on this subject, of some of
the " early fathers ;" and, first,

luEx.Bus. " We cannot know the plan of salvation any otherwise
than by those persons :{: through whom the Gospel has come down
to us. This they first preached by their personal ministry. After-
wards they delivered the will of God to us in their divinely -in-

(I) 1 Cor. 2 : 6. (2) 2 Pet. 2:5.
* See Index on the word Priesthood.

t See Josephus's Antiq., book 27. c. 6 ; book 17, c. 8j book 18, c. 1 ; book 19, c. 5 ;
book 19, c. 7 ; book 20, c. 1 ; book 20, c. 3.
X To wit, " The twelve Apostles."

462

spired writings, the sacred Scriptures, which were henceforward to
be the foundation and pillar of our faith."

We place this passage fron;i Irenasus first in order, because it
gives to " the sacred Scriptures" a supremacy over that of tradition,
as the standard of our faith, against the pretensions of those
heretics in his day (and the same is applicable to those of our
times) who "accused the Scriptures as not having the right doc-
trine, neither as sufficient authority ; that they contained views so
diverse that they cannot be understood by those who are ignorant
of tradition."* " Such," says he, " are the persons against whom
we contend. Wherefore we must use every mode of arguing
against them, that, being confounded with the discovery of their
errors, we may, if possible, convert them to the truth. "f This fa-
ther then proceeds : " We shall declare that which was delivered
from the apostles, which the Church of Eome possesses, the faith
they preached to mankind ; and which [faith] has come down to
us through a succession of bishops, reaching to the present time.":}:
To the same effect speaks

TicETULLiAN : " But if any of the heretics dare to connect them-
selves with the apostolic age that they may seem to be derived
fi'om the apostles, as existing under them ; we may say, ' Let them
therefore declare the origin of their churches; let them exhibit
the series of their bishops, as coming down by a continued succes-
sion from the beginning, as to show their first bishop to have had
some apostle or apostolic man as his predecessor or ordainer, and
who continued in the same faith with the apostles. For this is the
way in which the apostolical churches calculate the series of their
bishops."§

Yes, thanks to Irenjeus and Tertullian. Allowing both the
above passages their fall weight, we deny that either of the above
fathers intended them to inculcate the prelatical theory of a suc-
cession of persons^ as absolutely neckssary to the existence of
Christianity and its ordinances. We have shown from both
these fathers, that they applied the titles presbyter and bishop
promiscuously to the same person and the same office. Admit-
ting, then, that they affirm the existence of a ministry in the
Church by a personal succession, the validity of that succession
depends on their " continuance in the same faith with the apos-
tles." The former is but auxiliary to the latter. That this is the
sense in which they are to be understood, Irengeus, speaking of
this succession, says :

Thus " the preaching of the truth has come down to us. And
thus it is evident that one and the same living faith was delivered
to the Church by the apostles, and has been preserved and trans-
mitted down uncorrupted to the present time."|| But again :

* Irenjeus, Lib. 3, c. 1. t lb-, — c. 2. % lb., — c. 3.

§ Tertullian, De Praescript., C. 32.
II IreiiEcus, Lib. 3, c. 2.

463

TEBtuLLiAN is still more explicit. " But if tlie heretics feign or
fabricate such a (personal) succession, this will not help them.
For their doctrine itself, compared with the doctrine of the apos-
tles, will, by its own diversity and contrariety, pronounce against
them. To this form of trial will appeal be made by those churches
henceforwaid (i^\\y establishing, wliicli [churches], though they have
neither any of the ajpostles^ nor a])Ostolical men for their founders,
YET ALL AGREEING- IN THE SAME FAITH, are from
this consanguinity of doctrine to be esteemed not the less apostoli-
cal than the former,"*

So CvPKiAN. " Eeferring to Stephen, Bishop of Rome, plead-
ing tradition for what Cyprian believed to be a great error, an-
swers: What does he mean by tradition? Does he mean the
authority of Christ in the Gospels, and of the apostles and their
Epistles? Let this tradition be sacred. For," says he, "custom
"wrriiouT TEUTH IS only antiquated error. Therefore, forsaking
error, let us follow the truth, knowing that, as in Esdras's opinion,
truth is victorious ; so it is written, ' Truth remains^ and pre-
vails forever^ it lives and reigns through endless ages. Neither
is there with truth any distinction or respect of persons, but only
that which is just it ratifies ; neither is there in the jurisdiction of
truth any antiquity but the strength, and dominion, and the ma-
jesty and power of all generations. Blessed be the God of truth !
This truth Christ shows in the Gospel, saying, ' I am the truth.'
Therefore, if we be in Christ, and Christ in us ; if we remain in
the truth, and the truth abide in us, let us hold those things
which are of the truih."f

Gregory Nazianzen, in his oration in praise of Athanasius,
speaking of his election as bishop of Alexandria to the chair of
St. Mark, says : " If you consider Athanasius only as one in the
number of bishops of Alexandria, he was the most remote from
St. Mark: but if you regard his^iV^y, you find him the very next
to him." And he adds : " This succession of piety ought to be
esteemed the true successions''^ etc.:}:

St. Ambrose. "They have not the inheritance, are not the
successors of Peter, who have not Peter's faith. "§

It is needless to add similar quotations from more modern
writers. It is quite sufficient to our purpose, that the "early
fathers" so abundantly insist on the perpetuity of " the apostles' s
doctrine and fellowship^'' rather than on a personal succession, as
the characteristic " note" of apostolicity of the true Church, " the
blessed company of all faithful people." Let us apply to this
Church, the next " note."

2. Catholicity. The criterion here is, that, wherever, and

* De Prapscript., c. 32.

t Epistle 74, Ed Panul. 1589.

t Athanasii, 0pp.. Vol. 3, Appendix. Ed. Paris: 1627.

§ De Penitentia, Lib. 1, c. 6.

464

among whomsoever, the true faith is found, there we are to look
for the true Church Catholic.

The question then is. Has this true faith ever failed ? If so,
then the Church has become defunct. Christ's promise to her has
failed. " The gates of hell have prevailed against itP

But, thank Heaven, the truth has not failed. " The faith once
delivered to the saints" bj " the apostles and prophets," has been
preserved uncorrupt. In a word, the Church of God has heen
perpetuated INDEPENDENTLY of prelacy, whether of the
Greek, the Roman, or the Anglican and American so-called " Holy
Catholic and Apostolic Church."

That the Church, in her doctrines, morals, discipline and polity,
as constituted by the apostles, though opposed by carnal Jews and
philosophizing Greeks, disturbed by nominal professors — as the
Galatian legalists ; and by aspirants after apostolical honors — as
Biotrephes and the false apostles of the churches of Corinth and
Ephesus ; was, nevertheless, preserved " uncorrupt" during the
New Testament age, needs no proof

The interval between the death of the last apostle — the venerable
John, and the time of Cornelius and Novatian, a.d. 250, is marked,
for the most part, by the prevalence in the Church, of her primi-
tive characteristics in doctrine and in practice. We say, for the
most part ; for, though we appropriate to this period of the Church
the emphatic appellation of " the Golden Age,^^ yet it is by no
means to be inferred that the times were not marked, yea, that
they were not rife, wath nominal disturbers of the peace of the
Church. Waddington, a Fellow of Trinity College, Cambridge,
and Prebendary of Ferring, in the cathedral Church of Chichester,
and in the highest repute among Episcopalians, in his Church His-
tory, speaking of this period, says : — " In the midst of perpetual
dissent and occasional controversy, a steady and distinguishable
line, both in doctrine and practice^ was maintained by the early
Church, and its efforts against those whom it called heretics,
were zealous and persevering, and for the most part consistent.
Its contests were fought with the ' sword of the Spirit,' with the
arms of reason and eloquence ; and as they were always unat-
tended by personal oppression, so were they most effectually suc-
cessful— successful, not in establishing a nominal unity, nor si-
lencino' the expression of private opinion, hut in maintaining the.
puritij of the f'lifh^ in preserving the attachment of the great
majority of the believers, and in consigning, either to immediate
disrepute, or early neglect, all the unscriptural doctrines which
were successively arrayed against it."*

But in A.D. 250, an event transpired which, viewed in its then
present and future results, marks an important era in the history
of the Church. Gradually, and for some time, a degeneracy of
manners had found its way within her pale, and of which the

* Waddington's History of the Church, p. 79.

465

ChuTch of Rome was the principal seat. To this circumstance
may be traced the controversy which at this time occurred between
Cornelius and Novatian ; which controversy, though it involved a
dispute about the bishopric of Eome, yet merged, as its principal
issue, a contest for the purity of the cormnunion and discipline of
the Church. It iiltimated in the separation of the true Church
from the false. Novatus and his followers were excommunicated
&om the so-called Church " Catholic," and were known, as Euse-
bius informs us, by the title of Cathari or Puritans. But, (what
in this place is worthy of particular note,) even this oldest of eccle-
siastical historians, with all his hostility to Novatus and those who
adhered to him, pretends to prefer no other charge against them
" except their ' uncharitableness, in refusing to commune with
those of immoral and doubtful character."

Now, in these ISTovatians — Cathari or Puritans — of the third cen-
tury, we shall claim, merged the true Church. At least, of such, we
think it will be admitted, the true Church in any and every age
should be composed, if that be true which is said of them by the
learned Waddington, from whom we take the following. He
says:

" We may conclude with some notice of the sect of the Nova-
tians who were stigmatized at the time both as schismatics and
heretics ; hut who may perhaps he more properly considered as

the EAKLIEST BODY OF ECCLESIASTICAL EEFORMEKS. They arOSC at

Eome about the year 250 A.D., and subsisted until the fifth cen-
tury throughout every part of Christendom. Novatian, a Presby-
ter of Eome, was a man of great talents and learning, and of
character so austere, that he was unwilling, under any circumstan-
ces of contrition, to re-admit those who had been once separated
from the communion of the Church. And this severity he would
have extended not only to those who had fallen by deliberate
transgression, but even to such as had made a false compromise of
their faith under the terrors of persecution. He considered the
Christian Church as a society, where virtue and innocence reigned
universally, and refused any longer to acknowledge as members
of it, those who had once degenerated into unrighteousness. This
endeavor to revive the spotless moral purity of the faith., was
found inconsistent with the corruptions even of that early age /
it was regarded with suspicion hy the leading prelates^ as a vain
and visiona/ry scheme / and those rigid principles which had char-
acterized and sanctified the Church in the first century, were
abandoned to the profession of schismatic sectaries in the third."

And yet, some would have us believe, that Protestantism., as
antagonistic to the abominations of Eome, was wholly unknown
in the Christian world, until, under Henry YIII. and Edward VI.,
the so-called Independent Anglican Church assumed the title of
" the Protkstant Church of England as hy law estahlishedJ''
We refer the reader, in illustration, to a work entitled, " Puritan-

466

ism not genuine Protestantism, etc., by the Eev. A. B. Chapin,"
published by Stanford and Swords, 1846. This, however by the
way. We leave the candid reader to decide, whether the above
description of this " earliest body of ecclesiastical reformers" as
given by Waddington of the Novatians, does not savor somewhat
of the true Protestant principle.

Well. " These Puritans or Reformers spread all over the world,
and continued to oppose the pretensions of those who, from being
the major party, claimed to be the Catholic or only Church.
They continued under the name of Novatians for more than two
centuries ; but finally merged in

The DoNATiSTS, who, indeed, are the same people under another
name. These Donatists were a very large and prosperous com-
munity. We read of 279 Donatist bishops in one African council.
Of these Donatists the same historian (Waddington) deposes :

" The Donatists have never been charged with the slightest show
of truth with any error of doctrine, or any defect in church
government or discipline, or any depravity of moral practice;
they agreed in every respect with their adversaries, except one —
they did not acknowledge as legitimate the ministry of the Afri-
can Church, but considered their own body to be the true, uncor-
rupted, universal Church."

Mark it. The Donatists considered their own body to be the
true, uncorrupted, universal Church ! " It is quite clear," our
author proceeds : " It is quite clear, that they pushed their schism
to very great extremities, even to that of rejecting the communion
of all, who M'^ere in communion with the Church which they called
FALSE ; hut this was the extent of their spiritual offense, even from
the assertions of their enemies."*

The Donatists, in some two centuries, were amalgamated with

The Pauliceans, also called Puritans. Regarding this body
of Christians, we might quote testimony in reference to them simi-
lar to that given in behalf of their Protestant predecessors from
Waddington, Jones, and even Du Pin. We shall however content
ourselves with the following extract from Gibbon, as quoted by
Jones.

*' The Paulicean teachers," says Gibbon, " were distinguished
only by their scriptural names, by the modest title of their fellow-
pilgrims, by the austerity of their lives, their zeal and knowledge,
and the credit of some extraordinary gift of the Holy Spirit.
But they were incapable of desiring, or at least of obtaining, the
wealth and honors of the Catholic prelacy. Such antiohristian
pride they strongly censured^''

" Until the appearance of the Waldenses and Albigenses,
these Protestants continued to oppose the Church of Nations in
the East and in the West, until at one time they claimed the
title of CatholiGr Of the character of the Waldenses, (sometimes

* Waddington's Church History, p. 154.

467

called Leonites,) take the following from one of their most implaca-
ble enemies, — the Eomish Inquisitor, Reinerius Saccho. He says :

" Among all the sects which still are, or have been, there is not
one more pernicious to the Church than that of the Leonites ; and
that for three reasons. The first is, because it is the oldest, for
some say it existed from the time of Pope Sylvester, others /"rom
the time of the apostles. The second; because it is more general,
for there is scarce any country where this sect is not. The third,
because when all other sects beget horror by their blasphemies
against God, this of the Leonites hath a greater show of piety, be-
cause they live justly before men, and believe all things rightly
concerning God, and all the articles contained in the creed. Only
they blasphemed the Church of Rome.''*

We refer the reader to what we have already offered on the sub-
ject of the claim of the Waldensian Protestants to a remote origin ;f
of the barbarous persecutions for conscience sake to which they
have been subjected at the hands of their Roman enemies; of
their existence at the time of, and their agency under God in pro-
moting, the Continental and Anglican Reformations, and of their
continued preservation in the mountain-bound fastnesses of Pied-
moni, down to this hour.

We leave the reader to infer from the above. Where was the
true Church before the time of Luther. In them I behold the un-
interrupted " Holy Catholic Church," in which I profess to " be-
lieve." " This people is my people ! Their God is my God !"
The next " note."

3. Unity. In the application of this *' note" to Protestant anti-
prelatists, and which their opponents are pleased to designate " The
Sects,''' and to represent as divided and subdivided into a thousand
discordant parties, while we would concede that differences exist
among the various branches bearing that appellation ; yet, we sub-
mit, that they exist in the form of a division without schism. To
explain. The bonds of Protestant anti-prelatical union, hke all other
societies, are of two kinds, general and special. The first consists of
their acknowledgment of tlie Bible and the Bible alone, as the only
sufficient rule of faith and practice, and the only infallible standard
of appeal. The second consists in their unanimous and uncom-
promising renunciation of what they believe to be the antichris-
tianism of the Popedom and of the Papal system in all their diver-
sified forms. As it regards their views of what constitutes the
nature, orders, and functions or powers of the Christian ministry,
while the advocates of Protestant prelacy, so to speak, have
"written and published enough to drain an ocean and cover a con-
tinent, by way of explaining the difference between a Loiv and a
High Church and Fuseyite bishop, etc., etc., we challenge the pro-
duction of evidence, from a source entitled to respect, which shall

* Reinerius Saccho. Ed. Gritzcr. O. S. T. Cap. 4, p. 54.
t See Appendix D.

468

exhibit any the leaM difference in the writers who range under that
category, as to what constitutes that ministry denominated Pres-
byterian. So, of the nature, design, and efficacy of the sacra-
ments^— Baptism and the Lord's Supper. They agree also in all
the great essentials of Christian doctrine^ discipline and worship.
And, in the exercise of that charity, each toward the other, which
"beareth all things, believeth all things, hopeth all things, and
endureth all things ;" though they may differ in matters of form —
in non-essentials — yet, recognizing all who "hold the Head,"
Christ, as the mystical members of His Body, the Church, and
each acknowledging the validity of the ordinances a^ administered
by the other, and holding friendly and Christian correspondence, —
a practice prevalent among the different Evangelical denominations
throughout our country, — if our Protestant Episcopal, Anglican
and American brethren, with all the existing divisions and schisms
which are now rending their body, and the Eomanists, — differing
as they do in four respects regarding the great orthodox point of
Catholicism, — who or what constitutes the supreme head ; and in
another four in regard to the residence of infallibility ; and in the
existence, in her very bosom, of the following five distinct and
separate sects, viz, : The Augustinians, Dominicans, Franciscans,
Jansenists, and Jesuits, etc. ; if, we repeat, these will allow, we
shall, though with deference, claim this " note," Unity, as the
rightful property of " the blessed company of all faithful people"
of " every name" and in " every place."

4. Sanctity. On the subject of this "note," and its applica-
tion to the anti-prelatical Catholic Church of Christ, while it
might venture upon a fair comparison, at least, Avith others ; yet,
God forbid that, in a spirit of Pharisaic self-righteousness, any of
its members should say, " Stand by, I am holier than thou."
Rather it becomes the Church collectively, and her members indi-
vidually, to unite in the confession, " 0 Lord^ righteousness he-
longeth unto thee, hut unto us confusion of faces, as it is this day, —
BECAUSE we have SINNED AGAINST THEE." That all Evangclical de-
nominations of Christians, however, require " Visible Sanctity" as
a condition of admittance to the communion, etc., of the Church,
is too notoriously " read and known of all men to require proof."
And so, that they also require " visible sanctity" as the condition
of continuance in the communion of the Church, is evident from
the existence among them of known, fixed, and definite rules,

5. Of Discipline. For proof of which see their respectiA^e
standards, and mark their practical exercise in the salutary ad-
ministration of reproof, admonition, suspension, excision, etc.,
towards all within her pale, both clerical and lay, for error in
doctrine or viciousness of life.

469

APPENDIX A.

ANTICHRISTIANISM,

AS SCKITTURALLY VIEWED IN THE ASPECT OF ITS RISE, FORMS OF
DEVELOPMENT, CHARACTER AND RESULTS.

According to my view — and I think, on this subject, I have the mind of
Christ — the idea, as subhraely grand as it is appalling, of the for-reaching
extent and true character of Antichristianism, has become almost extinct in
the Church. The current view on this subject, having lost sight of the
plan of God's moral government over all orders of created inteUigences
as a whole, has broken it up into detached fragments, and hence can dis-
cern no feature of antichristianism except as they can trace it in the rise
and career, etc., of Romanism proper. Not so the teachings of Holy
Writ. Therein we are taught, that that supremacy, or " pre-eminence"
which the rebel-leader of the angelic revolt against Christ, as tlie divinely-
consiituted " Heir of all things" (Heb. 1 : 2) failed to establish in heaven,
he resolved, upon the creation of man, to secure to himself on earth, and
in the Church. Hence, speaking of Satan as " the father of lies from the
beginning,'" the words of Christ, he " abode not in the truth,'" carry our
thoughts back to a period anterior to the creation of man, when, opposinor
God's eternal purpose of self-manifestation through the incarnation of his
Son Jesus, instead of that of angels, it is recorded of him that he " fell
like lightning from heaven."'' And this act, and that of his angelic com-
peers, promoted by pride or a love of " the pre-eminence," was an act,
and the first act, of schism and heresy against CnRrsT ; the first to inter-
rupt the pre-existing harmony of God's moral universe. To Christ, as
" created by Him and for Him," and of whom the Eternal Father had de-
creed, that " He," as his co-eternal and co-equal Son, should " have the
pre-eminence,"^ they were subordinate, and in and by whom alone they
could stand, as have stood those "elect angels" " who have kept their first
estate."*

Now, this system of Antichristianism, thus commenced in heaven, has
been continued on earth. Man, created by " The Truth," and upon
whom was impressed his ineffable image and likeness, through the instiga-
tion of " the father of lies," from a love of " the pre-eminence," resolved
to " be as Gods." Hence his abjuration, in Eden, of his allegiance to the
divine government. So, of the antichristianism of the commonwealth of
Israel, as exhibited in the choice of an earthborn monarchy in the place of
the divinely-appointed theocracy, and which, ultimating in the exclamation

(IJ John 8 : 44. {'2) Luke 10 : 13. (3) See Col. 1 : 9-20. (4) 1 Tim. 6 : 21 ; and Jude, v 6

470

against the person oi the Incarnate " Word," " not this king, but Caesar,"
finally nailed Him to the cross !

And so the Antichristianism of all subsequent time. Changed, indeed,
in /or?«, but the same in spirit and design — tlie dethronement of Christ as
the divinely-constituted Heir of all worlds, and " the Head over all things
to the Church." As in Eden, and during the patriarchal antediluvian and
postdiluvian ages, together with the Mosaic and Levitical dispensations,
God could be known and worshiped only as He was pleased to reveal Him-
self to the Church, through " the promised seed," Christ, as " the angel
of the Covenant," so, under and during the Christian Era. All along, it is the
Deity in self-manifestation, in the person of Christ. The sin of the first
human pair consisted of their schism and heresy against " the voice" of the
Christ of God who in Paradise talked with them. That of the post-patri-
archal age against the same Christ of God in visible angelic, manifestations to
Abraham, Lot and Jacob. That of the Israelites in the wilderness, against
the same, as enveloped in the pillar of cloud and of fire. That of the rebels,
Korah, Dathan, and Abiram, and their company, and of the commonwealth
of Israel, against the same, as the Shechinah, curtained beneath the cherubina
over the mercy-seat in " the Holy of Holies," both in the tabernacle and
temple, called by the Apostle Paul, " the glory." That of the Jews after
the Nativity, against the same, as " God manifested in the flesh."
And, since the Ascension, against the same, as revealed through " the
Spirit, who taketh of the things that are Christ's, and showeth them unto
us."

One difi'erence, however, be it observed, marks the antichristianism of
the present compared with the former dispensations, the "sorer punish-
ment" of which those shall "be counted worthy," who, under this Chris-
tian age of hght, and love, and truth, " tread under foot the Son of God,"
by " counting the blood of the Covenant wherewith he was sanctified an
unholy thing," thereby " doing despite unto the Spirit of grace."

And such are all they who, in this age of abounding wickedness and
waxing coldness, cling to " the form of godliness," by a schismatical and
heretical denial of its " power." .This is a reaching forth of the hand to
dethrone the Christ of God as the " One mediator between God and man."
It is, I contend, the same principle which actuated the rebel-leader of
apostasy from God in heaven and on earth ; a schismatical and heretical
rejection of the Christ of God (whether as shrouded in visible symbolic
form, or as actually incarnate among men, or as presented to the eye of faith
by the Spirit of all grace through the medium of the written word, and
the ministry and ordinances of divine appointment in the Church) in His
prophetical office as the great " Teacher sent from God ;" in His priestly
office as the one only expiatory Sacrifice for sin, the " Lamb," " set up from
everlasting or ever the earth was," " slain from before the foundation of the
world ;" and in His regal authority, as the only rightful King of nations
and of saints.

In the Christian Church, the system of Antichristianism peculiar to the
present economy (as we have shown in the preceding pages), was gradual
in its development. The grain of mustard seed, which is the least of all
seeds, sown during apostolic times and in the Church, passing through its
period of gestation at the commencement of the third century, laid ihe
corner-stone in that foundation upon which was subsequently erected that
tupendous system of spiritual despotism, of which the Papacy is the

471

grand embodiment. The doctrines, ecclesiastical orders, ordinances and
rites of New Testament Cliristianity, by the arch devices of this Papal
headship, were, one and all, moulded into such forms as its developments
rendered indispensable to the support of its high claims of primacy, infal-
libility, and ecclesiastical and political supremacy. And, if the evidence of
lust for " the pre-eminence," exhibited in the conduct of John the rival of
Gregory, in assuming the title of "universal bishop" led the latter to con-
temn such an assumption as a mark of the "Antichrist" that was to come,
wliat marvel that there were, of both the Anghcan and Continental Re-
formers, those who denounced the popedom as the antichrist, and the
system of popery as antiohristian ?

And thus it was. The Pauline prediction of that apostasy from " the
faith" first " delivered to the saints" by Christ and his apostles, as the
precursor of the advent of the Antichrist, attracted to it the eye of evan-
gelic faith, as to a " light which shineth in a dark place." " That day,"
he had said, " shall not come^ except there come a falling away Jirst, and
that Man of sin be revealed, the So7i of perdition; who opposeth and
exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshiped, so that
he as God sitteth in the temple of God, showing himself that he is God.
Remember ye not, that when I was yet with you, I told you these things.
And now ye know what withholdeth that he might be revealed in his time.
For the mystery of iniquity doth already work ; only he who now letteth
will let, until he be taken out of the way, and then shall that wicked b.e re-
vealed,'''" etc.

Then, in addition to this. The same " more sure word of prophecy"
bad furnished them with unmistakable indices of the mode of development
of this anticliristian power. The apostle, having previously argued, that if
" Satan himself," the arch leader of the revolt against Christ in heaven,
and the instigator of the apostasy in Eden, in order to the carrying out his
continued malice against Christ and his followers, " is transformed into aa
angel of light," that " therefore it is no great thing if his ministers also
be transformed as the ministers of righteousness,"- "false apostles, deceit-
ful workers, transforming themselves into the apostles of Christ ;" he
proceeds to tell them that their " coming is after the working of Satan,
with all power and signs and lying wonders, and with all deceivableness of
unrighteousness in them that perish, because they received not the love of
the truth, tliat they might be saved. And for this cause God should
send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie,"^ etc.

Dread power ! The " let" or hindrance to his earlier advent being re-
moved, how rapid his ascent to that seat " in the temple of God," whence
he spake great words against the Most High," and has issued his mandates
for the " wearino; out the saints of the Most Hiofh," chaneintr " times and
laws, * " forbidding to marry, enjoining " abstinence from meats," and
flooding Christendom with " damnable heresies," by " teaching for doc-
trines the commandments of men," for now these more than fifteen centu-
ries last past ! Concerning it, we remark very briefly,

First. The advent of " the Man of sin" had been long preceded by the
decree of God : " My Spirit shall not always strive with man."'' We sub-
mit, therefore, that the great apostasy of Christendom predicted by Paul,
has its exact analogy to that of the antediluvian world ; of tlie inhabitants

(1) 1 Thesa. 2 : 3-8. (2) 2 Cor. 11 : 13-15. (3) a Thess. 2 : 9-11. (4) Dan. 7 : 25. (5) Gee. 6 : 3.

472

of the cities of the plain ; and of the Jewish commonwealth. As in each
instance of the type, the full development of apostasy from God awaited
the final toithdrawal of his Holy Spirit ; so (this being the relation in
which we view them), the antitype. The same analogy also holds true of
the respective remnants under each, whom God has preserved as " a
seed to serve him." From the very nature of tilings, we cannot discern
how pagan Rome could have constituted the " let" or hindrance to his
assumption, by " the Man of sin," of his " power, and seat, and great
authority" " in the temple of God." So far from it, we deferentially ask, in
what consists that " infinite superstition, the papacy," but Rome Pagan
assimilated to, merged in, and baptized by, a Christian name ? " The
power, and seat, and great authority" of the seven-headed and ten-horned
red dragon,' together with the beast with the same appendages,'
both from the sea,^ and the beast with two horns like a lamb, from
the earth* were identical. For, while the dragon transferred his power,
and his seat, and great authority to the beast from the sea,'' the beast
from the earth, with the two lamb-like horns, " spake as a dragon,'*
"and exercised all the power of the first beast before him," etc." Yes:
the same animus pervaded and actuated all, the evidence of which may be
found in the fact, that all their separate powers are comprehended in the
ONE NONDESCRIPT BEAST of the propliet Daniel,' their diversified forms
synchronizing with, and being designed by the Holy Spirit but as a more
elaborate exhibit of, his varied powers as Antichrist. It follows, there-
fore, that the sovereign power which controlled these transformations,
having removed out of the way the " let" or hindrance thereto, at the ap-
pointed time, the crowns from the head of the seven-headed and ten-
horned dragon, or pagan imperial Rome, were transferred to the ten
horns^ of the beast from the sea, whose seat of power and authority was
still the seven-hilled city of Rome ; and, consequent of the removal of this
same " let" or hindrance, this power, etc., being merged into those of the
two lamb-horned beast from the earth, constituted the ecclesiastico-po-
litical power of papal Christian Rome. In other words, we mean to say
that, the evidence of the very early gestation of that spirit of credulity and
superstition in the primitive Church, which, keeping pace with the waxing
weakness of pagan imperial Rome, prepared her for a wilHng exchange of
the martyr's stake for courtly favor, state alliance, and worldly prosperity,
superinduced that very " falling away" of which the presence of the Holy
Spirit had been the preventive of a more rapid maturity. Hence, the long-
sufi'ering patience of God having now at length reached its limit, the time
arrives for another development of the fearful connection between willful
apostasy and its punishment by judicial blindness. The nominal Church,
" because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be
saved," " God," who had decreed, " My Spirit shall not always strive
with man," " sent them strong delusion" (by taking " out of the way," or
withdrawing the presence and agency of, that Divine Person who alone
can guide and kee}) us in the truth), "that they should believe a lie," by
" giving heed to seducing spirits and doctrines of devils," " whose coming
is after the working of Satan, with all power, and signs, and lying won-

(1) Rev. 12 : 3. (2) Ih. 1,3 : 1. (3) Compare Dan. 7 : 2, 3. 7 ; Rev. 12 : 1 ; 13 : 1, 2. (4) Rev.
13 : 11. (5) lb. 12 : 2. (6) lb. 13 : 11, 12. (7) Dan. 7 : 7, 11, 19-21, 23-25. (8) Compare Rev. 12 : 3,
With 13 : 1.

473

ders," etc. " Wliat withholdeth," therefore, being thus " taken out of the
waj'," the advent of " the Man of sin" was,

Second, " after the ivorking of Satan," "the father of lias," "a liar
from tlie beginning." By a subtle blending of truth with lies, these se-
duce the unwary into idolatry. St. Paul says : that the heathen " became
fools," when they " changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an
image made like to corruptible man,"^ etc. And the second commandment
in the Decalogue enjoins : " Thou shalt not make unto thyself any graven
image, noi the likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, nor in ^

the earth beneath. Thou shalt not bow to them, nor serve them,"* etc.
Now, in three different Romish Catechisms, this second commandment is
expunged, and to make out the tenth, the ninth is divided into two ! These
we shall place side by side.

Butler's Catechism.* Doyleh CalechismA

Q. Say the commandments of God. Q. Say the ten commandments of God.

A. 1. I am the Lord thy God; thou A. 1. The same. — But adds: Thou

shalt have no strange Gods before me. shalt not make to thyself neither an idol

or any figure to adore it.

2. Thou shalt not take the name of the 2. The same.
Lord thy God in vain.

9. Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's 9. Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's

wife. wife. UT. <

10. Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's 10. Thou shalt not covet thy neigh- f9vf'''
goods. Exodus xx. bor's goods.

The third is an American edition of " An Abridgment of Christian
Doctrine, in questions and answers, by Rev. Henry Taberville, D.D., of the
English College of Doua}^" etc. J

Q. What is the second commandment ?

A. Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain."

In a previous edition of this same catechism, published in Dublin,§ the
question is asked : " How do you prove it laivful to paint God the
Father like an old man V And in a book entitled : " A Net for the
Fishers of Men," the following proposition and arguments occur, in support
of " the, worshiping of angels and holy images bg the most solid texts of
Scrip>ture." At page 59, the question is asked : " Why did the great
precursi^r of- Christ, St. John the Baptist, toorship the latchet of our Sa-
vior's shoes ?" But the Baptist merely said : " There shall come one
mightier than I, the latchet of whose shoes I am not worthy to loose"' — not
one word about " worshiping ;" nor was the Savior present when the words
were spoken ; but had he been present, the Baptist would have worshiped
THE Savior, and not, as a heathen, worshiped his shoe latchets. So also
we are referred to Rev. 22 : 8. But, had John, after receiving the com-
mand, " See thou do it not," attempted to worship the angel, who was a

(1) Rom. 1 : 23. (2) Exod. 20. (3) Luke 3 : 16. Illicmish translation.

* The most Rev. James Butler's Catechi.sm for the Kingdom of Ireland. Twelfth
Edition. R. Coyne, Maynooth, Ireland. 1826.

t The Right Rev. James Doyle's Catechism. Revised for the Dmrese of Kildare
and Lerghlin. R. Coyne. 18-27.

t Recommended by the Right Rev. Bi.shop Benedict, of Boston. Published by John
Doyle, 12 Libertv street, Xew York. 1833.

§ R. Coyne, Maynooth. 1828. Page 52.

474

mere creature, as in tlie case of the Baptist had he worshiped the latchets
of the Savior's slioes, both had been " after the loorkinrf of Satan" —

Which we affirm, marked tlie manner of the introduction of Christianity
among ihe Anglo-Enolish by Gregory I., and his missionary Augustine.

Bedo informs us thai, in his letter to Mellitus, wlien going into Britain,
Gregory advises him, in imitation of the sacrifices which the Saxons had
been accustomed to offer to devils, to " kill cattle to tlie praise of God, in
their eating, ... to the end that they [the Saxons] may morceanily consent to
the inward consolations of the grace of God."* And Augustine introduces
hiin.sclf to their king, Etlielbert, " bearing a silver cross for a banner, and
the imar/e of our Lord and Savior painted on a board. "f

The setjucl of Home's history of imagre worship shows, that Antichrist's

" C0)tli7u/' was " AFTER THE WORKING OF SaTAN."

TiuiiD. " With all power." We refer the reader to tlie pope's arro-
gant and blasphemous assumptions as the alleged representatives of Him
who " had ntjt where to lay his head," to pages 220-223, in regard both to
their character as supreme legislators in the Church, and lords of the uni-
vei'se ; to support which powers, the establishment, a.d. 1300, of the ju-
bilee by Boniface VIII. may be taken in illustration. On that occasion,
"two priests stood, day and night, with rakes in their hands, to coUect,
without counting, the heaps of gold and silver that were poured on the
altar of St. Paul.";}; Tims they made merchandise of the souls of men !

FouKTH. "And siffns" {arjueloig), tokens. Take, for example, the kiss
with which Judas betrayed Jesus. Kissing pervades every ceremony of
Romanism. The pope's toe is kissed, or, by an act of special clemency, his
hand. And the priest kisses the altar ; while the people are taught to kiss
crosses, images, relics, etc.

Fifth. " Lying wonders," or miracles to prove lies. Let it here be
borne in mind, that the pope will not canonize any saint until " the con-
gregation proceeds to examine the virtues and miracles in detail. "§ It is on
miracles that she rests her claims to be the only true Church. Bede
claims " the signs of an apostle" in behalf of Augustine, and records his
epitaph : Who, it says, " by God's assistance, supported xoith miracles, re-
duced King Eihelbert and his nation from the worship of idols to the faith
of Christ. "II Pass from this to the Breviary (or book of devotion for the
Roman cleigy), as restored by the decree of the Council of Trent. It
abounds wiih alleged miracles of the saints, e. g. : the conveying of St.
Raymond from Majorca to Barcelona, over 160 miles, in six hours, in no
othei' vessel than his cloak spread upon the waters.^ A prayer to be de-
hveied from the buining flames of hell, througli the merits of the count-
less miracles of the blessed Pontiff Nicholas.** St. Francis Xavier is
alleged to have been endowed with the miraculous gift of tongues, to have
restored sight to the blind, healed the sick, and even raised the dead Iff
St. Scholastica detained the venerable Father Benedict, her brother, one
whole night from his monastic cell, by creating, through her tears and the
nod of her head, a teriific thunder storm.JJ St. Peter of Alcantara,

* Bede'.s Ecclesiastical History, Book 1, c. 30.

t Tb , opening of c. '2^i.

t Muralori's Collection, quoted by Gibbon.

4 Introduction to Lives of Saints Canonized. May 2G 1839. p. 10

I! Bede, B. 2. c. 3.

i Breviary, Jan. 23. =** lb., Dec. G tt lb., Ben. .!. \\ lb., Feb. 10.

475

having planted his staff in the ground, it at once sprung into a sappy
fig-tree, with which he fed the hungry.* In the book of the Lives of the
Saints, it is recorded that he produced peaches from the boughs of a chest-
nut tree when the season had passed foi them, to satisfy the cravings of
the wife of St. Joseph of the Cross, f besides many similar miracles.^ St.
Aiphonsus Ligori is alleged to be omnipresent, preaching in one place and
hearing confessions in another at the same instant.J The same of St.
Francis di Girolamo, who also cured a woman of convulsions by hor kiss-
ing the relic of St. Cyr.§ St. Pacificus miraculoushj supplied both mortar
and other materials with which to finish the new rooms added to the
convent.!

But enough of this disgusting picture. Even the Romish controvertist,
Milner, says, " I admit that a vast number of incredible nnA false miracles,
as well as other fables, have been forged by some, and believed by other
Catholics, in every age of the Church."^

Sixth. Deceivableness of "unrighteousness. No. This " falling away"
was not to be brought about by an opert- denial o^ God and of religion.
The unwary, who were but little familiar with " the depths of Satan,"
were to be seduced by a concealment of the teeth of iron and nails of
brass, etc., of the beast " dreadful, and terrible, and stronj; exceedinfflv,"'
under the covert of " a form of godliness." And so he was

Seve.nth. To " sit in the temple of God" — the Church, Christian —
" whose temple are ye," built up a " spiritual house," a " holy temple."*
Paul had predicted, " For I know this, that after my departing, shall
grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock. Also of youb
OWN SELVES shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away dis-
ciples after them."' He " sitteth" in a quiet, easy posture in the chair of
St. Peter, a posture in which the apostate tyrant glories. Thence he
issues his " ex cathedra" mandates, wliich have hurled kings from their
thrones, shook kingdoms, raised crusades, kindled martyr-fires, etc. And
in which temple,

Eighth. He " opjjoseth and exalteth himself above all that is called God.,
or that is worshiped.'"* Now, of those " that are called gods," take the
three following orders, viz. :

1. Bishops and priests. The Tridentine Catechism says of these,
" Justly, therefore, are they called not only angels but gods, holding as
they do the place, and power, and authority of God on earth."** But,
says the same catechism, " siqyerior to all these (seven orders of clergy, see
p. 199) is the sovereign pontiff. . . As the successor of St. Peter, and
the true and legitimate vicar of Jesus Christ."\\

2. Princes and Judges are " called gods." Exod. 12:12; 22 : 9 ; Ps.
82. See John 10 : 34. Of the tiiles under which they claim supremacy
over these, see p. 221.

3. ']i\\Q consecrated host is "called God," and receives the worship due
unto God. In the Roman Prayer- Book J]; there are the following direc-
tions : " When the priest gives the benediction with the blessed sacrament,

(1) Dan. 7 : 7-19. (i) 1 Cor. 3 : 16, 17 ; 6 : 10 : 2 Cor. 6:16; 1 Tim. 3 : 15 ; lleb. 3:6; 10:21;
I Pet. 2 : 5. (3) Acts 20 : 29, 30. (4) See Dan. II : 36.

♦ lb.. Oct. 10.

t Lives of the Saints, p. 44-4. J lb., p. 26. § lb., p. 104. || lb., p. 190.

"IT End of Controv., Letter 24.

*♦ Eng. Trans, by Rev. J. Donovan. Rom. Priest. De Orel. Sac. pars 2, c. 7.

ft lb. tt Garden of the Soul, Preston ed., 1835.

476

bow down and profoundly adore your Savior there present. ... or you
may say thus : I devoutly adore thee, 0 hidden Deity." But the installa-
tion of his holiness in the chair of St. Peter exalts him above the host.
When he is placed on the altar of the Sixtine Chapel, though it is deno-
minated " the altar of the beauty of holiness, the throne of the victim
Lamb, the mercy-seat of the temple of Christianity," etc., yet it is made
the pope's ^'footstool."

4. Nor tills only. But "as God, he sitteth in the temple of Ood, show-
ing HIMSELF TfiAT HE IS GoD." He exalteth himself above all that is
called Ood, not only, but above all that is worshiped." But of Christ,
it is wiitton, " And let all the angels of God worship him." And that on
the ground that He is co-eternal, co-equal, co-essential with the Father,
and hence. One with Him. " I and my Father," saith He, " are one,"
one in nature or essence ; one in heart and love ; one in mind and will.
The self-manifested Deity ! in which capacity He holds the relation of
MEDrATOR between God and an apostate world, under the three-fold offices
of Prophet^ Priest and King.

It will be well also in this connection to recur to that passage in which
the name is given of this predicted " Man of sin." " Little children,"
says St. John, " it is the last time : and as ye have heard that Antichrist
shall come, even now are there many antichrists ; whereby we know that it
is the last time."^

Now, take in connection with this passage, and as expository of it, our
Lord's prediction of the destruction of the Jewish Church state, and of the
appeal ance of those false Christs and false prophets who were to precede
and indicate its approach.* The phrase, " the last time," in the above pas-
sage, pointed to the destruction of Jerusalem as then at hand, and of which
the " many Antichrists" in St. John's time Avas a prelude. That event oc-
curred soon after the penning of this epistle. The " many Antichrists"
that then were, however, though appearing in the spirit, yet were but
" the types and forerunners of a still more dreadful power, which should
be fully revealed in the latter times, in a future period, when that calamity
was past."*

Bishop Hurd gives the following definition " of the word Antichrist."
It " stands for a person or power actuated with a spirit opposite to that of
Christ." ... "It may either signify one who assumes the place and
OFFICE of Christ, or one who maintains a direct enmity and opposition to
him."f It follows that, as such, the assumptions of Antichrist must
cover all tiie official prerogatives which belong to Christ, as prophet,
priest, and king. They are verified in the alleged functions — infallible,
sacerdotal, and 'political, of the pontificate of Rome. Then, too, the name
of "the Man of sin ;" it cannot signify any one particular man, but a hu-
man power, actually exerted by a succession of different men. As man of
God evidently means not any particular man, but is to be understood of
all such in every age and among all nations ; so the man of sin un-
doubtedly signifies not any one man alone, but any man, or number of men
in all ages and places, whose peculiar station and circumstances shall be
found to correspond to the prophetic description here given of him.

In conclusion, then, on this subject, we remark, that the term " Avrt"

(1) 1 John 2 : 18. (2) Matt. 24 : 24 ; Mark 13 : 21.
* Bishop Hiird on the Prophecies, p. 121. London. 1839. f lb., p. 122.

477

(anti), in composition, frequently means " against ;" but when joined to a
noun of person or office (as in the name KvTLXQtOTog, Antichrist), it al-
most invariably means " instead of" and gives the substantive a vicakfous
position. ' O avr dXXov expresses a vicar, generally ; AvTif3aai/(.Evg
(Anti-Basileus), a vicar-king. . . . Avdvnarog (anth-upatos), a vicar-con-
sul. It is written (Matt. 2 : 22), " that Archelaus did reign {Avn HptjcJov
Anti-Herodou) i?i room of Herod." And Chrysostom, in his discourse on
" The Man of Sin," says : " He will cause himself to be worsiiipkd (AvtI
TOV Qeov, Anti tou Theou) as vicar of Ood." AvrixQiorog, Antichrist,
then, beyond a hesitant thought, means a VICAR-CHRIST. Now, both
the titles, Vicar of God, and Vicar of Christ, have been assumed by the
popes of Rome ! (" Confidens itaque per Domini ac Dei nostri misericor-
diam, providamque ipsius Dei in tcrris vicarii" etc.* " Christique Domini
verus et legitimus vicarius praesidet."f Tliese titles, worn by a mortal
man, seem enough to abound in pride and blasphemy, and should make
all men suspect that the pope of Rome is not truly " his Holiness." But
when it appears that "Vicarius Christi," VICAR OF C HRIST, is the
legitimate and veritable translation of the Church-corrupter's name,
Avrt;^pi(Tro^, Antichrist ; and, when we take into the account, in this
connection, the fact that, on the Romish hypothesis of transubstantia-
TiON ; namely, " that in the most holy sacrament of the Eucharist, there are
truly, really, and substantially contained the body and blood of our Lord
Jesus Christ, together with his soul and divinity, and consequently wfiole
AND ENTIRE, . . . as soou as the consecration is performed ;"J and then
bear in mind that the pope, when inaugurated into office, being placed on
the altar of the Sixtine Chapel makes it his footstool, thereby exalting
himself above the consecrated host or " hidden Deity" which the people are
required to "adore ;" can common sense refuse to say : " Thou," O pope,
" art the man" — " of sin ? Can common prudence venture to abide in the
Popish Church ?

* Con. Trid., session 6. De Reformation, c. 1.
t Catechism Council of Trent, part 2, cap. 7, L.

\ Council of Trent, session 13 ciiapter 8, canons 1 and 4, Brownley's edition, pp. 45,
46. New York. 1842.

478

APPENDIX B.

On the Charge brought by Prelatists against Calvin, that he preferred
Episcopal ordination, and sought after it, but could not obtain it, etc.

[I shall, on this subject, content myself to transcribe in this place the
following, from the Rev. Dr. Duffield's Letters to Bishop McCoskrey.
Having refuted the charge preferred by prelatists against Calvin and others,
that they "concede" that "the word Presbytery," in 1 Tim. 4 : 14,
means " the cleiical office," he says : — ]

Still more unfortunate are you, in your notice of Calvin's reason for not
receiving the apostolic ministry. It is not the first time, however, that pre-
laticul writers have found they had better let Calvin alone. The insinuation
you make, that he preferred Episcopal ordination, meaning of course pre-
latical, and would have received it, if he could have procured it, is, indeed,
obscurely made. But I certainly cannot be mistaken in thinking you de-
signed to make it. If this be not what you meant, I must be excused for
misapprehending your language ; for I confess myself unable to see what
else can be your meaning. Perhaps I should not have been able thus to
understand it, if I had not recently read the late controversy between Dr.
Miller, of Princeton, New Jersey, and Bishop Ives, of North Carolina, on
this subject. The latter gentleman has said that Calvin avowed a belief in
the divine institution of Episcopacy, and had requested to receive Episcopal
ordination from the bishops of England. I refer you to Dr. Miller's review
of, and reply to. Bishop Ives's attempt to prove his allegations, published in
the Presbyterian on the 5th and 12th of February last.

It seems the doctor was not allowed to vindicate Calvin, through the
same channel, in which he had been aspersed ; and, Clierefore, instead of
his letter being published in the " Lincoln Republican," where Bishop
Ives's had been, it had, after several weeks delay, to be published in Phila-
delphia. Probably you never saw the reply. Had you seen it, you would
not have renewed an allegation, which, in the most triumphant manner, has
been refuted by Dr. Miller. I have examined the quotations, as made by
both gentlemen, and find that Bishop Ives omicted some very important
qualifications, and makes use of Calvin's concession on an hypothesis
which he, in common with all opposed to popery, deemed improbable, and
impossible ever to be realized, as proof of a belief in the divine institution
of Episcopacy I Calvin had said, after ridiculing the claims of an uninter-
rupted succession, " if the Papists would exhibit to us such an hierarchy,
as that the bishops .should be so distinguished as not to refuse to be subject
to Christ ; to rely on Him as their only head, to cherish fraternal union

479

among Lhemsolves, and to be bound together by no other tie than his trutli,
then I should confess there is no anathema of wliich they are not worthy,
■who should not regard suck an hierarchy with reverence and obedience.
But what likeness to such an one, is borne by that spurious hierarchy in
Avhich they boast?" Be it remembered that the word hierarchy does'not
always apply to prelatical bishops. He afterwards condemns its arroirance
and tyranny, and shows its utter dissimilarity to that which Christ nnd his
apostles sanctioned.

Calvin's bishops were parochial bishops, or pastors of single churches,
just such as we Presbyterians, in our form of government, denominate
bishops. The propriety of having a moderator in the college of pastors or
presbyters, he also maintained, just as we have moderators of presbyteries.
Because he deemed such Episcopacy a divine institution, and consented if
Rome would produce a specimen of it, to condemn those that would not
yield reverence and obedience to such an hierarchy, therefore, lie believed
in the divine right of prelacy, or of your " Episcopal bishops," is a non-
SEQUiTUR by no means becoming a mitered or any other head. Yet Bishop
Ives gives the extract from Calvin, above quoted, in the followini-- terms ;
"If they will give us such an hierarchy in which the bishops have sucli a
pre-eminence, as that they do not refuse to be subject to Christ, then I will
confess that they are worthy of all anathemas, if any such shall be found,
who will not reverence it, and submit themselves to it with the utmost
obedience."

The most superficial reader can discern the difference between the
bishop's version of Calvin's hypothesis, and Calvin's own statement of it.
I give you this as a specimen of the accuracy of Bishop Ives, if you have
made the allegations on liis authority, and deem it unnecessary to adduce
further examples, of which Dr. Miller has furnished so many and so <rlar-
ing, that it is by no means strange the " Lincoln Republican" declined to
publish them.*

* Since the above was sent to press, the second edition of your sermon has been
published, in which I find a note confirming my conjectures, as to the source whence
you derived your information, and as to the authority on which you have rt'lied, to
prove that Calvin was enamoured with prelacy. You give Bishop Ives's rel'erences
exactly — references which I had not deemed it necessary to notice in detail, because
your first edition contained no particular facts or arguments to substantiate the charge
you have brought against Calvin, and because I had supposed it would suffice to direct
those who felt interested in the subject to the controversy between the Episcopal bishop
of North Carolina, and the Presbyterian doctor of Princeton, New Jersey. A more
particular notice is, however, now required in consequence of the note you have intro-
duced on the ■21st and '2"2d pages of your second edition.

You quote, as from "Durell's View of Foreign Reformed Churches," page 13-2. the
words of Calvin, '• in a letter to an old friend who had become a bishop in the Church
of Rome,"' and in which you say he "expressly recognizes Ejjiscopacy as of divine in-
stitution." His words are, " Episcopatus ipse a Deo profectus est Episcopi Munus Dei
authoritate constitutuni est et legibus definitum." " He who is made a bishop proceeds
from (Jod himself Episcopacy was established by the authority, and regulated by the
laws of God." There is nothing in this language that favors prelacy or diocesan
Episcopacy — the Episcopacy which you advocate, and claim to exercise, as if sunessor
of the apostles. You might just as well charge the whole Presbyterian Church with a
belief that prelatical Episcopacy is a divine institution, and quote the fourth chapter of
our form of government in proof of it, as to quote such language in proof of Calvin's
being a believer in the divine right of " Episcopal bishops."

You have not given the name of Calvin's "old friend," the "bishop in the Church
of Rome," to whom the letter was addressed. I submit to your attention the remarks
of Dr. Miller. " It is true," says the Dr., " that language of this kind is found in that

480

When it is alleged that Calvin desired and asked for " the apostolic
ministry," i.e. as you understand it to mean, Episcopal ordination, historical
evidence might be reasonably expected, nay, justly demanded. Bishop Ives
has not produced the shadow of historical evidence except a statement
found in Strype's memorials of Cranmer, p. 207, and in his " life of Bishop
Parker," pp. 09, 70, that Bullinger, and Calvin, and others, wrote to the

letter, but the most cursory perusal of the whole letter will banish, from any candid
mind, the idea that Calvin is here speaking of diocesan or prelatical Episcopacy. Does
not every intelligent reader know that that great reformer believed and uniformly taught,
that the office of bishop (that is, of the primitive, parochial bishop) was a divine insti-
tution? It is evidently of Xhis parochial Episcopacy that he speaks, when writing to his
'old friend,' in the language above quoted. The duties which he urges on him, and the
passages of Scripture which he quotes to enforce his counsel, all show that it is that
Episcopacy alone which he maintains to be of divine appointment."*

Your next quotation is from Calvin's appeal (supplex exhortatio) to Charles V.,
on the necessity of reforming the Church. You have omitted the very same words in
yours which Bishop Ives did in his quotation, and which Dr. Miller supplied, as noticed
above, in his reply. I here give you the original : " Talem nobis hierarchiam si
exhibeant : in qua sic emineant Episcopi, ut Christo non subesse recusent : ut ab illo,
tanquam unico capite, pendeant, et ad ipsum referantur : in qua sic inter se fraternam
societatem colant, ut non alio nodo, quam ejus veritate, sint colligati: tum vero nuUo non
anathemate dignos fateor, si qui erunt, quinon eam reverenter, summaque obedientia,
observent. Hoec vero Mendax hierarchiae larva, qua superbiunt, quid omnino habet
simile?" — Joannis Calvini, Magni theologici, Tractatus theologici omnes in unum
vol u men, certis classibus congesti, p. 60, a. b.

You next refer to the confession of faith which Calvin " composed in the name of the
French churches," and say that its " explicit language" renders it " manifest'''' he desired
to retain the Episcopal regimen, in his system of church government. I refer you also
to the articles, and say, that if by Episcopal regimen you mean prelacy, or the Episco-
pacy you advocate, we are at issue on a point of fact. In that paper, Calvin uses the
words bishops, pastors and superintendents, as synonymous. " Interea." says he, "tamen
Ecclesioe auctoritatem, vel pastorum et superintendentium, quibus Ecclesiae regendce
provincia mandata est, sublatam nolumus. Fatemur ergo Episcopos sive pastores,
reverenter audiendos, quatenus pro suce functionis ratione verbum Dei docent." " In the
mean time, nevertheless, we are unwilling that the authority of the Church, or of pas-
tors, and of those superintending, whose office it is to govern the Church, should be
taken away. We, therefore, confess that bishops or pastors should be reverently heard,
in so far as they teach the word of God for the ground of its functions. (Confessio
fidei, nomine Ecclesiarum Gallicarum, vigente bello, scripta, ut coram S. C. M. et
illustriss. Principibus Germaniae, at que ordinibus in comitiis Francofurtensibus
ederetur, si per itinerum difficultates ex Gallia turn eo perveniri potuisset, Anno M. D.
LXII., contained in Jo. Calv. Epist. et Respon , p. 254, a.) Dr. Miller says "the
friends of prelacy are heartily welcome to all the testimony which can be drawn from
that confession. It is decisively anti-prelatical in its character throughout, and the
churches which were organized on its basis, were as thoroughly Presbyterian as the
Church of Scotland ever was." That Calvin should have said, as you quote, "our
learned men have expressly yielded ordination to bishops" (see articles) , is as wide as
the poles from proof that the Episcopacy you advocate met Calvin's approbation.

Your ne.xt reference in proof of Calvin's attachment to Episcopacy, coinciding also
with that of Bishop Ive.s, is the fact that " he censures the clergy of Collen (Cologne ?)
for endeavoring to put their head bishop out of his place, inasmuch as he declared in
favor of reformation." I know no more suitable reply to this than the argumentum ad
hominem of Dr. Miller. Suppose Bishop McCoskrey should become a most zealous and
consistent Calvinist, as to his theological creed, and suppose the Episcopal clergy of
Michigan should conspire, on that account alone, to expel him from his diocese. Might
I not remonstrate against the conspiracy without being attached to prelacy ? I certainly
should feel it, both on groiuids of personal friendship and your known attachment to
Evangelical truth, my privilege and duty to exert what influence I might, to prevent
the rejection of a sound orthodox bishop, for the introduction of an Oxlbrd divine, or
other dangerous errorist, without compromiting my Presbyterian principles

• The Presbyterian of February 12, 1842.

^ . 481

young King Edward VI., offering to make him their defender, and to have

such bishops in their churches as there were in England. This might well

^■« have been done, Avhere the reference was had to the moral and religious

Ifc-. character of Edward and of his excellent bishops, and especially to their

^ decidedly anti-prelatical Low Church, or as we would say, Presbyterian

predilections. It proves just nothing as to their sense, and consequeatly as

Yonr next reference is also identical with that of Bishop Ives. You say that Calvin —
" writinu; to Ithavius, a Polonian bishop, whom he styles Illuslrious and reverend Lord
Bishop — so far from advising him to lay aside his Episcopacy, exhorts him to consider
what place he holdeth, and what burden is upon him." Calvin does not call Ithavius
'■ Right Reverend," reverendissimtis ; nor Lord, in the sense w'hich your langnajre implies,
as though it was identical with the title your Canada friends, after the fashion of the
English hierarchy, give yourself. The word "dominus" every school-boy knows is
equivalent to sir. It is the title of courtesy which Calvin uses in addressing the
humblest curate. And as to the "illustrious," it was that of merited excellence, and
not of office. I perceive, from the use you have made of Calvin's courtesy, that, if I
had happened to address you as the Right Reverend S. A. McCoskrey, D D., Bishop,
&c., which I did not, rathen by accident and entire ignorance of the importance I
understand both you and your friends attach to it — disliking and rejecting all honorary
titles myself — than out of any uncourteous design, I, too, would have been convicted,
by the same rule you apply to Calvin, of Episcopal predilections. It behooves me,
therefore, hereafter to be careful how I address a bishop.

I have not, in any of my letters, for a moment hinted it, nor have I even thought
"of advising (you) to lay aside (your) Episcopacy," nor is it my wish you should,,^
however anxious I am that you should not inculcate the high-toned doctrines on the .
subject of apostolic succession, which I know are as offensive to many excellent Epis-"
copalians, both clerical and lay, as they are to other denominations. It is passing
strange, therefore, that Calvin should be convicted of Episcopal predilections, because
he did not advise Bishop Ithavius to quit his see.

But I must vindicate Calvin, and while I do so discharge a duty which it would seem
I myself owe to you, inasmuch as I have undertaken to write to a bishop, or, as Calvin
says, scribere ausiis sum. but which, while I wish you to understand it as being my most
friendly and affectionate counsel, given in Calvin's own words, and for your personal
benefit, I shall leave untranslated. '" Etsi autem plausum tibi in mundi theatro conciliat
splendida hcec dignitas, cavendum tamen diligenter, ne te demulceant fallaces blanditiae,
quibus laqueis Satan multos hodie inexitialem labyrinthum trahit." The Oxfordism
in some Episcopal Churches, renders it pertinent to add, " Quid ergo tibi agendum est ?
Fervent apud vos dissidia, pars una restitui cupit integrum Dei cultum ; altera impias
superstitiones pervieaciter defendit. Te medium stare, quem Deus quasi porrecta manu
aJ causae suae patrocinium vocat, turpe ac n'efas est. Cogita quem locum occupes, et
quod onus tibi sit impositum. Ignosces mihi pro tua humanitate, si uno in verbo sim
asperior (ijuia ut proficiam, libe re quod sentio dicendum est), ubi ad coeleste tribunal
ventuni fuerit, non posse elui proditionis crimen, nisi te mature subducas ab la caterva,
quae aperte ad opprimendum Christi nomen conspirat ;" and which, I verily believe, is
the tendency and effect, not only of the Oxford theology, but of your doctrine of apos-
tolic succession. "Nam vero si tibi molestum est minui, ut crescat in te Christus, in
mentem veniat Moses exemplum, qui sub umbris obscuris, Christi tamen opprobrium
deiiciis (Egyptiorum et opibus prceferre non dubitavit." Jo. Calv. Ep. et Resp., p.
131, a. b.

Your next reference, in common with Bishop Ives, is to Calvin's letter to the king of
Poland. The object of that letter, as any one who reads it may see, is to pi omote piety
and true doctrine in the Church of Poland. , He does not exhort the king to destroy the
hierarchy which was firmly establishe<i there, but holds up that of Rome as altogether
execrable, and urges his majesty to reform the Church in matters which he deemed
first and most essential. He contrasts the hierarchy of the ancient church w th that of
Rome, but distinctly refers to the provincial primacies as to the invention of the
Church, not as a divine in.stitution. The ancient Church of which he spoke was not
the apostolic church ; nor is there in tlie whole of that letter one solitary word which
would imply — what you and Bishop Ives have said — that Calvin approved of all the
degrees of the hierarchy even of that ancient church. He says that ambition and pride
fabricated the Roman hierarchy. That of the ancient church, prior to the apostate Rom^n
hierarchv, he admits, was instituted by the Church, for the purpose of consolidating the

482

to Calvin's views, of the merits of prelatical Episcopacy. If it proves
any thing, it is the very reverse of that for which Bishop Ives cited it. He
lias assumed, in his argument, what is notoriously incorrect — that Edward
and his bishops's views of Episcopacy were identical with his own High
Church notions, and you have followed after him. All the rest of his
proof is attemjJts at argument, the utter weakness ivciA fallacy of which
Ur. Miller has, with his cliaracteristic urbanity, exposed. As to the bishop's
reference to Strype, the doctor says, " Let the letter be produced, and
then we will beheve ; but not till then." The improbability of there ever
having been a letter written, the doctor has shown, and adduced the testi-
mony of Dr. Heylin, a bitter opponent of Calvin and Presbyterianisra, to
prove that Calvin was consulted by Cranmer, who sought his counsel, and
requested his aid, in conducting the English Reformation. He even sent
the first draft of the English Liturgy, early in the reign of Edward, to
him, requesting his advice and criticisms, which Calvin returned, saying he
found in it some tolerabiles inejitias, tolerable fooleries, which he would
wish might be corrected, and which was accordingly done.*

The fact is, Calvin was devoted to the work of reformation — anxious to
see it advance, but he was not such a zealot or bigot as to spurn every ad-
vance in it, because it did not come up fully to his standard. He gladly
hailed every step taken in a departure from Popery, and to construe his
kind feeling and co-operation with Cranmer in the work of reforming the
English Church into a proof that he beUeved in the divine institution of
Episcopacy, as practiced in that Church, would be just about as logical as
to say — what is sometimes presumed by proselyting spirits in your
Church — that because we Presbyterians rejoice in the religious advance-
union of her bishops. Then he supposes an organization (quemadmodum si hodie) for the
Church of Poland, which might resemble it (a delicate way to hint to the king the
nature and extent of the reformation to be sought by him in his hierarchy) , and in de-
tailing the features of this supposed organization for Poland, according to the model of
the ancient church, he makes the Episcopacy that might be introduced into Poland
agree in all essential respects with a Presbyterian organization, where the archbishop
should be the permanent moderator of the synod, and the provincial or city bishops the
moderators of their presbyteries — each primus inter pares, and chosen for that purpose
from among themselves. His views also of ordination, and of succession, expressed in
the same letter, are in perfect keeping. That you and Bishop Ives should have read the
original of Calvin's letter so as to make it proof of his approbation of all the degrees of
the hierarchy of the ancient church, founded, as you teach, in the apostolic supremacy
of the bishop, and the three orders of the ministry, is so passing strange that I shall not
allow myself to attempt any solution of the phenomenon. See the original letter in
Joh. Calvin ep. pp. 85-8.

Your last reference is also identical with that of Bishop Ives, the reply to which by
Dr. Miller, as given above, I had embodied in this letter before t had seen your second
edition. I only add, that the witnesses who testify to this fact, related by Strype, viz.,
the Popish Bishops Bonner and Gardiner, were, according to your own showing, guilty
of "forgery," and therefore their word is of no authority until Calvin's letters them-
.selves be produced. They are not to be found among all his printed epistles. Not a
hint of it is dropped in his letters to Cranmer, or in Cranmer's to him Archbishop
Abbot does not say, even in the testimony you quote, that he saw Calvin's letters ;.
only that he learned from Archbishop Parker^s papers that Calvin desired the Epis-
copacy. So far from being " prevented by untoward circumstances from retaining the
Episcopal regimen" in the Church of Geneva, he even states, e.xpressly, that the Pres-
byterian system of government which he introduced there, was his deliberate choice,
and that the church had been reformed agreeably to God's word, the only rule. {See his
epistle ad quendam Curatum.)

* See Presbyterian of February 12, 1842.

483

ment of your churches, the increase of evangelical men and principles
among you, and care not to press our peculiarities, but are willing to aid
and to countenance every effort made for improvement in true religion
among you, therefore we have become enamoured with Episcopacy —
gown and surplice, lawn sleeves and miter, liturgy and Episcopal bishops,
and all, and would gladly receive the whole, if circumstances beyond con-
trol did not prevent it ! Yet, such I am constrained to believe, is the only
pretext for claiming Calvin for the Episcopate, at least until you show
where, "on the plea of necessity," it has ever been "said (by Calvin) that
he could not receive the apostolic ministry from circumstances beyond his
control." ,

APPENDIX C.

ON THE TITLE, " ELDERS."

A Distinction in their respective Inunctions.

That thi^ distinction is supported on the authority of the New Testament
Scriptures, will appear from the " concurrent opinion" both of the " early
fathers," and modern divines of different " denominations, down to a recent
period."

Cyjyrian, Bishop of Carthage, between a.d. 246-258. Bishop Fell, in
commenting on his twenty-ninth Epistle, which is " addressed to the elders
and deacons," from " the manner in which he there speaks of elders,"
says, in a foot note, that " St Paul appears to have distinguished ( 1 Tim.
5 : IV) anciently between ruling elders and teachers."*

Oriyen, between 204-250. Archbishop Potter, in speaking of Origen's
"account (Adv. Celsum, hb. 3, p. 142, ed. Cant.) of Church discipline as
administered in his age," quotes him as representing that " tliey who have
been but lately introduced, and have not received the svmbol of purifica-
tion (that is, baptism), are assigned to a different place from the rest, who
have already given full proof of their sincere resolution to addict them-
selves wholly to the Christian doctrine and way of life. Some of these lat-
ter ARE ORDAINED to inquire into the lives and conversations of those who
present themselves to be admitted, in order to prohibit infamous and vile
persons from coming into their assembly ;f" characteristics, it is contended,
which can apply to " the position and functions" on none other than ruling
elders,

* Epistle 29. Bremne. 1690.

t Potter on Church Government, Chapter V.

484

Hilary, of the fourth century, says : " The synagogues, and afterwards
the Chvirch. had elders, without whose council nothing was transacted in
the Cluirch." And he adds: "by wliat negligence it fell into disuse, I
know not, unless, perhaps, by the indolence, or rather by the pride, of the
teachers, while they alone wished to appear something."'' This rendering
of Hilary, or Ambrose, though disputed by some, " has been owned by
eminent men of all parties — by Bucer, Peter Martyr, Calvin, Whitgift,
Zanchius, etc., etc."

The Wa/denses.j Dr. Blair, in the appendix to his history of this inte-
resting people, qu(]tes from their " Book of Discipline," on the " article con-
cerning elders," the following : " Rulers and elders are chosen out of the
people, according to the diversity of the work in the unity of Christ."
And, " in a separate article on excommunication," they speak of the rulers
by whom the Church is governed and conserved. In relation to these pas-
sages, Mr. Blair remarks — " They had three orders of men above their
ordinary members ; the bishop or teaching elder, the lay elder, and the
deacon," etc.J .

" At the time of the reformation, the creeds and confessions of almost
all reformed countries emphatically avowed the divine appointment of this
office — the reformed Churches of Switzerland, Poland, Germany, Holland,
Belgium and France. Even the Church of England is no exception. The
same convocation which passed the Xhirty-nine Articles, sanctioned a
Catechism drawn up by the Rev. Dean Noweil, in which the maintenance
of discipline by a ruling eldership is unequivocally advocated. In the con-
cluding part of Mr. Nowell's Catechism, the following answer is given as
to the best means of remedying impure communion : — " In well-constituted
and well-regulated churches, a certain plan and order of government, as I
have already said, was instituted and observed. Elders were chosen — that
is, ecclesiastical magistrates — in order to maintain and conduct ecclesiasti-
cal discipline. To these belonged authority, reprimand, and chastisement
by censure. These^ with the co-operation of the pastor,'^ etc.§ And in
proof, he refers, among other passages, to 1 Tim. 5 : lY.

So, Peter Martyr, who, on " the invitation of Edward VI." came to
England, and " became afterwards Professor of Divinity at Oxford. Hav-
ing cited the words, • he that ruleth with diligence,' he proceeds : * al-
though I doubt not that there were many rulers in the Church, yet, to con-
fess the truth, this appears to me to be most aptly understood of ciders ;
not indeed of those who presided over the dispensation of word and doc-
trine, but of those who were given as assistants to pastors,' etc. ' For the
Church had its elders ; or, so to speak, its senate, who consulted about
things as the time demanded.' And, quoting 1 Timothy 5 : 17, he
says : ' by which words he [Paul] seems to intimate that there are some
elders who teach and propound the Word of God ; and that there are others
also, while they do not this, nevertheless preside in the Church as presby-
ters or elders. 'II

" Dr. Thomas Goodwin, one of the Westminster Assembly of Divines,
who ranks with the most learned Independents of the seventeenth cen-
tury, in his Commenlary on Romans 12, verse 8, says: ' Though to rule is

* Comment. Sancti Ambrosii. 1 Tim. f> : 1. t See pages,

t Blair's Hi.story of the Waldenses, Vol. I., pp. .'j:^ 1-530, and -540,
\ Noelli Catech., contained in the Enchiridion Theologium of Bishop Randolph.
li Loci Communes, class, quar. cap. 1, p. 74G. London, 15S3.

"485

a pastor's office, as woU as an elder's, yet the elder is more especially said
to rule, because he is wholly set apart to it,' " etc.*

" Tlie Rev. Thomas Hooker, a celebrated Independent pastor of New-
England, in his ' Survey of Church Discipline,' resolutely defends ' the
ruling- elder's place.' He declares that Rom. 12 : 7 'gives in witness to
this truth, where all these officers are numbered and named expressly.' "f

" The Independents of Em/land witnessed in times past to tlie same
principle." The historian, Neale, quoting from Bradshaw's Treatise, en-
titled, " English Puritanism," under chapter 4, which treats concernintr the
elders, says : " 1. They hold that, by God's ordinance, tlie congreg^ation
should choose other officers, as assistants to the ministers in the govern-
ment of the Church, who are, jointly with the ministers, to be overseers of
the manners and conversation of all the congregation. 2. That these are
to be cliosen out of the gravest and most discreet members, who are also
of some note in the world, and able (if possible) to maintain themselves.''^

Dr. Doddridge, another eminent Congregationalist, says, in commentinj^
on 1 Timothy, 5 : lY (especially they who labor) : " This seems to insinu-
ate that there v/ere some who, though they presided in the Church, were
not employed in preaching."

Dr. Dwight, late President of Yale College, New Haven, Connecticut,
thus writes in his "System of Theology," (Vol. 5, p. 17I): " Preachino-
is every where in the Scriptures exhibited as an employment suj)erior to
that of ruling. In the passage quoted from 1 Timothy 5 : 17, this
truth is decidedly exhibited. Here St. Paul directs that preaching elders
should be accounted worthy of more honor than ruling elders."

"The celebrated Dr. Oiocn, one of the brightest ornaments of Inde-
pendencg," in his Treatise on the " True Nature of a Gospel Church,"
chapter V, warmly advocates the above distinction between the preaching
and ruling elder at considerable length. We have only room, however, for
the following : He says : " The pattern of the first churches constituted by
the apostles, which it is our duty to imitate and follow as our rule, con-
stantly expresseth and declares that many elders were appointed by them
in every Church. There is no mention in the Scripture, no mention in an-
tiquity, of any Church wherein there were not more elders than one, nor
doth that Church answer the original pattern where it is otherwise."
Then, in another Treatise, on " Worsliip and Discipline," by way of question
and answer, speaking of these " many elders," he says — Question 31 :
"Are there any appointed elders in the Church, whose office and duty
consist in rule and government o)dg ? Answer : Elders not called to
teach ordinarily, or administer the sacraments, but to assist and help in the
rule and government of the Church, are mentioned in Scripture (Rom. 12 :
8, 1 Cor. 12 : 28, 1 Tim. 5, 17). Explication: This office of ruling elders
in the Church is much opposed by some, and in especial by tlu-ra who have
least reason so to do. The qualifications of these elders, with the way of
their call and setting apart unto their office, being tlie same with those of
the teaching elders before insisted on, need not be here again repeated.
Their authority, also, in the whole rule of the Church, is every way the
same with that of the other sort of elders, and they are to act in the exe-

*The Government of the Church, book 0, c. S.

t Quoted by Dr. Millur— Ofiice of Ruling Elder, ch 7.

j History of the Puritans, Part ;2, chapter 1, p. 1 10, 1th edition.

486

cution of it with equal respect and regard from the Church. Yea, the
business of rule being peculiarly committed unto them, and they required
to attend thereunto with diligence, in an especial manner, the work thereof
is principally theirs, as that of laboring in the word and doctrine doth es-
pecially belong unto the pastors and teachers of the churches."

Finally, Archbishop Whately says : — " The plan pursued by the apos-
tles seems to have been to establish a great number of small (in compari-
son with most modern churches), distinct, and independent communities,
each governed by its own single bishop, consulting, no doubt, with his own
presbyters, and accustomed to act in concurrence with them," etc.*

I close these remarks with a few words to the " multiplied denomina-
tions" outside of " the Church." To my mind, at least,

1. There is a distinction to be observed between what constitutes the
elements of a scriptural ministry, and those which appertain to matters of
government and discipline. Both classes of elements are deducible from the
Scriptures, and tlie functions of the former have to do more or less with
the exercise of the latter. But I submit whether, in regard to the former,
there is not a clearness if not an explicitness in the instructions given,
which will not apply to the latter. This may be illustrated by reference to
the variations, in the matter of government and discipline, wiiich have ob-
tained among the several branches of the Church of Christ since the
period of the Reformation ; while they have, nevertheless, by a coincidence
as undesigned as it is extraordinary, adopted the same divinely-appointed
order of the ministry. This clearly shows that they were guided by the
principle, that while the instructions of the New Testament in reference to
that ministry which was designed for the ordinary and permanent service
of the Church for all coming time was clear and definite ; those which re-
lated to the plan of church government were too indefinite, not in its principles
but in their adjustment, to lead to a claim for any ecclesiastical system, in
exact accordance with the scriptural model. "f Hence, what I contend for
as essential is, the theory of ministerial parity in its generic presbytcrial
sense. And while, for myself, I prefer that form of government and dis-
cipline in the Church as constituted of the " representatives of the people,
■with their pastors," as, in my judgment most in accordance with the New
Testament " model ;" and which, with some diversity in names, and in the
minuter details of their ecclesiastical proceedings, has been adopted by
" the Reformed Churches in France, Holland, Germany, Switzerland,
Scotland," and the United States ; it is enough for me that God has
stamped with the seal of His approbation other ecclesiastical forms, where
•' the ministers of the word and sacraments" are recognized as " officialli/
equal." This is true of the Congregational platform. So also of Episco-
pacy, as founded on the basis of expediency, and of which the Methodist
Episcopal Church may be taken in illustration. These several bodies
" differ mainly only in relation to points not essential to salvation." " Unit-
ing, as they do, in a recognition of the doctrine of Justification by faith in
Christ as a cardinal truth," their diff'erence of views on the subject of gov-
ernment and discipline forms the principal barrier to their external union.
On the other hand, prelacy, being constituted of an alleged Christianized
priesthood of " divers orders," claims the possession of functions or

* Kingdom of Christ, p. 165.

t Dr. Dickinson's Discourse on the Church of Christ, p. 19.

487

powers, sacerdotal or vicarial, governmental and disciplinary, as inherent
rights, within itself.

While, then, on this latter hypothesis — an hypothesis which, carried out
in loijfical sequence, not only raises non-essentials to a level with, but
elevates them above, those that are fundamental — I can discover nothing
but tlie most radical elements of disunion ; in regard to the other, to use
the language of the distinguished Chalmers in his speech at the first
" General Assembly of the Free Church of Scotland," May 18, 1845,
"I trust that you will not charge me with over-liberality, if I say, as I do
from my conscience, that among the great majority of Evangelical Dissent-
ers in this country, I am not aware of any topics of difference which I do
not regard as so many men of straw ;" and I hope j^et to see the day
when the hearts of the various denominations " Evangelical, will meet
together, and consult to make a bonfire of them." " Yes, while I de-
precate the latitudinarianism that would lay too little stress on what
is important, I feel as if I could not sufficiently deprecate and denounce
the evil of that ultra and exclusive sectarianism which lays too great stress
upon what is insignificant, and the suppression of which would remove
a mighty obstacle which at present lies in the way of a visible union of
Christians."*

APPENDIX D.

WALDENSES.

The circumstances of time, etc., of the origin of this singularly pious,
interesting, and simple-minded people, and of the appellation by "which
they are distinguished, is involved in some degree of uncertainty. Yet,
from the fact that they claim a descent from those followers of Christ
■who, in the second and third centuries, to escape from the hands of the
Roman emperors, took refuge in the deep, secluded, and almost unknown
valleys which begirt the lofty Alps ; and also, that even their bitterest
enemies in the Romish ranks who have written against them, — Reinerius,
Peter de Pillichdorf, Rorenco and Cassini, confess that their Churches are
of much more ancient date than the time of Peter Waldo, a.d. 1170 ; we
are warranted in placing them in the ranks of those witnesses for the truth
•whom God has preserved as the immutable pledge of His faithfulness to
the Church, that against her the gates of hell never should prevail.'

Some derive the name Waldenses from " Wald," a German appellation
for a wood. The name in Latin is " Vallenses, which signifies the men of

(1> Matt. 16 : 18.
* D'Aubigne's Germany, England and Scotland, p. 139. New York : Carter, 1848.

488

the valleys." Occupying also the ancient province of Upper Languedoc
in France, they were called Alhigknsks, from Albi, one of its cities. From
this province, however, they were expelled in the twelfth century. They
still occupy "n small country on the Italian side of the Alps," and are
therefore Italians ; and as such, being denominated Vaudois by the French,
tliey should be distinguished from " the inhabitants of tlie Canton de
Vaud, in Switzerland, who are also called Vaudois in French, but who oc-
cupy a country that is at least 150 miles distant" from them.*

It is also of importance to remark in this place, that some remains of
thie M.anicheans, and Arians, who found shelter among the Albigenses, r/-
ceived the same name, which circumstances, together with the fact of their
being sometimes confounded with the followers of Peter Waldo, called the
Poor Men of Lyons, Humihati, Sabbatali, etc., but who advocated a com-
rannit)^ of goods, and who continued to fraternize with Rome in the articles
of celibacy and. other monkish austerities ; and also with the Lombards,!
another fraternity of monks, but who, though they assumed the appear-
ance of deep humility, yet adopted the Arian creed, and were great ene-
mies to the Waldenses, have subjected them to the imputation of having
taught the vilest heresies and practiced the grossest enormities. That
these accusations, however, are without the least foundation in truth, we
have only to refer to the fact, that Reinerius, the Romish inquisitor, in the
preface of his report of the heresy of the Waldenses, comprehends their
faults under the following particulars : " That they reviled the Roman
Church, and the clergy, and condemned the sacraments, the saints, and
the approved customs of the Church ; but that they were of a composed
and modest demeanor, chaste, frugal, hating pride, lying, swearing, fraud."

APPENDIX E.

POPE JOAN.

[Having inserted the above name in our Catalogues of the Popes, in ad-
dition to my own remarks on the subject as an historical fact, I herewith
transcribe the following from the pen of the Rev. George Peck, D.D., in
his review of the controvei-sy between the Rev. Drs. Potts and Wain-
wright, and inserted in the Methodist Quarterly Review for January, 1845,
pp.*149-153.

The writer, having argued " that the Romish Catalogues are not all reli-

* Amer. and For. Christ. Union, Vol. I., Nos. 3, 4, et seq. See also Spanheim's
Eccles. Hist., pp. 400, 401.

t The Loinli,ircls, a.d. 568, under Albion, invaded Italy, and erected a new kingdom
al Ticiniim (Pavia^ Waged war wilh yno Creek?, a n. 5SG. Attacked Ravenna, and
became masters of the Exarchate and Pentapoli.f, a.d. 751. But, under Desiderius their
king, Charlemagne j)nt an end to their idngdoai in Italy, a.d. 774.

489

able," and that " they are often fictitious, absurd, and self-contradictory,
on the subject of the above named Pope, he says :]

" We may piove this position from what we find in Romish writers in
relation to the famous Joan, the female pope. As to name and date,
there is no pope for several centuries more clearly identified by Romish
writers. In an old Latin copy of the Lives of the Popes, by Platina —
himself a faithful servant of tiio pope — and dedicating his work to Sixtws
IV., ' A.D. 1681,' we have the Life of Pope ' loannes VIII' (a.d. 854),
between Leo IV. and Benedict III. ' This story,' he says, ' I have related
barely and in short, lest I should seem obstinate and pertinacious if I had
omitted what is so generally talked : I had better mistake with the rest of
the world ; though it be certain, that what I have related may be thoufht
not altogether incredible.'*

" Omqihrius, the commentator and continuator of Platina, tries various
expedients to get rid of this story. His first objection is substantially re-
peated by Harding in opposition to Bishop Jewel, thus : " Thouo-h men
had at that time been so far bewitched and distracted of their wits as they
could not have known a woman from a man (which no wise man, I mean,
believeth), yet it is not to be thought that God himself, who appointed and
ordained the See of Peter, whereof he would the whole Church to be di-
rected, would depart so far from his merciful providence toward the
Church, as to sufixjr the same to be polluted by a woman, which is not of
capacity for holy orders.'

" To this Bishop Jewel replies in this straight-forward old-fashioned
style : ' This guess, M. Harding, presumeth over far of God's providence.
And therefore Antoninus, the Archbishop of Florence, when he had opened

* We here give, for the benefit of the scholar, the whole story, which he will agree
with us would scarcely be suitable for the public eye in a literal translation.

. " lOANNES VIII.

" Joannes Anglicus, ex Maguntiaco oriundus, malis artibus (ut aiunt) pontificatum
adeptus est. Mentitus enim sexum, cum fcemina esset, adolescens admodum Athenas
cum amatore viro docto proficiscitur : ibique prfcceptores bonarum artium audiendo la-
tum proJecit, ut Roraain veiiiens, paucos admodum etiam in sacris litteris pares haberet,
ne dum superiores. Legendo autem et dispiitando docte et acute, tantum benevolentiac
et auctoritatis sibi comparavit, ut mortuo Leone in ejus locum (ut Martinus ait) omnium
consensu poutifex crearetur. Verum postea a servo compressa, cum aliquamdiu occulte
ventrem tulisset, tandem, dum ad Lalheranensem basilicam proficisceretur. inter tbea-
trum (quod Colossenum vocant a Neronis colosso) et sanctum Clementem, doloribus
circunnenta peperit : eoque loci mortua, pontificatiis sui anno secundo, mense uno, die-
busquattuor, sine uUo honore sepelitur. Sunt qui ob haec scribant, pontificem ipsum,
qnaiido ad Lateranensem basilicam proficiscitur, detestandi facinoris causa, et viam
illam consulto declinare, et ejusdem vitandi erroris causa, dum primo in sede Petri col-
locatur, ad eam rem perforata, genitalia ab ultimo diacono attrectari. De primo non
abnuerim de secundo ita sentio, sedem iliam ob id paratam esse, ut qui in tanto magus-
tatu constituitur, sciat se non Deum, sed hominem esse ; et necessitatibus naturre. ut
pote egerandi subjectom esse, unde merito stercoraria sedes vocatur. Hkc. qu-e di.xi,
vulgo feruntur, incertistamen et obscuris auctoribus : qurc ideo ponere breviter et nude
institui, ne obstinate nimium et pertinaciter omisisse videar, quod fere omnes affirmant :
erremus etiam nos hac in re cum vulgo, quaquam appareal, ea quae dixi, ex his esse,
quoe fieri posse creduntnr. Sunt qui dicant. hnjus temporibus beati Vincentii corpus e
Valentia citerioris Hispaninc civitate, a quodam monacho in pagum Albiensem ulterioris
Gallirp deportatum. Dirunt pra?terea. Lotharium jam grandem natu. sumpto monacho-
rum habitu, filium Ludovicum imperatorem reliquisse, qui statim in Germaniam proitin-
ciam rediens, omnes ad arma spectantes sua pr.T.seutia in ollicio conlinuit.' "' — Hhtoria
B. FlatiruE de vilis pontificiun liomanoruni, pp. 13;j, 134.

490

this whole story of Pope Joan, being offended with the strangeness and
admiration of the matter, could not refrain himself from crying out, ' O
the depth of the wisdom and knowledge of God ! how inscrutable are his
judgments.' And wliy might not Pope Joan have as good right and in-
terest unto the See of Rome as afterward had Pope John XIII., who, be-
ing pope, had wicked company with two of his own sisters ; or others,
whom for their horrible vices and wickedness Platina calls momlerH against
kind, and ill-shapen creatures? Luitprandus saith, as it is before re-
ported, ' The PoiKs imlace of Lateran in Rome is noio become a steiv of
harlots.' Now, how much more injury could be inflicted upon ' the seat
of Peter' by Pojie Joan than by many male popes who have occupied it, is
certainly worthy of inquiry, before we yield to the objection.

Onuphritis also objects that Anastasius, who lived at this time, and
gives an account of the death of Leo, and the elevation of Benedict, is silent
about Pope Joan.

" Painulphus, in his Polychronican^i gives us the reasons why the histori-
ans of the time omitted it : 'jjrojjter turpitudinem rei — the vileness of the
thing.' Be this as it may, we have strong Roman Catholic authority for
this piece of history. Martinus Palonus, who was penitentiaiy to Nicholas
III., and afterward Archbishop of Casensa — Marianus Scotus, a.d. 1080,
a monk and a chronicler upon whom the Romanists have placed much de-
pendence in dating their councils — Sighert, abbot of Gerablaus, who lived
A.D. 1100 — Petrarch, who lived in the fourteenth century, and many oth-
ers, give the account as veritable history. After an examination of the
whole matter, Bishop Jewel makes up the account thus : —

" ' But let truth be falsehood, and let stories be fable. Yet M. Harding,
it may please you to remember, that the same fable was raised in Rome,
and from thence only, and from no place else, was published abroad into
the world. But let the pope's own secretaries and all the people there be
deceived ; and, to shadow the shame of that See, let Rome itself be the
mother of lies. Let no man know the certain truth of matters, but only
Onuphrius, the pope's parasite, and M. Harding. Yet neither would so
many chronicles have recorded, nor would the whole world so universally
have believed, these things of the popes, more than of any other bishops,
had there not been wonderful corruption of manners, and dissolution of
life, and open horror, and filthiness in that only See, above all others.

" ' Howbeit, good Christian reader, that thou mayst well and clearly
understand that our dealing herein is plain and simple, and that we have
not imagined these matters, or any parcel thereof ourselves, may it please
thee to read Platina in lohanne VIII. ; SabelUcus, Enneadis 9, lib. 1 ;
Leonicus Chalcocondyla, a Greek wiiter, lib. 6 ; Marianus Scotus, that
lived about the year of our Lord 1028 ; Sigibertus Gemblacensis, that lived
about the year of our Lord 1100 ; Martinus Polonus, the pope's peniten-
tiary, whom M. Harding so much defaceth, that lived about the year of our
Lord 1320 ; Ravisius Texton in Officina, Ca. F(xmina: habitum verilem
mentilce ; Antoninus, the archbishop of Florence, part 2, tit. 16 ; Volater-
ranus ; Nauclerus ; Car ion ; Constaniius Phrygio ; Christianus Mo.ssceus ;
Matthoeus Palmerius Florentinus ; Ansdmus Rid ; Johannes Parisicnsis,
cap. 20; Sup)p)lemcuta Chronica r a 7n ; Chronica Ckronicarum ; Fasciculus
temporum, and others more. Of these some lived four hundred, some five
hundred years ago ; and have ever been counted worthy of some authority.
Notwithstanding, for your dame Joan's sake, you, M. Harding, begin now

491

to clip their credit. Howbeit, whatsoever they were, certain it is they were
no Lutherans. All these with one consent agree together, that dame Joan
was Pope of Rome.' — Defense, p. 352.

" Here is a strong array of Roman Catholic authorities in favor of the fact
of a female pope. We do not pretend to say that the evidence is conclu-
sive, indeed we doubt whether it is sufficiently sustained. Blondcl and
Bower, two great Protestant writers, have investigated the matter more
fully than others, and come to the conclusion that the story is fabulous.
Their conclusions are based upon the want of cotemporaneous history, the
first notice taken of it being by an author who lived some two hundred
years after the event is said to have transpired. Bower, however, says what
no one denies, that ' the female pope owes her existence and her promotion
to the Roman Catholics themselves ; for by them the fable was invented,
was published to the world by their priests and monks before the Refor-
mation, and was credited, upon their authority, even by those who were
most zealously attached to the holy See, and among the rest by St. Antoninus,
Archbishop of Florence, nor did they begin to confute it till Protestants
reproached them with it, as reflecting great dishonor upon the See of St.
Peter.' — History of the Popes.

" The case then is this. There is given in the chronicles to which recourse
is had for the Romish succession, written by the ' priests and monks' of
the Church of Rome — credited and related by the high functionaries of that
church, archbishojys and jjenitentiaries, and universalhj believed for the
space of five hundred years — the name of a female pope — fictitious, if you
please — who is said to have reigned about two years and a half and or-
dained bishops ! Thus we have the ' quod ab omnibus' evidence for five
centuries to a female link in the succession which Catholics — Roman and
Anglican — now laugh at as a fable of the monks. Now let the reader not
forget that it is to these very chroniclers that our successionists go to
identify each link of the Romish succession for at least the space of eight
centuries! Doubtless all their 'records' — excepting that of 'dame
Joan — 'are as susceptible of proof as the genuineness and authenticity
of the books of the New Testament !' Dr. Wainwright being the judge.

" We will close what we have to say upon this matter with a brief notice of
the explanation of the origin of the story given by Onujihrius. He thinks the
tale arose from the fact that Pope John the Twelfth had many concubines,
and among them Joan. He was made pope at the age of twelve years, and
was so governed in all he did by ' dame Joan, that perhaps in derision
the name of this woman was given to her obsequious paramour. And
hence, says the learned apologist for the pope, ' some idle head or other
invented 'this tale of her.' This, then, is the version of a learned Romish
historian. A licentious boy of twelve years old, who has ' many concu-
bines,' is so entirely under the dictation of one of them in particular, as
that he is called by her name ! All that he did being known to be done
by the dictation of ' a concubine' named ' Joan,' he is called ' Pope
Joan!' A vast improvement this! No doubt Dr. Wainwright and his
note-writer will think that the succession is quite safe coming through
' John the Twelfth,' though it would be somewhat doubtful had it really
come through ' Joan,' though, for our part, if the history of Joan were
well authenticated, we should think her ftir the more competent of the two.

" We have had two objects in view in this discussion. The first is that we
may show how little authority is due to the Romish chronicles for several

492

centurios ; and the second, to put the case of tlie ' ft-ii'sale pope' upon its
true basis before our readers. Having said all that is necessary for the ac-
complishment of these purposes, we now leave the subject."

APPENDIX F.

The Petition of the Protestant Parliament of Enpland on the drath of
£Jiiiuard VI. to Queen Mary.^ for the recaiiciliation of the kinydom to
the See of Rome ; and the counter petition of the same Parliament to
Elizabeth., on the death of Mary, for the restoration of Protestantism.

[The following acts of the English Parliament, under Mary and Elizabeth,
are taken from " Cobbett's Legacy to Parsons," etc., in " Six Letters, ad-
dressed to the Church-parsons in general, including the Cathedral and
College Clergy and the Bishops, with a dedication to Blomfield, Bishop of
London." Having spoken of the affairs of the Church, under Henry and
Edw'^ard, he proceeds : — ]

This church-making king died at the end of about seven years, and was
succeeded on the throne by his sister Mary, who was a Catliolic ; and who,
proceeding upon the settled constitution and laws of the country, resolved
upon restoring the Catholic religion. The Common Prayei--Book aristoc-
racy, exceedingly alarmed at this prospect; not so much alarmed, however,
for the almost certain loss of the Common Prayer-Book and the new Church,
as for the poysible, and even probable, loss of that immense mass of pro-
perty of the Church and the poor, which they had got into their possession,
by the means before mentioned, entered into a negotiation Avtth the queen,
agreeing to give up their Common Prayer-Booh and their Protestant reli-
gion ; agreeing to bring back the Catholic religion into the country, and to
punish parsons for not being Catholics, as they had punished them before
for not being Protestants : aifreeino- to confess themselves to have been
schismatics ; agreeing to receive absolution from -the Pope, for having re-
belled against his authority ; agreeing to reinstate him in all his power in
England, which they before designated as abominable usurpations; agreeing,
above all things, to abrogate as schismatical that very Common Prayer-
Book which they had before declared, in the preamble to an Act of Parlia-
ment, to have been composed by the " aid of the Holy Gfiost," and
which was, they said, made " to the Iwnor of God ;" agreeing to all this,
if the queen would obtain the consent of the Pope, and give her own con-
sent, to suffer them to keep the immense masses of property in land and in
tithes, which, during the two preceding reigns, they had grasped from the
Church and the poor ! This is something so monstrous, that I would ven-

498

ture to state it upon no authority short of that of an Act of Parliament ;
and yet it is by no means tlie worst that we have to behold on tin; part of
these men who called themselves noblemen and gentlemen, and whose de-
scendants coolly assume the same appellations !

As a sort of prelude to the monstrous acts which they were about to
perform, they passed, almost as soon as Mary was upon the throne, an Act
to repeal the lohole of the famous Act, making the Common Prager-Bnok ;
and that too upon the ground that it was conti-ary to tlie ti-iie i-elioion ;
though they alleged that they had been assisted by the Holy Ghoxt, in the
making of that Book of Common Prayer ! Tiiey abolished all the penil-
ties for persons acting plays, singing songs, ridiculing the new religion; tlxn''
repealed the law for preventing images being put up in churches ; they re-
pealed the law permitting priests to* marry ; they swept away, by this .Act
of Parliament, every vestige of the Protestant Church service, and rein-
stated the service of the Catholic religion ; brought in again the singing of
the mass in all the churches and chapels; and this too upon the express
ground that they had been for years wandering in error and in schism ;
though, never forget, that the Holy Ghost had assisted them in makinrf
their Common Prayer-Book !

This, however, was only a beginning. Having made their bargain to keep
the lands and the tithes, which they had taken from tlie Church and the poor,
they petitioned the queen to intercede with the pope to forgive them for all
the sins which they had committed against him and against the Catholic faith ;
to " assoil, discharge, and deliver them from all ecclesiastical excommuni-
cations, interdictions, and censures, hanging over their heads, for their faults
during the schism : and to take them again into the bosom of holy Church."
The queen, detesting the monsters in her heart, no doubt, con^^ented, and
obtained the pope's consent to let them keep the lands and the tithes ; not
because it was right, but because it was thought to be an evil less than that
of a civil war, which might have been produced by a rejection of the terms
of this agreement. Having obtained the security. Cardinal Pole was sent
over by the pope, as his legate, authorized to give them pardon and abso-
lution. To work they went, instantly, to repeal every act made after Henrv
the Eighth began his rebellion against the pope ; every act at all trenchincr
on the Papal authority ; but taking special care in the same act to secure
to themselves the safe possession of all the property of the Church and the
poor, which they had grasped, during the reigns of Henry and of Edward.
Though I say I am referring to acts of Parliament, and though the reader
will, upon reflection, know that I should not dare to state the substance of
those acts untruly, still I cannot give an adequate idea of the character of
these Protestant church-makers, without taking their own words, as I find
them in the preamble to this act, 1st and 2d Mary, chapter 8 ; and when
I read it, I always wonder that some scheme or other has not been invented
for the obliterating, for the erasing from the statute-book words so dishonor-
able, so indelibly infamous.

" Whereas, since the twentieth year of King Henry the Eighth of famous
memory, father unto your majesty our most natural sovereign, and gia-
cious lady and queen, much false and erroneous doctrine hath been taught,
preached and written, partly by divers the natural born subjects of this realm,
and partly being brought in hither from sundry other foreign countiies, hath
been sown and spread abroad within the same : By reason whereof, as well

^ ' 494

the spirituality as the temporality of your highnesses realms and dominions
have swerved from the obedience of the see apostolic, and declined from
the unity of Christ's Church, and so have continued, until such time as
your majesty being first raised up by God, and set in the seat royal over
us, and then by his divine and gracious Providence knit in marriage with
the most noble and virtuous prince the king our sovereign lord your hus-
band, the pope's holiness and the see apostolic sent hither unto your majes-
ties (as unto persons undefiled, and b}'' God's goodness preserved from the
common infection aforesaid) and to the whole realm, the most reverend
father in God the Lord Cardinal Pole, Legate de latere, to call us home
again into the right way from whence we have all this long while wandered
and strayed abroad ; and we, after sundry long and grievous plagues and
calamities, seeing by the goodness of God our own errors, have acknowl-
edged the same unto the said most reverend father, and by him have been
and are the rather at the contemplation of your majesties, received and em-
braced unto the unity and bosom of Christ's Church, and upon our hum-
ble submission and promise made for a declaration of our repentance, to
repeal and abrogate such acts and statutes as had been made in parliament
since the said twentieth year of the said King Henry the Eighth, against
the supremacy of the see apostolic, as in our submission exhibited to the
said most reverend father in God by your majesties appeareth : The tenor
whereof ensueth.

" We the lords spiritual and temporal and the commons, assembled in
this present Parliament, representing the whole body of the realm of £/n-
gland, and the dominions of the same, in the name of ourselves particularly,
and also of the said body universally, in this our supplication directed to
your majesties, with most humble suit, that it may by your graces inter-
cession and mean be exhibited to the most reverend father in God, the
Lord Cardinal Pole, Legate, sent specially hither from our most Holy Father
Pope Julian the Third and the See Apostolic of Rome, do declare our-
selves very sorry and repentant of the schism and disobedience committed
in this realm and dominions aforesaid against the see apostolic, either by
making, agreeing, or executing any laws, ordinances or commandments,
against the supremacy of the said see, or otherwise doing or speaking, that
might impugn the same : OfFering ourselves and promising by this our sup-
plication, that for a token and knowledge of our said repentance, we be
and shall be always ready, under and with the authorities of your majesties,
to the uttermost of our powers, to do that shall lie in us for the abrogation
and repealing of the said laws and ordinances, in his present parliament,
as well for ourselves as for the whole body whom we represent : Where-
upon we most humbly desire your majesties, as personages undefiled in the
offense of this body towards the said see, which nevertheless God by his
Providence hath made subject to you, so to set forth this our humble suit,
that we may obtain from the see apostolic, by the said most reverend father,
as well particularly and generally, absolution, release and discharge from
all danger of such censures and sentences, as by the laws of the Church
we be fallen into ; and that we may as children repentant be received into
the bosom and unity of Christ's Church, so as this noble realm, with all
the members thereof, may in this unity and perfect obedience to the see
apostolic, and popes for the time being, serve God and your majesties, to
the furtherance and advancement of his honor and glory. We are, at the

•rf?*

* 495

intercession of your majesties, by the authority of our holy father Pope
Julian the Third and of the see apostolic, assoiled, discharged and delivered
from the excommunications, interdictions, and other censures ecclesiastical,
which hath hani^ed over our heads, for our said defaults, since the time of
the said schism mentioned in our supplication : It may now like your ma-
jesties, that for the accomplishment of our promise made in the said sup-
plication, that is, to repeal all the laws and statutes made contrary to the
said supremacy and see apostolic, during the said schism, the which is to
be understood since the twentieth year of the reign of the said late King
Henry the Eighth, and so the said lord legate doth accept and recognize the
same."

After this most solemn recantation ; after this appeal to God for the
sincerity of iheir repentance, they proceeded to enact the repeal of every
act that had ever been passed to infringe upon the supremacy or authority
of the pope ; they, in the most express and solemn manner, enacted that
no king or queen of England was ever, or ever co?tld be the head of the
Church ; or had, or ever could have, any pretension to a right of supre-
macy in regard to the Church. But, in the same Act of Pailiament,
every sentence of which makes one shudder as one reads it, they took spe-
cial care, while they acknowledge the act of plunder, to secure to them-
selves, bv clause upon clause, the uninterrupted possession of that third
part of the property of the kingdom, which they had grasped from the
Church and the poor !

But, at any rate, they were now Catholics again ; they were once more
Roman Catholics. They had been born and bred Roman Catholics. They
had apostatized, and protested against the faith of their fathers, for the
purpose of getting possession of a large part of the property of the king-
dom ; but having now made safe the possession of this enormous mass of
plunder ; and having, nevertheless, been absolved of their sins, and taken
back into the bosora of the Church, they, surely, now remained Roman
Catholics to the end of their days ? Not they, indeed ; for the moment
the death of Mary took place, which was in 1558, that is to say, at the
end of 6ve years, they undid all that they had done in the time of Mary ;
apostatized again, and declared their abhorrence of that Church, into the
bosom of Avhich they had so recently thanked the queen for having inter-
ceded with the pope to receive them !

This would not, and could not, be believed, if it were not upon record
in the statute-book, which cannot lie, in this case : and which contains in
this case, too, the laiu as we have now to obey it. Elizabeth, the immediate
successor of Mary, was a Catholic herself, by profession and public wor-
ship ; she was crowned by a Catholic bishop ; her manifest intention, at
first, was to maintain the Catholic religion ; but she was a bastard, ac-
cording to the law, she having been born of another woman, while her
father's first wife was still alive ; besides which, an act had been passed in
her father's lifetime, declaring her to be a bastard. All this would not
have signi6ed much ; but the pope would not recognize her legitimacy ;
and of course would not acknowledge her right to reign as Queen of En-
gland. Finding this, she resolved to be Protestant; and resolved that her
people should be Protestant, too. The very first act of Parliament of her
reign, therefore, swept away the whole that had been done during the
reign of Mary; and the act (1st of Ehzabeth, chapter 1) repealed the

496

whole of the act of which I liave just quoted the memorable preamble, ex-
cept only those parts of it which secured the plunder of the Church and
the poor to those who had got possession of it ; and .those same men, wlio
had so recently received absolution from the pope for having acknowledged
the ecclesiastical supremacy to be in the king, now enacted, that that su-
premacy had always belonged to the king; that it never had belonged to
the pope ; that the pope had usurped it ; and they even went so far now
as to exact an oath from every Englishman, if the Queen chose to require
it, declaring a firm belief in this supremacy of the queen ! The oath (in u.se
to this day) begins thus, " I, A. B., do utterly declare and testify in my con-
science, that the queen's highness is the only supreme governor of this
realm, as well in all spiritual and ecclesiastical things, or causes, as tem-
poral !" An oath was now to come to re-assert that which these very men
had supplicated pardon and absolution from the pope, aud prayed for for-
giveness to God, for having asserted before !

497

INDEX OF GREEK TEXTS, WORDS, Etc.

BaTTTi^ovreg, Koi didaoKOVrsg (Matt. 28 : 19, 20), ... 92

"EdoKEv KXiJQovg avrojv, ....... (note) 162

"Elg dvdpa reXeiov (Eph. 4 : 11, 12), ...... 140

"Ew^- TTjg avvreXeidg rov dcCJvog (Matt. 28 : 20), . . . 140

'E7na7]iJ.oL ev rolg aTTOOToXoig (Rora. 16:7),. . , . 127
E()_^fra< ovv 6 'h](7ovg Kal Xan(3dvei rov dprov, koI diduacv avrolg,

Kol TO dxjjaQtov dfioicdg (John 21:13), . . . . 12I

MdXLara oi KoniojVTeg, ■•■•... (note) 161

MadrjTEvaa-e Tcdvra rd edvi] (Matt. 28 : 19, 20), ... 92

'O dvr'' dXXov, ..••••'... 477

'Oi jxdXiora KOTTioyvreg, •••.... (note) 161

XeiQOTOveidelg vtto tcov eKKXrjOtoJv (2 Cor. 8 : 19, 23), . . 162

lificov 'Iwm, dya-rrdg jite -nXeiov tovtuv ; (John 21 : 15-17,) . 121

Iv el Ue-Qog, kol em ravrTj Txerga (Matt. 17 : 18, 19), . . 118

AyyeAo^, 126, 130.

Ar/yeXog eKKXrjoiag, 130.

AvdvTTarog, 477.

AvTi, 476.

Avri(3aaiXevg, 477.

AvTi Hpcodov, 477.

AvTi;^piCTTO^, 477.

Atto ttoAAwv, 163.

ATiOa-oXoi, 99, 107, 128, 129,- 131,

132.
AnooToXog, 100, 107, 125, 126,

127, 130, 131, 132, 139, 173.
Am, 276-278.
AtdKOVov, 100.
Aidiiovoi, 102.
AidKOVog, 126.
Aiaraaaonai, 279.
AiddoKaXoL, 155.
AiddaKaXog^ 126.
ALera^afiev, 279.
Aiera^aro, 279.
"EfiaXov, 162 [note).
E~iaK07T7j, 422.

EmoKOTTOi, 102, 107, 281, 324.
EmoKOTTog, 125, 151, 159, 166,

. 275, 409.
'E'maKOTTOVvreg, 418.
'E.vayyeXiarov, 99, 152.
'iUuKiag, 140.
'legevg, 275.

'legog, 275.

KadoXiKog, 434.

KXrjQog, 121 [note), 122.

Aoyog yvdjaeoog, 109.

Aoyog ao(j)i.ag, 109.

M£t', 276-278.

Mexpi, 140, 187.

JTopadocreif, 62.

Uerpa, 118, 119.

nerpo^-, 116, 118.

Ilo(.fj,rjv, 126.

TloLfXEvag, 155.

II()e(7/3i;^, 275.

np£(T/3t;Tepo(, 99, 102, 122, 151,

159, 162, 163, 277, 281, 324.
Jlp^ofivTepcov, 275.
Upeal3vTepog, 122, 125, 126, 159,

166, 275, 409, 413.
UQoeoTOJTeg TTQeofSyrepoi, 413.
'n.po(f>TjTag, 154.
Upoipfjrrjg, 126.
Tovro)v, 121.
'TTTorvrroiGLV, 64.
Xetporovetr', 163 {note).
XeiQOTOvetado), 163.
XeiQOTOvTjaai, 163.
XeiQorovyaavreg (Acts 14 : 21,

23), 163.
XeiqoTOVTjeeig (2 Cor. 8 : 23), 163.
■^rj(l>og, 162 [note).

498

SCRIPTURAL INDEX.

Genesis 1 : 26, 27 174

3:5 171

3: 15 174

6:3 471

12 : 3 257,385

14 : 18 143

28 : 6 143

48 : 13-20 143

Exodus 11:13 254

18 : 1 254

18 : 14 165

19:5 90

20 : — 473

Lev. 16:8 135

16 : 20 144

26:28 385

Numb. 12 : 23 143

23 : 9 254

27 : 18-23 143

33 : 47 143

Deut. 3 : 27 143

27 : 13 385

32: 49 143

34 : 1 143

Joshua 18 : 10 135

1 Samuel 12 : 12 174

12: 12-19 385

14 : 41, 42 135

2 Samuel 1 : 20.
23 : 5..

363
174

1 Kings 16 : 25 174

20 : 11 XXX

1 Chron. 23
21
24

254
254
135

Ezra 2: 61, 62 408

Psalm 12 : 6

18: 2, 31 117

Psalm 19:7 73

19:8 88

25 : 14 91

31 : 11 161

50 : 16 447

50:16,17 42

110 . 3 xxvii

122 : 3 2.5S

Prov. 8 : 23 91, 174

16 : 33 135

Eccles. 8:11.., xxx

Isaiah 8 : 20 73

11 : 11, 12 260

28 : 16 455

53 : 10 119

Jer. 7 : 26 174

14: 14 103

23 : 21, 32 103

27 : 15 103

Ezek. 20 : 6 254

Daniel 7 : 1-7 385

7 : 2, 3, 7 472

7 : 7-19 339,475

7 : 7. 11, 19, 21, 23-25 472

7 : 2i, 25 376

7 : 25 104,471

7:27 260

11 : 36 475

Hosea 3:4 386

13 : 11 385

Jonah 1:7 135

Matt. 1 : 20 126

1 : 22 126

4: 18, 19 : 118

7:16 4.56

7 : 17, 18 429

8:4 275

8: 14 72,287

9: 11 126

9:38 103

499

Matt. 10
10
10
10
10
10
11
12
13
13
13
13
13
15
15
16
IG
16
16
16
16
16
18
18
19
19
19
20
20
21
23
23
23
24
25
26
26
26
26
26
28
28
28

.98,

: 2 . .
: 2-4

: 6 ..
: 17 .

29,30
4, 5 . .
24-30
38 ...
25-29
47 ...
47-52

13-18
13-19
15 —
15-19

17, 18
18 ...,

18. 19
17'...
20 ...

13 ...

.72,

28 ■

20-23 . . .

8, 9

1-3

31-35, 51

69-75

19, 20 . . .

,137, 173,

.141,487

117

261

.... 144
261
103

126

125

285

43G

104

.xxix, 104, 476

126

195

126

134
134
58
215
195

.116,
115,

.187,
..92,

Mark

14, 15 .

16-19.

7-13 . .

38,40.
16....
42-45.

109,

.98,203,

17, 18

17, 18, 20.

110
251
110

109

110

98, 110,205

115

n:^

l-M

103

476

125

, 25s

113

145

.88.

110 Luke 1:5 275

109 2:1 339

109 . 2 : 8, 15 126

110 2 : 19, 20 126

194 3 : 16 473

1261 3 :46 126

260 4 : 18 217

275 4 : 40 144

91 6 : 13 109, 126. 251

258 6 : 13-16 109

456 7:3 125

456 9:1 110

103 9:1-6 205

72 9:2 110

104 9:49,50 98

455 9 : 52 120

115 9 : 59, 60 98

103 10: 1. 2 98

112 10: 18 469

112 12:57 75

15 : 25 125

16 :.29 73

18 : 18 126

18 : 20 90

19 : 22 79

20 : 40 162

21 : 24 261

22: 3 Ill

22 : 26-30 124

22: 30 136

24: 49 112

24 : 50 144

John 1:3 289

1 : 13 268

1 :42 116

2 : 5, 9 126

2: 19 lis

3 : 2 126, 195

3 : .34 108,215

3 : 34, 35 102

4: 1, 2 110

5 : 30 114, 1S7

5: 31 58, 80, 205

5:39,56 73

5:41-44 103

6 : 32, 33 94

6:63 90

7; 24 456

8:9 125

8 : 14 469

8: 39 131

8:44 174

8:47 88

10 : 1. 2 103

10 : 2,' 11, 12, 14, 16 126

10 : 5 105

11 :42 339

12:48 ^8

13 : 16 126

13 : 26 )11

14 : 1-4 94

14 : 10 94

15: 16 102,251

16:1-7 94

500

John ] 6 :
17 :
17 :
19:
20:
20:
?0:
20:
20:
21 :
21 :
21 :
21 :
21 :
21 :
21 :
21 :
21 :
21 :

.xxvii, 91

.... 171
.... 171
187

21,24 ISf)

22 102

23 136

1-3 115

2 86

3 134

7 171

7, 20 116

l.-j-n 115, 117

19-23 112

21 86

22 86,287

23 86, 98

Acts

1-3

1-6

3-8 98,109,

4,5 136,

4-8

7-11

13, 16.
15, 16,
15-26.
22 ... .
23, 24.
: 24 . . . .

.136,
.136,

26 133, 137,. 162,

28, and vv. 15, 16

1-4

5, 9-11

14-36..

41,42
43

1-11, 12-16

.89,

16...
30...
36...
1-11.
12...
15...
24...
1-6..

14-17.

.114, 122, 145,

113

99
139
205
112
110
136
136
272
272

99
251
272
137
272
162
102
136
113
136
135

63
174
385
136
455
113
113
145

76
138
173
125
113
145
100
114
145
145
275
162
135
102
182
205

Acts 8:18,19 177

9 : 1-9, and 15, 16 138

9 : 1-M, 15, 16 149

9: 1-18 131

9 : 10 137

9 : 12 137

9 : 12, 17, 18 137

9 : 17 144

9:18 98

9 : 20. 22 131

9 : 27', 29 131

9 : 27, and vv. 13, 26 127

10: 32 120

10 : 34, 39, 42, 44-48 120

10:34-43 63

10:34,35 120

10 : 44 114

10:47 92

11 : 1-18 134

11 :5 113

11 : 14 120

11:22 99

12 : 1-18. 12-3

12 : 12-25 100

12 : 25 100

13 : 1 126, 138

13 : 1-3, 99, 131, 133. 138, 149, 154, 273

13 : 1-5 .' 100

13 : 11 114

13 : 13 100

13 : 19 135

13:39 91

14: 1-26 133

14: 13 275

14: 14 99, 131

14 : 21-23 151, 103

14: 16 385

14 : 23 and 21 99, 251, 279

14: 26 138, 149

15 : 1 201

15 : 1-5 19

15: 1-21 123

15: 1,24 179

15 : 2 125

15 : 10 105

15: 22 162

15: 30-32 100

15 : 37-39 100

15 : 37-40 128

16: 1-3 99, 149, 150

16 : 2, 3 162

16 : 9-12 166

16: J6 155

17 : 11 56

18 : 24 127

IS : 24-28 100

19: 1-5 and 5-7 99

19 : 1-7 205

19 : 0 114

19 : 0. 7 145

19 : 12 145

19 : 29 100

20:4 1 00

20 : 17 125, 15]

20 : 17-28 04, 125, 154

601

Acts 20 : 23 ISS 1

20 : 28 122, 126

20 : 29, 30 101, 175, 475

20 : 30 176

21:8 99

24 : 23 279

25 : 26 161

26 : 3 161

27 : 2 100

28 : 18 102

Romans

10
10
10

11
11
11
11
11

13
13

14
14
14
15
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16

: 23 473

: 20 126

: 25-29 xxxiv

: 28, 29 179

-.20 91

: 16 90

: 1 xxxiv

: 17 90

: 19 90

:1 91

: 16 •.. 91

: 6 91,456

:4 91, 169

: 17 79

: 18 141, 187

:8 17

:11, 21 90

: 13 98, 126

: 25 168

: 28

: 22

: 5

23.

260

■'. 126

126

IS, 19 114

1 100

3 100

4 127

5, 7, 9 100

6, 15 101

7 127

8, 9 101

10 100

10, 11 101

12 101

13 101

14, 15 101

18 104, 239

21 162

1 Corinth. ] : l . . ,
1:2...
1:6...
1 : 11..

1 : 29 . .
2:6...

2 : 13. .
2 : 14. .
3:—..
3: 1-4.
3:3...

. . 130

. . 455

, . 127

, . 194

. 97

. 461

. 73

. 56
.xxvii

. 127

. 194

3:4 xxxi

3 : 5, 9 1281

Corinth. .1:10 98

3:16 95

3 : 16, 17 475

4:6 128

4 : 6, 7, 9 128

4 : 15 287

5 :4, 5 114

5 : 13 456

5 : 26 155

5:40 155

6:1 56

6: 10 475

7 : 15 xxxi

7 : 17 279

9:2 147

10:4 91

10 : 12 XXX

10:16,17 94

11:2 62

11:29 95

12:— xxvii, 108, 109

12 : 4-25 103

12 : 4, 6, 28 79

12: 7 408

12 : 12-27 • 108

12: 17, 18,25 xxxii

12: 19 xxxi

12:28 96,436

12: 28. 29 126

14:3 154

14 : 27, 28 155

14: 29, 32, 37 126

14 : 32 155

15 : 1-11 63

15:5 135

15:8 98, 109, 137

15: 10 109, 287

15 : 18 140

15 : 20, 23 91

15 : 38 376

15 : 41 96

16 : 15, 16 162

Corinth. 1 : 12 .52

1 : 24 56, 172,450

2 : 17 52

3 ; — xxxiii

3: 6 96, 126

3 : 6, 16, 17 133

3:7-9 90

3 : 10 91

4:7 xxxiii, 97

5:5 80

5:7 91

5 : 19 97

5:21 91

6: 16 475

7 : 1, 7 287

8: 19, 23 162

8: 23 100, 129, 162

11 : 5 287

11 : 10 176

11 : 13 104, 127, 176

11 : 13-15 xxviii, 471

11 : 14, 15 176

502

P.Corinth. 11 : 15 126

11 : IS 176

11 : 23 104, 126

11 :28 287

12:4-11 96

12:7 126

12: 12 113

13 :5.

Galat.

— 123

1 181

1,2 129

1, 11, 12, 17 137

1, 12 98, 109

14 74

9 272

11-14 123

11-15 134

5, 6,19.

10.
12.
13.
16.
24.
4..
10.

126

285

257

24 xxxiv, 174, 260

1 xxxiv

6 19

11, 12 181

22 102

22, 23 102

12 4.56

15 19, 95, 456

6 : 15, V. 6 179

6: 10 161

Ephes. 1:9 88

1:5,13 94

1 : 22 XXX, 91

1:22,23 55

2 : 19, 20 2.59

2:19-21 56

2 : 20 72, SO, 98, 117, 260, 455

3:4 88

3:7 126

4: 3 93,166, 175

4:4, 13 xxvii

4 : 5 xxvii

4: 8-11 55, 96

4:8-13 79

4: 11 126,436

4: 11, 12 187

4:11-13 98

4:12 79

4: 12, 13 93, 96, 152

4: 13 187

4: 14 103

4: 15 91

4:30 94

5: 30 92, 95

5:32 55

Ephes. 6:18 171

6:21 126

Philipp. 1:1 126, 151

1 : 5 167

1 : 15-19 xlviii

1 : 16 167

2: 25 100, 133

4 : 3 162, 260

Coloss. 1 : 7 101, 162

1 : 7, 23, 25 126

1 : 9-20 469

1 : 12 121

1 : 16 174

1:18 91

1:24 91

2 : 10 xxvii

2 : 19 55

2 : 21 450

3:3 91

4:7 126

4: 7-9 101

4 : 10 100, 162

4: 11 101

4: 12 101

4 : 14 101

4 : 17 101

4:29 xxvii

1 Thess. 1:1 162

2:18 21

3:2 126

5:3 XXX

5 : 13 J 28

5 : 21 75

2 Thess. 2 : 3, 4 175

2:3-8 -171

2:4 173

2:7 173

2 : 9, 10 176

2 : 9-11 471

2 : 15 62

3 : 6 10.5, 456

1 Tim. 1:1 287

1:3 152. 153

1 : 13, 14 ■ 63

1 :20 114

2:5 226

2:7 126. 251

3 : 1,2, 3, 7 ■ 102

3 : 1-7 102

3:2 103, 126, 1-57

3:6 lO.j

3 :8, 9 1.57

3 : 8, 12 126

3 : 8-13 102

3 : 15 475

3 : 16 173

4:1-3 176

4:2 88

4:6 126

503

1 Tim. 4 : 10 161

4 : 11 152

4: 12 150

4 : 14 99, 149, 150, 152, 277

4 : 16 103

5:1 125

5: S IGl

5 : 17 151,282

5 : 19 125, 152

5 : 20 152

5: 21 4G9

6 : 1 XXX, 103

6:3 105

6:5 45C

6: 20 62, 63

2 Tim. 1 : 6 146.277

1 : 6, 7 114, 149

1:7 277

1 : 11 126

2:1 287

2:2 152

2: 15 103

3.1 xxviii

3 : 1-13 104

3:2 151

3 : 5 236,456

3:15

3:15-17 73

3 : 16 88, 134

3 : 16, 17 83

3:17 79

4:2 152

4: 3 xxviii, 126

4:5 99, 152

4: 6, 7, 8 154

4: 10 101

4: 11 100

4 : 12 100

4: 13 161, 171

4: 19 100

4: 19-21 101

4: 20 100

5:1 484

5: 3-5 105

5:7 146

Titus 1:4 287

1:4-9 102

1 :5 125, 152, 153,251

1: 5. 7 125

1 -.i. 126, 151

1:5-9 102

1:6-9 157

Heb.

2 :

7...
12..
15..
6...
14..
1...
1-3.

.251.

1 : 12,
2:1.

2 : 15

3 : 10.
3 : 12
3: 13.

126
103
152
56
100
100

4 251,254,

4,5

6, 10

1,2

.142,

6, 14 .
11-21.
14

15, V. 3

21 ...
24....
24-26.
25

.196,

3..
8: 4..

8 : 13.

9 : 24.

.06, 195,

9 :
10 :
10 :
10:
12:
13:
13:
13 :
13 :

James 1 :
1 :
1 :
3 :
3:
5:

1 Peter 1
1
1
2
2
2
3

26....
11-14.
18....

12....

.200,

7, 17, 24

175
174
127
196
171
174
475
196
275
196
257
200
200
126
243
275
257
257
200
200
200
200
200
275
200
196
257
196
196
260
196
196
200
201
475
89
196
417
126
165

5 56

21 96

27 460

1 xxxi, 126

11 429

14 12.')

: 1 ..
: 10 .
:25 .
:5..
:25..
: 6 ..
: 21 .
: 1 ..
: 1-4

12.-?
56

.164, 171.201,275,
126,

5:3

5: 13

475
151
455
93
287
172

151

...105. 121, 162, 172

125

102

.123. 166.
122.

Philem. v. 1 287!

23 101

24 100, 101

2 Peter 1
1

1 .

12.'i
123

504

2 Peter 1:16 364

1 : 18-21 83

1 : 21 87

2: 1 104, 176

2:5 80,461

3:2 123

1 John 2 : 18 476

4 : 6 xxvii

2 John, V. 1 101

3 John, vv 1,8 101

" 1, 9 101

" 5 177

" 5,8 177

" 9 xxxii, 104, 162, 173, 328

" 9, 10 101

" 10 xxxii

" 12 101

Jude, V. 3 56, 79, 376

" 6 469

" 16 xxxii

"20 102

"24 53

Rev. 1:6 164

Rev. 1 : 6-10 275

1 : n 144

1 : 20 126, 130

2 : 1,8, 12, 18 126

2 : 2 176

2 : 3 101

2 : 8-10 130, 281

2 : 14 261

2:17 91

3 : 1, 5,7, 14 126

5:6 91

7 : 14 377

12 : 1 472

12 : 2 472

12: 3 472

13 : 1 472

13:1,2 472

13 : 11 472

13 : 11, 12 472

14:4 91

16: 6 130

17 : 2 376

17:5 75

18 :4 51,456

19 : 19 377

20 : 6 275

21 : 14 125

22 : 18, 19 78

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES.

Abbott against Church Forsakers, 400.
Adrian. Vit. Rom. Pont. Bulla Adriani,

222.
Alexander III. Spons et Mat. c. non est,

222.
Alexander III. De Decimus C. Exparte,

etc., 222.
Alexander IV. Sixt. Decret. c. 4, Glossa,

223.
Alexander's Anglo-Catholicism, quoted, 64,

72.
Amer. and For. Christian Union, 488.
An Address, by Rev. S. F. Jarvis, D.D.,

LL.D., etc., 237, 238.
An Abridg. of Chris. Doc, 473.
Antoninus, Sutnma Majoris, pars 3, 220.
Archbishop Potter, on Church Government.

2.'')2, 272.
Archbishop Stiliingfleet's Origines Brit.,

339 ; Irenicum', 420.
Archbishop Usher, 4:22.
Archbishop Whately's Kingdom of Christ,

263, 328, 330, 4S6.

Archbishop Wake's Apost. Fathers, quoted,

69.
Articles, XXIst of the XXXIX, Church of

England, 50.

Barronius's Annals, 296. 297, 298.
Barrow's Pope's Supremacy, 109, 206.
Bede, (the Venerable.) 340, 342, 343, 346,

348, 350, 364, 308, 369, 474.
Bellarmine, Lib. II. c. 1, 269, 284, 291.
Bellarmine's Notes on the Church, 432, 433,

439.
Beza, De Eccles., etc., 421.
Biblical Repertory and Princeton Review,

126.
Bingham's Antiquities, 249, 327, 330, 410,

411.
Bingham's Orlg. Ecclesiasticus, 451.
Blair's Hist, of the Waldenses, 484.
Blondell and Dalliiis, vide Beveregii Codex

Can. Eccles. Prim. Vind. Procur., 421.
Bochart. Abridg. of Owen's Plea, 422.

505

Boniface, Extravag. de Majorit. et Obed.

C. Unam, 223.
Boniface Prohem. c. Sacrosancta, 223.
Boniface Sixt. Decret. de Const, c. Licet,

223.
Boniface IV. Sixt. Decret. De Punit. et

Rennis. c. 5. Glossa. 223.
Boniface VIII. Extravag. de Majorit. et

Obed. c. Unam Sanctum, 222.
Boniface VIII. Sixt. Decret. c. Uibi, 223.
" Book of Common Prayer," quoted, 48,

266, 427, 447, 448.

British Critic, No. XLVIII., 87, No. LIX.,
224.

Burnet's, Bp., History of his own times, 28.

Burnet's History of the Reformation, 29,
230. 231. 234, 304, 383, 384, 387, 392,
39.5; 397; 401, 403, 421, 424, 425, 427,
428, 429.

Butlers Catechism, 473.

Bishop Beveridge's Sermons on the Church,
242, 247.

Bishop Beveridge on Excellency of Com.
Pr., 400.

Bishop Burgess of Maine — " The Stranger
in the Church." 247.

Bishop Croft's—'' The Naked Truth," 4.50.

Bishop Griswold, on the Apostolic Office:
etc., 70, 191, 193, 194, 197, 198. 204
207; 210, 211, 214, 2] 6, 226, 227, 228,
242, 247, 249, 250, 274, 275, 278, 279,
410.

Bishop Hick's Treatise on " Episcopal Or-
dination," 190.

Bishop Ives's Sermon, etc., 225.

Bishop Hobart's High Churchman Vindi-
cated, 242, 247. Apol. for the Apost
Succes., 191, 275, 276. Compan. to the
Altar, 228, 238, 239, 278, 279..

Bishop Home's Diocesan (Charge, 190.

Bishop Hurd on the Prophecies, 476.

Bishop Jewel's Defence of the Apology,
299, 414.

Bishop 3IcCoskrey on Episcopal Bishops,
the Successors of the Apostles, etc., 70,
133, 134, 185, 186, 191, 197, 198, 214,
215, 216, 223, 224, 225. 226, 227, 266

267, 269, 270, 272, 274, 282, 339, 408.
Bishop Mcllvaine's Arg. for the Apostolic

Succession, 204,211,212, 213, 217, 219,

220, 243, 248, 262, 2G5, 271, 273, 281,

329, 330, 408, 410.
Bishop of Sarum's Vindication, 428.
Bishop Smith, of Kentucky, on the Position

of Episcopalians, etc., 24.
Bishop Taylor's (Jeremy) Vindication of

Episcopacy, 97, 204, 207, 242.
Bishop White's Memoirs of the Church, 208.
Bishop Wilson's Private Thoughts, 190.

Calvin's Treatise on the Lord's Supper, 381.
Calvin's Institutes, 421.
Canon Law, 116.

Carey's, Rev. H., Apost. Succession of the

Church of England, 339.
Catechism Council of Trent, 444.
Cans. 2, Qu. 7, c. Beati, 223.
Chillingworth's works, 97.
Christian Magazine, 198.
Churton's, Mr. E., Early English Church,

339, .341, 345, 349, 350, 351.
Claude, Def. of the Ref., 422.
Clement V., C. Romani, Glos.sa, 223.
Cobbett's Legacy to Parsons, 383, 384, 388,

390, 391, 392, 395, 396, 398, 399, 404,

405, 406.
Codex Ecclesia Africanne, 163.
Coleman's Apostol. and Primitive Church,

164, 396, 397.
Cone. Antioch, c. 19, 163.
Cone. Trid. Sess., 75, 85, 227, 242, 244,

Catechism of, 477.
" Confession of Faith," quoted, 42.
Convention, the General, of the P. E.

Church, 1850, 16.
C. Significasti ; Glossa. Bap. de Sumcas,

222.
Cox, Rev. S. H., D.D., quoted, 106.
Council of Hispana, etc. xxxix.
Cyprian, Epist. 68, 41.5, and 5, 6, 5-5, 416,

417 ; Epist. 74, 463 ; Epist. 29, 483.

Decret. de Translat. Epist. C. Quanto, 222.

Demosthenes' Oration, 163.

Distinct. 12. C. Decretis, 220.

Distinct. 21. C. In novo, 220.

Distinct. 19. C. Ita Dominus, Nicholas, 220.

Distinct. 22. C. In Tantum, 220.

Distinct. 21. C. Decretis, Leo, 220.

Distinct. 21. Pdagius, 221.

Distinct. 40. C. Si papa. Thomas, etc., 221.

Distinct. 40. C. Non nos ; etc. Hugo. 221.

Distinct. 24. Qu. 1. C. Enim rero. Lucius,

221.
Distinct. 21. C Quamvis. Pelagius, 221.
Distinct. 14. Lector. Martin, 222.'
Distinct. 32. Qu. 7. Quod proposuisti,

Gregory, 222.
Distinct. 19. C. Si Romanorum, Gab. Biel.

Lib. 4., 222.
Distinct. 19. Pet de Palude, — 222.
Distinct. 19. Imperator, 222.
Distinct. 11. Caus. 11, Qu. 3, Si inimicus,

Glossa, 223.
Distinct. 90. Bulla Donationis, C. Constaa-

tine, 223.
Distinct. 63. C. Ego. Paschalis, 223.
Distinct. 22. C. Sacrosancta. Anacletus, 223.
Distinct. 25. Qu. 1. Nulli— Sixt. Decret.

C. ad Arbitris. Glossa, 223.
Distinct. 22. C. Omnes — Sixt. Decret. Sen-
ten, et Rerum C. ad Apostoli, a Glossa,

223.
Distinct. 24. Qu. 1. C. Recta.— Xucms, 223.
Distinct. 12. C. Non decet. — Calixlus, 223.
Distinct. 11. C. Quis. Imwcent, 223

506

Distinct. 22. C. Omnes. Nicholas, 223.

Distinct. 22. C. Sacrosancta. Jlnacldus, 223.

Distinct. 21. C. Quannvis. Pdagius. 223.

Distinct. 21. C. Denique. Nicholas, 223.

Distinct. 19. C. Enim Vero. Stephen, 223.

D'Aubigne's Ger. Eng. Scot., 487.

Doctor Addison Ale.tander's '■, Essays on
the Primitive Church Offices,"' 264.

Doctor Aydelott's Condition and Prospects
of the P. E. Church, 43, 44, 46, 51, 446,
448, 449, 452.

Doctor Cave's Gov. of the Ancient Church,
304.

Doctor Cave's Lives of the Fathers, 412,
413.

Doctor Chapman's Sermons on the Church,
246, 249, 256, 267.

Doctor Comber, on Roman Forgeries in
Councils, 305.

Doctor Cook, M.D., on -the Invalidity of
Presbyterian Ordination, 337.

Doctor Dickinson's Discourse on the Church
of Christ, 4S6.

Doctor Duffield, on the Apost. Succession,
199, 263, 282.

Doctor Field on Episcopacy, 249, 274.

Doctor Hawks'si^ccles. Contributions, 453,
4.')4.

Doctor Hook, of Leeds, England, Two Ser-
mons on the Church and the Establish-
ment, 229, 242, 248, 249, 256, 265, 270.

Doctor Hook's " Hear the Church," 430.

Doctor Jackson's Guide of Faith, 438, 439.

Doctor Mason, John M., Essay on Episco-
pacy, 198. 239, 240, 279.

Doctor Mora's Exposition of the Seven
Churches. 280.

Doctor Peck, George, on Methodist Episco-
pacy, 26, (note.)

Doctor Snodgrass, on the Apost. Succession.
199, 281.

Doctor Spanheim's Eccles. Hist, 322, 333,
337.

Dr. Stone, on the Church Universal, 34,
270, 273. 274.

Dod worth's Lectures on the Apost. Succ,
220, 227.

Donovan's English Trans., 475.

Douay Version, 68.

T)oyle's Catechism, 473.

Dreido de Dogmat., etc., 227.

Du Pin's Eccles. Hist., quoted, 61, 85, 249,
294, 29.5, 436.

Du Pin, on the Apostolical Canons, 250.

Du Pin, on the Romish Mutilations, Cor-
ruptions, and Forgeries of Ancient
Records, etc., 61.

Echard's General Eccles. History, 337.
End of Controversy, 475.
Episcopacy Asserted, by Bishop Jeremy
Taylor, 204, 208, 242, 244.

Episcopacy Examined, by Chor Episcopi,

229.
Episcopal Charge, by the Bishop of Exeter,

207.

Epist. 148 — Ad Fortunatianum, Aug. Op.,
74.

Erasmus's Scholio in Epist., etc., 421.

Essays on Episcopacy, (a collection of pa-
pers,) 276, 280.

Eusebius's Eccles. Hist., 290. 303, 337, 416.

Fowler's Catechism, 229.

Fox's Acts and Monuments, 357, 358.

Fry's Church History, 353.

Garden of the Soul, 475.

Gelasius. Caus. 9. Qu. 3, C. Cuncta, 221.

Gibbon's Decline and Fall, 342.

Gildas, de Excid. Gent. Brittania, 340.

Greg. Epistles, 436.

Gregory Nazianzen, Athanasia 0pp., 463.

Grotius. Annot. on 1 Tim. 3 : 1, 422.

Grounds of Catholic Doctrine, quoted, 246.

" Guide from the Church of Rome," 85.

Hallam, quoted, 26, 353.

Hayne's translation of Melchior Adams'

Life of Luther, 419.
Hefele, Patrum Apost. Opera, quoted, 73.
History of Councils, 199.
History of England, by Macaulay, xli.
History of the Puritans, 485.
Homilies, 97, 162, 433.
Hooker's Eccles. Polity, 458.
Hopkins, Bishop of "Vermont, quoted, 33,
Horas Biblicae, SO, 81.
Home's Introduction, 84.
Hostiensis, C. Quanto de translat. preb. —

Baptist Summa Casnum, 222.
Howell's Pontificate, 299.
Howell's Canons, etc., 411.

Ignatius ad Phil., 133.

Ignatius ad Smyrn., 163.

Innocent, Caus. 6, Qu. 3, C. Nemo, 221.

Innocent, Elect C. Venerabilem, 221.

Innocent. Elect C. Venerabilem, 222.

Innocent III. De trans. C. Quanto. Prohem.

Clement Glossa, 223.
Innocent III. Sac. Unci. C. Qui Venisset, 222.
Innocent IV. De Elect. C. Venerabilem,

Extravag. de Jurejurando, C. Venien-

tis, 222.
Innocent IV. Sixt. Dec. de Sentent. Ex.

Com. C. Dilecto, 222.

507

Introduction to Lives of Saints canonized,

474, 473.
Irenaeus Adv. Haeres, 73, 291, 462.

Johnson on Unbloody Sacrifice, 190.

Johnson's Vade Mecum, 358, 369, 418.

Jones of Nayland's Lectures on the He-
brews, 190.

Joseph Mede. In Apocalypse, Book III..
etc., 280.

Josephus's Antiquities, 461.

Keble's Sermon on Primitive Tradition,
quoted, 62, 63, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69.

Law's Second Letter to the Bishop of Ban-
gor, 190.

Letter of John Dobree Dalgairus, Esq., alias
Rev. G. Spencer, of Oxford, to the
editor of the Univers, 236.

Ligori. Practical Confessions, 444. 445.

Literary History of the N. T., 110, 273.

Loci Communes, 484.

Mason's Vindiciae Ecclesiast. Anglican, etc.,

354, 375.
M. Flaccius Illyricus, Catalog. Test. Veri-

tat., 421.
Martin V. Extravag. C. Regimini Univers

Eccles., 222.
Maurice's Kingdom of Christ, 218.-
Melancthon, Loc. Com., 421.
Melchior Adams's Life of Amsdorf, 419.
Melville's Sermons, 243.
Methodist Quarterly Review, 432, 440, 441,

457.
Mosheim, Eccles. History, 162, 422.
Muratori's Collection, 474.

Nicholas, Caus. 15, Qu. 6, C. Auctorit., 222.
Noelli Catech., 484.

Norris's Sermon before the Oxford Univer-
sity, 400.

Old MS. of Sir H. Spelman, (concilia,) 336.
'■ Old Truths and New Errors," quoted, 23.
Origen, 415, 475.

Palgrave's History of the Anglo-Saxons,
354, 373, 374.

Palmer's Treatise on the Church, 228, 432,
440, 44.5, 456.

Perceval's Coll. of Papers, 242, 246.

Peck, Rev. George, D.D., quoted, 26, 55.

Plautina, Life of Stephen VI., 297.

Plautina Nauclerus — Polydore Virg., 222.

'' Plea for Union," by Rev. S. H. Tyng,
D.D., xxxvi xliii, 228, 247.

Powell's Apost. Succession, 304, 305, 327.

Private letter of the Archbishop of Canter-
bury, etc., x.xxvi.

" Protestant Churchman," quoted, xxxvi,
xxxvii, xxxviii, xliii. xliv, xlv, xlvi,
16, 23, 24, 25, 29, 208, 219, 400, 447,
452, 458, 459.

Rees' Encyclopedia, 348.

Reinerius Saccho, 467.

Riddle's Eccles. Chronicles, 295.

Rights of the Church, 163.

Romish Breviary, 342, 474.

" Roman Catholic Debate," quoted, 38, 77,

78, 84, 119, 122, 300, 301, 302, 323.
Rev. Palmer Dver's Work on Episcopacy,

227.
Roman Pontifical, 189.

Schleusner, 422.

Sewell's Christian Morals, quoted, 71.

Sixt. Decret. C. Felicis, Glossa, 222.

Spanheim's Eccles. History, quoted, 64.

Speech of General Shields, before the
Senate of the U. S., xxxv.

Spiritual Despotism, by Isaac Taylor, 231.

St. Ambrose, De Penitentia, 463 ; Com-
ment., 2 Tim. 5 : 1, 484.

S. Hieron, in Tit. c. 3, xxxi. xxxiv, in Tit.
c. 1, 330.

Stratten's Arg. for the Apost. Succession,
157, 259, 262, 203, 266, 268, 301.

Suicer, Thesan. Eccles., 422.

Sum. Mag. Pars. 3, Antonini, 222.

Survey of Church Discipline, quoted by
Millar, 485.

Synwiaclnis, Caus. 9, Qu. 3, C. Aliorum, 221.

Tertullian's Adv. Jud., 340 ; De Baptisma,
415 ; De Praescript., 462, 463.

" The Bible True," 84.

" The Church of Christ," etc., Rev. R. W.
Dickinson, D.D., xxviii.

The Church of England and America com-
pared, 234.

" The Church of England 'Wish," etc., 451.

The Presbyterian of Feb. 12, 1842, 480,482.

The Primitive Church, etc., by Rev. A. B.
Chapin. 270, 321, 323, 332, 333, 334,
335, 336, 337, 338, 344, 345, 346, 347,

508

348, 349, 351, 3/32, 354, 357, 363, 3G4,
:,, 3G5, 366, 367, 368, 369, 370, 374. 390,
•: 391,407, 425, 426, 434
The Witness, Edinburgh, 249.
Theophilus Anglicaiius, Woalsworth, xxxi,

xxxiv, XXXV.
Towers' Illustration of Prophecy, 388.
Tracts for the Tinnes, No. 77, quoted, 65.
Tracts for the Times, No. 90, 65, 67.
Tracts for the Times, No. 1, 207.
Tracts for the Times, No. 5, 219.
Tracts for the Times. No. 4, 229.
Tracts for the Times^ Vol. II., 229.
Tracts for the Tiroes, No. 7, 242, 246.
Tracts for the Times, No. 5, 243.
Tracts for the Times, No. 1, 246.
Treatise on Antichrist, 419.
Treatise on " The Man of Sin," 353.
True Churchmanship Vindicated, etc.,

xxxvii, xxxviii, xxxix, xlii, 331.
Turner's History of the Anglo-Saxons, 354.
Two Treatises on the Church, 458.

Urban^ Caus. 15, Qu. 6, C. Juratos, 222.
Urban II., Caus.' 23, Qu. 3, Excom., 222.

Vaughan's Life of Wickliffe, 421.
Vitringa, De Synagogue, 422.

Waddington's History of the Church, 464,

466.
Waterland on the Trinity, 69.
" What is the Church of Christ ?" quoted,

37.

Zachary, Caus. 15, Qu. 6, C. Alius, 221, 222

GENERAL INDEX

Aaron, Priesthood of, 96.
Absolution, Episcopo-Priestly, 225.
Act of Conformity, etc., 405.

Uniformity, etc., 28.

Acts and names, official, 211-213.
Aidan, 348, 349.

Anglican Reformation. (See on Reforma-
tion.)
and American P. E. Church on the

powers of the priesthood. (See on

Prie.sthood, Christian.)
Albigenses, 456.
Alpheus, James, not Bishop of Jerus, 365,

366.
Altar, 491.
Amalarius, 327.

Andronicus and Junia's, not apostles, 127.
Angel, Apocalyptic, 130. The name, 213,

281, 282 The Ephesian, 282.
Anglican Reformers, the first, Romanism

of, xli, xliii, xliv.
Antichrist, 37G-379, 380.
Antichristianism, see Appendix A.
Anti-prelatists. Advocate and possess a

true succession, 263, 264-268, (note) 264,

265.
Anti-prelatists. Error of, regarding the

theory of prelacy, xxxvi, corrected by

Dr. Tyng, ib., present duty of, xlix.

Antioch, Council of, on popular election, 163.

Apollos, not an apostle, 127.

Apostasy, predicted by Paul, 376. (See
also Appendix A.)

Apostle, the 7iame assumed by the agents
of the Church's apostasy, 176.

The title used in a double sense, 131.

Apostles. The twelve, their vocation, 107 ;
signs of, 108; applied, 108-114, 186;
their number, twelve only, 124-137 ; their
superiority, 108; their apostolical equal-
ity, 115-123; their functions not divisible,
nor communicable, 139 ; and hence tem
porary, 139 ; not bishops, 206.
• False, 176.

Apostolical Tradition, 62.

Canons. 250.

Apocrypha, uncanonical, 82.
Aries, (see on Augustine) 341.
Arrogance, (see on Episcopacy) .
" As my Father hath sent me," etc.

position of, 187.
Angustine, 335,

344, 345, 346,

354, 35.5, 356,

363, 364, 368,

374,

336,

338,

341,

343.

349,

351,

352,

353,

357,

358,

350,

362,

369,

371,

372,

373,

509

Bancroft, Archbishop, 28.
Baptism. Infants, 92 ; limited by Presby-
terians, 40; unlimited by the P. E
Church, 41; this, a potent engine of
proselytism, ib. ; involves the opus oper-
atum "dogma of Romanists, 42 ; denied
by Low-churchmen, ib. ; fallacy of, from
a view of the three theories of, 42-45 ;
birth-right, 448. , ,. . , t.

Baptismal regeneration, the basis ol iTo-
testant Episcopacy, 48 ; office of, 45 ;
can a change be effected in 1 45-48. (See
on '• Occidentalis," etc.)

Barnabas, not an apostle in the strict sense,
131, 273.

Barron ius, 291.

Barrow, Dr., 206, 207, 211, 216.

Barzillai, 254.

Becket 222.

Bede. ' (See Index to Authorities.)

Bellarmine. (See Index to Authorities.)

Benedictine Monks, 333, 334, 336, 337.

Beveridge, Bishop, 242, 247.

Beza. Mr. Gallagher's error in regard to,
xviii. True position of Beza, xl, xli.

Bible. Protestants have an authentic copy
of, 80, §1 ; not dependent on Rome for,

84. • , ..
Romanists have neither an authentic

copy of, 80, 81 ; nor commentary on, 83.

'■ prior to the Church, 78-80.

to Low-

Birth-right baptism, 44S.

" Blasphemous,"' what, accordin

churchmen, 23.
Bishop. Import of the title, 1-59; how

used in the time of Ignatius, 213 ; used

interchangeably with that of elder, 125,

159 ; qualifications of, 157.
and Presbyter. Their identity and

equality, etc., 409-412- further proofs

of FiVsi, from the Early lathers, Clemens
Romanus, a.d. 70, 412 ; 2d, Ignatius, a.d.
101, 413; 3d, Justin Martyr, a.d. 1^5.5,
413 ■ 4th, Irenaeus, a.d. 184, 414 ; 5th.
TertuUian, a.d. 198, 414; 6th, Origen,
A.D. 204-2-50, 415; 7th, Cyprian, ad.
248-258. 415 ; 8th, Firmilian, his cotem-
porary, 416 ; 9thi Ambrose, a.d. 370,
416 ; 10th, Chrysostom, between 370 and
407,'416; Hth, Jerome, of Rome, a.d.
363' 420. Second, General testimony of
the' Christian Church. 1st, African
Church, 418; 2d, Greek, ib. ; 3d, West-
ern or Roman, ib. ; 4th, Lutheran, ib. ; !
5th, German Reformed, 419 ; 6th, French.
ib • Waldensian, ib. ; 7th, Scotch and
Dissenting Churches, 420. Third, of the
greatest divines since the Reformation.
Wickliffe, 421 ; Erasmus, ib. ; Cranmer,
ib • Calvin, ib. ; Beza, Melancthon, ib. :
Blo'ndell and Dalleus, ib. ; M. Flaccius
Illyricus, ib. j Claude, ib. ; Bochart,

422 ; Grotius, ib. ; Vitringa, ib. ; Mosheim,
ib. ;'Suicer, ib. ; Schleusner, ib. ; Arch-
bishop Usher, ib. Fourth, of the Angli-
can Reformers themselves, backed by
royal authority, 423-i:i0; a dilemma,
425 ; Mr. Chapin's att.-.npt to escape
therefrom, 425, 426 ; failure of, 426.
Boadicea, Queen, 340.
Bohemians, 378.

Bonner. The king's bishop, 234.
Book of Common Prayer on priestly abso-
lution, 225.
Book of Common Prayer. ProtestatU
1 Churchman opposed to a revision of, xliii,
' xliv (note) .
Boundary-line of modern schism, etc. Lau-

dcan High-churchism, xlii.
Briton, Old. Its relation to Rome at the
time of Augustine's mission, a.d. .595,
339 ; subject to the Ca?sars, a.d. 70 ; dis-
enthralled, a.d. 410; Christianity early
introduced, 340; Bede, Gildas, Churton,
ib. ; invaded by the Saxons, a.d. 449 ;
Churches destroyed, and the bishops
with their flocks, flee, some to France,
some to Wales, 341, Churton ; arrival of
Augustine, a.d. 395, 341 ; his mission
Romish, 341 ; conversion of Etlielbert,
Augustine made bishop, settles at Canter-
bury, 341-343 ; his authority over the
Anglican bishops, 342-345 ; no connec-
tion at this time between these and the
old British bishops of Wales, Churton
and Bede on, 344-351 ; retained their
independence of Rome till a.d. 731, 358;
identical with the old Cymri, the only
protestors against the Romish Augustine,
368, 369, 372, 373; South Britons of
Loegria, converted by Augustine, and
formed the basis of the Anglo-Saxou
Hierarchy, 373-375; the Anglican
Church at this period subject to Rome,
371-375.
Bucer, xli.
Burgess, Bishop, 23, 35, 36.

Caius, 290, 303.

Calvin, John, 33, 381. (See Appendix B.)

Calvinism of the XXXIX Articles, and of
the Anglican clergy and Church to the
time of Laud, etc , 28 ; repudiated by the
so-called Low-church party of the pre-
sent day, 29.

Caractatus, 340.

Cardinal Pole, ejected from the Anglican
Succession by Chapin, 338, 339 ; absur-
dities of, 35.5-362, 363, 401, 403.

Carev, Rev. Arthur, 237.

"— Rev. Henry, 3.39.

Catalogues. (See on Tabular views of the
Succession^, etc.)

510

Cathari, or Puritans. 46/5.
Catholic Church. The Holy. (See on
Church, the Holy Catholic.)

Communion, Bishop Burgess on, 2.1.

Tradition, 13C> large folio vols., G5;

Book of Common Prayer on. 66.
Catholicity. Bishop Burgess on the name,
35 ; prelatical pretense to, fallacious, 20.
Celibacy, clerical, 223.
Chapin, Rev. A. B., on the Anglican Suc-
cession, etc., 28, 270, 306—320
3.33,
344,
351,
358,
368,

332,
339,
350,
357,
366,

334,
345,
352,
359,
369,

335,
346,
353,
362,
370,

321,
336.
347,
354,
363,
373,

322, 323,

337, 338,

348, 349,

355, 356,

364, 365,

374.
Childeric, 222.
Chillingvvorth, 97.
Church, The. Her transit from Judaism to

Christianity, 89, 169; reconstruction under

Christ and his apostles, 171 : visible and

invisible, 91 ; a baptized and united body,

92, 93 ; her unity and peace, the design

of this Treatise, xxvii.
The, held to be, not a class, but a

society, Hill on, 37 ; the Episcopal,

claimed to be the parent of all religion.

etc., Bishop Burgess on, 36.
The, of Philippi, its ministry the

model for all time, 166; compared by

Paul with Rome, 166, 167.

■ The Holy Catholic. Marks or notes

of, 431, applied to

I. The Prei.atico-Episcopal theory, Rom-
ish and Protestant, 432: disagreement of,ib.
First note, Apostolicity, applied to both,
433, 434. Second note. Catholicity, 434 ;
applied, 1st, to the Romish Church, 434-
438 ; 2d, to the Anglican Church, 438.
Third note, Unity, 440 ; applied 1st, to the
Romish Church, 441 ; 2d, to the Anglican
and American P. E. Church, 441-443.
Fourth note. Sanctity, applied 1st, to the
Romish Church, 443-445; 2d, to the
Anglican and American Episcopal Church,
445-449. Fifth note. Discipline, applied
1st, to the Romish Church, 449 ; 2d, to
the Anglican and American Episcopal
Church, 449-454.

II. The Anti-prklatical theory, preli-
minary. Prelatical incongruities, 4.54 ;
true Catholicity deJined, 455 ; the " notes"
applied, 1st, Apostolicity, 460-463; 2d,
Catholicity, 463-467 ; 3d, Unity, 467, 468 ;
4th, Sanctity, 468; 5th, Discipline, ib.

Church, the Roman Catholic. Eprscopacy
of, 198; her orders, 199; their alleged -
vicarial powers, 199, 189 ; summary of;
their alleged aggregate powers, 220-224 ;[
her claim to dispense the Holy Ghost, |
207.

The Anglican. Episcopacy of, 197. |

Her Orders, ib. Their alleged vicarial pow- 1

ers, 197, 198. Her claim to dispense the
Holy Ghost, 207-209. Her Ecclesiastico-
political powers, 229. Henry VHI. —
Writes against Luther. — Queen Catha-
rine.— Created a Lay-Pontiff by acts of
Parliament — transmission of, to his suc-
cessors, etc., 229-231.

Her alleged Independence of the

See of Rome, between Augustine's mis-
sion to Kent, AD. 595, and Henry VIII.
Fallacy of, 342-345. The Anglican bishops
and the Old British bishops of Wales not
identical, 344-351. (See on, Briton, Old.)
Proof of the Romanism of Augustine as
"the first Saxon bishop and the first
Archbishop of Canterbury," 342-345, and
353, 354. Also of the Anglican Succes-
sion from him, 357-362. The Old Bri-
tish Church and the Anglo-English dis-
tinct, 350, 351. Sophistry of Mr. Chapin
on, 351, 352. Further proof of the above,
352. Augustine, 350. Gregory's reply
to him, 353. Leo I., ib. Justinian 111.,
ib. Anglo-Saxons converted by Augus-
tine, 354-356. Romish Origin of the
present Cathedral of Canterbury, ib. The
Pall, 357. Still retained by the Arch-
bishops of Canterbury, 358. Distinction
between the Old Cymri and the South
Britons of Loegria — the former, Protes-
tants; the latter, Romanists, 372, 373-
375. Hence the fallacy of the above
plea of Anglican Church Independence
of Rome, 358, 365-370. Anglican Church
remained subject to Rome to the time of
Henry VIII., 371-375. Her separation
from Rome an act of schism and rapacity,
388-391. Hence, a new Church, 391,
392. Under Edward VI., Protestant
principles still subordinate, 393-396. Li-
turgy— Romish character of, 396, 397.
Use of Coercion, etc., 397-399. Reca-
pitulation, 399. Her high Protestant pre-
tensionis, 399, 400. But, under 3Iari/, Ro-
manism again restored by act of Parlia-
ment, 400-403. (See Appendix F.)
Another change under Elizabeth by act
of the same Parliament, when all again
become Protestant, 403. Coercion agam
employed, 404-406.

Church, Anglican and American, identical,
228. Derivation of the American, from
the J^ay-headship of the Anglo-English
crown, 232-234, 407. Their united arro-
gant claims, 228, 229. Their alleged un-
broken succession suspended on four con-
ditions, 407, 408.

The American Protestant Episco-
pal. Her ecclesiastico-political approx-
imations to her Anglican ancestor and
ally, 234. 235. Unprotestantizing influ-
ences at work, 235-238. Difiiculties of
reform, 50. Divisions in, 31. Four
sects, 21.

511

•— ^^ Presbyterian, in the generic sense,
comprehends all Evangelical anti-prc-
latical bodies. The marks or notes of,
1st, Apostolicity, 460-103 ; 2d, Catho-
licity, 403-167 ; 3d, Unity, 407, 46S ;
4th, Sanctity ; 5lh, Discipline. Analo-
gous to the Ephesian, 281. Its Effi-
ciency, 325. Of Geneva. (See on
Gallagher, Rev. Mason.)

Church, Methodist Episcopal, 26, 27.

Chrysostom, 162, 416.

Churton. Mr. E., 339, 340, 341, 345, 348,
350, 35 1.

Claude, Bishop of Turin, 377.

Clemens Romanus, 32-3, 412.

Circle, the Vicious, 77.

Cisternian Abbots, 377.

Clergy, the Episcopal, 45.

Columba, St., 347, 348, 349.

Commission of •' the twelve apostles" —
What constitutes, 217.

Confessional, the, 223.

Controversy, aversion to, 16. The prelati-
cal, not a war of words, 18.

Consistency, duty of Low Churchmen in
regard to, 34.

Continental Reformation, (see on Reforma-
tion )

Council of Trent, .: 99. On the Church's
power to dispense the Holy Ghost, 207.

Conventions, Diocesan, of New York, in
1839 and 1843. Aim to un protestantize
the Protestant Episcopal Church, 136,
137.

Covenant, Abrahamic, 90.

Cranmer, Thomas. " The king's Bishop,"
234. His character and end, 338, 357,
362.

Creaturehood, angelic and human.- — Apos-
tasy of, 90. Their integrity to God tested
under every dispensation, 173.

Creed, Oral, 62.

Apostles's, none such, 63, 64.

Culdees, who were they ? 347.

Cymri, the Old, 372.

Cyprian, 213, 224.

Cyril, 199.

Deacons. Origin of, 166; their qualifica-
tions, 1.57 ; their functions, 106-168.

" Defender of the Faith,"' the title assumed
by Henry VIH., and continued to his
successors, 230,231.

Delinquency, moral, alleged not to invali-
date the Episcopal succession, 218, 219.

Demosthenes, on popular election, 163.

Development, the doctrine of, as involved
in the prelatical theory of succession, 182.

Dilemmas, prelatical, high and low Church,
194, 202, 204, 209, 217, 269, 425, 429,
434, 455.

Diocesan Bishops, Timothy, Titus, and the
seven apocalyptic angels, not such, 280-
282.

Diocesan Episcopacy, 320.

Uionysius of Corinth, 290, 303.

Distinction, an important, 334.

Discretionary form, Liturgical, of the Pro-
testant Episcopal Church, (see on Holy
Ghost.)

Divine rij;ht of Kings, (see on Henry VHL)

Dodwell,'Dr., 227.

Donatists, 466.

Documents, traditionary, to be authorita-
tive, must be infallible, 266, 207.

"Declaration, a, made of the functions and
Divine Institution of bishops and priests,
an original," etc., by the first English
Reformers, 423.

" a, of the Christian doctrine for

necessary erudition of a Christian man,"
424.

Dual Orders of the Church. — Presbyter-
ter-bishops and Deacons, 159, 166.

Ecclesiastico-political character of the An-
glo-English Hierarchy, 229. Tendency
of the American Protestant Episcopal
Church to approximate to, 234.

Echard, Lawrence, 337.

Elder. Import of, as a title, 159.

Elder and Bishop. Their titles inter-
changeable, 125, 159, 166.

Elders. Those appointed by Paul and
Barnabas (Acts 14 : 21-23), neither an
ordination or a consecration, 163; a plu-
rality of, in each Church, 159; Pastoral
and Ruling, 138; a distinction in their
respective functions, 159, 100 ; consist-
ency of, 106.

Elders (teaching, preaching and pastoral),
with Ruling Eiders and Deacons, the
Dual Orders which form the boundary-
line that separates the extraordinary
and temporary, from the ordinary and
permanent, ministers of the Church, 156,
(see Appendix C.)

Eleven Arguments, in proof of the fallacy
of the Romish dogma of succession, 284-
302, (see on Succession.)

Emperor. Of Rome, displaced by the
Bishop of, 340.

England, placed under interdict, 222.

English Church. Summary of her original
principles, etc., xxvii, 28.

Epaphroditus, not an apostle in the strict
sense, 132— but an evangelist, 152.

Ephesian Presbytery, not a college of pre-
latical bishops, etc., 274-276.

Epiphanias, 290.

Episcopacy, alias Prelacy. The Romish
Church on, 227 ; Protestant prelatists on,
227 ; no " via media" between it and
Parity, 34 ; prelatists ignorant of their
own system, 1S8; discordant views of,
214-219 ; must be exhibited as it is, 188 :
fallacy of its claim to Catholicity and

512

Unity, 20, 258, 259, 434-43S, 4-10-443 ;
essential neither to the existence nor per-
fection of the Church, 31, 32 ; the sys-
tem examined, as founded in expedi-
ency ; its primitive origin, see Part III.,
Chapter VI., of this Treatise. Its Angli-
can, xxxviii-xlv. 26. Declared immacula-
cy of, 224. Infallible, 224, 225. Ubiquity
of, 224. Its exclusiveness, arrogance, etc.,
227-229. Alleged powers of, spiritual and
ecclesiastico-political, 229-231. Alleged
miraculous powers of, 217. Low-
Churchmen in a dilemma on, 202. Their
system of, the only prop of support to, 21.
23, ISS. An alternative left to, 335
This Treatise a warning against, 16.

Episcopalians, boast of their success in the
work of prosclytism, 39.

Episcopate, criterion of, alleged to be, not
names, but acts, 210, 211. Fallacy of, 211-
213.

Episcopo-Presbyterians,or the tables turned,
271.^

Equality, or parity, of the N. T. Ministr}^,
161.

Error and Heresy. Insidious and dangerous
nature of, 22.

Eusebius, 290, 303, 337.

Evangelists. The office of Varied, 152.
Their functions, 152.

Evangelical. The really such, excommu-
nicated by the Low Church Sect, 50.

" Evangelical Knowledge Society of the P.
E. Church." Their repudiation of Cal-
vinism, 30.

Extraordinary and ordinary powers apos-
tolic, severed by prelatists, 203. Who
claim the latter only, 204. Fallacy of,
205,206, and 217-219.

Expediency, Episcopacy as founded on.
Differs from Prelacy, jure divino, 324.
Based on the plea of necessity, ib. Re-
cognized ministerial parity, ib. Jerome
on, 324, 325. An innovation on the N.
T. and early post-apostolic ministry, Je-
rome on, 325, 326. Originated the distinc-
tion in ministerial titles — Amalarius,The-
odoret, Bingham on. 327. Formed the
germ of the Papacy, 327, 328. Bp. M'-
Ilvaine's denial of primitive parity — An-
swer— Jerome, Bingham — Diocesan Epis-
copacy— Archbp. Whately on, 328-330.
Bp. M'llvaine's alleged non-existence of
Parity till the fifteenth century, 330.
Answer — Proof of its prevalence in N.T.
and early primitive times — adopted by
the first Anglican Reformers, 330, 331.
An alternative to Low- Churchmen, 331,
332. The points at issue i* this work not
based on this theory, 15.

Exclusive. Proof that Low-Church Pre-
lacy is, 33, 35 — (See on Episcopacy alias
Prelacy.)

Express command. Evidence of an, for the
baptism of children, 93, 94.

Fathers, the early, unanimous consent, etc

85, 86.
Fletcher, Col. Benj., 234.
Frederick, the Emperor, 222.
Fulke, Dr., 280.

Gallagher, Rev. Mason, on " True Church-
manship." etc., in five particulars,
xxxvii. Endorsed by the Prot. Church-
man, ib. His unfounded aspersion of
"the Presbyterian Church of Geneva,"
xxxviii. — His self-contradiction, xxxi.x.
" Public acts" referred to by, ib. His
theory of Low - Churchism without a
foundation, xi.

Gallia Christiana, 334, 336.

Genealogy, etc. (See on Succession.)

Gibbon. 342.

Gilda.s, 341.

Gregory the Great. Resolves to make
Ro7ne the center of a Universal Spiritual
Kingdom, 341, 342. The Saxons, 342.
Sends Augustine to convert, 342. Who
lands at Kent, on the Island of Thanet,
England, 343. Its metropolis, Canter-
bury, 344. Denounces John, Patriarch of
Constantinople, 342, 352.

Gross impostors. Bp. McCoskrey on, 185,
227.

Hallam, Origin of High and Low Church,
26.

" Headship of Christ," alleged to be trans-
ferred to " the twelve" and their succes-
sors, 214-216. Attempted evasion of,
216. Fallacy of, 217.

'• Hear the Church." In what sense, 56.

Hebaiah, 254.

Helps, Governments, etc., 154, 155.

Henry II., 222.

IV., ib.

v., ib.

Henry VIII. ascends the British throne, a.d,
1509, 230. England now subject to Rome,
332. Throws off the Papal yoke, ib.
Assumes supreme lay-headship in Church
and State, ib. An act of schism against
the See of Rome, compare pp. 221-223,
with 371-375. Based on the alleged
Divine right of Kings, 382, 383. Fallacy
of, 383-387. Identical with the popedom
of Rome, and hence, antichristian, 387.

Heresy and schism, xxx-xxxv, 22.

Holy Ghost. The apostles only, could dis-
pense it, 113, 114, 145, 146-148. Simon
Magus's attempt to purchase the pov/er to
bestow, 182. The power to bestow, never
transferred by the apostles to others, 207.
Yet claimed by Prelatists of all grades, to

513

be conferred in the act of consecration and
ordination, 191, 207-200, 217, 211-245.
Prelatical dilemma — attempted evasion
of. by the use of the di.scrutionary form,
20S. Fallacy of, ib. Proof, that the
Anglican Church borrowed the practice
from Rome, 215.

High Priesthood. (Se^; on Priesthood,
Christian.)

Hobart, Bp. compared with himself, on the
article of charity, etc., 2;iS, 239.

and Dr. J.M. Mason, on the words

A.-, and Mer', 27C-278.

Hooker, 213.

Homilies. Book of, 97.

H ughes, Cardinal Archbishop of New York,
3(33.

Hugo, 222.

Huss. 378.

Hussites, ib.

John Calvin, (Sec Appendix B.)

Johnson, on Unbloody Siurifi.t", 1.'9.

JOAN, Pope, a woman, lO'Hli in Gavin's
line, 1 13. (See also pp. 313, 322, and Ap-
pendix E.)

John, Patriarch of Constaulinople. 312.

Judaico-Christianized Prieslliood. opposed
to the religion ot faitli, 109.

I Justification by Faith, 91, HM.

'Justin Martyr, 7'1, 413.

j Justinian III., 353.

Keys, the Exposition of, 117. 119. 120.
Kings, alleged divine right of. 3\l. Fallacy

of, 384-387.
Koz, 254.
Kyle, VI., 22.

Ignatius, 163, 213. 224, 413.

Image Worship, 223.

Impostors, gross. Anti-Prelatists alleged

to be such, 216, 227, 250, 266.
Independence, alleged, of the Anglican
Church, etc. (,See on Church, Anglican.)
Inductive, the plan of argumentation of this

work, 89
Infallible, the Twelve Apostles were, 110.
_, Ground of, as a Traditionary Stand-
ard, 58.
Infallibility, Romish, 8 1 , 82.
Infants. Their right to Church member-
ship by baptism, 92.
Inquisition, 223.
Inspiration, the twelve apostles endowed

with, 109. '

Interchangeable use of the titles Presbyter

and Bishop, 159, 274, 27-5, 409.
Interpretation, Private — Protestant defense

of, 75-77.
Interpreters of Scripture, not infallible, 57,

74.
Irenffius, 73, 290, 291, 303, 364.
Irenicum, Stillingtleet's, 280.
Irvingites, 217.
Itineracy, the lunctions of limothy and li-

tus an, 152.
Ives, Bishop of North Carolina, 225.

James, the apostle, has superior claims ofi
primacy over the See of Rome to those of|
Peter, 286. Was not Bishop of Jerasa-i
lem, 365, 306. (Note.) 1

Jerome, 324, 32-5, 329, 330.

Jesuitism of Protestant Episcopacy, 199.

John, the apostle, has superior claims to pri-
macy over the See of Rome to tho- j of
Peter, 287. This apostle, on the hypo-
thesis of suceessionists. inferior to Linus,
301. Did not ordain Polycarp, 336-3.38.

Laity, of the Episcopal ChuTch, 46.
Lay-baptism, the validity of, denied by Dr

Tyng, 36.
" Laying on of hands," distinction between,
in bestowing spiritual gitts, and ordaining
to office, 145, 146, 149-151.
Laud, Archbishop, the father of exclusive

High-Churchism, xli, 28.
Legislation, Miscellaneous Church — Defects

of, 164, 165.
Leo I., 353.
Leonites, 467.
Leyden Jar, alias the virus of Episcopal

Consecration, 250.
Limitation, the principle of, in baptism de-
fended, 40. 41.
LlandaflT and iMcneva. Archbishoprics of,.

305-308.
"Lo, I am with you always," etc., exposi^

tion of, 76, 180.
Lord's Supper, the bond of union to the visi-
ble Church,' 94.
Lot, the, its use in the case of Matthias, 13.5,

137, 272.
Low-Churchism, the writer not hostile to
the /»•«" theory of. xlviii. (See on Gal-
I lagher, Rev. Mason.) Presbyterian-^
! mistaken as to its true character, 20.
i Proof of its departure from the original
platform of the Anglican Church under
I Edward YI., xxx, 29, .331. Its desi-n.
24, 32, 39. DiffereiH-e between the pre-
sent, and that of the Reformed Anglican
Church, xliii. Low Churchmen charged
with inconsistency. 2(1!. Imongruity ot
their theory of prelacy, with their deniiil
of being exclusive, •.i< Low Churchmen
and Dr. Tyng at variance, xxxvi, xxxviii.
Fallacy of Mr. Gallagher's theory of, xi.
(See on Gallagher. Rev. Mason.) P..
practical workiunsa proof of its Romaii-
izin" tendencies.^21.31. Concession ui.

514

xHv. Proof, that it forms themoi:t pow- comitant of the Vi.-ible Church State, 89.
eriul agent in promotinif the Romish de- Di\ ersities of, I OS.

hision, ',iQ, 'J.'JS. Affirms that '■//«: I. Orisrin of. Appointments to, 1st. by
Chiin-h"' has power to confer the Holy Christ himselt, 1)8; iJil, by the Holy
Ghost, SOS. Spirit of inquiry among, xliv (ihost. f>y ; 3il, by the Apostles. 99 ; 4!h,
-xlvi. A Dilemma, xlvi, xlvii. An by the Apostles with others. 99 ; -Oth, by
Alternative, xlvii, xlviii. : oihers williont ihe Aposlirs, 09: 6tli,

I.iiidhard, Bishop of, accompanies Beriha, Uncertain, 99-101 ; 7lh, by Special Provi
the Queen of Ethclbert, to Kent, in F.n- dence, lOJ.

gland. The only Bishop there, on the ar- II. Xature of, 102. 1st, ^Toral fitness, 102:
rival of Au;;u£iine, a.u. 595, and he, a 2d, a divine call, 103; 3d. Intelleclual tit-
Romanist, 3A(). I ness, 10"}; 4th, Sound doctrine. 103 ; Sth,

Luther, 379. Henry VII I. writes against,] Fraternal, 103; 6ih, Spiritual and holy,
230. j 104; 7th, the unfaithful and unsound to

be avoided. 104.
M jIII. Their Orders o/— number of, 10-5.

Classilitd. 1st, by their titles, 105-107 ;

llan. Change of his moral relation to God' 2d, by their titles and functions, 107, 108,
under the Christian economy, 1C8-170. | 109.

" Man of Sin,'" 376. IV. Powers or Fmiclions of. The extra-

Mason, Dr.. and Bishop Hobart, on the; ordinary and temporary, as distinguished
Greek words Ai'j and AIet', 27G-27S. ■ from the ordinary and permanent, 138.

Mason, Archdeacon, 3-54. i 3Iode of designation thereto, 157.

JMaiirice. Alleges the continuance of mira- V. Both ditler trom the Jewish, 95 (see on
culoiis powers alt he hands of modern pre-' Priesthood, Christian) . Divine appoint-
ialical bishops. 2 J 7. His ditficulties, ib. ment of, 171. Eminently simple and
Relieved by the Tractarians, Bishop ^I'- fraternal, 172. lis admirable arrange-
llvaine, Melville, 217-219. ments, 172. Its adequacy, 172. Pro-

^rCoskre}', Bishop of Michigan, on the In- motive of union. 173.

lallibilily of Bishops, as the successors of VI. Those whom Timolhy and Titus were
the apostles, 69. coinmissioned to appoint, were to consti-

M' 11 vaine. Bishop. On the discretionary tute the ordinary and permanent ministry
form in the ordering of Bishops, etc., 208. i of, 1.5S-168. See also 15G-1.)S. Usurp-
Examined, 209. See also the following: ers of, how known, 173.
204, 207, 20S. 211, 212. 213, 217, 226, VII. Its ;>e/r«-stort, through an innate love
227. 242, 213^ 247, 249, 252. 256, 274J: o{ " tlie prc-eTiiinntre,'' 96, 174, 175. To
2S1, 293, 328, .329, 330! ' ' 'j be the center-point of a further trial of

]\!atthias. The first alleged link in the pre- j the Church's integrity — Pauline predic-
latical succession, 271, 272. Proof that he tion of, 175. Scriptural account of its
was not the successor of Judas Is>?ariot, origin, xxxviii-xliv. Mode of its mani-
133-137. Objections answered — 1st. It' festation. 176. Success of. in Paul's time,
invalidates the inspired narrative, 133,j 1-76. Gradually developed, 177. Its
134. 2d. Peter could not have erred, fruit, the Papacy, 177. That power de-

134. 3d. His election decided by lot, scribed, 177.

135. 4lh. The number twelve is applied of the Church, whether of the cs-

to the apostles between said appointment scnre or of the order of. 33.

and the vocation of Paul, 135. Direct ar- Dual Orders of. Presbyter-bishops

gnments — Is*. Peter's act premature, 135. and Deacons, 159.

[Jnauthorized, 136. Not sanctioned by the VII 1. Mi acufni'S ■ povrers. The twelve
prediction, Ps. 109 : 8, 136. Not dictated Apostles endowed with, 110. Gradually
by the Holy Ghost, 136. The apostles developed, 110-114. Inherent in. ar.d a
themselves claimed no right to (ill said component part of, their functioi.s as a
vacancy, 130- Conclusion, 137. (See on' whole, 201-206. To be dislinguished
Paul, the successor of Judas.) See also from the other Orders of the N. T. min-
pp. 181, fi*25, 262. >''5ry, 205. Prelatical distinction of, 204.

Mede, Joseph, 280. Fallacious, 20-5. Alleged by 3Iaurice to

-Meiliatorship, Episcopo-priestly. 226. be continued in the church to this day,

iMelchTscdec, 106, 215, 220, 201, 223, 257, 217.

27-'). ?*Iithridates, a comparison, 15.

."Melville, Rev. .Mr., 209, 210. Monasticism, 223.

Meneva anJ Llandaff, Archbishoprics of. More, Dr., 2S0.

Chapin on, 365-368. j N

Methodist Episcopacy. 26. 27.

.Milicz, John, of Prague. 378. Name. That of " Apostle" as given to the

Ministry, the New" Testament. A con- twelve, never transferred to others,

515

Names and Acts. (Sec on Acts and Names)
How applied to the N. T. ministry, 107.
Both necessarv to determine official
powers, 21 1--J 13. \

'' No man taketh this honor,'' etc. E-v-
position of, 187.

Novaiiaiis, AGo.

"Nuila Ecctesia Sine Ejnucopo,''' the basis
of the dogma of an unoroken Apostolical
Succession, 32, 1S4, 210, 218, 228, 431, -
442, 4J9.

° 1

Oblation. 192. . '

Occidentaiis and Bp. Meade on baptismal

regeneration. 446. i-

Office. Known only by names and acts,
211-213.217. I

Office-bearers, mode of their appointment,
162. I

Official functions of Timothy and of the
Ephesiau Presbytery, not identical, 151-
153. j

Onderdonk. Bp H. U.. etc., 213 |

Opus Opcraliim, 32, 42, 43, 44, 45, 202. I

Oral Creed, 62. |

Orders, of the N. T. ministry. Reduced,
scale of the aggregate appointments, 13S.|
The ordinary and permanent orders re-;
duced to two only — Presbyter- bishojisl
and Deacons, 156-1 58, 158-168. Proof, i
that the N. T. Orders of Apostles, J
Prophets, Evangelists, and Pastors 01^
Teachers, as originally constituted, were,
one and all extraordinary and temporary,;
13S-141. I

Ordinary powers, of the Christian ministry
(see on Miraculous Powers, etc.) . j

OrdinatioS-, or "Laying on of hands," j
Two extremes regarding it, 142; A cere-
monial action— Delined, ib. ; Unlike other!
Rites, it has been continued under every.
Dispensation, ib. ; Its u.se, I. During the
Patriarchal Age, 143; II. The Jewish;
do.,ib. ; III. Tne Christian do., 144 ; Wasj
among the tii-st. and was the last, ofj
Cheists official Acts, 144: Continued
in heaven, ib. Its use during the Apos-I
tolical Age. The Apostles employed it!
on various occasions — Isl. In healing the
Sick, 145: 2d. In bestowing Spiritual;
Gilts, ib.; bd In setting apart a person to;
some work or office, special or ordinary,
145,140, Must distinguish between the
conferment of spiritual gifts, and that of
betting apart to any work or office, 146;
The lormer act e.vdu&ively the work
of the Apostles, 140, 147 ; Others besides
tbe .Apostles ordained, etc., 147, 14S; Dis-
tinction between setting apart to a specii-1
work and an ordinary office — the former,
temporary. lhe\AUer. permanent, 148; Ex-
amples — (1 ) The Seven Deacons, by the
Ki)oslles, 14S. (2.) Saul and Barnabas,

by the Prophets and Teachers of Antio<li,
1 JU ; The case of Timothv — 1st. Cn-
cumcised by Paul. MI), 151; '-Gift of
God," imparted by Paul's hantls, 14!);
Ordained by •" the Presbytery,'' ib ; Proof,
that the al>ove acts were not identical,
and that Paul was not connected with tlie
latter, 149, 151; " Laying on ol hands" a
Standing Rule, 15S.

Prool, thai the wonders performed

by Cniiisr under this Act. proceeded
from no inJicrint i-irtiic of his human
hand, 145; Proof, that the jlpo^Ues dis-
claimed, most enipiialically. l/ic jiot^^ession
of any inheroU virtue in iheir manual im-
posiliotis, 14;j —

Prelatical and Anti-Prelatical Theories

of, compared, 244; Proof, that all orders
of Prelatical theorists claim an inherent
power in the EPISCOP.VIE •' o/" iru'tH^y
the Holy Ghost ih the collation of Holy
Orders.' as absolutely indis(>eiisdblc to
a valid ministry — Romanitts, Bc>ok of
Common Pray:jr, Dr. Hook, and Bps.
Jer. Taylor, Beveridge, Hobart, Gris-
wold, M'llvaine, etc ,' on. 191, 207-
209, 217, 241-245— Proof, that the Prol.
Episc. theory of, is derived (rom the
Church of Rome, 245. Conditions of a
Valid Ordination or Consecration — Three
Canons on, — requiring Episco}«l Baptism.
Ordination as Deacons and Piicsts. and
THREE CONSECRATORS~Dr Field,
Bingham, etc., on, 245-250. 272. 27-'!, 277,
295, 302. On this last, ProleUant Pre-
latists are more tenacious tLan Roman-
ists themselves — absurdity^ of, 250. The
Holy Ghost claimed to bo imparte<l
through it, and hence, indispensable to a
Valid Succession, 241-245. Romanists,
P. E Cuurch, Perceval, Dr. Hook, Bps.
Taylor, Beveridge, Hobart. Giiswoid,
Ji'Ihaine, 242; Not vitiated by moral
delinquency, 242 ; fallacy of, 243 (see
also Part II., pp. 142-151) ; Arrogance,
of, 213; Proof that the prelatical theory
of! is of Romish origin, 215 ; See also on
this subject, pp. 247, 24b ; Absurdity of,
250 ; Definition of the term " Ordained,"
251, 252.
Ordo, Gradus, Officium,— Order, Degree,
and Office, denned, 411. Their origin, ib.
Origen, on Tradition, 73.
Oxford Tractarians, 107, 201.

Pall, the, what? 357-359. Still retained
by the archbishops of Canterbury, ib.

Palmer, Rev. Mr., Treatise on tbe Churcii,
22S. 432, 440, 450.

Pandulph, 222.

1 Papacy, the, described, 177. The antichri.<-

I tiac apostasy predicted by Paul, 179.

516

(See also Appendix A.) and page 376.
Their consistency, 199, 200.

I'apias, 290, 303.

I'anty, ministerial, the divinely-appointed
ordinary and permanent ministry of the
Church, IGl. Delined, xxxiii. The Cor-
ner-Stone ot' the Presbyterian polity, 28.
Its elficiency, 32.''). Post-apostolic Epis-
copacy an innovation of, 32-5. (See Part
III., Chap. VI., Sec. 1. of this Treatise.)
No " via media" between it and Prela-
cy, 34. Adopted by the first English
Reformers, xxxviii-xliv, 27. Each sys-
tem involves fundamental principles,
xxxi, 17, 18.

Parliament, the English, ratify Henry
VIII. 's as.sun)ption of Headship, spiritu-
al dfid temporal, 229.

Pastors, (see on Prophets, etc.)

Paul, the Apo-stle. Signs of his apostleship,
109. Is the legitimate successor of Ju-
das, 133, 137, 181. His dispute with
Peter, 123. His superior claims to pri-
macy over the See of Rome to those of
Peter, 286. Not personally connected
with Timet hy-s ordination by the Ephe
sian Presbytery, 277.

and not Peter, the apostolic agent

appointed by the Holy Ghost to furnish
the modd for the permanent ministry of
the Church, 168.

Pauliceans, 466.

Penances, 223.

Pepin, 222.

Percival, Rev. Mr., 242, 247.

Perilous times, Paul's prediction of, xxxviii.

Perverts to Rome, 236

Peter, the apostle. His confession of
Christ, 117, 118. Change of his name,
116. Christ's command to him, " Feed
my lamb.?," etc., 120. Romish claims in
his behalf of primacy over that See, ex-
amined. 115-123. Proof of the superior
claims to, in behalf of James, Paul, and

. John, 286, 288. Proof that he never vi-
sited Rome, 288-292. Review of his
a!<encv in the appointment of Matthias,
134, l'3.'3.

Peter Martyr, xli.

Petition of the Protestant Parliament of
England to Queen Mary, etc., 400-403.
(See also Apjiendix F.)

Phi I potts, Bp. of Exeter, 207.

Pilgrimage, 223.

Pius IV., Creed of Pope, 237, 238, 369.

P.)le, Cardinal. (See on Cardinal Pole.)

Polity, Ecclesiastical, the N. T., analogous
to the Synagogue, 164 A choice between
three systems, 164. 165.

Polycarp, on Tradition, 73. Not made bi-
shop by the apostles, 290,291. Not or-
dained by ihe apostle John, 336-338.

Pope, on the name, 285, 286.

i'opes. Innocent IV.. ,377.

Marlm V., :J79.

Alexan.ler III., 377.

Lucius II., 377.

Clement lit., 377.

Innocent III., 377.

Honorius III., 377.

Gregory IX., 377.

Popular election. Primitive Church offi-
cers appointed by ; Demosthenes, Ignatius,
Tyndal, on, 162-164.

" Pre-eminence. '' An innate love of, com-
mon to all created intelligences, 173-175.

Preface to Common Prayer, 24, 34, 35, 248.

Prelacy (see on Episcopacy).

Presbyter-bishops, 27, 151,168. (See also
on Elders.)

Presbyter and Bishop. (See on Elder.)

Presbyterian Church, (see on Church Pres-
byterian ) Of Geneva, (see on Galla-
gher, Rev. Mason.)

Baptism of Infants, on the limited

principle, 40-42, 448

The ministry, first adopted by the

English Church, xxxviii-xliv, 28. Ad-
milted to livings in the English Church,
etc., xxxviii.

Presbyterians, their erroneous views of the
system, so called, of Evangelical Low-
Churchism, 26. Au appeal to, 39. Ad-
monished, 31-53.

Prefsbytery, the Ephesian, not a college of
prelatical bishops, 151, 274-276,

Prideaux, Bishop, 299.

Priesthood, the Aaronic. The Christian
ministry alleged to be the antitype of,
and analogous to, by prelatists, 189. Com-
pared, I. The Romish, ib. IT. TheTrac-
tarian, ib. III. The HiKh Church, 190.
IV. The so-called Low-Church, 191. V.
Book of Common Prayer, 191. Its priestly
or vicarial character, 192. Denied by
some, ib. Attempted escape from, ib
Theory of expediency applied to, 193
Inconsistency of, 94. Occasions discord
ib. Low-Church dilemma on, ib. High
Church scheme most consistent, ib. Re-
sult, 195. The above theory fallacious
1st, Aaronic priesthood in no sense typi'
cal of the Christian ministry, 195, 196
2d, Christ the only antitype of the Aaron
ic orders, ib. ; 3d, no analoijy between
the two, 107-199; 4th, Christ's prie.st-
hood perfect, 200 ; 5th, Christ's priest-
hood not transferable toothers, ib. Fur-
ther.— This analogy, if true, must corre-
spond with its type : 1st, in the mode of
its transmission and perpetuity, 251;
2d, in their respective vocations, 256-258;
3d, in their respective limits. 258, 259;
4th, the whole theory conflicts with the
New Testament on the subject, 250. — See
alsv. ,ip. 200-202; 5th, involves the con-
tinuance of an abrogated priesthood, 259;
6th, also, that each of the twelve apostles
must have a separate line, ib. Proof that
this farmed no part cf their mission, 200,

517

261. The prelatical hypothesis, if true,, R

must retain all the original priestly func- u i r

tions apostolic, 203. Attempted evasion Rapacity. The Anglican Church guilty of,
of, 301, 305, 306. Inconsistency of its | against the See of R./uie, 38S, 3S9, 404.
aJvo'-atPS, 207-209. How accounted Raymond. Count, 377. ;i7S.
for, 209. Their high claims 210- REFORMATION, The. Cardinal Prmci-
213. Criterion of the powers assum-
ed— not names, but acts. Fallacy of,

210-2)3. Of the nature, character, and
extent of their alleged powers — Christ's
Priestly Headship transferred, 214-219.
Continuance of miraculous powers as-
serted by Maurice, 217. Moral delin-
quency no barrier to the succession, 218,
219. Romanists on, 220-224. Protestant
prelatists on, 224-226.

Primacy, alleged, of St. Peter, by Roman-
ists, examined, 115-123.

and supremacy in the Church, not

established by Christ, 284-302. (See on
Succession.)

Private interpretation. 56. Romanists con-
cede the right of, 77. Versus tradition,
86. Protestant defense of, 75-77.

Prophecy, Paul's, of the Church's apostasy,
175.

Prophets, the New Testament, their func-
tions, 154, 155.

, Evangelists, and Pastors or Teach-
ers, their functions somewhat of uncer-
tain import, 139-141 ; not transferable,
154.

Prosperity, External, danger of, to the
Churches, 17.

Protestant, Origin of the term, 380 ; defini-
tion of, 17.

Episcopal Church, divisions in, 21,

31.

Episcopacy, the so-called Low-
Church system of, its only support, 188.

Attempted Erasure of, from the

title-page of the Book of Common
Prayer, etc., 236, 237.

Principles involved in, 376 ; differ-

ples of, what ? 375, 376: first developed
on the Continent — Claude, VValdenses,
377, 378; John Milicz, Huss, Jerome of
Prague, 378, 379 ; Luther. Melaricthon,
Zwingle, Bullinger, Carlsladt. (.Ecolam-
padius", Erasmu.s Martin Bucer, I'eter
Martyr, and the renowned Calvin, 37tK
381.

-, The Anglo-English, cardinal prin-

ent results of, in the Continental and An
glican Reformations, 376, 381, 382-392.

Protestantism and Romanism irreconcil-
able, 19.

Protestants, Advantage of, over the Roman- ,

ists, on the question of an authentic copy Rome, the Church of, without either an an

ciples of, essentially ditferent from those
of the Continental Reformation, 382 ;
obviously antichristian, 382-388 ; Ra
pacity of, under Henry VI IL, 388, 389,
390,391; under Edward VI., 393-395;
sthismatical — proof of, 383. 384; a nhw
CHURCH, 391,392; principles on which
it was established under Edward VI.,
Antichristian character of, 393-397 ;
Popish character of the Book of Common
Prayer, (See on English Book of C. Pr..)
yet claimed to have been compiled by
''aid of the Holy Gkost,'^ 396-398: en-
forced by the most cruel penal Acts of
Parliament, both on Romanists and Dis-
senters, 398-400 ; fulsome adidat ons of,
400; conduct of the Anglo-English Re-
formers under Mary: the New Church,
•with the Book of C. I'r , though affirmed
to be compiled " by aid of the Holy
Ghost," renounced ! their cupidity, etc.,
400,401; Romanism restored — Cranmer,
401-403; conduct of the Anglo-English
Reformers under Elizabeth — a Roman-
ist, 403 ; her first intentions, 404 ; why
relinquished, ib. ; turns Protestant, ib. ;
how accomplished, ib. ; revived Penal
Acts of Parliament, with additions — " Act
of Conformity" — cruelty ol— now some-
what modified, 404-406.

Retort courteous, between High and Low-
Churchmen, 202.

Rock, its symbolical import, 117; exposi-
tion of, 118.

Cincinnati, O.,

of the Bible, 80
Pseudo-Protestant Evangelism, 30 ; policy

of, xxix.
Purcell, R. C, Bishop o:

300, 337.
Purgatory, 223.
Puritans, or Catharl, 465.

thentic copy of or commentary on, the
Bible, 80, 81, 83.
Romanism, definitions of, 18; analogy be-
tween it and Judaism, 19, 201 ; irrecon-
cilable with I'rotestantism, 19; concede
the right of private interpretation, 75,
76, 77.
Romish perverts, 236.

Priesthood, (See on Priesthood.)

Rudolph, 222.

iKule of Faith, what is? 55.
Quod ubique, quod semper, quod ab omni-i Ruling Elders (,See on Elders.)
bus creditum est, 61, 70.

518

Sacramental Ceremonialism, alias grace, 18,
2-33.

Saracia, 28.

Schism of the Anglican Church against the
See of Rome, under Henry VIII., etc.,
•Mr).

Schism, An attempt to escape from, b}' pre-
latists, 33-5. (See on Succession, The An-
glican.)

Schism and Heresy, Responsibility of those
who promote, x.xx. Error in regard to,
xxxi. What constitutes, xxx-xxxv.
Jerome, Prelatists, and the Author on,
x.Kxiv-xxxvi. Laudean High-Church-
ism the boundary-line of modern, xlii.
Presbyterians not yuilty of, xlii, xliii.

Scriptures, The, infallible, so the Rule of
interpretation, not the interpreter, 74;
Sufficiency of — Attributes of, 87 ; They
clearly reveal a complete system of
Church order. 87.

Seabury, Bishop, 208.

Self-deitication, Tendency to, in all orders
of created intelligences, 173; Its design
the dethronement of Christ, as head of
the Church, 171, 175.

Seminal, Alleged, descent of the apostolical
office, 184, 188.

Severus, Emperor, 341.

Sicily, King of, 222.

Silas, or Silvanus, not an apostle, 128.

Simon Magus, 147, 182.

Snodgrass, Rev. Dr., 1,'54, 199.

'• Society, Evangelical Knowledge, of P. E.
Church." Their denial of the Unchurch-
ing dogma, 25.

Sovereign Pontiff, 199.

Stand-points, tour. Reasons for the writer's
secession from the P. E. Church, 180.

Standard of Appeal, an authentic, indispen-
sable, 15.

St. Ambrose, 410, 412, 416.

StillingHeet. Archbishop, 280. 339, 340.

Stone,'Rev.'Dr., 24, 34, 270, 273, 274.

Sub-Traditionists, 65.

Substitute, Christ is such, to the true be-
liever, 91.

Substitute, or discretionary form, in the
Liturgical OrJinal of the Protestant
Episcopal Church, 219.

Succession, Apostolical, alleged unbroken,
Romish, Tractarian, and High and Low-
Church, 179. The above theories sub-
stantially identical, ib. ; Is a question of
fact, ib. ; four stand- points, in proof of.
ib. ; fallacy of, 180 ; Protean character of, I
ib. ; conditions indispensable in proof of
— first, must be derived from Christ him-j
self, 181 ; second, must possess the povveri
to confer the Holy Ghost, 182; third,!
must be continued for the same end'

delegated to others the power to propa-
gate said office, though divested of its ex-
traordinary functions, 184.

The System defined, 184 ; examined,

first, by " Holy Scrh'turk.'' 1st, " Lo. I
am with you alway ;" 2d, '"As my Fa-
ther hath sent me," etc.; 3d, '' No man
taketh this honor," etc. Bisliop McCos-
krey on, 85, 86 ; fallacy of, 86, 200-202.
The RojiisH, not invalidated by

moral delinquency, 221 ; exclusiveness
of, 227.

Conditions of its perpetuity. (See

on Ordination.) Examination of, as an
alleged fact — the various theories of,
compared : first, Roman, 246 ; second,
Tractarian, ib. ; third, High-Church, ib. ;
fourth. Low Church, 247-249 ; validity
of, made to depend on three Consecrators,
etc., 249, 250 : absurdity of, 2-50.

Fallacy of, as argued from the ab-

sence of all analogy between the alleged
type and antitype ; first, by a comparison
of their respective modes of transmission.
251 ; second, the twelve apostles not conse-
crated by the laying on of hands, 251,
252 ; third, involves the question of ge-
nealogy, 253-261 ; the term defined and
applied, first, to Christ, ib. ; second, to the
Jews, ib. ; third, to the Aaronic priest-
hood, 254 ; necessarily accurate and com-
plete, ib. ; specimens of, 255 ; prelatical
claims in support of a genealogical suc-
cession being equally great, must be
equally clear, 256.

Absence of all analogy between the

with the original twelve, 183; fallacyj
of, ib. ; fourth, must prove that Christ

Aaronic and Christian Orders as to, first,
their vocations, 256 ; second, limits, 2.58;
third, is absurd, 259; fourth, if twelve
foundation-stones, must be twelve lines,
ib. ; fifth, fallacy of, 260 ; sixth, the
'•Register" for each line must be clear
and perfect.

Prelatical, considered as an alleged

fact, 262 ; the term, as understood by
Prelatists, ib. ; fallacy of, ib. ; the subject
illustrated, 263 ; Dr. Duffield on, ib. ,
Anti- Prelatists not opposed to succession
in the true sense, 263 ; Archbishop
Whately and Dr. Addison Alexander on,
(note.) 263-265 ; proof that their succes-
sion i.?, at least, equally valid with that
of Prelatists. ib. ; high claims of Pre-
latists, 256, '26-5, 266; solemn duty in-
volved, 266 ; their qualifications there-
for, 267 ; -difficulties to encounter, ib. : al-
leged consecration by three bishops, has
no analogy in nature, 268.

The Prelatical claim put to the test

of '' Holv Scripture." Examination of
thd first links— "the twelve," 269 ; Pre-
latical dilemma, ib. ; preface to Book of
Common Prayer, Dr. Stone and Bishops
McCoskrey and Mcllvaine on, ib. ; Mat-
thias, the first alleged link from " the

519

twelve," 271 ; fallacy of, '272 ; Barnabas,
the second^ 273; fallacy of, ib. ; others —
Dr. Stone, Bishops JNIcllvaine and Mc-
Coskrey; 273, 271; Timotlv, the third i
link, 274-279; Titus, the fourth link,|
279 ; fallacy of, ib. j

involves the establishnnent, by!

Christ, of a chair of Primacy and Su-
premacy in the Christian Church, 281-
302 ; fallacy of, in Eleven ary;uments, ib. ;
first, n6 evidence for, in Scripture, 2S-5,
286 ; second, three other apostles — James,
Paul, and John, superior claims of Pri-
macy over Peter, 28C-2SS ; third,
proof from the nature of Traditional
Evidence, 288, 2S9 ; fourth, Peter never
at Rome, 239-292; filth, no evidence |
from Rome's claim as to the preservation |
of the Scriptures. 292, 293 ; sixth, Romish
schisms, 293-295; seventh, mode ofj
electing' Popes, 295, 296; eij;hth, corrup-;
tion of the 'Popes, 297-300; Jiinth,
Romish concessions of breaks in the|
chain, 300,301; tenth, involves an ab-
surdity, 301 ; eleventh, demonstrated
from a view of the alleged records of
early antiquity— Eusebins, 301 ; his tes-
timony defective, 303 ; tradition, as ap-
plied to Peter and his successor, 30 1, 305 ;
eight specimens of, 30-3, 306 ; the Romish
successions in tabular views— five lines
of, 306-320 ; defects of, 321-323 ; Cha-
pin on, ib.

The Anglican, not invalidated by

moral delinquency, 218, 219; Henry
VIII the fountain of, to the Anglican
and x\merican branches, 231-234 ; ot it-
self sufficient to Romanize both branches
of, 238 ; attempt to evade its derivation
from Rome, 270 ; Rev. A. B. Chapin ;
review of, on " The Organization of the
Primitive Church," 332 ; proposes to
'•give the Anglican Succe.ssion in several
different ways," ib. ; his authorities, 333;
defective, 333, 334; his mode of deter-
mining said succession, 334 ; alleges it to
be derived, not from iJomc, through Peter,
but from Ephksus, by St. John, through
Augustine, 335; design of— to escape
the charge of schism against Rome, and
the derivation of its succession from
Rome. ib. ; difficulties, first, with Prot.
I relatists, ib. : some of whom deiive it
from Paul— Bishop McCoskrey, 339;
falla-y of— Stillingtleet, Rev. H. Carey,
Churton. .338, 339 ; second, with himsell :
denies the Romish character of Augustine,
334 • and yet rejects Cardinal Pole,
thou"h of the same line, because a Ro-
manist, 338, 344, 345; fallacy of— proof
of the Romanism of Augustine, 3-)3, 3-) I ;
Thirty-six Romish links in the .\nglicau
chain, between Augustine and Ciannier,
3;57_3r,o . ]Mr. C, to save his succession,
seeks it first through Ephcsus from St.

John and Augustine, 335 ; second, through
Ireland and Scotland, from St. Columb
an<i the Culdees, 317— thir<l, through Je-
rusalem, from St. James. 3ii5 — and finally,
through ROME, from St. Peter! 362;
fallacy of, under each section ; the An-
glican succes.<ion not derived from the
old British bishops, 344-347 ; the •'■ Cul-
dees," Aidan, Columb, etc., 3 17-349 ; the
alleged success-ion Irom Jerusalem,
through the Archbishoprics of Meneva
and Llandaff. down to the Retbrmation ;
fallacy of, 365-36S ; thence, through
Matt. Parker, 365 ; fallacious, 365-368 ;
three conclusions, 369.

. The American. Derived from Hen-

ry VIII., 232; obstacle. 233: How re-
moved, 233. 234 407; their high claims
to a valid, unbroken succession, suspend-
ed on four conditions, 407, 408.

Sutclift'e, 28.

Synagogue (See on Polity, etc.)

Tabular views of the alleged Apostolical
Successions, eight specimens of the first
five links, 30-5. 306.

The Romish succession in five lines,

30G-3 .'0.

Prelatical style of mndim succes

sions, 322 ; wanting in tlie first links,
323.

f'ates of deaths of the Apostles, 33S.

Demonstration of the Romanism of

the Anglican succession, 355, 356. 359-
362.

■ The Succession from Cranmer to

Moore, the coiiseciator of William
White, the first American bishop, etc.,
365.

■ of Greek and Ronmn Bisnops, 437.

'• Teachers." (See on Piopliet.s. etc. ■

" The Twelve," called by Christ to be his
personal companions, 109.

Theodoret. 327, 410.

••Thirteen Apo>iles," no authority in the
New Te.*tament lor, 133-137.

Timothy, designated to his office by pro-
phecy. 151 ; circumcised, 119,151; but
not ordained by Paul, 145. 146. 1 19. 150;
nor coiLsecrated by a college of bishops in
the prelatical sense, 274-276: his of-
ficial functions and those of Ephesian
Presbytery lut identiial, 151 ; never
called an Apostle, 129; his functions and
those of Titus, show them to have been
itinerating evangelists, 152-154 ; their
office, as such, not perp^'tual. 154.

Timothy and Titus. The ministerial ordcm

t he appointed by them, ].')S-16.S.
Title.s, Elders, Presbyters, and 1 riests, not

identical. 275, 276.
Titus not an Apostle, 129 ; but an Evange-
list. 15-2.

520

Tractafors, '229.

Tkadition, written and unwritten, 6fi. If
authoritative, must be ituhpendcnt ot
Scripture, .OS, 59 ; must be supported by
miracle, .VJ ; the Romish, Traclarian,
Book of Common Prayer, and High and
Low-Church theories of, essentially iden-
tical, () 5-70, 2-i:i, 225 ; the basis of, 57-
59; alleged apostolical, what' o2 ; al-
leged Catholic or Ecclesiastical, what?
65; alleged infallibility of, 08,09; Scrip-
ture and Tradition, the alleged joint rule
of faith, 65; passages quoted in support
of, examined. 02, 63, 74, 76, 79 ; involves
the hypothesis of development, 69; im-
plicit faith in, demanded, 69 ; dangerous
consequences of, 87 ; oral tradition, un-
certainty of. 80.

The Rule of Vincent of Lirens ex

amined — " Quod ttbi(/uc, quod semper.
</iiod ab omnibus creditum cst,'^ advocated
alike by Romanists, Tractariaiis, and by
High and Low- Church, 71 ; proofs of its
fallacy — first, It is inapplicable; second,
unsatisfactory ; third, superfluous, 71 ;
lourth, is Judaistic, was denounced by
Christ, and opposed by the declared suf-
ficiency of Scripture, 72 ; fifth, such au-
tliority in behalf of their writings dis-
claimed by the early fathers — Polycarp,
Irenoeus, Origen, Justin Mart\'r, Augus-
tine, 73.

The later, uncertainty of, 288, 289 ;

tiefective, 303 ; confusion of, 304 ; fails
at the very point where certainty is in-
dispensable, 322. 323 ; Mr. Chapin's
Gallia Christiana, 333 : a blunder, 333,
334: Stillingfleet, Carey. Mr. Churton,
on the early British Church, 338,339.

Traditionisis not agreed as to an infallible
interpretation of Scripture, 74.

versus Private interpretation, 80 ;

the early fathers — t olycarp, Irenaeus,
Origen, Justin Martyr, and Augustine,
against tradition as co-ordinate with
Scripture, 73, 74.

Tridentine Decree, on the imanimous con-

SHui of the fathers as to the rule of faith.

75.
Turner, Mr.-^on Romanism at the time of

Augustine, 353.
Tyndal, on popular election, 103.
Tyng, Rev. Dr., xxxvi, xlii, xbii. 227, 237,

247, 249.

Union with Rome, proposed, of the P. E.

Church, 237; Rev. Dr. Jarvis on, 237,

238.
Unity. Prelatical pretense to, fallacious, 20.
Unlimited theory of Episcopal infant lap-

tism, a potent engine of proselytism, 42.
Unprotestantizing influences in the Church.

49, 201.
Usurpation of the Apostleship, how known,

182.
Usurpers, who are such, in the prelatical

sense, 97, 173, 208, 209. 263, 267.

" Veritas est maxima carilas.''' Tiuth is

the greatest charity.

Vincentius Lirinensis.

tionary maxim, 61.

Our motto, 175.
His famous tradi-

Waldenses, The, 377 ; prevalence of 378;
persecutions of, 377. 378; some in En-
gland, 378 ; and Albigenses, 406. (See
also Appendix D.)

Waterland, Dr., on the extraordinary gifts
of the early post-apostolic Church. 09.

Wesley. Rev. John, 230.

Wicklltie. 378, 421.

Whitefield, 230.

White, Bishop, 208.

Whitgift, Archbishop, 28.

Works, Covenant of, 174.

Internet Archive Audio

Featured

Top

Images

Featured

Top

Software

Featured

Top

Books

Featured

Top

Video

Featured

Top

Mobile Apps

Browser Extensions

Archive-It Subscription

Save Page Now

Full text of "End of prelacy : or, A treatise on ministerial parity and the non-efficacy of sacramental grace, versus the Romanism of the prelatical dogma of an unbroken succession and its cognate, sacramentarianis, papal tractarian and high and low church ..."

See other formats