Skip to main content

Full text of "The primitive and apostolical order of the church of Christ vindicated"

See other formats 


a£*j? 


LIBRARY 


OF  THE 


Theological   Seminary, 

PRINCETON,    N.  J. 

Case> Division.... 

SW, Sect  i  on 

Book,  Vo. 


8V 

'./yi5</ 


THE 


PRIMITIVE 


AND 


APOSTOLICAL    ORDER 


OF    THE 


CHURCH   OF   CHRIST 


VINDICATED. 


BY  SAMUEL  MILLER,  D.  D. 

PROFESSOR    IN    THE    THEOLOGICAL    SEMINARY    AT    PRINCETON. 


PHILADELPHIA: 
PRESBYTERIAN   BOARD   OF   PUBLICATION. 

JAMES   RUSSELL,   PUBLISHING   AGENT. 

1840. 


Entered  according  to  the  act  of  Congress,  in  the  year  1840,  by  A.  W.  Mitchell, 
in  the  office  of  the  Clerk  of  the  District  Court  for  the  Eastern  District  of 
Pennsylvania. 


Philadelphia: 
william  s.  martien,  printer. 


CONTENTS. 


Page 
PREFACE,         .........        9 

CHAPTER  I.— Question  Stated, 25 

CHAPTER  II Testimony  of  Scripture,        ....       38 

CHAPTER  III.— Testimony  of  Scripture,           ...  93 

CHAPTER  IV.— Testimony  of  the  Fathers,    .         .         .  .132 

CHAPTER  V.— Testimony  of  the  Fathers,          ...  184 

CHAPTER  VI.— Early  Rise  of  Prelacy,           .         .         .  .223 

CHAPTER  VII — Testimony  of  the  Reformers,            .         .  267 

CHAPTER  VIII— Concessions  of  Episcopalians,     .         .  .309 

CHAPTER  IX.— Uninterrupted  Succession,         ...  346 

CHAPTER  X Practical  Influence  of  Prelacy,        .         .  .368 


PREFACE. 


Religious  controversy  is  always  painful,  and  by 
many  serious  persons,  considered  as  always  mis- 
chievous. Charity,  they  think,  forbids  us  to  examine 
or  oppose  the  opinions  of  others;  and  gospel  truth, 
they  tell  us,  is  too  holy  ever  to  be  defended  with  po- 
lemical weapons.  Such  persons,  of  course,  entertain 
a  prejudice  against  all  religious  controversy,  and 
allege  that  the  cause  of  true  religion  was  never  pro- 
moted by  engaging  in  it. 

No  position  can  be  more  unreasonable  than  this; 
none  more  contrary  to  the  tenor  of  Scripture,  or  to 
the  example  of  Christ  and  his  inspired  apostles.  It 
cannot  be  doubted,  indeed,  that  controversy,  even 
when  the  defence  of  precious  truth  is  its  object,  may 
be,  and  often  has  been,  commenced  with  an  unhal- 
lowed spirit,  and  conducted  in  an  unhappy  and  mis- 
chievous manner.  So  may  didactic  instruction.  So 
may  all  attempts  to  enlighten  the  ignorant  or  reclaim 
the  vicious.  So  may  feeding  the  hungry  and  clothing 
the  naked.  But  shall  we,  therefore,  abstain  from  all 
these  acknowledged  duties,  because  they  may  be,  and 

1* 


10  PREFACE. 

have  been,  abused,  and  because  the  discharge  of  them 
is  always,  in  fact,  mingled  with  more  or  less  imper- 
fection? 

The  truth  is,  controversy  is  unavoidable,  unless  we 
would  give  up  all  truth,  and  allow  the  advocates  of 
error  to  have  their  own  way  in  every  thing.  Accord- 
ingly the  whole  of  the  preaching  of  our  blessed  Sa- 
viour was  strikingly  polemical  in  its  character.  In 
almost  every  discourse  he  specified  and  denounced 
the  errors  of  the  false  teachers  around  him,  and  incul- 
cated, with  great  solemnity,  the  opposite  truth.  Was 
this  uncharitable?  No  Christian  will  dare  to  hint 
such  a  charge.  Nor  was  this  controversial  character 
confined  to  the  preaching  of  the  divine  Master  him- 
self. His  inspired  apostles  followed  his  example. 
Their  writings  and  public  discourses  abound  in  the 
detection  and  condemnation  of  erroneous  opinions, 
and  in  calling  upon  those  whom  they  addressed  to 
examine  and  hold  fast  the  truth.  Nay,  they  go  a  step 
further,  and  while  their  inspiration  might  seem  to 
warrant  them  in  being  peculiarly  confident  and  au- 
thoritative in  repudiating  one  set  of  doctrines,  and 
establishing  another;  they  enjoin  upon  all  the  disci- 
ples of  Christ,  in  all  ages,  to  follow  their  example. 
Hence  they  proclaim — "  Believe  not  every  spirit,  but 
try  the  spirits  whether  they  are  of  God,  for  many 
false  prophets  have  gone  out  into  the  world.  Be  not 
carried  about  with  every  wind  of  doctrine,  and  cun- 
ning craftiness  whereby  men  lie  in  wait  to  deceive. 


PREFACE.  11 

Contend  earnestly  for  the  faith  once  delivered  to  the 
saints.  Buy  the  truth,  and  sell  it  not.  Hold  fast  the 
form  of  sound  words  which  ye  have  heard  in  faith 
and  love  which  is  in  Christ  Jesus."  In  fact,  the 
Church  was  founded  for  the  express  purpose  of  pre- 
serving, defending,  and  propagating  the  truth  and 
order  revealed  by  Christ.  And  as  this  truth  and  order 
have  ever  been  opposed  by  the  world,  she  can  only 
maintain  them  by  conflict  at  every  step.  Accordingly, 
the  whole  history  of  the  Church  has  been  one  con- 
tinued exemplification  of  the  principle,  that  the  truth 
ever  has  been,  and,  as  long  as  this  militant  state  con- 
tinues, ever  must  be  maintained  by  controversy.  The 
Church,  in  this  conflict,  may  be  compared  to  persons 
striving  to  ascend  an  agitated  and  rapid  river,  when 
the  wind  and  the  tide  are  both  strong  against  them. 
They  can  advance  only  by  hard  rowing;  and  the  mo- 
ment they  intermit  their  efforts  they  fall  down  the 
stream.  The  Church  has  to  fight  for  every  inch  of 
ground;  and  whenever  she  ceases  to  contend  for  the 
truth,  she  ceases  to  advance.  She  may  contend  with 
an  improper  spirit.  If  she  does  this,  it  is  her  mistake 
and  her  sin.  But  to  contend  no  more,  is  to  disregard 
the  command  of  her  Master  in  heaven,  and  betray 
his  cause  to  the  enemy. 

But  if  it  be  the  duty  of  the  Church,  and  of  all  her 
members,  to  resist  the  progress  of  error,  whenever 
and  by  whomsoever  promulgated,  it  is  still  more  ob 
viously  a  duty,  when  important  truth  is  openly  at- 


12  PREFACE. 

tacked,  to  defend  it  with  firmness,  and  to  endeavour 
to  refute  the  vaunted  error,  as  well  as  to  establish  the 
opposite  truth.  But  even  this,  according  to  the  doc- 
trine of  some,  is  not  to  be  permitted. 

The  writer  of  these  pages  is  persuaded  that  there 
is  much  less  of  a  sectarian  spirit,  properly  so  called, 
in  the  Presbyterian  Church,  than  in  any  other  body  of 
professing  Christians  in  the  United  States,  perhaps  we 
might  add  in  the  world.  The  truth  is,  we  have  hardly 
enough  of  the  esprit  du  corps — the  spirit  of  denomi- 
nation— to  defend  ourselves  when  attacked.  And 
this,  not  because  we  have  a  less  clear  conviction  than 
others  of  the  truth  of  our  system,  but  because  our 
system  itself  is  more  pacific  and  charitable,  and  less 
exclusive  than  any  other  which  holds  to  the  impor- 
tance of  truth  at  all.  For  one  instance  in  which  a 
Presbyterian  minister  says  a  word  in  the  pulpit  to  in- 
vade the  opinions  or  feelings  of  other  denominations, 
I  will  engage  to  produce  fifty  examples  of  a  like 
kind  in  the  churches  around  us.  And  yet,  strange  to 
tell!  there  is  no  church  in  the  land  so  frequently  stig- 
matized as  sectarian,  as  the  Presbyterian  Church. 
And,  most  strange  of  all!  few,  it  is  believed,  have 
been  more  forward  in  repeating  and  circulating  this 
charge  than  some  of  the  members  of  precisely  those 
sects  who  have  been  themselves  most  narrowly  exclu- 
sive in  their  spirit  and  conduct,  and,  of  course,  most 
justly  liable  to  the  very  imputation  which  they  so  in- 
juriously cast  on  us.    Baptists,  Episcopalians,  Metho- 


PREFACE.  ]3 

dists,  may  all  carry  their  peculiar  opinions  and  claims 
into  the  pulpit  every  sabbath,  without  offence  to  any 
one.  It  seems  even  to  be  expected  that  they  should 
do  so.  But  if  a  Presbyterian  publicly  express  a  pre- 
ference for  his  own  beloved  church,  or  propose  a  plan 
for  printing  and  circulating  books  adapted  to  explain 
and  recommend  her  denominational  opinions,  an  out- 
cry is  raised  as  if  some  great  offence  against  Christian 
charity  had  been  committed.  Why  is  this?  The  ex- 
planation is  obvious  and  easy.  In  all  ages  popular 
sentiment  has  been  more  tolerant  of  every  thing  than 
of  truth.  And,  hence,  worldly  politicians,  while  they 
profess  to  be  jealous  over  all  the  interests  of  civil 
liberty,  have  generally  evinced  that  their  prejudices 
were  ten-fold  stronger  against  Presbyterians,  whose 
whole  spirit  and  history  have,  for  three  centuries, 
heralded  them,  almost  to  a  proverb,  as  the  friends  and 
uncompromising  advocates  of  liberty,  than  against 
Papists,  whose  system  is  the  very  personification  of 
mental  thraldom,  and  spiritual  tyranny.  It  is  difficult 
to  assign  any  other  satisfactory  reason  for  this  wonder- 
ful fact,  than  that  public  sentiment  is  ever  leagued 
against  the  truth;  and  that  "  the  simplicity  that  is  in 
Christ"  is  far  less  acceptable  to  the  worldly  taste  than 
the  inventions  and  *  commandments  of  men."  One 
of  the  many  arguments  in  favour  of  the  Calvinistic 
doctrines,  and  the  pure  ecclesiastical  discipline  pro- 
fessed by  the  Presbyterian  Church  is,  that  the  popu- 
lar feeling  and  voice  are  strong  against  them;  especi- 

2 


14  PREFACE. 

ally  that  all  the  tribes  of  worldliness,  levity,  scepti- 
cism, licentiousness,  impiety,  and  frigid  indifference — 
are  found  united  in  one  loud  clamour  of  opposition. 
Herod  and  Pilate,  however  alienated,  are  always 
ready  to  make  friends  for  the  purpose  of  crucifying 
Christ.  Such  is  the  reception  of  the  truth  and  order  of 
the  Church  which  the  word  of  God  teaches  us  to  ex- 
pect. The  "carnal  mind"  naturally  dislikes  them.  And 
even  those  worldly  minded  persons  who  are  bred  up 
in  their  bosom,  and  with  a  prejudice  in  their  favour, 
are  ever  ready  to  turn  aside  to  a  more  flattering  and 
alluring  system,  when  the  temptation  is  presented. 

In  regard  to  the  controversy  to  which  this  volume 
relates,  it  has  always  been  commenced  by  the  friends 
of  Prelacy.  No  system  was  ever  more  pacific  and 
inoffensive  than  that  of  the  Presbyterian  Church. 
No  denomination  of  Christians  was  ever  more  slow 
to  question  the  claims  of  others,  or  to  employ  the  pul- 
pit or  the  press  as  means  of  attack  on  their  neigh- 
bours. They  have  ever  been  the  invaded  party. 
But  there  are  limits  beyond  which  forbearance  and 
silence  under  assaults  cease  to  be  a  duty.  A  deep 
conviction  of  this  truth  has  prompted  to  the  present 
publication.  A  brief  history  of  the  circumstances 
which  occasioned  it,  will  serve,  it  is  hoped,  to  satisfy 
the  reader  as  to  its  real  character. 

More  than  thirty-five  years  ago,  a  distinguished 
clergyman  of  the  Protestant  Episcopal  Church  in  the 
United  States,  published  and  maintained,  in  a  great 


PREFACE.  15 

variety  of  forms,  the  following  opinions — "  Where 
the  gospel  is  proclaimed,  communion  with  the  Church 
by  the  participation  of  its  ordinances,  at  the  hands  of 
the  duly  authorized  priesthood,  is  the  indispensable 
condition  of  salvation.  Separation  from  the  pre- 
scribed government  and  regular  priesthood  of  the 
Church,  when  it  proceeds  from  involuntary  and  un- 
avoidable ignorance  or  error,  we  have  reason  to  trust 
will  not  intercept  from  the  humble,  the  penitent,  and 
obedient,  the  blessings  of  God's  favour.     But  great 

is  the  guilt,  and  imminent  the  danger  of  those  who, 

i 

possessing  the  means  of  arriving  at  the  knowledge  of 

the  truth,  negligently  or  wilfully  continue  in  a  state 
of  separation  from  the  authorized  ministry  of  the 
Church,  and  participate  of  ordinances  administered 
by  an  irregular  and  invalid  authority.  They  are 
guilty  of  rebellion  against  their  almighty  Lawgiver 
and  Judge;  they  expose  themselves  to  the  awful 
displeasure  of  that  almighty  Jehovah  who  will 
not  permit  his  institutions  to  be  condemned,  or  his 
authority  violated  with  impunity."  * 

Here,  it  will  be  perceived,  by  the  most  cursory 
reader,  that  Presbyterians,  and  all  professing  Chris- 
tians, not  connected  with  the  Episcopal  Church,  are 
represented  as  rebels,  schismatics,  altogether  out  of 
the  Church  of  Christ,  and,  unless  they  can  avail 
themselves  of  the  plea  of  involuntary  ignorance  and 
error,  in  the  utmost  danger  of  eternal  perdition! 

*  Bishop  Hobart's  Companion  for  the  Altar,  p.  202. 2Q4. 


16  PREFACE. 

Such  denunciations  had,  indeed,  often  been  heard 
from  Papists,  and  the  devotees  of  their  corrupt  priest- 
hood; and  had  been  sometimes  found  in  the  contro- 
versial writings  of  high-church  Episcopalians,  on 
both  sides  of  the  Atlantic.  But,  since  the  civil  esta- 
blishment of  any  religious  denomination  in  our  coun- 
try had  been  for  ever  terminated  and  prohibited  by 
our  national  independence,  and  our  free  constitutions, 
no  such  language,  as  far  as  is  recollected,  had  been 
employed  by  any  American  Christians  until  then; 
especially  such  language  had,  up  to  that  time,  been 
confined  to  controversial  pamphlets,  and  had  never, 
until  then,  been  incorporated  with  books  of  devotion, 
and  put  into  the  mouth  of  every  communicant  in  his 
nearest  approaches  to  the  throne  of  love  and  mercy. 

The  writer  of  this  volume  was,  at  the  date  of  the 
publication  alluded  to,  one  of  the  pastors  of  the  United 
Presbyterian  Churches  in  the  city  of  New  York. 
Some  of  the  people  of  his  charge  were  amazed; 
others  indignant ;  and  a  third  class  perplexed  at  the 
claim  so  confidently  urged.  In  these  circumstances, 
when  he  and  his  church  were  virtually  denounced 
and  excommunicated;  when  the  name  of  a  Christian 
Church  was  denied  us;  when  Presbyterians  were 
warned  to  abandon  the  ministry  of  their  pastors,  un- 
der the  penalty  of  being  regarded  as  "rebels"  and 
"'schismatics"  both  by  God  and  man — he  thought 
himself  called  upon  to  say  something  in  defence  of 
those  principles  which  he  believed,  and  had   long 


PREFACE.  17 

taught,  as  founded  in  the  word  of  God.  It  was  no 
bitterness  against  his  Episcopal  neighbours;  no  love 
of  controversy;  no  restless  ambition;  no  desire  to  in- 
trude into  another  denomination  for  the  purpose  of 
making  proselytes,  that  dictated  an  attempt  to  defend 
his  beloved  Church.  The  attempt,  as  every  one  who 
was  acquainted  with  the  circumstances  could  bear 
witness,  was  purely  defensive,  and  was  demanded  by 
every  consideration  of  duty  to  the  souls  of  men,  and 
of  fidelity  to  his  Master  in  heaven. 

Such  was  the  origin  of  the  "  Letters  on  the  Consti- 
tution and  Order  of  the  Christian  Ministry,"  origin- 
ally published  in  1807,  and  addressed  by  the  author 
of  this  manual  to  the  members  of  the  "  United 
Churches,"  of  which  he  was  then  the  collegiate  pas- 
tor. Never  was  there  a  work  more  purely  defensive. 
The  author  would  never  have  thought  of  writing  or 
publishing  a  line  on  the  Episcopal  controversy,  had 
not  he  and  his  people  been  assailed  in  a  manner 
adapted  to  rouse  every  feeling  in  support  of  the  prin- 
ciples which  he  had  taught,  and  which,  as  long  as  he 
continued  to  hold  them,  it  was  his  duty,  as  a  Chris- 
tian and  as  a  minister,  to  defend.  It  never  would 
have  occurred  to  him  to  complain  that  our  Episcopal 
neighbours  preferred  Episcopacy,  and  thought  proper 
on  that  principle  to  organize  their  church.  But  when 
they  undertook  to  denounce  us  as  guilty  in  the  sight 
of  God,  and  in  danger  of  eternal  perdition,  for  not 
adopting  and  acting  upon  the  same  principle;  when 


18  PREFACE. 

their  manuals  containing  this  denunciation  were  for- 
mally sent  to  our  houses;  and  when  we  were  pub- 
licly called  upon,  in  a  great  variety  of  forms,  to  say 
something,  if  we  had  aught  to  offer,  in  our  own  de- 
fence, it  was,  surely,  time  to  give  a  reason  for  our 
principles  and  our  practice. 

Yet,  wonderful  to  tell!  the  calm  and  respectful 
defence  just  alluded  to,  was  denounced,  by  those  who 
undertook  to  answer  it,  as  an  "unprovoked  attack" 
on  the  Episcopal  Church!  Nor  was  this  charge  con- 
fined to  his  immediate  answerers.  It  was  repeated 
and  urged,  in  numerous  instances,  by  others;  and  re- 
peatedly, up  to  this  day,  made  matter  of  reproachful 
complaint.  He  had  made  no  "  attack"  on  that  de- 
nomination, unless  it  were  an  "  attack"  to  show  that 
the  claims  of  Episcopalians  to  be  the  only  true 
Church,  and  their  denunciations  of  Presbyterians, 
had  no  warrant  either  in  Scripture  or  in  history.  He 
had  not  assailed  his  Episcopal  neighbours  as  aliens 
from  "  the  covenanted  mercies  of  God."  He  had  not 
denied  that  they  were  a  true  Church,  or  that  they 
had  a  valid  ministry,  and  valid  ordinances.  Nay,  he 
had  formally  disclaimed  every  allegation  of  this  kind. 
/  He  had  simply  shown  that  the  ministry  and  ordi- 
nances of  the  Presbyterian  Church  rested  on  grounds 
quite  as  solid  and  tenable  as  those  of  the  Episcopal 
Church.  But  all  this  was  not  enough.  In  the  esti- 
mation of  the  high-church  prelatists  in  this  contro- 
versy, it  seems  that  to  refuse  acquiescence  in  their 


PREFACE.  19 

claims  and  denunciations  is  to  "attack"  them;  and 
to  prove  these  claims  and  denunciations  unscriptural, 
an  inexcusable  and  presumptuous  offence. 

The  same  allegation  of  "  unprovoked  attack"  has 
become  the  standing  complaint  on  every  occasion, 
and  in  every  part  of  the  country  in  which  attempts 
have  been,  by  whomsoever,  made  to  circulate  any 
defence  of  Presbyterian  church  government.  It  ap- 
pears to  be  claimed  as  the  prescriptive  right  of  pre- 
latists  to  denounce  and  exclude  from  the  "covenanted 
mercies  of  God"  at  pleasure;  but  to  attempt  to  show 
that  this  virtual  excommunication  has  no  warrant  in 
the  word  of  God  is,  it  seems,  uncharitable  and  not  to 
be  endured.  Such  extraordinary  overacting  must 
soon  come,  if  it  have  not  already  come,  to  be  well 
understood,  and  suitably  appreciated  by  an  impartial 
public.  Let  us  illustrate  the  spirit  of  such  conduct 
by  a  familiar  example  drawn  from  common  life. 
Suppose  one  of  my  neighbours  were  to  publish  a 
pamphlet  denouncing  me  and  my  family  as  aliens, 
and  denying  that  we  had  the  smallest  claim  to  the 
rights  and  privileges  of  American  citizens.  Suppose 
I  were  to  make  a  publication  in  reply,  containing  no 
abuse,  and  not  calling  in  question  his  rights;  but 
proving  in  the  clearest  manner  my  citizenship,  and 
showing  that  my  claims  to  that  character  were,  to  the 
full,  as  strong  and  unquestionable  as  his  own.  And 
suppose,  by  way  of  rejoinder,  he  were  to  appeal  to 
the  public  in  such  language  as  this:  "  See  how  this 


20  PREFACE, 

man  is  picking  a  quarrel  with  me,  and  attacking  an 
inoffensive  neighbour?"  What  would  impartial  by- 
standers think  of  such  conduct?  Would  indignation 
or  contempt  be  their  predominant  feeling?  Now  the 
supposed  case  is  precisely  analogous  to  the  actual 
one  before  us.  Never  was  there  an  instance  in  which 
the  charge  of  "  unprovoked  attack"  was  more  unjust, 
or  more  perfectly  preposterous. 

In  consequence  of  recent  and  repeated  attempts  to 
circulate  with  new  zeal,  in  different  parts  of  our 
country,  those  manuals  which  denounce  and  virtually 
excommunicate  Presbyterians,  the  writer  of  these 
pages  has  been  prevailed  upon  to  present  in  a  new 
and  abridged  form  his  views  of  the  subject.  In  doing 
this  he  has  not  a  thought  or  a  wish  to  attack  Episco- 
pacy; but  merely  to  show  that  Episcopacy  has  been 
wrong — utterly  wrong  and  unjust  in  attacking  Pres- 
byterianism. 

It  is  due  to  candour  also  to  say,  that  some  late  and 
extraordinary  movements  in  the  Episcopal  denomina- 
tion in  the  United  States,  have  induced  the  writer  of 
these  pages,  as  a  dutiful  and  devoted  son  of  the 
Church,  and  as  a  "  watchman  on  her  walls,"  to  ap- 
pear once  more  as  an  advocate  of  primitive  truth  and 
order.  Most  intelligent  readers  will  understand  that 
there  is  a  reference  here  to  the  "  Tracts  for  the 
Times,"  lately  published  by  certain  writers  in  the 
University  of  Oxford,  in  England,  and  more  recently 
re-printed,  and  extensively  circulated,  in  the  United 


PREFACE.  21 

States.  The  character  of  these  tracts  is  beginning  to 
be  so  well  known,  and  so  justly  appreciated,  that  lit- 
tle need  be  said  to  apprize  the  public  of  their  real  aim 
and  tendency.  The  truth  is,  they  present  such  views 
of  the  character  and  powers  of  the  Episcopal  "  priest- 
hood," and  of  the  inherent  efficacy  of  the  Christian 
sacraments,  when  administered  by  Episcopal  hands, 
as  mark  a  rapid  return  to  the  principles  of  Popery, 
and  as  ought  to  be  abhorred  by  every  sincere  Pro- 
testant. Among  other  things,  little  less  exceptionable, 
they  teach  that  their  "priesthood"  have  the  power  of 
communicating  spiritual  life,  by  means  of  the  sacra- 
ments, to  those  to  whom  they  minister.  They  repre- 
sent the  act  of  ordination,  by  the  bishop's  hands,  as 
conveying  infallibly  the  gifts  of  the  Holy  Ghost. 
They  teach  the  doctrine  of  the  presence  of  the  real 
body  and  blood  of  Christ  in  the  Eucharist.  They 
favour  prayers  for  the  dead.  They  speak  of  the  Vir- 
gin Mary  in  language  which  might  well  befit  Popish 
lips.  They  contend  that  we  are  justified  before  God, 
not  by  faith  in  the  perfect  righteousness  of  Christ, 
but  by  the  participation  of  the  sacraments.  They 
distinctly  convey  the  superstitious  and  awful  doctrine 
that  for  sins  committed  after  baptism,  there  is  no 
promised  forgiveness,  even  on  repentance  ever  so 
sincere  and  deep.  And,  finally,  that  the  most  certain 
means  of  promoting  the  spiritual  benefit  of  men  is 
to  exhibit  to  them,  not  the  atoning  sacrifice  of  the 
Redeemer  as  the  ground  of  hope,  but  the  external 
ordinances  of  the  Church. 


22  PREFACE. 

The  editors  of  the  "  Christian  Observer,"  a  popu- 
lar periodical,  known  to  be  edited  by  zealous  mem- 
bers of  the  established  Church  of  England,  speak  of 
the  tracts  not  only  with  disapprobation,  but  with  ab- 
horrence; and  deliver  as  their  deliberate  opinion,  that, 
if  such  principles  as  these  writers  aim  to  propagate 
become  prevalent  in  that  church,  it  ought  no  longer 
to  be  supported  by  a  Christian  people.  The  same 
estimate  of  the  unscriptnral  character  of  these  Tracts 
is  made  by  a  number  of  the  most  pious  and  eminent 
dignitaries  of  the  English  establishment;  and  five  or 
six,  at  least,  of  the  bishops  of  the  Episcopal  Church  in 
our  own  country,  are  understood  to  regard  them  as 
not  only  containing  error,  but  awfully  dangerous 
error,  the  prevalence  of  which  would  be  deeply  dis- 
astrous to  the  best  interests  of  their  denomination, 
and  put  in  jeopardy  the  souls  of  such  as  should  yield 
to  them  their  credence. 

Bishop  Wilson,  of  Calcutta,  speaks  of  these  Tracts, 
and  of  the  system  and  aim  of  their  authors,  in  the 
following  strong  language: 

"  It  is  to  me,  I  confess,  a  matter  of  surprise  and 
shame,  that,  in  the  nineteenth  century,  we  should 
really  have  the  fundamental  position  of  the  whole  sys- 
tem of  Popery  virtually  re-asserted  in  the  bosom  of 
that  very  Church  which  was  reformed  so  determi- 
nately  three  centuries  since,  from  this  self  same  evil, 
by  the  doctrine,  and  labours,  and  martyrdom  of  Cran- 
mer  and  his  noble  fellow-sufferers.     What!  are  we 


PREFACE.  23 

to  have  all  the  fond  tenets  which  formerly  sprung 
from  the  "  traditions  of  men"  re-introduced,  in  how- 
ever modified  a  form,  among  us?  Are  we  to  have  a 
refined  transubstantiation — the  sacraments,  and  not 
faith,  the  chief  means  of  salvation — a  confused  and 
uncertain  mixture  of  the  merits  of  Christ  and  inherent 
grace  in  the  matter  of  justification — remission  of  sins 
and  the  new  creation  in  Christ  Jesus  confined,  or 
almost  confined,  to  baptism — perpetual  doubt  of  par- 
don to  the  penitent  after  that  sacrament — the  duty 
and  advantage  of  self-imposed  austerities — the  inno- 
cency  of  prayers  for  the  dead — and  similar  tenets  and 
usages  which  generate  a  spirit  of  bondage,  again  as- 
serted among  us?  And  is  the  paramount  authority 
of  the  inspired  Scriptures,  and  the  doctrine  of  the 
grace  of  God  in  our  justification  by  the  alone  merits 
of  Jesus  Christ,  which  reposes  on  that  authority,  to 
be  again  weakened  and  obscured  by  such  human  su- 
per additions,  and  a  new  edifice  of '  will  worship'  and 
4 voluntary  humility,'  and  the  'rudiments  of  the 
world,'  as  the  apostle  speaks,  to  be  created  once 
more  in  the  place  of  the  simple  gospel  of  a  crucified 
Saviour?"  * 

The  author  of  this  manual  is  conscious  of  having 
reached  an  age  when,  according  to  the  course  of  na- 
ture, he  cannot  be  far  from  his  last  account,  and  when 
nothing  ought  to  engage  his  attention,  or  employ  his 
pen,  but  that  which  concerns  the  best  interests  of  the 

*  Charge  to  his  Clergy,  1838. 


24  PREFACE. 

Church  of  God.  The  nearer  he  approaches  to  the 
end  of  his  course,  the  greater  is  his  aversion  to  con- 
troversy. Much  rather  would  he  spend  his  little  re- 
maining time  in  explaining  and  recommending  those 
great  fundamental  truths  which  pertain  to  the  won- 
ders of  redeeming  love,  and  the  precious  hopes  of 
sinful  men  for  eternity.  Were  points  of  mere  eccle- 
siastical polity  involved  in  the  questions  to  which  he 
refers,  his  interest  in  them,  though  not  small,  would 
be  by  no  means  so  intense.  But  when  he  perceives 
matters  of  infinite  moment  to  be  wrapped  up  in  these 
questions;  when  he  finds  publications  flooding  the 
land  which  turn  away  the  attention  of  their  readers 
from  the  Saviour,  as  the  only  ground  of  confidence, 
and  direct  them  to  the  fables,  the  genealogies,  and  the 
miserable  revived  superstitions  of  Romanism,  as  the 
only  safe  foundation  of  hope,  he  feels  bound  to  em- 
ploy whatever  little  of  strength  old  age  may  have  left 
him  in  opposing  such  destructive  errors,  and  directing 
the  attention  of  as  many  as  he  can  reach  and  influ- 
ence to  "  the  only  foundation  of  the  apostles  and  pro- 
phets, Jesus  Christ  himself  the  corner  stone  laid  in 
Zion."  This  is  the  great  cause  in  the  defence  of 
which,  as  God  shall  give  him  ability,  he  wishes  to 
live  and  to  die.  In  this  cause  he  never  expects  to 
give  over  more  or  less  controversy,  irksome  as  it  is, 
as  long  as  he  shall  remain  a  member  of  the  Church 
militant  here  below.  S.  M. 

Princeton,  September,  1840. 


PRIMITIVE   ORDER,   &c. 


CHAPTER  I. 


THE    QUESTION    IN    THIS    CONTROVERSY    STATED. 

In  the  discussion  of  all  controverted  subjects,  it  is 
of  the  utmost  importance  to  ascertain,  at  the  com- 
mencement, the  precise  state  of  the  question.  This 
has  often  been  mistaken  in  relation  to  the  subject 
before  Us;  and  hence  have  arisen  vague,  inaccurate 
language,  and  sometimes  even  entire  misapprehen- 
sion of  radical  principles.  An  attempt,  therefore,  will 
be  made  to  state  as  clearly  as  possible,  the  main 
points  concerning  which  we,  as  Presbyterians,  differ 
from  our  Episcopal  brethren. 

We  by  no  means  deny,  then,  that  there  was,  in  the 
primitive  Church,  a  class  of  officers  who  bore  the 
name  of  bishops.  On  the  contrary,  we  maintain  that 
there  were  bishops  in  the  apostolic  Church,  and  that 
there  ought  to  be  bishops  now.  Both  the  name  and 
the  office  are  to  be  found  in  the  New  Testament,  and 
ought  to  be  retained  to  the  end  of  time.  Many  Epis- 
copalians of  slender  information,  seem  to  take  for 
granted  that  we  discard  bishops  in  every  sense  of 
the  word;  and,  therefore,  when  they  find  this  title  in 
Scripture,  or  in  early  uninspired  writers,  they  exult 
as  if  the  word  established  their  claim.     But  nothing 


28  THE    QUESTION    STATED. 

can  be  more  unfounded  than  this  triumph.  We  be- 
lieve and  acknowledge  as  fully  as  themselves,  that 
ministers  of  the  gospel  bearing  this  title,  are  fre- 
quently spoken  of  in  the  New  Testament;  and  that 
there  must  be  bishops  in  every  regularly  constituted 
church  in  every  age.  Accordingly  it  is  well  known, 
that  in  the  Form  of  Government  of  the  Presbyterian 
Church,  the  pastors  of  churches  are  uniformly  styled 
bishops;  and  this  title  is  recommended  to  be  retain- 
ed, as  both  scriptural  and  appropriate. 

But  we  differ  from  that  denomination  of  Christians 
in  our  views  of  the  character  and  powers  of  church 
officers.  They  suppose  that  there  are  three  orders 
in  the  Christian  ministry,  viz.  bishops,  presbyters, 
and  deacons:  the  first  possessing  the  highest  ecclesias- 
tical power;  the  second  invested  with  authority  to 
preach  and  administer  both  sacraments;  and  the 
third  empowered  only  to  preach  and  baptize.  We 
suppose,  on  the  other  hand,  that  there  is,  properly 
speaking,  but  one  order  of  gospel  ministers;  that 
there  are,  indeed,  two  other  classes  of  church  officers, 
viz.  ruling  elders  and  deacons;  but  that  neither  of 
these  are  authorized  to  labour  in  the  word  and  doc- 
trine, or  to  administer  either  of  the  Christian  sacra- 
ments. We  suppose  that  there  is  a  plain  distinction 
made  in  Scripture  between  elders  who  only  rule,  and 
elders  who,  to  the  power  of  ruling,  join  also  that  of 
teaching  and  administering  sealing  ordinances.  And 
we  believe,  that  the  friends  of  modern  Episcopacy, 
in  considering  deacons  as  an  order  of  clergy,  and 
in  empowering  them  to  preach  and  baptize,  are 
chargeable  with  a  departure  from  the  apostolic  pat- 
tern. 

But  we  diner  from  our  Episcopal  brethren,  princi- 


THE    QUESTION    STATED.  27 

pally,  with  respect  to  the  character  and  powers  of  the 
scriptural  bishop.  On  the  one  hand,  they  contend 
that  bishops  are  an  order  of  ministers  superior  to 
presbyters,  having  a  different  ordination,  different 
powers,  and  a  different  sphere  of  duty.  That  while 
presbyters  have  a  right,  by  virtue  of  their  office,  to 
preach  the  word,  and  administer  sacraments,  to 
bishojjs  exclusively  belong  the  powers  of  ordination, 
confirmation,  and  government.  On  the  other  hand, 
we  maintain  that  there  is  but  one  order  of  minis- 
ters of  the  gospel  in  the  Christian  church;  that  eve- 
ry regular  pastor  of  a  congregation  is  a  scriptural 
bishop ;  or,  in  other  words,  that  every  presbyter,  who 
has  been  set  apart,  by  the  laying  on  of  the  hands  of 
the  presbytery,  and  who  has  the  pastoral  charge  of  a 
particular  church,  is,  to  all  intents  and  purposes,  in 
the  sense  of  Scripture,  and  of  the  primitive  Church,  a 
bishop;  having  a  right,  in  company  with  others,  his 
equals,  to  ordain,  and  to  perform  every  service  per- 
taining to  the  episcopal  office.  We  can  discover  no 
warrant,  either  from  the  word  of  God,  or  from  the 
early  history  of  the  Church,  for  what  is  called  dio- 
cesan episcopacy,  or  the  pre-eminence  and  authority 
of  one  man,  under  the  title  of  bishop,  or  any  other 
title,  over  a  number  of  presbyters  and  churches:  on 
the  contrary,  we  are  persuaded  and  affirm,  that  Christ 
and  his  apostles,  expressly  discountenanced  such 
claims  of  pre-eminence;  and  that  all  those  forms  of 
ecclesiastical  government  which  are  built  upon  these 
claims,  are  corruptions  of  apostolic  simplicity,  and 
deviations  from  the  primitive  order  of  the  Church. 
In  a  word,  we  believe  that  the  office  of  the  gospel 
ministry  is  one,  and  that  the  New  Testament  does 
not  admit  of  grades  and  orders  in  that  office;  that  he 


28  THE    QUESTION    STATED. 

who  has  received  it,  without  being  made  the  pastor 
of  a  particular  church,  is  called  a  minister  of  the  gos- 
pel, an  ambassador  of  Christ,  or  an  evangelist,  accord- 
ing to  circumstances;  that  when  he  becomes  related, 
by  installation,  to  a  particular  church,  as  its  pastor  or 
"  overseer,"  he  is  then  a  scriptural  bishop.  We  do 
not  suppose  that  in  thus  becoming  a  pastor  or  bishop, 
he  is  invested  with  a  new  office ;  but  that  in  his  offi- 
cial character  he  is  brought  into  connection  with  a 
particular  flock.  Thus,  in  the  language  of  the  Epis- 
copal Church,  when  a  man  is  ordained  a  presbyter, 
he  is  said  to  be  invested  with  priest's  orders — when 
the  same  man  is  instituted  the  rector  of  a  parish,  he 
is  not  clothed  with  a  new  office,  but  is  still  only  a 
presbyter,  entrusted  with  a  pastoral  charge.  So  in 
the  Presbyterian  Church,  a  presbyter  without  a  pas- 
toral charge,  however  excellent  and  venerated,  is  not 
a  bishop.  He  is  not  the  "  overseer  of  a  flock."  But 
when  he  is  called  by  a  church  to  be  its  pastor,  and  is 
installed  as  such,  he  receives  no  new  office;  but  is  a 
presbyter  placed  in  a  pastoral  charge,  a  scriptural 
bishop. 

This  being  the  case,  the  reader  will  readily  per- 
ceive the  necessity  of  clearly  marking  and  keeping  in 
view  a  distinction  between  the  primitive  and  the 
modern  sense  of  the  word  bishop.  Accordingly,  in 
the  perusal  of  the  following  sheets,  he  is  earnestly 
requested  to  recollect,  at  every  step,  that  by  a  scrip- 
tural or  primitive  bishop,  is  always  meant  a  presby- 
ter, minister,  pastor,  or  whatever  else  he  may  be 
called,  who  has  the  pastoral  care  of  a  particular  con- 
gregation; and  that  by  scriptural  or  primitive  episco- 
pacy, is  meant  that  government  of  the  Church,  by 
such  bishops,  which  existed  in  pure  apostolic  times 


THE    QUESTION    STATED.  29 

and  for  near  two  hundred  years  afterwards.  And, 
on  the  other  hand,  that  by  modern  bishops,  and  mo- 
dern episcopacy,  is  meant  that  government  of  the 
Church  by  prelates,  which  took  its  rise  from  ecclesi- 
astical ambition,  long  after  the  days  of  the  apostles, 
and  which,  with  other  innovations  on  primitive  order, 
has  since  claimed  to  rest  on  the  authority  of  Christ. 

It  ought  further  to  be  understood,  that  among 
those  who  espouse  the  Episcopal  side  in  this  contro- 
versy, there  are  three  classes. 

The  first  consists  of  those  who  believe  that  neither 
Christ  nor  his  apostles  laid  down  any  particular  form 
of  ecclesiastical  government,  to  which  the  Church  is 
bound  to  adhere  in  all  ages.  That  every  church  is 
free,  consistently  with  the  divine  will,  to  frame  her 
constitution  agreeably  to  her  own  views,  to  the  state 
of  society,  and  to  the  exigencies  of  particular  times. 
These  prefer  the  Episcopal  government,  and  some  of 
them  believe  that  it  was  the  primitive  form;  but  they 
consider  it  as  resting  on  the  ground  of  human  expe- 
diency alone,  and  not  of  divine  appointment.  This 
is  well  known  to  have  been  the  opinion  of  Arch- 
bishops Cranmer,  and  Grindal;  of  Bishop  Leighton, 
of  Bishop  Jewel,  of  Dr.  Whitaker,  of  Bishop  Rey- 
nolds, of  Archbishop  Tillotson,  of  Bishop  Burnet,  of 
Bishop  Croft,  of  Dr.  Stillingfleet,  and  of  a  long  list  of 
the  most  learned  and  pious  divines  of  the  church  of 
England,  from  the  Reformation  down  to  the  present 
day.  Dr.  Jortin,  a  learned  divine  of  that  church,  who 
also  held  this  opinion,  embodied  it  in  one  sentence — 
"  Government,  both  in  Church  and  State,  is  of  God; 
the  forms  of  it  are  of  men  " 

Another  class  of  Episcopalians  go  further.  They 
suppose  that  the  government  of  the  Church  by 
3* 


30  THE    QUESTION    STATED. 

bishops,  as  a  superior  order  to  presbyters,  was  sanc- 
tioned by  apostolic  example,  and  that  it  is  the  duty 
of  all  churches  to  imitate  this  example.  But  while 
they  consider  Episcopacy  as  necessary  to  the  perfec- 
tion of  the  Church,  they  grant  that  it  is  by  no  means 
necessary  to  her  existence;  and  accordingly,  without 
hesitation,  acknowledge  as  true  churches  of  Christ, 
many  in  which  the  Episcopal  doctrine  is  rejected, 
and  Presbyterian  principles  made  the  basis  of  ecclesi- 
astical government.  The  advocates  of  this  opinion, 
also,  have  been  numerous  and  respectable,  both  among 
the  clerical  and  lay  members  of  the  Episcopal  churches 
in  England  and  the  United  States.  In  this  list  appear 
the  venerable  names  of  Bishop  Hall,  Bishop  Down- 
ham,  Bishop  Bancroft,  Bishop  Andrews,  Archbishop 
Usher,  Bishop  Forbes,  the  learned  Chillingworth, 
Archbishop  Wake,  Bishop  Hoadly,  and  many  more, 
whose  declarations  on  the  subject  will  be  more  par- 
ticularly detailed  in  another  place. 

A  third  class  go  much  beyond  either  of  the  former. 
While  they  grant  that  God  has  left  men  at  liberty  to 
modify  every  other  kind  of  government  according  to 
circumstances,  they  contend  that  one  form  of  govern- 
ment for  the  church  is  unalterably  fixed  by  divine 
appointment;  that  this  form  is  Episcopal;  that  it  is 
absolutely  essential  to  the  existence  of  the  church; 
that,  of  course,  wherever  it  is  wanting,  there  is  no 
church,  no  regular  ministry,  no  valid  ordinances;  and 
that  all  who  are  united  with  religious  societies,  not 
conforming  to  this  order,  are  "  aliens  from  Christ,'' 
"out  of  the  appointed  road  to  heaven,"  and  have  no 
hope  but  in  the  "  uncovenanted  mercies  of  God." 

It  is  confidently  believed  that  the  two  former  classes 
taken  together,  embrace  a  large  majority  of  all  the 


THE    QUESTION    STATED.  31 

Episcopalians  in  Great  Britain  and  the  United  States; 
while,  so  far  as  can  be  learned  from  the  most  respect- 
able writings,  and  other  authentic  sources  of  informa- 
tion, it  is  only  the  remaining  proportion,  and,  as  some 
think,  a  small  minority,  who  hold  the  extravagant 
opinions  assigned  to  the  third  and  last  of  these  classes. 

It  will  be  seen,  from  the  foregoing  statement,  that 
Presbyterians  are,  in  reality,  Episcopalians,  as  well 
as  their  neighbours  who  popularly  bear  that  name. 
Believing,  as  they  do,  that  the  Greek  word  which  we 
translate  bishop,  simply  means  the  "  overseer"  of  a 
flock,  they,  of  course,  hold  to  a  parochial  episcopacy, 
in  opposition  to  diocesan  episcopacy;  or,  in  other 
words,  that  every  minister  of  the  gospel,  who  has  a 
pastoral  charge,  is  a  scriptural  bishop.  Yet,  on  the 
principles  of  courtesy  and  habit,  they  yield  the  title  of 
Episcopal  to  those  to  whom  it  is  commonly  applied, 
without  meaning  to  acknowledge  that  they  alone  hold 
to  bishops;  on  the  same  principle  that  they  yield  the 
title  of  Baptist  to  their  Antipedobaptist  brethren, 
without  intending  thereby  to  concede,  in  the  remotest 
manner,  that  they  alone  baptize. 

A  more  exactly  discriminating  term,  however,  by 
which  to  distinguish  between  Presbyterians  and  Dio- 
cesan Episcopalians,  would  be  to  call  the  latter  Pre- 
latists,  and  their  system  Prelacy.  This  would  be 
drawing  the  line  by  a  single  word,  without  the  possi- 
bility of  confusion  or  mistake. 

The  learned  Beza,  in  an  able  and  interesting  trea- 
tise on  this  subject,  divides  episcopacy,  for  the  sake  of 
discrimination,  into  three  sorts:  (1,)  divine  episco- 
pacy, meaning  that  parochial  form  of  it  in  which 
Presbyterians  believe,  and  which  he  considered  as  laid 
down  in  the  New  Testament;  (2,)  human  episcopacy, 


32  THE    QUESTION    STATED. 

or  that  pre-eminence  of  some  ministers  over  others, 
which  he  regarded  as  resting  merely  on  the  ground  of 
human  authority,  and  which  he  considered  as  exem- 
plified in  the  Church  of  England;  and,  (3,)  diabolical 
episcopacy,  or  that  corrupt  and  tyrannical  sort  of  pre- 
lacy which  is  found  in  the  Church  of  Rome.* 

With  those  Episcopalians  who  merely  prefer  the 
prelatical  form  of  ecclesiastical  government,  without 
the  claim  of  divine  right;  without  supposing  the  want 
of  it  to  invalidate  the  ministerial  authority,  or  the 
ordinances  of  those  churches  which  have  it  not,  I 
have,  at  present,  no  controversy.  Presbyterians  think 
them  wrong;  but  have  no  disposition  to  complain  of 
them,  or  to  contend  with  them  in  regard  to  their  pre- 
ference. They  consider  such  a  preference,  and  a  cor- 
responding practice,  as  in  no  respect  offensive,  and  as 
having  no  tendency  to  interfere  with  the  communion 
of  saints.  With  several  religious  denominations,  no- 
minally and  really  episcopal  in  their  ecclesiastical 
organization,  in  this  qualified  sense,  it  is  easy  to  live 
on  terms  of  good  neighbourhood,  and  even,  to  a  cer- 
tain extent,  of  affectionate  intercourse. 

But  the  claim  which  it  is  the  design  of  this  manual 
to  oppose,  is  the  following: — That  diocesan  episco- 
pacy is  founded  on  divine  right;  that  it  is  not  only 
laid  down  in  Scripture,  but  is  indispensable  to  an 
authorized  ministry,  and  to  valid  ordinances;  that 
where  there  is  no  ministry  episcopally  ordained,  in  an 
uninterrupted  and  divinely  protected  succession  from 
the  apostles,  there  is  no  church;  no  sacraments;  no 
covenanted  hope  of  mercy;  that  all  non-episcopal 
ministers  are  intruders  into  the  sacred  office,  their 
ministrations  a  nullity,  and  those  who  attend  upon 

*  De  Triplici  Episcopatu. 


THE    QUESTION    STATED.  33 

them  aliens  from  the  commonwealth  of  Israel,  and 
rebels  against  God.  This  doctrine  many  of  our  Epis- 
copal neighbours  maintain.  This  doctrine  they  pro- 
claim unceasingly  from  the  pulpit  and  the  press. 
Some,  indeed,  of  this  general  class,  tell  us  that  they 
do  not  go  so  far  as  to  draw  this  excommunicating  in- 
ference, and  to  unchurch  all  other  denominations;  but 
content  themselves  with  maintaining  that  Episcopacy 
only  has  any  authority  from  the  great  Head  of  the 
Church.  But  many  go  the  whole  length  that  has 
been  mentioned;  and  the  professed  charity  of  others 
is  by  no  means  in  keeping  with  their  principles. 
Such  claims  the  writer  of  this  manual  thinks  it  a  duty 
which  he  owes  to  God  and  man  to  oppose.  He  con- 
siders them  as  unreasonable  in  themselves;  perfectly 
destitute  of  support  from  Scripture,  and  adapted  to 
exert  a  most  baneful  influence  upon  all  the  interests 
of  Christian  character  and  hope.  Were  the  watch- 
men on  the  walls  of  Zion  to  be  silent  when  such  pre- 
tensions are  advanced,  they  would  be  traitors  to  their 
Master  and  his  cause.  With  such  claims,  it  is  the 
duty  of  every  faithful  minister  of  the  gospel,  and  every 
enlightened  friend  of  the  Church  of  Christ,  to  main- 
tain inflexible,  zealous,  persevering  controversy. 

Against  these  exorbitant  claims  there  is,  prior  to 
all  inquiry  into  their  evidence,  a  strong  general  pre- 
sumption, for  the  following  reasons: 

First — It  is  placing  a  point  of  external  order  on  a 
par  with  the  essence  of  religion.  I  readily  grant,  that 
every  observance  which  the  great  Head  of  the  Church 
enjoins  by  express  precept,  is  indispensably  binding. 
But  it  is  certainly  contrary  to  the  genius  of  the  gos- 
pel dispensation,  which  is  pre-eminently  distinguished 
from  the  Mosaic  economy  by  its  simplicity  and  spi- 


34  THE    QUESTION    STATED. 

rituality,  to  place  forms  of  outward  order  among  those 
things  which  are  essential  to  the  very  existence  of  the 
Church.  We  know  from  Scripture,  that  the  visible 
form  of  the  Church  has  been  repeatedly  altered,  with- 
out affecting  her  essence. 

Secondly — Against  this  doctrine  there  is  another 
ground  of  presumption;  because  it  represents  the  rite 
of  ordination  as  of  superior  importance  to  the  whole 
system  of  divine  truth  and  ordinances,  which  it  is  the 
duty  of  Christian  ministers  to  dispense.  According 
to  this  doctrine,  presbyters  are  fully  authorized  to 
preach  that  gospel  which  is  the  power  of  God  unto 
salvation  to  every  one  that  believeth;  to  admit  mem- 
bers into  the  Church  by  baptism;  to  administer  the 
Lord's  supper;  and,  in  short,  to  engage  in  all  those 
ministrations  which  are  necessary  to  edify  the  body 
of  Christ:  but  to  the  regular  introduction  of  a  minister 
into  office,  by  the  imposition  of  hands,  they  are  not 
competent.  Is  not  this,  in  other  words,  maintaining, 
that  the  gospel  is  inferior  to  its  ministers;  that  the 
sacraments  are  less  solemn  and  elevated  ordinances 
than  a  rite,  which  all  Protestants  allow  not  to  be  a 
sacrament;  that  the  dispensation  of  God's  truth  is  a 
less  dignified  function,  than  selecting  and  setting  apart 
a  servant  of  the  truth;  that  the  means  are  more  im- 
portant than  the  end?  If  so,  then  every  man  of  sound 
mind  will  pronounce,  that,  against  such  a  doctrine, 
there  is,  antecedent  to  all  inquiry,  a  reasonable  and 
strong  presumption. 

Thirdly — If  it  be  admitted,  that  there  are  no  true 
ministers  but  those  who  are  episcopally  ordained;  and 
that  none  are  in  communion  with  Christ,  excepting 
those  who  receive  the  ordinances  of  his  Church  from 
the  hands  of  ministers  thus  ordained;  then  Christian 


THE    QUESTION    STATED.  35 

character,  and  all  the  marks  by  which  we  are  to  judge 
of  it,  will  be  placed  on  new  ground;  ground  of  which 
the  Scriptures  say  nothing;  and  which  it  is  impossible 
for  one  Christian  in  a  thousand  to  investigate.  When 
the  word  of  God  describes  a  real  Christian,  it  is  in 
such  language  as  this — He  is  born  of  the  Spirit;  he  is 
a  new  creature;  old  things  are  passed  away;  behold, 
all  things  are  become  new.  He  believes  in  Christ, 
'and  repents  of  all  sin.  He  crucifies  the  flesh,  with 
the  affections  and  lusts:  he  delights  in  the  law  of  the 
Lord  after  the  inward  man: — he  strives  against  sin: 
he  is  meek,  humble,  full  of  mercy  and  good  fruits:  he 
loves  his  brethren  whom  he  hath  seen,  as  well  as  God 
whom  he  hath  not  seen:  he  is  zealous  of  good  works: 
and  makes  it  his  constant  study  to  imbibe  the  Spirit, 
and  to  imitate  the  example  of  the  Redeemer.  These 
are  the  evidences  of  Christian  character  which  fill  the 
New  Testament,  and  which  meet  us  wherever  the 
subject  is  discussed.  According  to  this  representation, 
the  only  essential  pre-requisite  to  holding  communion 
with  Christ,  is  being  united  to  him  by  a  living  faith: 
that  faith  which  purifies  the  heart,  and  is  productive 
of  good  works.  But  if  the  extravagant  doctrine  which 
we  oppose  be  admitted;  then  no  man,  however  abun- 
dantly he  may  possess  all  these  characteristics,  can  be 
in  communion  with  Christ,  unless  he  is  also  in  com- 
munion with  the  Episcopal  Church.  That  is,  his 
claim  to  the  Christian  character  cannot  be  established 
by  exhibiting  a  holy  temper  and  life;  but  depends  on 
his  being  in  the  line  of  a  certain  ecclesiastical  descent. 
In  other  words,  the  inquiry  whether  he  is  in  covenant 
with  Christ,  is  not  to  be  answered  by  evidences  of 
personal  sanctification;  but  resolves  itself  into  a  ques- 
tion of  clerical  genealogy,  which  few  Christians  in  the 


36  THE    QUESTION    STATED. 

world  are  capable  of  examining,  and  which  no  mortal 
can  certainly  establish.  There  is  no  possibility  of 
avoiding  this  conclusion  on  the  principle  assumed. 
And  I  appeal  to  every  serious  reader,  whether  a 
principle  which  involves  such  consequences,  has  not 
strong  presumption  against  it. 

Fourthly — If  the  doctrine  in  question  be  admitted, 
then  we  virtually  pronounce  nine-tenths  of  the  whole 
Protestant  world  to  be  in  a  state  of  excommunication 
from  Christ.  I  know  it  has  been  often  said,  by  zeal- 
ous writers  on  this  subject,  that  the  great  body  of  the 
Protestant  churches  are  Episcopal;  and  that  those 
who  adopt  the  Presbyterian  government  make  but  a 
very  small  portion  of  the  whole  number.  But  I  need 
not  tell  those  who  are  acquainted  with  the  history  of 
the  Church  since  the  Reformation,  and  with  the  pre- 
sent state  of  the  Christian  world,  that  this  representa- 
tion is  wholly  incorrect.  The  very  reverse  is  true, 
as  every  well  informed  reader  is  aware.  Are  we  then 
prepared  to  adopt  a  principle  which  cuts  off  so  large 
a  portion  of  the  Protestant  world  from  the  visible 
Church,  and  represents  it  as  in  a  state  in  some  respects 
worse  than  that  of  the  heathen?  It  is  to  be  presumed 
that  every  considerate  man  will  require  the  most 
pointed  evidence  of  divine  warrant,  before  he  admits 
a  principle  so  tremendous  in  its  consequences. 

The  great  question,  then,  to  be  decided  is,  does  the 
New  Testament  teach,  or  intimate,  that  there  are,  in 
the  Church  of  Christ,  by  divine  appointment,  three 
classes  or  grades  of  gospel  ministers,  all  of  them 
authorized  to  "labour  in  the  word  and  doctrine;" — 
deacons,  whose  function  it  is  to  preach  and  baptize ; 
presbyters,  who  are  appointed  to  preach  the  gospel, 
and  administer  both  sacraments;  and  bishops,  a  supe- 


THE    QUESTION    STATED.  37 

rior  class  to  both,  who  are  alone  empowered  to  or- 
dain presbyters  and  deacons,  and  to  govern  the  church; 
and  without  whose  agency  no  one  can  be  validly 
invested  with  the  sacred  office  ?  This  is  the  question 
to  the  solution  of  which  our  attention  is  now  to  be 
directed.  Let  us  examine  the  evidence  from  Scrip- 
ture and  from  antiquity,  which  the  advocates  of  the 
Episcopal  claim  attempt  to  produce  in  support  of  the 
affirmative.    *,  . 


38 


CHAPTER  II. 

TESTIMONY    OF    SCRIPTURE. 

In  all  disputes  relating  either  to  the  faith  or  the  prac- 
tice of  Christians,  the  first  and  the  grand  question  is — 
ivhat  saith  the  Scripture?  This  is  the  ultimate  and 
the  only  infallible  standard.  Whatever  is  not  found 
in  the  Bible,  cannot  be  considered  as  essential  either 
to  the  doctrine  or  the  order  of  the  Church.  This 
maxim  is  especially  applicable  to  the  subject  now 
under  discussion.  As  the  Christian  ministry  is  an 
office  deriving  its  existence  and  its  authority  solely 
from  Jesus  Christ,  the  King  and  Head  of  his  church, 
it  is  obvious  that  his  Word  is  the  only  rule  by  which 
any  claims  to  this  office  can  properly  be  tried,  and  the 
powers  and  duties  of  those  who  bear  it  ascertained. 
By  this  unerring  standard,  then,  we  are  not  only 
willing,  but  must  insist,  that  the  question  before  us 
shall  be  decided.  The  declarations  of  two  eminent 
Episcopal  writers  on  this  subject  are  just  and  weighty. 
"  The  Scripture,"  says  Dr.  Sherlock,  "  is  all  of  a 
piece;  every  part  of  it  agrees  with  the  rest.  The 
fathers  many  times  contradict  themselves  and  each 
other."*  In  the  same  strain  speaks  the  celebrated 
Chillingworth.  "  The  Bible,  I  say,  the  Bible  is  the 
religion  of  Protestants !  I,  for  my  part,  after  a  long, 
and  (as  I  verily  hope  and  believe)  impartial  search  of 
the  true  way  to  eternal  happiness,  do  profess  plainly? 

*  Preservative  Against  Popery.     Part  I.  chap.  ii.  sec.  3. 


TESTIMONY    OF    SCRIPTURE.  39 

that  I  cannot  find  any  rest  for  the  sole  of  my  feet,  but 
upon  this  rock  only,  viz.  the  Scripture.  I  see 
plainly,  and  with  my  own  eyes,  Popes  against  Popes; 
Councils  against  Councils;  some  fathers  against 
others;  the  same  fathers  against  themselves;  a  con- 
sent of  fathers  of  one  age  against  a  consent  of  fathers 
of  another  age;  and  the  Church  of  one  age  against 
the  Church  of  another  age."*  And  it  is  satisfactory 
to  know  that  a  late  popular  and  widely  circulated 
Tract,  written  in  defence  of  Prelacy,  begins  by  ac- 
knowledging— "  That  the  claim  of  Episcopacy  to  be 
a  divine  institution,  and  therefore  obligatory  on  the 
Church,  rests  fundamentally  on  the  one  question — 
Has  it  the  authority  of  Scripture  ?  If  it  has  not,  it  is 
not  necessarily  binding/"'  And  again,  "  No  argument 
is  worth  taking  into  account  that  has  not  a  palpable 
bearing  on  the  clear  and  naked  question,  the  scriptu- 
ral evidence  of  Episcopacy."!  To  this  principle  we, 
as  Presbyterians,  are  perfectly  willing  to  accede,  and 
hope  that  all  parties  will  faithfully  adhere.  Let  us, 
then,  with  all  impartiality  and  candour,  examine 
what  the  Scriptures  say  on  the  point  in  dispute. 

And  here  it  is  proper  to  premise,  that  whoever  ex- 
pects to  find  any  formal  or  explicit  decisions  on  this 
subject  delivered  by  Christ  or  his  apostles,  will  be  dis- 
appointed. It  is  true,  the  discourses  of  the  Saviour, 
and  the  writings  of  those  who  were  inspired  with  the 
knowledge  of  his  will,  contain  many  observations 
and  instructions  concerning  the  Christian  ministry; 
but  they  are  chiefly  employed  in  prescribing  the 
appropriate  character,  and  urging  the  solemn  duties 
of  those  who  serve  God  in  the  Gospel  of  his  Som 

*  The  Religion  of  Protestants,  &c,  chap.  vi.  sect.  56. 
t  Bishop  Onderdonk's  Episcopacy  tested  by  Scripture. 


40  TESTIMONY    OF    SCRIPTURE. 

rather  than  in  defining  their  titles,  in  settling  ques- 
tions of  rank  and  precedence  among  them,  or  in 
guarding  the  immunities  and  honours  of  their  office. 
The  necessity  of  knowledge,  piety,  zeal,  diligence, 
self-denial,  meekness,  patience,  fortitude,  and  emi- 
nent holiness,  in  ministers  of  the  gospel,  is  urged  with 
a  frequency,  a  minuteness,  and  a  force  which  evince 
that,  in  the  estimation  of  infinite  wisdom,  they  are 
regarded  as  of  primary  importance.  While  questions 
concerning  priority,  and  grades  and  privileges,  are 
never  once  formally  discussed;  only  occasionally  al- 
luded to;  and  then  in  a  manner  rather  adapted  to 
repress  than  to  encourage  any  serious  regard  to  them. 

Accordingly, it  will  no  doubt  surprise  anyone  who 
approaches  the  examination  of  this  subject,  if  he  has 
not  been  familiar  with  the  controversy,  to  observe 
the  character  of  that  scriptural  testimony  on  which 
the  advocates  of  Episcopacy  rely.  They  do  not  pre- 
tend to  quote  a  single  Scripture  directly  and  formally 
to  their  purpose.  But  their  reliance  is  on  what  can 
only  be  considered,  at  best,  as  distant  and  indistinct 
hints;  on  remote,  dubious  inferences,  and  on  facts 
which,  to  say  the  least,  agree  quite  as  well  with  Pres- 
byterian as  with  Episcopal  principles.  Yet  these  they 
quote  with  as  much  parade  and  confidence  as  if  it 
were  direct  and  unquestionable  testimony. 

Now,  if  prelacy  had  been  a  divine  institution,  and 
especially  if  it  had  been  regarded  by  the  inspired 
writers  as  the  fundamental  and  essential  matter 
which  modern  high-churchmen  represent  it,  could 
they  have  been  silent  respecting  it?  Can  it  be  ima- 
gined that  they  would  have  left  the  subject  in  obscu- 
rity or  doubt?  When  they  had  occasion  to  speak  so 
frequently  concerning   the   Christian  character   and 


TESTIMONY    OP    SCRIPTURE.  41 

hope ;  concerning  the  Church,  its  nature,  foundation, 
Head,  laws,  ministers  and  interests;  it  is  truly  mar- 
vellous that  they  should  be  explicit  on  every  other 
point  than  precisely  that  which  jure  divino  prelatists 
consider  as  the  most  vital  and  important  of  all.  We 
find  in  the  New  Testament  seventeen  epistles  written 
by  inspired  men  to  different  churches  or  bodies  of 
professing  Christians;  but,  strange  to  tell!  in  no  one 
of  them  do  we  find  any  allusion  to  a  diocesan  bishop; 
or  any  claim  of  his  prerogative;  or  any  exhortation 
to  honour  and  submit  to  him  as  such.  This,  on  Epis- 
copal principles,  is  a  most  extraordinary  omission! 
Yet  is  it  not  manifest  that  this  omission  exists,  the 
friends  of  the  claim  in  question  themselves  being 
judges?  Have  they  not  been  constrained  a  thousand 
times  to  confess,  that  this  claim  is  no  where  distinctly 
presented  or  maintained  in  the  New  Testament. 
When  the  inspired  writers  undertake  to  tell  us  what 
those  things  are  which  professing  Christians  ought 
sacredly  to  regard,  in  order  to  make  good  their  appro- 
priate character,  on  what  points  do  they  dwell?  Do 
they  insist  on  a  particular  line  of  ecclesiastical  succes- 
sion, or  represent  every  thing,  or  indeed  any  thing, 
as  depending  on  a  certain  form  of  official  investiture? 
Do  they  tell  the  humble  inquirer  after  the  way  of 
holiness  and  salvation,  that  he  must  be  careful,  first 
of  all,  to  receive  the  sacraments  from  "  duly  authori- 
zed hands;"  and  that,  whatever  he  does,  he  must  be 
found  in  communion  with  some  bishop,  who  holds 
his  office  by  "  regular  succession  ?"  Is  there  a  sylla- 
ble, in  all  the  New  Testament,  which  has  the  most 
distant  resemblance  to  such  counsel  ?  Assuredly  there 
is  not.  No;  the  points  every  where  insisted  on,  as 
manifesting  that  the  character  and  the  hopes  of  men  are 


42  TESTIMONY    OF    SCRIPTURE. 

such  as  "become  the  gospel/'  are  genuine  faith  in 
the  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  repentance  unto  life,  love  to 
God  and  man,  and  habitually  endeavouring  to  imbibe 
the  spirit,  to  imitate  the  example,  and  to  obey  the 
commands  of  the  Redeemer. 

Now,  I  ask,  is  it  conceivable  that  this  could  have 
been  the  tenor  of  the  directions  given  by  the  Saviour 
and  his  inspired  apostles,  to  inquiries  after  the  way  of 
Christian  obedience  and  hope,  if  they  had  coincided 
in  opinion  with  modern  high-churchmen?  I  will 
venture  to  say,  it  cannot  be,  for  a  moment,  suppos- 
ed. Can  we  imagine  that  infinite  wisdom,  and  infi- 
nite benevolence  would  undertake  to  instruct  the 
members  of  that  great  community,  denominated  the 
Church,  in  their  essential  duties,  and  yet  say  nothing 
about  that  great  point,  without  which,  as  some  think, 
all  her  privileges  would  be  a  nullity,  and  all  her 
hopes  vain  ?  Can  we  suppose  that  the  Bible  was 
given  for  the  express  purpose  of  being  "  a  light  to  our 
feet,  and  a  lamp  to  our  path,"  in  reference  to  the 
great  interests  of  Christians,  as  individuals,  and  as  a 
body;  and  yet  that  it  should  not  contain  one  word  of 
explicit  instruction  in  regard  to  that  which  is  alleged 
to  lie  at  the  foundation  of  the  visible  church,  and  to 
be  essential  to  its  very  existence,  and,  of  course,  to 
the  validity  of  all  its  acts?  That  be  far  from  a  Being 
who  adapts  means  to  ends  with  infinite  skill,  and  who 
does  nothing  in  vain!  The  simple  and  undeniable 
fact,  then,  that  the  friends  of  Episcopacy  find  so  much 
difficulty  in  searching  out  the  smallest  passage  of 
Scripture  which  has  the  remotest  appearance  of  fa- 
vouring their  cause,  and  their  utter  inability  to  find 
even  one  which  speaks  unequivocally  and  plainly  in 
its  support,  ought  to  be  considered  as  decisive  in  this 


TESTIMONY    OF    SCRIPTURE.  43 

controversy.  Had  these  principles  been  entertained 
at  the  time  in  which  the  New  Testament  was  written, 
and  regarded  by  the  inspired  writers  in  the  same 
light  in  which  they  are  regarded  by  some  ecclesias- 
tical men  at  the  present  day;  they  could  not  have 
been  silent  respecting  them,  without  forfeiting  all 
claim  to  Christian  benevolence,  nay,  to  common  ho- 
nesty. They  would  have  dwelt  upon  them  in  eveiy 
connection;  have  repeated  them  at  every  turn;  and 
have  made  this  subject  clear,  whatever  else  was  left 
in  the  dark.  But  as  they,  by  universal  confession, 
have  not  done  this;  as  no  one  of  their  number  has 
done  it;  it  is  as  plain  as  any  moral  demonstration  can 
be,  that  the  principles  and  claims  in  question  were 
then  unknown,  and,  consequently,  have  no  divine 
warrant. 

Let  it  be  remembered  too,  that,  in  this  case,  the 
burden  of  proof  lies  on  the  Episcopal  side.  They 
make  a  definite  and  high  claim ;  a  claim  which  no 
other  Protestant  body  has  ever  made.  Not  only  does 
the  burden  of  proof  lie  on  them;  but  we  have  a  right 
to  demand  that  that  proof  be  not  obscure,  dubious, 
or  remotely  inferential,  but  clear,  decisive,  and  level 
to  every  capacity.  They  themselves  are  obliged 
tacitly  to  acknowledge  that  it  is  not  such. 

But,  while  the  Scriptures  cannot  be  made  to  sus- 
tain the  cause  of  prelacy,  we  do  find  in  them  modes 
of  expression,  and  a  number  of  facts,  from  which  we 
may,  without  difficulty,  ascertain  the  outlines  of  the 
apostolical  plan  of  church  order.  By  a  careful  atten- 
tion to  this  language,  and  to  these  facts,  it  will  be 
easy  to  show, 

I.  That  one  of  the  "  three  orders  of  clergy,"  for 


44  TESTIMONY    OF    SCRIPTURE. 

which  the  advocates  of  Episcopacy  contend,  is  wholly 
without  authority  in  the  word  of  God. 

II.  That  Christ  gave  but  one  commission  for  the 
office  of  the  gospel  ministry,  and  that  this  office,  of 
course,  is  not  three-fold,  but  one. 

III.  That  the  titles  of  bishop  and  presbyter,  or 
elder,  are  constantly  used  in  the  New  Testament  as 
convertible  titles  for  the  same  office. 

IV.  That,  besides  this  community  of  names,  the 
same  character  and  powers  which  are  ascribed  in 
the  New  Testament  to  bishops,  are  also  ascribed  to 
presbyters;  thus  plainly  establishing  the  identity  of 
order,  as  well  as  of  name.     And  finally, 

V.  That  the  Christian  Church  was  organized  by 
the  apostles  after  the  model  of  the  Jewish  Synagogue, 
which  was  unquestionably  Presbyterian  in  its  form. 

If  these  five  positions  can  be  established,  there  will 
remain  no  doubt  on  any  candid  mind  how  the  ques- 
tion in  dispute  ought  to  be  decided. 

I.  The  alleged  office  of  deacons,  as  one  of  the 
"  orders  of  clergy,"  or  as  a  class  of  "  ministers  of  the 
word  and  doctrine,"  has  no  foundation  whatever  in 
the  word  of  God. 

To  establish  this,  nothing  more  is  necessary  than  to 
glance  at  the  inspired  record,  in  Acts  vi.  1 — 7,  where 
the  original  appointment,  and  the  duties  of  deacons 
are  explicitly  and  plainly  stated.  "In  those  days, 
when  the  number  of  the  disciples  was  multiplied, 
there  arose  a  murmuring  of  the  Grecians  against  the 
Hebrews,  because  their  widows  were  neglected  in  the 
daily  ministration.  Then  the  twelve  called  the  mul- 
titude of  the  disciples  unto  them,  and  said,  it  is  not 
meet  that  we  should  leave  the  word  of  God  and  serve 


TESTIMONY    OF    SCRIPTURE.  45 

tables.  Wherefore,  brethren,  look  ye  out  seven  men 
of  honest  report,  full  of  the  Holy  Ghost  and  wisdom, 
whom  we  may  appoint  over  this  business.  But  we 
will  give  ourselves  continually  to  prayer,  and  to  the 
?ninistry  of  the  word.  And  the  saying  pleased  the 
whole  multitude;  and  they  chose  Stephen,  a  man  full 
of  faith  and  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  and  Philip,  and  Pro- 
chorus,  and  Nicanor,  and  Timon,  and  Parmenas,  and 
Nicolas,  a  proselyte  of  Antioch;  whom  they  set  be- 
fore the  apostles;  and  when  they  had  prayed,  they 
laid  their  hands  on  them." 

This  is  the  first  and  the  only  account  in  the  whole 
New  Testament  of  the  original  appointment  of  dea- 
cons, and  the  only  statement  which  we  find  of  their 
appropriate  duties.  And  I  may  confidently  appeal  to 
every  candid  reader,  whether  it  affords  the  least  coun- 
tenance to  the  idea  that  the  deaconship  was  then 
an  office  which  had  any  thing  to  do  with  preaching 
or  baptizing;  or,  in  other  words,  whether  it  was  an 
office  at  all  devoted  to  the  spiritual  duties  of  the 
sanctuary?  The  very  reverse  is  plainly  stated.  In 
fact,  if  the  whole  passage  had  been  constructed  upon 
the  distinct  plan  of  precluding  the  possibility  of  such 
an  interpretation,  it  is  difficult  to  conceive  how  such 
a  design  could  have  been  more  clearly  manifest.  It 
is  evident  that  this  was  the  institution  of  a  new  office, 
and  that  it  was  expressly  designed  to  relieve  the  apos- 
tles themselves  of  a  laborious  service  which  they  had 
hitherto  performed,  but  which  they  now  found  to  in- 
terfere with  their  spiritual  duties.  They  say — "  It 
is  not  meet  that  we  should  leave  the  word  of  God 
(that  is,  evidently,  leave  preaching)  and  serve  tables: 
wherefore  look  ye  out  seven  men  of  honest  report, 
whom  we  may  appoint  over  this  business  (that  is  the 


46  TESTIMONY    OF    SCRIPTURE. 

business  of  serving  tables)  and  ice  will  give  ourselves 
to  prayer  and  to  the  ministry  of  the  word."  Can  any 
man  who  is  not  so  blindly  wedded  to  a  system  as  to 
believe,  not  only  without  evidence,  but  against  evi- 
dence, consider  this  passage  as  importing  that  dea- 
cons were  appointed  to  be  preachers  of  the  word? 
Nay,  is  it  not  expressly  stated  that  the  apostles  con- 
sidered the  duties  of  this  office  as  of  such  a  nature 
that  their  undertaking  to  fulfil  them,  would  compel 
them  to  leave  preaching,  and  devote  themselves  to 
the  care  of  money  tables?* 

It  militates  nothing  against  this  plain  statement  of 
the  inspired  historian,  that  he  represents  Stephen,  one 
of  these  deacons,  as,  soon  after  his  appointment,  de- 
fending himself  with  great  power  before  the  Jewish 
council;  and  Philip,  another  of  them,  employed,  in  a 
year  or  two  after  his  ordination  to  the  deaconship, 
preaching  and  baptizing  in  Samaria.  With  respect 
to  Stephen,  it  is  not  said  that  he  either  preached  or 
baptized.  He  simply  replied  to  those  who  "disputed 
with  him,"  and  defended  himself  before  the  council 
by  which  he  was  arraigned.  In  all  this  there  was 
evidently  nothing  which  any  man  might  not  do,  in 
any  age  of  the  church,  without  infringing  ecclesiasti- 

*  It  has  been  supposed  by  many  that  the  phrase,  "  serving  tables," 
in  the  history  of  the  institution  of  the  deacon's  office,  had  a  reference 
either  to  the  Lord's  table,  or  to  overseeing  and  supplying  the  tables 
of  the  poor,  or  perhaps  both.  But  I  am  inclined  to  believe  that  this 
is  an  entire  mistake.  The  word  T^artf^ct  signifies  indeed  a  table; 
but  in  this  connection  it  seems  obviously  to  mean  a  money  table,  or 
a  counter  on  which  money  was  laid.  Hence  TfgarttZstrjs,  a  money- 
changer, or  a  money  merchant.  See  Matt.  xxi.  12 ;  xxv.  27 ;  Mark 
xi.  15  ;  Luke  xix.  23.  The  plain  meaning,  then,  of  Acts  vi.  2,  seems 
to  be  this — "  It  is  not  suitable  that  we  should  leave  the  word  of  God 
and  devote  ourselves  to  pecuniary  affairs." 


TESTIMONY    OF    SCRIPTURE.  47 

€al  order.  And  as  to  Philip,  when  we  read  a  few 
chapters  onward  in  the  same  book  (Acts  xxi.  8.)  we 
find  him  spoken  of  as  "  Philip  the  Evangelist,  which 
was  one  of  the  seven."  Here,  then,  we  find  precisely 
the  same  title  given  to  this  man  that  was  afterwards 
given  to  Timothy,  2  Timothy  iv.  5.  From  which  we 
may  confidently  infer  that,  having  "  used  the  office  of 
a  deacon  well,"  1  Tim.  iii.  13,  in  the  church  of  Jeru- 
salem, and  being  found  a  man  "  full  of  the  Holy  Ghost 
and  of  wisdom,"  when  he  and  his  brethren  were 
driven  from  that  city,  and  were  all  "  scattered  abroad 
in  consequence  of  the  persecution  which  arose  about 
Stephen,"  he  was  invested  with  a  new  office,  and  sent 
forth  to  minister  in  various  parts  of  the  country  as  an 
"  evangelist."  At  any  rate,  nothing  is  plainer  than 
that  "  the  ministry  of  the  word"  made  no  part  of  the 
deacon's  office,  as  laid  down  by  the  apostles;  and  as 
Philip  is  soon  afterwards  introduced  to  us  as  bearing 
the  office  of  an  "  evangelist,"  the  appropriate  function 
of  which,  we  know,  was  preaching  the  gospel,  we 
are  warranted  in  concluding  that  he  was  set  apart  to 
the  latter  office  before  he  went  forth  to  engage  in  pub- 
lic preaching.  In  short,  until  it  can  be  proved  that 
Philip  preached  and  baptized  as  a  deacon,  and  not  as 
an  evangelist,  which  we  are  very  sure  never  can  be 
proved,  the  allegation  that  the  apostolic  deacons  were 
preachers,  is  perfectly  destitute  of  scriptural  support; 
or  rather  directly  opposed  to  the  scriptural  account 
of  the  institution  of  their  office. 

Accordingly,  when,  in  the  subsequent  parts  of  the 
New  Testament,  there  is  a  reference  to  the  proper 
qualifications  of  the  deacon's  office,  no  intimation  is 
given  that,  in  the  candidates  for  that  office,  the  gifts 
requisite  for  public  instruction  were  needed.    We  are 


48  TESTIMONY    OF    SCRIPTURE. 

told  concerning  the  bishop  or  pastor,  who  is  spoken 
of  before,  that  it  is  necessary  he  should  be  "  apt  to 
teach;"  but  no  such  qualification  is  represented  as 
necessary  in  a  deacon.  It  was  required  of  him  that 
he  should  be  sober,  grave,  temperate,  faithful  in  all 
things,  holding  the  mystery  of  the  faith  in  a  pure  con- 
science, ruling  his  children  and  his  household  well, 
&c,  but  not  a  word  is  said  of  those  accomplishments 
which  are  indispensable  to  him  who  ministers  in  "  the 
word  and  doctrine." 

It  is  plain,  then,  that  "  the  order  of  deacons,"  as  one 
of  the  "  three  orders  of  clergy,"  for  which  our  Epis- 
copal brethren  contend,  cannot  stand  the  test  of  Scrip- 
ture. It  must  undoubtedly  be  given  up,  if  we  would 
be  governed  by  the  word  of  God.  Deacons  there 
unquestionably  were  in  the  apostolic  church;  but  they 
were  evidently  curators  of  the  poor,  and  attendants  on 
the  money  tables  of  the  church,  precisely  such  as  were 
found  in  the  Jewish  synagogue,  before  the  coming  of 
Christ;  and  such  as  are  found  in  all  completely  or- 
ganized Presbyterian  churches  at  the  present  day. 
And  this  continued  to  be  the  nature  of  the  office  for 
more  than  two  hundred  years  after  the  apostolic  age.* 
But  when  a  spirit  of  carnal  ambition  gained  ground 
in  the  church,  and  led  ecclesiastical  men  to  aspire  and 
encroach,  deacons  invaded  the  province  of  preachers, 
and  committed  to  "  sub-deacons"  the  burden  of  their 
primitive  duties. 

Thus  it  is  evident  that  one  of  the  "  three  orders  of 
clergy,"  so  called  by  the  advocates  of  Episcopacy, 
finds  no  authority  in  Scripture.  This  testimony  ac- 
cords with  that  of  the  early  fathers,  which  will  be  con- 
sidered in  the  next  chapter. 

*  This  will  be  shown  when  we  come  to  speak  of  the  fathers  in  a 
future  chapter. 


TESTIMONY    OF    SCRIPTURE.  49 

II.  It  is  evident  that  Christ  gave  but  one  commission 
for  the  office  of  the  gospel  ministry,  and  that  this 
office  is,  of  course,  but  one. 

The  commission  which  our  Lord  gave  to  his  apos- 
tles, and  in  them  to  his  ministers  in  every  age,  is  ex- 
pressed in  the  following  words—"  And  Jesus  came  and 
spake  unto  them,  saying,  All  power  is  given  unto  me 
in  heaven  and  in  earth.  Go  ye,  therefore,  and  teach 
all  nations,  baptizing  them  in  the  name  of  the  Father, 
and  of  the  Son,  and  of  the  Holy  Ghost;  teaching 
them  to  observe  all  things,  whatsoever  I  have  com- 
manded you;  and  lo  I  am  with  you  always,  even 
unto  the  end  of  the  world."*  This  is  the  grand  com- 
mission under  which  the  apostles  acted  after  their 
Master's  ascension  to  heaven.  They  had  before  this 
been  called  and  set  apart  to  his  service;  but  that  was 
under  the  old  economy-,  and  their  ministry  was  ex- 
pressly confined  to  "the  lost  sheep  of  the  house  of 
Israel."  But  now  the  time  had  come  for  setting  up 
the  New  Testament  dispensation.  In  this  New  Tes- 
tament church,  therefore,  they  now  received  a  com- 
mission unlimited  both  as  to  time  and  place.  It  was 
to  extend  to  all  nations,  and  to  the  end  of  the  world. 

This  commission,  it  is  confessed  on  all  hands,  was 
originally  given  to  one  order  of  ministers  only,  viz. 
the  eleven  apostles.  The  seventy  disciples  had  been 
employed  on  a  temporary  service,  and  that,  strictly 
speaking,  under  the  Jewish  dispensation.  For  as  the 
Christian  Church  did  not  receive  its  distinct  constitu- 
tion till  after  the  resurrection  of  Christ;  as  the  apos- 
tles were  made  fixed  officers  of  the  Church,  by  vir- 
tue of  this  new  commission,  and  not  of  any  former 
appointment;  and  as  no  such  new  commission  was 

*  Matth.  xxviii.  18—20. 
5 


50  TESTIMONY    OF    SCRIPTURE. 

given  to  the  seventy  disciples,  it  is  manifest  that  they 
are  not  to  be  considered  as  ministers  of  the  New  Tes- 
tament dispensation  at  all.  The  Saviour,  then,  in  this 
last  solemn  interview,  addressed  tlie  eleven  only.  To 
them  he  committed  the  whole  ministerial  authority  in 
his  kingdom.  The  commission,  therefore,  when  it 
was  first  delivered,  certainly  constituted  no  more 
than  one  order  of  gospel  ministers. 

That  this  commission  embraces  the  highest  and 
fullest  ecclesiastical  power,  that  has  been,  is,  or  can 
be  possessed  by  any  of  the  ministers  of  Christ,  all 
Protestants  allow.  And  that  it  conveys  a  right  to 
preach  the  word,  to  administer  sacraments,  and  to 
ordain  other  men  to  the  work  of  the  ministry,  Episco- 
palians, as  well  as  others,  grant.  Now  this  commis- 
sion either  expired  with  the  apostles,  to  whom  it  was 
originally  delivered,  or  it  did  not.  If  it  did  expire 
with  them,  then  no  ministers  of  the  gospel,  since  their 
day,  have  had  any  commission,  for  there  is  no  other 
left  on  record.  But  if  it  did  not  expire  with  them, 
then  it  is  directed  equally  to  their  successors  in  all 
ages.  But  who  are  these  successors?  Demonstrably 
all  those  who  are  authorized  to  perform  those  func- 
tions which  this  commission  recognizes,  that  is,  to 
preach,  and  to  administer  the  sealing  ordinances  of 
the  Church.  Every  minister  of  the  gospel,  therefore, 
who  has  these  powers,  is  a  successor  of  the  apostles; 
is  authorized  by  this  commission,  and  stands  on  a 
footing  of  official  equality  with  those  to  whom  it  was 
originally  delivered,  so  far  as  their  office  was  ordinary 
and  perpetual. 

It  is  remarkable,  that,  in  this  commission,  dispen- 
sing the  Word  of  life,  and  administering  sacraments, 
are  held  forth  as  the  most  prominent,  important,  and 


TESTIMONY    OF    SCRIPTURE.  51 

solemn  duties  of  Christian  ministers.  The  power  of 
orda  in  ing  others  is  not  expressly  mentioned  at  all; 
and  we  only  infer  that  it  is  included,  because  the 
commission  recognizes  the  continuance  of  the  office 
and  duties  of  ministers  to  the  end  of  the  world.  Must 
we  not  infer  then,  that  all  who  have  a  right  to  preach 
and  administer  the  Christian  sacraments,  have  a  right, 
of  course,  to  ordain?  Does  it  comport  with  the 
spirit  of  this  commission,  to  represent  the  former  func- 
tions, which  are  mentioned  with  so  much  distinctness 
and  solemnity,  as  pertaining  to  the  lowest  order  in 
the  Church;  and  the  latter,  which  is  only  included 
by  inference,  as  reserved  for  a  higher  order?  Those 
who  are  confessed  to  have  the  most  important  and 
distinguished  powers  conveyed  by  a  commission, 
must  be  considered  as  possessing  the  whole.  What 
God  hath  joined  together,  let  not  man  put  asunder. 
The  soundness  of  this  conclusion  is  expressly  recog- 
nized by  Bishop  Burnet,  who  declares — "  As  for  the 
notion  of  the  distinct  offices  of  bishop  and  presbyter, 
I  confess  it  is  not  so  clear  to  me;  and,  therefore,  since 
I  look  upon  the  sacramental  actions,  as  the  highest  of 
sacred  performances,  I  cannot  but  acknowledge  that 
those  who  are  empowered  for  them,  must  be  of  the 
highest  office  in  the  church."* 

It  has  been  said  by  some,  that  if  the  apostles,  on 
their  departure  from  the  church,  left  no  higher  class 
of  officers  in  commission  than  presbyters,  they  were 
really  chargeable  with  altering  the  form  of  ecclesias- 
tical polity  left  by  the  Saviour.  Not  at  all.  The 
apostles  themselves  were  presbyters  or  elders ;  but 
they  were  elders  endowed,  for  special  purposes, 
and  for  a  season,  with  inspiration,  with  miraculous 

*  Vindication  of  the  Church  and  State  of  Scotland,  p.  310. 


52  TESTIMONY   OF    SCRIPTURE. 

powers,  and  with  extraordinary  authority,  until  by 
themselves,  the  New  Testament  should  be  completed. 
When  these  were  no  longer  necessary,  they  were  laid 
aside,  and  the  simple  office  was  transmitted  to  their 
successors;  the  office  which  simply  authorized  and 
qualified  them  to  preach  the  gospel;  to  administer 
the  ordinances  of  the  Church;  and  thus  to  carry  the 
glad  tidings  of  salvation  in  their  appropriate  form,  to 
every  creature.  They  transmitted  every  thing  which 
had  been  imparted  to  them,  excepting  the  temporary 
and  now  unnecessary  adjuncts  to  the  permanent 
office.  But  the  advocates  of  Episcopacy  seem  to  for- 
get that  this  plea  of  theirs,  if  admitted,  will  operate 
quite  as  unfavourably  to  themselves  as  to  Presbyte- 
rians. The  plea  is,  that  the  apostles  must  have  left 
in  commission,  as  their  successors,  a  set  of  officers 
like  themselves.  Then  they  must  have  commission- 
ed men  endowed  with  inspiration  and  miraculous 
powers.  But  did  they  do  this?  Does  any  sect  of 
Christians  now  on  earth,  allege  that  they  did  so?  But 
if  they  did  not  transmit,  by  commission,  &fac  simile 
of  themselves,  to  what  extent  might  their  successors 
differ  from  themselves  without  unfaithfulness  to  the 
trust  reposed  in  them  ?  The  very  statement  of  the 
plea,  even  on  their  own  principles,  exposes  its  absur- 
dity. 

III.  That  bishops  are  not,  by  divine  right,  different 
from,  or  superior  to,  presbyters,  is  further  evident, 
because  the  terms  bishop  and  presbyter  are  uniformly 
used  in  the  New  Testament,  as  convertible  titles  for 
the  same  office. 

The  Greek  word  (^10x0*05-)  which  we  translate 
bishop,  literally  signifies  an  overseer.  This  word 
appears  to  have  been  adopted  by  the  apostles  from 


TESTIMONY  OF  SCRIPTURE.  53 

the  Greek  translation  of  the  Old  Testament  (gene- 
rally called  the  Septuagint)  which  was  in  common 
use  among  the  Christians  of  that  day.  In  this  cele- 
brated version,  the  word  is  employed  frequently,  and 
to  designate  officers  of  various  grades  and  charac- 
ters, civil,  military,  and  ecclesiastical.  The  inspired 
writers  of  the  New  Testament,  observing  that  this 
word,  as  a  title  of  office,  was  much  in  use,  and  fami- 
liarly understood  among  those  who  had  the  Scriptures 
in  the  popular  language  in  their  hands,  thought  pro- 
per to  adopt  and  apply  it  to  the  officers  of  Christ's 
spiritual  kingdom. 

The  word  (7t£to6wte£o$)  which  the  translators  of  the 
New  Testament  render  elder,  and  which  precisely 
answers  to  the  word  presbyter,  literally  signifies  an 
aged  person.  But  as  among  the  Jews,  and  the  eastern 
nations  generally,  persons  advanced  in  age  were  com- 
monly selected  to  fill  stations  of  dignity  and  authori- 
ty, the  word  presbyter,  or  elder,  became,  in  process 
of  time,  an  established  title  of  office.  The  Jews  had 
rulers  called  by  this  name,  not  only  over  their  nation, 
but  also  over  every  city,  and  every  synagogue.  To 
a  Jew,  therefore,  no  term  could  be  addressed  more 
perfectly  intelligible  and  familiar.  The  apostles  find- 
ing this  to  be  the  case  with  the  most  of  those  among 
whom  they  ministered,  gave  the  name  of  elder  to  the 
pastors  and  rulers  of  the  churches  which  they  organi- 
zed; and  the  rather  because  these  pastors  were  gene- 
rally, iti  fact,  taken  from  among  the  more  grave  and 
aged  converts  to  the  Christian  faith. 

From  this  statement  it  will  appear,  that  presbyter. 
if  we  attend  to  its  original  meaning,  is  a  word  of 
more  honourable  import  than  bishop.  Presbyter  is 
expressive  of  authority,  bishop  of  duty.   The  former 

5* 


54  TESTIMONY    OF    SCRIPTURE. 

implies  the  dignity  and  power  of  a  ruler;  the  latter 
conveys  the  idea  o£ivork,ov  of  executing  a  prescribed 
task.  But  whatever  may  be  the  comparative  degrees 
of  honour  expressed  by  these  terms,  it  is  certain  that 
they  are  uniformly  employed,  in  the  New  Testament, 
as  convertible  titles  for  the  same  office.  An  attentive 
consideration  of  the  following  passages  will  establish 
this  position  beyond  all  doubt. 

The  first  which  I  shall  quote  is  found  in  Acts  xx. 
17,  28.  "  And  from  Miletus  he  sent  to  Ephesus,  and 
called  the  elders  (or  presbyters,  7t^ia6vtt^ovg)  of  the 
Church.  And  when  they  were  come  to  him  he  said 
unto  them,  take  heed  unto  yourselves  and  to  all  the 
flock  over  which  the  Holy  Ghost  hath  made  you  over- 
seers (or  bishops,  tTtiaxortovi)  to  feed  the  Church  of 
God  which  he  hath  purchased  with  his  own  blood." 
In  this  passage  it  is  evident  that  the  same  persons  who, 
in  the  17th  verse  are  styled  elders  or  presbyters,  are 
in  the  28th  called  bishops.  This,  indeed,  is  so  incon- 
testible,  that  the  most  zealous  Episcopalian,  so  far  as 
I  know,  has  never  called  it  in  question.  It  is  further 
observable,  that  in  the  city  of  Ephesus  there  were  a 
number  of  bishops  who  governed  the  Church  in  that 
city,  as  co-ordinate  rulers,  or  in  common  council.  This 
is  wholly  irreconcilable  with  the  principles  of  modern 
Episcopacy;  but  perfectly  coincides  with  the  Presby- 
terian doctrine,  that  scriptural  bishops  are  the  pastors 
of  single  congregations,* 

*  It  has  been  much  controverted  whether,  in  each  of  the  larger 
cities,  in  which  Christianity  was  first  planted,  such  as  Jerusalem, 
Ephesus,  Antioch,  Corinth,  &c.  there  was  more  than  one  congrega- 
tion of  Christians.  In  other  words,  whether  by  the  Church  at  Ephe- 
sus we  are  to  understand  a  single  congregation,  or  several  separate 
societies,  as  the  Presbyterian  church  in  New  York  or  Philadelphia 
comprehends  several  congregations  ?     From  the  multitudes  that  are 


TESTIMONY    OF    SCRIPTURE.  55 

The  next  passage  to  our  purpose  is  the  address  of 
the  apostle  Paul  to  the  Philippians,  in  the  introduction 
of  his  epistle  to  that  church.  "  Paul  and  Timotheus, 
the  servants  of  Jesus  Christ,  to  all  the  saints  in  Christ 
Jesus  which  are  at  Philippi,  with  the  bishops  and 
deacons."  Here,  as  well  as  in  the  case  of  Ephesus, 
just  mentioned,  we  find  the  inspired  writer  speaking 
of  a  number  of  bishops  in  a  single  city.  It  is  true, 
Dr.  Hammond,  an  eminent  Episcopal  writer,  to  avoid 
the  force  of  this  fact,  so  unfriendly  to  modern  Epis- 
copacy, would  persuade  us  that  Philippi  was  a  metro- 
politan city,  and  that  the  bishops  here  spoken  of,  did 
not  all  belong  to  that  city,  but  also  included  those  of 
the  neighouring  cities,  under  that  metropolis.  But 
this  supposition  is  not  in  the  least  degree  countenanced 
by  the  apostle's  language,  the  plain,  unsophisticated 
meaning  of  which  evidently  refers  us  to  the  bishops 
and  deacons  which  were  at  Philippi,  and  there  only. 

said  to  have  believed  in  those  cities*  it  is  probable  there  were  several 
thousands  of  Christians  in  each  of  them  ;  and  as  the  places  in  which 
they  assembled  for  public  worship  were  small,  probably  all  of  them 
apartments  in  private  dwellings,  we  cannot  suppose  that  they  were 
all  able  to  assemble  at  the  same  time  and  place.  The  expedient, 
therefore,  of  dividing-  themselves  into  small  worshipping-  assemblies, 
would  seem  natural,  and  even  unavoidable.  We  know  that  in  the 
days  of  the  apostles  there  were  a  number  of  bishops  in  each  of  the 
cities  of  Ephesus  and  Philippi.  But  in  those  days  of  persecution  and 
peril,  when  Christians  had  not  the  privilege  of  erecting  houses  for 
public  worship ;  when  not  more  than  a  few  dozens  could  ever  come 
together  in  the  same  apartment;  and  when  it  is  probable  that  even 
these  could  not  always  assemble  in  the  same  place  statedly  ;  we  can 
by  no  means  consider  these  bishops  as  pastors  of  so  many  distinct  and 
separate  congregations.  The  probability  is  that  these  numerous  little 
house-churches  were  under  their  joint  superintendency  ;  and  that  the 
language  and  principles  which  we  now  apply  to  a  number  of  congre- 
gations in  the  same  city,  were  by  no  means  applicable  to  them. 


56  TESTIMONY    OP    SCRIPTURE. 

Besides,  Dr.  Whitby,  a  later,  and  equally  eminent 
Episcopal  divine,  assures  us,  that  Philippi  was  not,  at 
that  time  a  metropolitan  city,  but  under  Thessalonica, 
which  was  the  metropolis  of  all  Macedonia.  Dr. 
Stillingfleet  has  also  clearly  shown,  that  there  are  no 
traces  to  be  found  within  the  first  six  centuries,  of  the 
church  at  Philippi  being  a  metropolitan  church.  Dr. 
Maurice,  another  zealous  and  able  writer  in  favour 
of  diocesan  Episcopacy,  goes  further.  He  acknow- 
ledges that  Dr.  Hammond  stands  alone,  in  the  solution 
of  the  difficulty  above  mentioned;  that  he  cannot  un- 
dertake to  defend  it;  and  that  "  he  could  never  find 
sufficient  reason  to  believe  these  bishops  any  other 
than  presbyters,  as  the  generality  of  the  fathers,  and 
of  the  Church  of  England  have  done/7 — Defence  of 
Dioc.  Episc.  p.  29. 

The  third  passage  to  be  adduced  is  in  Titus  i.  5 — 7. 
It  is  as  follows:  "  For  this  cause  left  I  thee  in  Crete,  that 
thou  shouldest  set  in  order  the  things  that  are  wanting, 
and  ordain  elders  (presbyters)  in  every  city,  as  I  had 
appointed  thee.  If  any  be  blameless,  the  husband  of 
one  wife,  having  faithful  children,  not  accused  of  riot, 
or  unruly.  For  a  bishop  must  be  blameless,  as  the 
steward  of  God;  not  self-willed,  not  soon  angry,  not 
given  to  wine,  no  striker,  not  given  to  filthy  lucre," 
&c.  Here  the  apostle,  in  directing  Titus  to  ordain 
elders,  enjoins  upon  him  to  choose  those  officers  from 
among  the  most  temperate,  blameless,  and  faithful  be- 
lievers; and  the  reason  he  assigns  for  this  injunction 
is,  that  a  bishop  must  be  blameless;  evidently  mean- 
ing, that  presbyter  and  bishop  are  the  same  office. 
On  any  other  construction,  the  different  parts  of  the 
address  are  unconnected,  and  the  whole  destitute  of 
orce.     But  these  are  charges  which  no  man  who  is 


TESTIMONY    OF    SCRIPTURE.  57 

conversant  with  the  writings  of  Paul,  would  ever 
think  of  bringing  against  them. 

This  passage  also  establishes  another  point.  It  not 
only  shows  that  the  elders  here  to  be  ordained,  were 
considered  and  denominated  bishops,  thereby  proving 
the  identity  of  the  office  designated  by  these  names, 
but  it  likewise  proves,  beyond  controversy,  that  in 
apostolic  times,  it  was  customary  to  have  a  plurality 
of  these  bishops  in  a  single  city.  We  have  before 
seen  that  there  were  a  number  of  bishops  in  the  city 
of  Ephesus,  and  a  number  more  in  the  city  of  Philippi: 
but  in  the  passage  before  us  we  find  Titus  directed  to 
ordain  a  plurality  of  them  in  every  city.  This  per- 
fectly agrees  with  the  Presbyterian  doctrine,  that 
scriptural  bishops  were  the  pastors  of  single  congre- 
gations, or  presbyters,  invested,  either  separately  or 
conjointly,  as  the  case  might  be,  with  pastoral  charges; 
but  it  is  impossible  to  reconcile  it  with  the  modern 
notions  of  diocesan  Episcopacy. 

There  is  one  more  passage,  equally  conclusive  in 
this  argument.  It  is  that  which  is  found  in  1  Peter 
v.  1,  2.  "  The  elders  (or  presbyters)  which  are  among 
you  I  exhort,  who  am  also  an  elder,  and  a  witness  of 
the  sufferings  of  Christ,  and  also  a  partaker  of  the 
glory  that  shall  be  revealed.  Feed  the  flock  of  God 
which  is  among  you,  taking  the  oversight  thereof 
(tmaxoTiowtes,  that  is,  exercising  the  office,  or  perform- 
ing the  duties  of  bishops  over  them)  not  by  constraint, 
but  willingly;  not  for  filthy  lucre,  but  of  a  ready 
mind."  The  construction  of  this  passage  is  obvious. 
It  expressly  represents  presbyters  as  bishops  of  the 
flock,  and  solemnly  exhorts  them  to  exercise  the 
powers,  and  perform  the  duties  of  this  office. 

In  short,  the  title  of  bishop,  as  applied  to  ministers 


58  TESTIMONY    OF    SCRIPTURE. 

of  the  gospel,  occurs  only  four  times  in  the  New  Tes- 
tament: in  three  of  these  cases  there  is  complete  proof 
that  it  is  given  to  those  who  are  styled  presbyters; 
and  in  the  fourth  case,  there  is  strong  presumption 
that  it  is  applied  in  the  same  manner.  On  the  other 
hand,  the  apostle  Peter,  as  we  have  just  seen,  in  ad- 
dressing an  authoritative  exhortation  to  other  minis- 
ters, calls  himself  a  presbyter.  The  same  is  done  by 
the  apostle  John,  in  the  beginning  of  his  second  and 
third  epistles — "  The  elder  (presbyter)  unto  the  well 
beloved  Gaius — the  elder  unto  the  elect  lady,"  &c. 
Could  more  complete  evidence  be  desired,  that  both 
these  titles  belonged  equally,  in  the  days  of  the  apos- 
tles, to  the  same  office? 

But  it  is  not  necessary  further  to  pursue  the  proof 
that  these  names  are  indiscriminately  applied  in  Scrip- 
ture to  the  same  office.  This  is  freely  and  unani- 
mously acknowledged  by  the  most  respectable  Epis- 
copal writers.  In  proof  of  this  acknowledgment,  it  were 
easy  to  multiply  quotations.  A  single  authority  shall 
suffice.  Dr.  Whitby  confesses,  that  "  both  the  Greek 
and  Latin  fathers  do,  with  one  consent,  declare,  that 
bishops  were  called  presbyters, and  presbyters  bishops, 
in  apostolic  times,  the  names  being  then  common." 
Notes  on  Philip,  i.  1. 

It  being  thus  conceded  by  all  intelligent  Episcopa- 
lians that  the  names  bishop  and  presbyter  are  inter- 
changeably applied  to  the  same  persons  in  the  New 
Testament,  it  becomes  an  important  question,  what 
class  of  officers  were  those  to  whom  these  titles  were 
thus  indifferently  applied.  Were  they  prelates?  or 
did  they  belong  ta  that  class  which  Episcopalians  de- 
nominate the  second  order  of  clergy,  in  other  words, 
presbyters,  strictly  speaking,  as  distinguished   from 


TESTIMONY    OF    SCRIPTURE.  59 

bishops?     In  regard  to  this  question,  the  advocates  of 
Episcopacy  are   not  agreed.     On  the  one  hand,  Dr. 
Henry  Hammond,  among  the  most  learned  of  their 
number,  was  very  confident  that  all  who  bore  the  title 
of  bishops,  or  presbyters,  in  the  New  Testament  were 
prelates,  and  that  none  of  the  second  order  of  clergy 
were  ordained  during  the  period  of  the  apostolic  his- 
tory, and,  of  course,  not  mentioned  in  that  history;* 
and  with  him  Bishop  Pearson,  and  several  other  emi- 
nent English  Episcopalians  seem  to  agree. t     On  the 
other  hand,  Dr.  Hammond's  contemporary,  the  learned 
Dodwell,  was  quite  as  confident  that  all  the  persons 
spoken  of  in  the  New  Testament  as  bishops,  were 
simple  presbyters  only;  no  bishops,  properly  so  called, 
having  been  ordained  until  after  the  year  106  ;f  and 
with  Dodwell,  Bishop  Hoadly,  Dr.  Whitby,  and  many 
others  of  equal  name,  are  known,  as  to  this  point, 
fully  to  concur.     It  is  perfectly  evident  that  the  com- 
pilers of  the  Episcopal  form  for  ordination,  as  found 
in  their  Liturgy,  both  in  England  and  in  this  country, 
considered  those  denominated  bishops  in  the  New 
Testament,  as  bishops  in  their  sense  of  the  word,  i.  e. 
prelates;  and  it  is  no  less  evident  that  most,  if  not  all 
the  advocates  of  prelacy  on  this  side  of  the  Atlantic, 
until  within  a  few  years,  confidently  maintained  the 
same  opinion.     But  it  appears  now  to  be  the  current 
doctrine  among  Episcopalians  in  the  United  States, 
that  none  of  the  persons  called  bishops  in  the  New 
Testament  were  prelates,  but  all  of  them  members  of 

*  See  Hammond  on  Acts  xi.  30,  and  on  Philippians  i.  1. 

t  VindicicB  Ignatii — Lib.  2.  cap.  13. 

X  See  this  utter  disagreement  among  the  most  learned  Episcopa- 
lians placed  in  a  clear  and  strong  light,  with  appropriate  references, 
by  Ay  ton,  in  the  seventh  section  of  the  Appendix  to  his  Original  Con- 
stitution of  the  Christian  Church. 


60  TESTIMONY    OF    SCRIPTURE. 

the  second  order  of  clergy,  or  mere  presbyters.  In 
other  words,  they  confess  that  the  title  of  bishop  is 
always  used  in  the  New  Testament  in  a  Presbyterian 
sense,  and  invariably  means  common  pastors  of  sin- 
gle churches.  Now,  until  the  friends  of  Episcopacy 
can  agree  on  what  they  consider  as  the  doctrine  taught 
in  Scripture  on  this  subject,  how  is  it  possible  to  meet 
or  answer  them?  Some  of  the  most  learned,  able, 
and  zealous  of  their  number  assure  us  that  they  can 
find  no  bishops,  as  distinguished  from  presbyters,  in 
the  New  Testament;  while  others,  no  less  learned, 
able,  and  zealous,  with  no  less  confidence  assure  us, 
that  no  presbyters,  as  distinguished  from  bishops,  are 
to  be  found  there.*  This  very  strife  in  their  camp  is 
a  fatal  testimony  against  their  cause.  In  one  sense 
these  parties  are  undoubtedly  both  right ;  for  the  dif- 
ferent "  orders  of  clergy"  of  which  they  speak  are, 
indeed,  not  to  be  found  in  Scripture  at  all;  of  course, 
no  wonder  that  those  who  search  for  them  are  per- 
plexed and  baffled.  But  when  the  reigning  party 
contradict  with  so  little  ceremony  both  the  letter  and 
spirit  of  their  own  public  offices,  drawn  up  by  the 
martyred  fathers  of  their  church,  and  rendered  vene- 
rable by  the  lapse  of  nearly  three  centuries,  it  would 
really  seem  as  if  to  them,  as  partizans,  victory  or  de- 
feat must  prove  equally  fatal.  If  they  fail  of  establish- 
ing their  argument,  their  cause,  of  course,  is  lost.  If, 
on  the  contrary,  they  succeed  in  establishing  it,  they 
dishonour  the  venerated  authors  of  their  formularies; 
and  every  time  they  use  the  "  office  for  the  consecra- 

*  Bishop  Onderdonk,  in  his  "  Episcopacy  tested  by  Scripture,"  main- 
tains, as  stated  above,  that  the  men  called  bishops  in  the  apostolic 
history,  were  all  presbyters,  or  pastors  of  single  churches,  and  that 
the  apostles  were  the  prelates  of  that  period. 


TESTIMONY    OF    SCRIPTURE.  61 

tion  of  bishops,"  they  are  chargeable  with  something 
which  looks  like  solemn  mockery  of  those  who  unite 
with  them,  as  well  as  of  the  great  object  of  worship.* 
But  we  have  something  more  to  produce  in  support 
of  our  system,  than  the  indiscriminate  application  of 
the  names  in  question  to  one  order  of  ministers.  We 
can  show — 
J5T  HI*  That  the  same  character,  duties,  and  powers, 
which  are  ascribed  in  the  sacred  writings  to  bishops, 
are  also  ascribed  to  presbyters,  thereby  plainly  esta- 
blishing their  identity  of  order  as  well  as  of  name. 

Had  bishops  been  constituted  by  the  great  Head  of 
the  Church,  an  order  of  ministers  different  from  pres- 
byters, and  superior  to  them,  we  might  confidently 
expect  to  find  a  different  commission  given;  different 
qualifications  required;  and  a  different  sphere  of  duty 
assigned.  But  nothing  of  all  this  appears.  On  the 
contrary,  the  inspired  writers,  when  they  speak  of 
ministers  of  the  gospel,  by  which  ever  of  these  names 
they  are  distinguished,  give  the  same  description  of 
their  character ;  represent  the  same  gifts  and  graces 
as  necessary  for  them;  enjoin  upon  them  the  same 
duties;  and,  in  a  word,  exhibit  them  as  called  to  the 
same  work,  and  as  bearing  the  same  office.  To  prove 
this,  let  us  attend  to  some  of  the  principal  powers 
vested  in  Christian  ministers,  and  see  whether  the 
Scriptures  do  not  ascribe  them  equally  to  presbyters 
and  bishops. 

*  The  intelligent  reader  will  perceive  that  there  is  a  reference  here 
to  the  fact,  that  in  the  office  for  consecrating  bishops,  the  third  chap- 
ter of  the  first  epistle  to  Timothy,  and  Acts  xx.  are  directed  to  be 
read,  which  the  compilers  of  the  Liturgy  thought  appropriate  Scrip- 
tures, as  referring  to  prelates,  which  their  wiser  and  more  learned 
sons  find  have  nothing  to  do  with  the  occasion ;  but  v\  hich  they  still 
continue  to  read ! 

6 


62  TESTIMONY    OF    SCRIPTURE. 

1.  That  presbyters  had,  in  apostolic  times,  as  they 
now  have,  authority  to  preach  the  zvord,  and  admi- 
nister sacraments,  is  universally  allowed.  Now,  if 
we  consult  either  the  original  commission,  or  subse- 
quent instructions  given  to  ministers,  in  various  parts 
of  the  New  Testament,  we  shall  find  these  constantly 
represented  as  the  highest  acts  of  ministerial  authori- 
ty; as  the  grand  powers  in  which  all  others  are  inclu- 
ded. Instead  of  finding  in  the  sacred  volume  the 
smallest  hint,  that  ordaining  ministers,  and  governing 
the  Church,  were  functions  of  an  higher  order  than 
dispensing  the  word  of  eternal  life,  and  the  seals  of 
the  everlasting  covenant;  the  reverse  is  plainly  and 
repeatedly  taught.  The  latter,  we  have  already  seen, 
are  the  most  prominent  objects  in  the  original  com- 
mission; they  formed  the  principal  business  of  the 
apostles  wherever  they  went;  and  all  the  authority 
with  which  they  were  vested  is  represented  as  being 
subservient  to  the  promulgation  of  that  gospel  which 
is  the  power  of  God  unto  salvation  to  every  one  that 
believeth.  Preaching  and  administering  sacraments, 
therefore,  are  the  highest  acts  of  ministerial  authority; 
they  are  above  ordination  and  government,  as  the 
end  is  more  excellent  than  the  means;  as  the  sub- 
stance is  more  important  than  the  form. 

If,  then,  presbyters  be  authorized,  as  all  acknow- 
ledge, to  perforin  these  functions,  we  infer  that  they 
are  the  highest  order  of  gospel  ministers.  Those  who 
are  empowered  to  execute  the  most  dignified  and  the 
most  useful  duties  pertaining  to  the  ministerial  office, 
can  have  no  superiors  in  that  office.  The  Episcopal 
system,  then,  by  depressing  the  teacher,  for  the  sake 
of  elevating  the  rider,  inverts  the  sacred  order,  and 
departs  both  from  the  letter  and  the  spirit  of  Scrip- 


TESTIMONY    OF    SCRIPTURE.  63 

ture.  The  language  of  Scripture  is,  "  Let  the  presby- 
ters who  rule  well  be  counted  worthy  of  double 
honour,  especially  they  who  labour  in  the  word  and 
doctrine."  But  the  language  of  modern  Episcopacy 
is,  that  labouring  in  the  word  and  doctrine  is  a  lower 
service  in  the  Church,  and  government  a  more  exalt- 
ed: that  bearing  rule  is  more  honourable  and  more 
important  than  to  edify — a  language  which  to  be  re- 
futed needs  only  to  be  stated. 

2.  The  power  of  government,  or  of  ruling  the 
Church,  is  also  committed  to  presbyters.  This  is 
denied  by  some  Episcopalians;  but  the  Scriptures  ex- 
pressly affirm  it.  The  true  meaning  of  the  word 
presbyter,  in  its  official  application,  is  a  church  ruler, 
ox  governor.  Hence  the  "oversight"  or  government 
of  the  Church  is  in  Scripture  expressly  assigned  to 
presbyters  as  their  proper  duty.  The  elders  to  whom 
the  apostle  Peter  directed  his  first  epistle,  certainly 
had  this  power.  To  them  it  is  said,  "  The  elders  which 
are  among  you  I  exhort.  Feed  (Ttoipavate)  the  flock 
of  God,  taking  the  oversight  thereof,  not  by  constraint, 
but  willingly;  neither  as  being  lords  over  God's  heri- 
tage, but  as  ensamples  to  the  flock."  Scarcely  any 
words  could  express  more  distinctly  than  these  the 
power  of  ruling  in  the  Church.  It  is  acknowledged 
on  all  hands  that  the  word  rcoifiaAva  signifies  to  rule, 
as  well  as  to  feed.  See  Rev.  ii.  27;  xii.  5;  xix.  15.  It 
is  to  act  the  part  of  a  shepherd.  But,  as  if  to  place 
the  matter  beyond  all  doubt,  these  elders  are  exhorted 
to  use  this  power  with  moderation,  and  not  to  tyran- 
nize, or  "lord  it  over  God's  heritage."  Why  subjoin 
this  caution,  if  they  were  not  invested  with  a  govern- 
ing authority  at  all  ? 

The  case  of  the  elders  of  Ephesus  is  still  more  deci- 


64  TESTIMONY    OF    SCRIPTURE. 

sive.  When  the  apostle  Paul  was  about  to  take  his 
final  leave  of  them,  he  addressed  them  thus — fi  Take 
heed,  therefore,  unto  yourselves,  and  to  the  flock  over 
which  the  Holy  Ghost  hath  made  you  overseers,  to 
feed  ^rtoifiatvstv)  the  Church  of  God  which  he  hath 
purchased  with  his  own  blood,"  &c.  Here  the  go- 
vernment of  this  church,  as  well  as  ministering  in  the 
word,  is  evidently  vested  in  the  elders.  No  mention 
is  made  of  any  individual,  who  had  the  whole  ruling 
power  vested  in  him,  or  even  a  larger  share  of  it  than 
others.  Had  there  been  a  bishop  in  this  church,  in 
the  Episcopal  sense  of  the  word,  that  is,  a  single  per- 
son of  superior  order  to  these  elders,  and  to  whom, 
of  course,  they  were  in  subjection,  it  is  strange  that, 
in  this  whole  account,  we  do  not  once  find  the  most 
distant  allusion  to  him.  When  the  apostle  was  tell- 
ing the  elders  that  they  should  never  see  his  face 
more,  and  that  dissensions  and  difficulties  were  about 
to  arise  in  their  church,  could  there  have  been  a  more 
fit  occasion  to  address  their  superior,  had  there  been 
such  a  man  present?  To  whom  could  instruction 
have  been  so  properly  directed,  in  this  crisis,  as  to 
the  Chief  Shepherd?  On  the  other  hand,  supposing 
such  a  superior  to  have  existed,  and  to  have  been 
prevented  by  sickness,  or  any  other  means,  from 
attending  at  this  conference,  why  did  not  the  apostle 
remind  the  elders  of  their  duty  to  him?  Why  did  he 
not  exhort  them,  in  the  strife  and  divisions  which  he 
foretold  as  approaching,  to  cleave  to  their  bishop, 
and  submit  to  him,  as  the  best  means  of  unity  and 
peace?  And  finally,  supposing  their  bishop  to  have 
been  dead,  and  the  office  vacant,  why  did  not  the 
apostle,  when  about  to  take  leave  of  a  flock  so  much 
endeared  to  him,  select   a  bishop  for   them,  ordain 


TESTIMONY    OF    SCRIPTURE.  65 

him  with  his  own  hands,  and  commit  the  Church  to 
his  care?  But  not  a  word  of  all  this  appears.  No 
hint  is  given  of  the  existence  of  such  a  superior.  On 
the  contrary,  the  apostle  declares  to  these  elders,  that 
the  Holy  Ghost  had  made  them  bishops  over  the 
church  at  Ephesus;  he  exhorts  them  to  ride  that 
church;  and  when  about  to  depart,  never  to  see  them 
more,  he  leaves  them  in  possession  of  this  high  trust. 
On  Episcopal  principles,  I  should  be  absolutely  at  a 
loss  to  account  for  this.  It  is,  in  itself,  perfectly  con- 
clusive against  their  claim. 

But  the  passage  just  quoted  from  1  Tim.  v.  17,  is  still 
stronger  on  this  point.  Let  the  elders  that  rule  well 
be  counted  worthy  of  double  honour,  especially  they 
ivho  labour  in  the  ivord  and  doctrine.  Here  the  power 
of  government  in  the  Church  is  ascribed  to  presbyters 
in  terms  which  cannot  be  rendered  more  plain  and 
decisive.  Here,  also,  we  find  officers  of  the  Church 
who  are  not  recognized  in  the  Episcopal  system,  but 
who  are  always  found  in  the  Presbyterian  Church, 
viz.  ruling  elders,  or  those  who  are  appointed  to  assist 
in  governing  the  Church,  but  who  do  not  preach,  or 
administer  sacraments.  But  this  is  not  all:  bearing 
rule  in  the  Church  is  unequivocally  represented  in 
this  passage  as  a  less  honourable  employment  than 
preaching,  or  labouring  in  the  word  and  doctrine. 
The  mere  ruling  elder,  who  performs  his  duty  well,  is 
declared  to  be  worthy  of  "double  honour;"  but  the 
elder  who,  to  this  function,  adds  the  more  dignified 
and  important  one  of  preaching  the  gospel  of  salva- 
tion, is  declared  to  be  entitled  to  honour  of  a  still 
higher  kind.  / 

It  is  possible  that  an  objection  may  here  be  made, 
founded  on  our  doctrine  of  the  ruling  elder.     It  may 
6* 


66  TESTIMONY    OF    SCRIPTURE. 

be  asked,  is  not  the  ruling  elder  an  officer  of  inferior 
grade  to  the  teaching  elder?  If  so,  can  we  consider 
the  title  of  bishop,  as  employed  in  Scripture,  as  a 
title  convertible  with  that  of  -elder  in  regard  to  this 
inferior  class  of  elders?  To  this  I  reply,  the  title  of 
bishop  seems  evidently  to  be  used  in  Scripture  as  a 
generic  term,  as  well  as  that  of  elder.  All  the  elders 
of  Ephesus,  whom  Paul  met  at  Miletus,  are  called 
bishops.  All  the  elders  at  Philippiare  styled  bishops: 
and  the  same  title  is  applied  to  all  the  elders  whom 
Titus  was  directed  to  ordain  in  Crete.  They  were 
all  u  overseers/'*  or  inspectors  of  the  "  flocks"  which 
the  Holy  Ghost  had  given  them  in  charge.  When 
one  of  these  elders  had  the  pastoral  charge  of  a  con- 
gregation peculiarly  committed  to  him,  he  seems  to 
have  been  called,  by  way  of  eminence,  the  bishop  of 
that  congregation.  Precisely  so  was  it  in  the  syna- 
gogue. There  was  a  plurality  of  rulers  in  each  syna- 
gogue. These  were  often,  perhaps  generally,  spoken 
of  in  the  aggregate  as  "the  rulers  of  the  synagogue;" 
(Acts  xiii.  15;)  but  sometimes  one  of  their  number 
was,  by  way  of  emphasis,  called  "  the  ruler  of  the 
synagogue,"  and  sometimes  "  the  chief  ruler,". (Luke 
xiii.  14.  Acts  xviii.  17.)  Just  as  some  denominations 
distinguish  between  their  common  elders,  and  their 
"presiding  elders."  The  truth  is,  in  the  apostolic 
age,  there  was  so  little  disposition  to  stickle  about 
rank  or  titles,  that  the  names  of  office  were  used 
without  scrupulosity,  and  with  much  license.  Hence 
the  terms  "  minister,"  "  servant,"  "  steward,"  "  shep- 
herd," &c.  seem  to  be  applied  to  all  classes  of  church 
officers,  and  to  be  used  alternately  with  other  titles, 
with  a  promiscuous  freedom  which  evinces  that  mo- 
dern claims  and  punctilios  were  then  little  thought  of. 


TESTIMONY    OF    SCRIPTURE.  67 

3.  The  Scriptures  also  represent  presbyters  as  em- 
powered to  ordain,  and  as  actually  exercising  this 
power.  Of  this  we  can  produce  at  least  three  in- 
stances of  the  most  decisive  kind. 

The  first  is  recorded  in  Acts  xiii.  as  follows.  "  Now 
there  were  in  the  church  that  was  at  Antioch,  certain 
prophets  and  teachers,  as  Barnabas,  and  Simeon,  that 
was  called  Niger,  and  Lucius  of  Cyrene,  and  Manaen, 
which  had  been  brought  up  with  Herod  the  Tetrarch, 
and  Saul.  As  they  ministered  to  the  Lord,  and  fasted, 
the  Holy  Ghost  said,  Separate  me  Barnabas  and 
Saul  for  the  work  whereunto  I  have  called  them. 
And  when  they  had  fasted  and  prayed,  and  laid  their 
hands  on  them,  they  sent  them  away."  This  is  the 
most  ample  account  of  an  ordination  to  be  found  in 
Scripture:  and  it  is  an  account  which,  were  there  no 
other,  would  be  sufficient  to  decide  the  present  con- 
troversy in  our  favour.  Who  were  the  ordainers  on 
this  occasion?  They  were  not  apostles.  Lest  this 
should  be  supposed,  their  names  are  given.  They 
were  not  bishops,  in  the  modern  sense  of  the  word; 
for  there  were  a.  number  of  them  ministering  together 
in  the  same  church.  They  were  the  prophets  and 
teachers  of  the  church  at  Antioch.  With  respect  to 
these  teachers,  no  higher  character  has  ever  been 
claimed  for  them  than  that  of  presbyters,  labouring 
in  the  word  and  doctrine.  And  as  to  the  prophets, 
though  the  precise  nature  of  their  endowments  and 
office  be  not  certainly  known;  yet  there  is  complete 
evidence  that  they  did  not  sustain  that  particular 
ecclesiastical  rank,  with  which  Episcopalians  contend 
that,  in  the  days  of  the  apostles,  the  power  of  ordain- 
ing was  connected.  Still  these  ministers  ordained; 
and  they  did  this  under  the  immediate  direction  of 


68  TESTIMONY    OF    SCRIPTURE. 

the  Holy  Ghost,  who  cannot  be  supposed  to  have 
sanctioned  any  departure  from  an  essential  principle 
of  church  government. 

To  invalidate  this  reasoning,  some  Episcopal 
writers  have  suggested  that  the  ordination  here  re- 
corded was  performed  not  by  the  teachers,  but  by 
the  prophets  only.  But  nothing  like  this  appears  in 
the  sacred  text.  On  the  contrary,  its  plain  arid  simple 
import  forbids  such  a  construction.  The  command 
to  ordain  Paul  and  Barnabas  was  directed  both  to  the 
prophets  and  teachers;  and  we  are  told  that  they  pro- 
ceeded immediately  to  the  performance  of  the  solemn 
act  to  which  they  were  called.  To  suppose,  there- 
fore, that  the  teachers  either  did  not  engage  in  this 
ordination;  or  that,  if  they  did  participate  in  the 
transaction,  it  was  rather  as  witnesses  expressing 
consent,  than  as  ordainers  conveying  authority,  or 
ratifying  a  commission,  is  a  supposition  as  illegiti- 
mate in  reasoning,  as  it  is  repugnant  to  the  sacred 
narrative. 

Another  plea  urged  against  this  example  is,  that 
it  is  not  to  be  considered  as  an  ordination  at  all;  that 
both  Paul  and  Barnabas  had  been  recognised  as  mi- 
nisters of  the  gospel  several  years  before  this  event-; 
and  that  it  is  rather  to  be  regarded  as  a  solemn  bene- 
diction, previous  to  their  entering  on  a  particular  mis- 
sion among  the  Gentiles.  It  is  readily  granted  that 
Paul  and  Barnabas  had  been  engaged  in  preaching 
the  gospel  long  before  this  time.  But  there  is  no  evi- 
dence that  either  of  them  had  ever  before  been  set 
apart  by  human  ordainers.  It  seemed  good,  there- 
fore, to  the  Holy  Ghost,  that  before  they  entered  on 
their  grand  mission  to  the  Gentiles,  they  should  re- 
ceive that  kind  of  ordination,  which  was  intended  to 


TESTIMONY    OF    SCRIPTURE.  69 

be  perpetual  in  the  Church.  No  example  of  such  an 
ordination  had  yet  been  given.  If  the  practice  were 
ever  to  be  established,  it  was  necessary  that  a  begin- 
ning should  be  made.  And  as  these  missionaries  were 
about  to  travel  among  a  people,  who  were  not  fami- 
liar with  the  rite  of  ordination  by  the  imposition  of 
hands,  so  well  understood  by  the  Jews,  it  was  judged 
proper  by  Infinite  Wisdom  to  set  this  example  for  imi- 
tation in  all  subsequent  periods.  And  as  if  to  give 
the  strongest  practical  declaration  of  ministerial  parity, 
Paul,  with  all  the  elevation  of  his  gifts,  and  all  the 
lustre  of  his  apostolic  character,  submitted  to  be  set 
apart,  together  with  his  brother  Barnabas,  agreeably 
to  the  regular  principles  of  church  order,  by  the  pro- 
phets and  teachers  of  the  church  at  Antioch. 

It  may  further  be  observed,  that  if  this  be  not  an 
ordination,  it  will  be  difficult  to  say  what  constitutes 
one.  Here  were  fasting,  prayer,  the  imposition  of 
hands,  and  every  circumstance  attending  a  formal  in- 
vestiture with  the  ministerial  office,  as  particularly 
stated  as  in  any  instance  on  record.  And  accordingly 
Dr.  Hammond,  one  of  the  most  able  and  zealous  ad- 
vocates for  Episcopacy,  does  not  scruple  to  pronounce 
it  a  regular  ordination;  though  for  the  sake  of  main- 
taining his  system,  he  falls  into  the  absurdity  of  sup- 
posing that  Simeon,  Lucius,  and  Manaen,  were  dioce- 
san bishops;  a  supposition  wholly  irreconcilable  with 
the  diocesan  scheme,  since  they  were  all  ministering 
in  the  church  at  Antioch.  Bishop  Taylor,  another 
eminent  Episcopal  writer,  considers  this  transaction 
as  a  regular  ordination;  for  speaking  of  Paul,  he 
says — "  He  had  the  special  honour  to  be  chosen  in  an 
extraordinary  way;  yet  he  had  something  of  the  ordi- 
nary too;  for  in  an  extraordinary  manner  he  was  sent 


70  TESTIMONY    OF    SCRIPTURE. 

to  be  ordained  in  an  ordinary  ministry.  His  designa- 
tion was  as  immediate  as  that  of  the  eleven  apostles, 
though  his  ordination  was  not."  This  also  was  the 
judgment  of  the  learned  Dr.  Lightfoot.  "  No  better 
reason,"  says  he,  "  can  be  given  of  this  present  action, 
than  that  the  Lord  did  hereby  set  down  a  platform  of 
ordaining  ministers  to  the  Church  of  the  gentiles  in 
future  times."  And,  finally,  Chrysostom,  one  of  the 
early  fathers,  delivers  the  same  opinion.  He  asserts 
that  "  Paul  was  ordained  at  Antioch,"  and  quotes  this 
passage  in  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles  in  support  of  his 
assertion. 

But,  after  all,  it  does  not  destroy  the  argument, 
even  if  we  concede  that  the  case  before  us  was  not  a 
regular  ordination.  It  was  certainly  a  solemn  sepa- 
ration to  the  work  to  which  the  Holy  Ghost  had  called 
them.  This  is  the  language  of  the  inspired  writer, 
and  cannot  be  controverted.  Now  it  is  a  principle 
which  pervades  the  Scriptures,  that  an  inferior  is 
never  called  formally  (o  pronounce  benediction  on  an 
official  superior.  It  is  evident,  therefore,  that  those 
who  were  competent  to  set  apart  ecclesiastical  officers 
to  a  particular  ministry,  were  competent  to  set  them 
apart  to  the  ministry  in  general.  So  far,  then,  as  the 
office  sustained  by  Paul  and  Barnabas  was  ordinary 
and  permanent  in  its  nature,  the  presbyters  in  Antioch 
were  their  equals.  Paul,  indeed,  considered  as  en- 
dowed with  inspiration,  and  with  miraculous  powers, 
was  their  superior;  but  as  a  regular  officer  of  the 
Church  of  Christ,  sent  forth  on  established  and  ordi- 
nary service,  he  was  not  their  superior;  and  he  em- 
braced frequent  opportunities  of  testifying  that  this 
was  his  own  view  of  the  subject. 

The  next  instance  of  an  ordination  performed  by 


TESTIMONY    OP    SCRIPTURE.  71 

presbyters,  is  that  of  Timothy,  which  is  spoken  of  by 
the  apostle  Paul,  in  the  following  terms.  1  Tim.  iv. 
14.  "  Neglect  not  the  gift  that  is  in  thee,  which  was 
given  thee  by  prophecy,  with  the  laying  on  of  the 
hands  of  the  Presbytery."  The  greater  portion  of 
Episcopal  writers,  and  all  Presbyterians,  agree  that 
the  apostle  is  here  speaking  of  Timothy's  ordination; 
and  this  ordination  is  expressly  said  to  have  been  per- 
formed with  the  laying  on  of  the  hands  of  the  pres- 
bytery— that  is,  of  the  eldership,  or  a  council  of  pres- 
byters. 

To  this  instance  of  Presbyterian  ordination  it  is 
objected,  by  some  Episcopal  writers,  that  although  a 
council  of  presbyters  appear,  from  this  passage,  to 
have  laid  their  hands  on  Timothy  upon  this  occasion, 
yet  the  ordination  was  actually  performed  by  the  apos- 
tle alone,  who  elsewhere  addresses  Timothy  in  this 
language — "Wherefore  I  put  thee  in  remembrance, 
that  thou  stir  up  the  gift  of  God  which  is  in  thee,  by 
the  putting  on  of  my  hands,"  2  Tim.  i.  6.  They  con- 
tend that,  as  Paul  speaks  of  the  ordination  as  being 
performed  by  the  putting  on  of  his  hands,  and  with 
the  laying  on  of  the  hands  of  the  presbytery,  we  are 
to  infer  that  the  power  was  conveyed  by  him  only, 
and  that  the  presbyters  only  imposed  their  hands  by 
way  of  concurrence,  and  to  express  their  approbation. 

If  we  suppose  that  the  apostle,  in  both  passages, 
is  speaking  of  the  ordination  of  Timothy,  and  that 
he  and  the  presbytery  both  participated  in  the  trans- 
action, the  supposition  will  be  fatal  to  the  Episcopal 
cause.  For  let  it  be  remembered,  that  all  Episcopa- 
lians, in  this  controversy,  take  for  granted  that  Timo- 
thy was,  at  this  time,  ordained  a  diocesan  bishop. 
But  if  this  were  so,  how  came  presbyters  to  lay  their 


72  TESTIMONY    OF    SCRIPTURE. 

hands  on  him  at  his  ordination?  We  know  that  pres- 
byters in  the  Episcopal  church,  are  in  the  habit  of 
laying  on  their  hands,  with  those  of  the  bishop,  in 
ordaining  presbyters;  but  was  it  ever  heard  of,  in  the 
Christian  Church,  after  the  distinction  between  bishops 
and  presbyters  arose,  that  those  who  admitted  this 
distinction  suffered  presbyters  to  join  with  bishops, 
by  imposing  hands  in  the  consecration  of  a  bishop  ? 
No;  on  Episcopal  principles,  this  would  be  an  irre- 
gularity of  the  most  incongruous  and  inadmissible 
kind. 

Some  Episcopal  writers,  in  order  to  avoid  the  diffi- 
culties above  stated,  have  taken  the  liberty  of  sup- 
posing, that  by  the  word  presbytery  (*r£eo6vt££iov)  in 
this  passage  is  to  be  understood,  not  a  council  of  pres- 
byters, but  the  college  of  the  apostles.     But  this  sup- 
position is  adopted  without  the  least  proof  or  proba- 
bility.    No  instance  has  been,  or  can  be  produced, 
either  from  the  New  Testament,  or  from  any  early 
Christian  writer,  of  the  apostles,  as  a  collective  body, 
being  called  a  presbytery.    On  the  contrary,  this  word 
is  always  used,  in  Scripture,  in  the  writings  of  the 
primitive  fathers,  and  particularly  in  the  writings  of 
Ignatius,  (who  is  of  the  highest  authority  with  oi:r 
opponents  in  this  dispute,)  to  signify  a  council  of  pres- 
byters, and  never  in  any  other  sense.     But,  allowing 
the  word  presbytery  to  have  the  meaning  contended 
for,  and  that  Timothy  was  ordained  by  the  bench  of 
apostles;  how  came  the  modest  and  humble  Paul  to 
speak  of  the  whole  gift  as  conveyed  by  his  hands,  and 
not  so  much  as  to  mention  any  other  name?     Were 
all  the  rest  of  the  apostles  mere  concurring  spectators, 
and  not  real  ordainers,  as  before  pleaded?     Then  it 
must  follow,  not  only  that  Paul  claimed  a  superiority 


TESTIMONY    OF    SCRIPTURE.  73 

over  his  brethren,  which  was  never  heard  of  before; 
but  also  that  one  bishop  is  sufficient  for  the  regular 
ordination  of  another  bishop,  which  is  opposed  to 
every  principle  of  Episcopal  government,  as  well  as 
to  the  established  canons,  so  far  as  I  know,  of  every 
church  on  earth. 

Finally,  it  has  been  urged  by  some,  against  this  in- 
stance of  Presbyterian  ordination,  that  the  word  here 
translated  presbytery,  signifies  the  office  conferred, 
and  not  the  body  of  ministers  who  conferred  it. 
Though  this  construction  of  the  passage  has  been 
adopted  by  some  respectable  names,*  it  is  so  absurd 
and  unnatural,  and  so  totally  inconsistent  with  every 
rational  principle  of  interpretation,  that  it  scarcely 
deserves  a  serious  refutation.  Let  us  see  how  the 
text  will  read  with  this  meaning  attached  to  the  word 
in  question.  "Neglect  not  the  gift  that  is  in  thee, 
which  was  given  thee  by  prophecy,  with  the  laying 
on  of  the  hands  of  thine  office."  If  this  be  not  non- 
sense, it  is  difficult  to  say  what  deserves  that  name. 
But  suppose  we  make  such  a  monstrous  inversion  of 
the  whole  passage  as  no  rule  of  grammar  will  justify, 

*  Among  those  names,  that  of  the  great  and  venerable  Calvin  ap- 
pears, who,  when  he  wrote  his  Institutes,  adopted  this  unnatural 
sense,  and  expressed  himself  in  the  following1  terms — "  Quod  de  im- 
posilione  manuum  Presbyterii  dicilur,  non  ita  accipio  quasi  Paulus  de 
seniorum  collegio  loquatur;  sed  hoc  nomine  ordinationem  ipsam  intel- 
ligo."  Inslit.  lib.  iv.  cap.  3.  sect.  16.  Such  an  interpretation  of  a 
plain  passage  of  Scripture,  even  from  so  great  a  man,  deserves  little 
regard.  But  Calvin,  soon  afterwards,  when  he  came  to  write  his 
Commentary,  and  when  his  judgment  was  more  mature,  gave  a  very 
different  opinion.  ["  Presbyierium.]  Qui  hoc  collectivum  nomen  esse 
putant,  pro  collegio  Presbyterorum  posilum,  recte  sentiunt  meo  judi- 
cio."  Comment,  in  loc.  The  truth  is,  the  word  presbyterium  is  bor- 
rowed from  the  synagogue,  and  was  in  familiar  use  to  express  the 
bench  of  elders  or  presbyters,  ever  found  in  the  synagogue  system. 

7 


74  TESTIMONY    OF    SCRIPTURE. 

and  read  it  thus — "  Neglect  not  the  gift  of  the  presby- 
terate  which  is  in  thee,  which  was  given  thee  by  pro- 
phecy, with  the  laying  on  of  hands."  It  will  then  fol- 
low, that  the  office  conferred  upon  Timothy  was  the 
presbyterate,  or  the  office  of  presbyter;  but  this, 
while  it  entirely  coincides  with  the  Presbyterian  doc- 
trine, will  prove  fatal  to  the  Episcopal  scheme,  which 
constantly  takes  for  granted  that  Timothy  was  not  a 
mere  presbyter,  but  a  diocesan  bishop. 

Some  have  alleged  that  Presbyterians  are  incon- 
sistent with  themselves  in  maintaining,  that  the  pres- 
bytery laid  on  hands  authoritatively  in  the  ordination 
of  Timothy,  when  it  is  well  known  that  all  our  pres- 
byteries are  made  up  of  both  clerical  and  lay  elders, 
and  that  we  do  not  permit  the  latter  to  impose  hands 
at  all  in  the  ordination  of  ministers.  But  there  is  no 
inconsistency  here.  We  deny  the  right  of  an  inferior 
officer  to  lay  on  hands  in  the  ordination  of  a  superior, 
and  uniformly  act  accordingly.  The  presbytery  lays 
on  hands  when  all  its  teaching  members  do,  although 
those  who  are  rulers  only,  do  not. 

The  last  instance  that  I  shall  mention  of  ordination 
performed  by  presbyters,  is  that  of  Paul  and  Barna- 
bas, who,  after  having  been  regularly  set  apart  to  the 
work  of  the  ministry  themselves,  proceeded  through 
the  cities  of  Lystra,  Iconium,  &c.  "  And  when  they 
had  ordained  them  elders  in  every  church,  and  had 
prayed  with  fasting,  they  commended  them  to  the 
Lord,  on  whom  they  had  believed."  Our  adversaries 
will  perhaps  say,  that  Paul  alone  performed  these  or- 
dinations, in  his  apostolic  or  episcopal  character;  and 
that  Barnabas  only  laid  on  hands  to  express  his  ap- 
probation of  what  Paul  did.  But  the  inspired  writer, 
as  usual,  speaks  a  different  language.     He  declares 


TESTIMONY    OF    SCRIPTURE.  75 

that  they,  both  of  them,  ordained.  Perhaps  it  will  be 
said,  that  Barnabas  was  himself  an  apostle,  as  he  is 
so  styled,  Acts  xiv.  14,  and  that  he  joined  with  Paul 
in  ordaining  presbyters,  in  virtue  of  his  superior  cha- 
racter. We  all  know  that  he  was  not  one  of  the  apos- 
tles, strictly  so  called,  and,  of  course,  that  none  of  that 
pre-eminence  which  belonged  to  their  character  can 
be  claimed  for  him.  The  word  apostle  signifies  simply 
a  messenger,  a  person  sent.  It  was  in  use  among  the 
Greeks,  and  also  among  the  Jews,  before  the  time  of 
Christ.  The  Jewish  apostles  were  assistants  to  the 
high  priest  in  discussing  questions  of  the  law;  and 
were  sometimes  employed  in  inferior  and  secular  du- 
ties. Barronii  finales,  An.  32.  Accordingly,  be- 
sides the  twelve  apostles  appointed  by  Christ  himself, 
there  were,  in  the  primitive  churches,  apostles,  or 
messengers,  chosen  either  by  the  twelve,  or  by  the 
churches  themselves,  to  go  to  distant  places,  on  spe- 
cial services.  In  this  vague  and  general  sense,  the 
word  apostle  is  repeatedly  used  in  Scripture.  In  this 
sense  Barnabas  and  Epaphroditus  are  called  apostles. 
In  this  sense  John  the  Baptist  is  called  an  apostle  by 
Tertullian.  And  in  the  same  sense  this  name  is  ap- 
plied by  early  Christian  writers  to  the  seventy  disci- 
ples, and  to  those  who  propagated  the  gospel  long 
after  the  apostolic  age.  From  this  name,  then,  as 
applied  to  Barnabas,  no  pre-eminence  of  character 
can  be  inferred.*  Besides,  the  supposition  that  he 
bore  an  ecclesiastical  rank  above  that  of  presbyter, 

*  The  translators  of  our  Bible  very  clearly  recognise  this  distinc- 
tion between  the  appropriate  and  the  general  sense  of  the  word  apostle. 
Thus  in  2  Cor.  viii.  23,  they  render  the  phrase  ajrojoXoc  exxXrjaicov, 
the  messengers  of  the  churches.  And  in  Philip,  ii.  25,  they  translate 
the  word  artojoXoj  as  applied  to  Epaphroditus,  messenger. 


76  TESTIMONY    OF    SCRIPTURE. 

is  effectually  refuted  by  the  fact  that  he  was  himself 
ordained  by  the  presbyters  of  Antioch.  As  a  pres- 
byter, therefore,  he  ordained  others;  and  the  only  ra- 
tional construction  that  can  be  given  to  the  passage, 
renders  it  a  plain  precedent  for  Presbyterian  ordi- 
nation.      p*ja 

SV.  A  fourth  source  of  direct  proof  in  favour  of 
the  Presbyterian  plan  of  Church  Government,  is 
found  in  the  model  of  the  Jewish  Synagogue,  and  in 
the  abundant  evidence  which  the  Scriptures  afford, 
that  the  Christian  Church  was  formed  after  the  same 
model. 

At  Jerusalem  alone,  where  the  temple  stood,  were 
sacrifices  offered,  and  the  Mosaic  rites  observed.  But 
in  almost  every  town  and  village  in  Judea,  syna- 
gogues were  erected,  like  parish  churches  of  modern 
times,  for  prayer  and  praise,  for  reading  and  expound- 
ing the  Scriptures.  The  temple  worship  was,  through- 
out, typical  and  ceremonial,  and  of  course  was  done 
away  by  the  coming  of  Christ.  But  the  synagogue 
worship  was  altogether  of  a  different  nature.  It  was 
that  part  of  the  organized  religious  establishment  of 
the  Old  Testament  Church,  which,  like  the  decalogue, 
was  purely  moral  and  spiritual,  or  at  least  chiefly  so; 
and,  therefore,  in  its  leading  characters,  proper  to  be 
adopted  under  any  dispensation.  Accordingly  we 
find  that  our  Lord  himself  frequented  the  synagogues, 
and  taught  in  them;  and  that  the  apostles  and  other 
Christian  ministers  in  their  time  did  the  same.  It  is 
well  known,  also,  that  in  the  city  of  Jerusalem,  where 
the  gospel  first  began  to  be  preached,  after  the  resur- 
rection of  Christ,  and  where  the  New  Testament 
Church  was  first  organized,  there  were,  if  we  may 
believe  the  best  writers,  several  hundred  synagogues. 


TESTIMONY    OF    SCRIPTURE.  77 

It  is  equally  certain  that  the  first  converts  to  Chris- 
tianity were  Jews;  that  they  came  into  the  Christian 
Church  with  all  the  feelings  and  habits  of  their  former 
connexions  and  mode  of  worship  strongly  prevalent; 
and  that  they  gave  the  apostles  much  trouble  by  their 
prejudices  in  favour  of  old  establishments,  and  against 
innovation.  It  was  probable,  therefore,  beforehand, 
that,  under  these  circumstances,  the  apostles,  who 
went  so  far  as  to  admit  circumcision,  in  particular 
cases,  for  the  sake  of  keeping  peace  with  some  of  the 
first  converts,  would  make  as  little  change,  in  con- 
verting synagogues  into  Christian  churches,  as  was 
consistent  with  the  spirituality  of  the  new  dispensa- 
tion. To  retain  the  ceremonial  worship  of  the  tem- 
ple, they  could  not  possibly  consent.  To  join  the 
priests  in  offering  up  sacrifices,  when  the  great  Sacri- 
fice had  been  already  offered  up  once  for  all;  to 
attend  on  the  typical  entrance  of  the  high  priest,  once 
a  year,  with  the  blood  of  the  sacrifice,  into  the  holy 
of  holies,  while  they  were,  at  the  same  time,  teaching 
that  all  these  things  were  done  away,  and  that  the 
great  High  Priest  of  our  profession  had  finally  entered 
into  the  holiest  of  all,  even  into  heaven  for  us;  would 
have  been  an  inconsistency  not  to  be  admitted.  But 
no  such  inconsistency  could  be  charged  against  a 
general  conformity  to  the  synagogue  model.  And, 
therefore,  as  might  have  been  expected,  we  find  that 
this  conformity  was  actually  adopted.  This  will  ap- 
pear abundantly  evident  to  every  impartial  inquirer, 
by  attending  to  the  following  considerations.* 

1.  The   words  synagogue  and   church   have  the 

*  Those  who  wish  to  see  the  evidence,  that  the  Christian  Church 
was  formed  after  the  model  of  the  Jewish  Synagogue,  presented  more 
strongly  and  fully  than  is  possible  in  this  manual,  will  do  well  to  con- 

7* 


78  TESTIMONY    OF    SCRIPTURE. 

same  signification.  They  both  signify  an  assembly 
or  congregation  of  people  convened  for  the  worship  of 
God;  and  they  both  signify,  at  the  same  time,  the 
place  in  which  the  assembly  is  convened.  This  com- 
munity of  signification,  indeed,  is  so  remarkable,  that 
in  the  Septuagint  translation  of  the  Old  Testament, 
the  Hebrew  word  for  expressing  an  assembly,  is 
thirty-seven  times  rendered  synagogue  (Sway^y*;)  and 
seventy  times  translated  church,  (Exxivjaia)  the  precise 
word  employed  in  the  New  Testament  to  express  a 
Christian  assembly.  In  fact,  in  one  instance,  a  Chris- 
tian congregation  is  by  an  inspired  writer  denomi- 
nated a  synagogue.  The  apostle  James  says — "  My 
brethren,  have  not  the  faith  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ, 
the  Lord  of  glory,  with  respect  of  persons.  For  if 
there  come  unto  your  assembly,  (in  the  original  your 
synagogue)  a  man  with  a  gold  ring,  &c."  I  am  aware 
that  this  coincidence  in  the  meaning  of  these  words 
is  not  absolutely  conclusive;  but  it  is  one  among  the 
numerous  concurring  facts  which  prove  that  our  Lord 
and  his  apostles  adopted  that  language  which  was 
familiar  to  the  Jews,  and  to  all  who  were  acquainted 
with  their  Scriptures;  and  especially  to  those  who 
frequented  the  Synagogue  service. 

2.  The  mode  of  worship  adopted  in  the  Christian 
Church  by  the  apostles,  was  substantially  the  same 
with  that  which  had  been  long  practised  in  the  syna- 
gogue. In  the  synagogue,  as  we  learn  from  Mai- 
monides  and  others,  divine  service  was  begun  by  the 
solemn  reading  of  a  portion  of  Scripture,  by  a  person 
appointed  for  that  service;  to  this  succeeded  an  ex- 
hortation or  sermon,  by  the  ruler  of  the  synagogue, 

suit  the  learned  and  able  work  of  Vitringa,  entitled  De  Synagoga 
Vetere,  which  presents  a  complete  and  conclusive  view  of  the  subject. 


TESTIMONY    OF    SCRIPTURE.  79 

or  bishop,  whose  office  will  be  hereafter  noticed. 
The  sermon  being  finished,  solemn  prayers  were 
offered  up,  by  the  same  ruler,  at  the  end  of  which  the 
people  said,  Amen.  Now,  if  we  examine  the  New 
Testament,  and  those  writings  of  the  primitive  fathers, 
whose  authenticity  has  never  been  questioned,  we 
shall  find,  not  only  a  striking  similarity,  but  almost  a 
perfect  coincidence,  in  the  mode  of  conducting  the 
worship  of  Christian  assemblies.  That  the  ministers 
of  the  Christian  Church,  in  like  manner,  made  a  prac- 
tice, in  their  religious  assemblies,  of  reading  the 
Scriptures,  delivering  discourses,  and  offering  up  so- 
lemn prayer,  at  the  close  of  which  the  people  gave 
their  assent,  by  saying,  Amen,  is  expressly  stated  in 
Scripture.  And  when  Justin  Martyr  gives  an  account 
of  the  Christian  worship,  in  his  day,  it  is  in  the  follow- 
ing terms* — "  Upon  the  day  called  Sunday,  all  the 
Christians,  whether  in  town  or  country,  assemble  in 
the  same  place,  wherein  the  commentaries  of  the  apos- 
tles and  the  writings  of  the  prophets  are  read  as 
long  as  the  time  will  permit.  Then  the  reader  sitting 
down,  the  President  of  the  Assembly  stands  up  and 
delivers  a  sermon,  instructing  and  exhorting  to  the 
imitation  of  that  which  is  comely.  After  this  is  ended, 
we  all  stand  up  to  prayers:  prayers  being  ended,  the 
bread,  wine,  and  water  are  all  brought  forth;  then 
the  President  again  praying  and  praising  according 
to  his  ability,!  the  people  testify  their  assent  by  say- 

*  This  passage  in  Justin  Martyr,  as  well  as  others  found  in  the 
early  writers,  shows  that  standing  was  the  constant  posture  then 
adopted  in  public  prayer.  Indeed  it  is  notorious  that  as  late  as  the 
Council  of  Nice,  in  A.  D.  325,  kneeling  in  public  prayer  was  ex- 
pressly forbidden,  except  on  days  of  fasting  and  humiliation. 

+  There  were,  evidently,  no  liturgies  in  the  days  of  Justin  Mar- 


80  TESTIMONY    OF    SCRIPTURE. 

ing,  JLmen."  Here  we  see  no  material  difference 
between  the  synagogue  and  Christian  worship,  ex- 
cepting the  introduction  of  the  Lord's  Supper  into  the 
latter. 

3.  The  titles  given  to  the  officers  of  the  synagogue 
were  transferred  to  the  officers  of  the  Christian 
Church.  In  every  synagogue,  as  those  who  are  most 
profoundly  learned  in  Jewish  Antiquities  tell  us,  there 
were  a  bishop,  a  bench  of  elders,  and  deacons.  The 
first  named  of  these  officers  was  called  indifferently, 
minister,  bishop,  pastor,  presbyter,  and  angel  of  the 
church.*  The  presbyters  or  elders  in  each  synagogue, 
according  to  some  writers,  were  three,  and  according 
to  others,  more  numerous.  And  the  bishop  was  called 
a  presbyter,  because  he  sat  with  the  presbyters  in 
council,  and  was  associated  with  them  in  authority. 
It  is  remarkable  that  all  these  titles  were  adopted  in 
the  organization  of  the  Christian  Church,  as  will 
appear  on  the  slightest  perusal  of  the  New  Testa., 
ment.  And  it  is  still  more  remarkable  that,  not  only 
the  same  variety,  but  also  precisely  the  same  inter- 
change of  titles,  in  the  case  of  the  principal  officer  of 
the  synagogue,  was  retained  by  the  apostles  in  speak- 
ing of  the  pastors  of  Christian  congregations. 

4.  Not  only  the  titles  of  officers,  but  also  their  cha- 
racters, duties,  and  powers,  in  substance,  were  trans- 
ferred from  the  synagogue  to  the  Christian  Church. 
The  bishop  or  pastor  who  presided  in  each  synagogue, 

tyr.  The  officiating  minister  offered  up  prayers  "  according  to  his 
ability." 

*  Maimonides,  the  celebrated  Jewish  Rabbi,  who  lived  in  the  12th 
century,  in  his  learned  work,  De  Sanhed.  cap.  4,  describes  the 
bishop  of  the  synagogue,  as  "the  presbyter  who  laboured  in  the 
word  and  doctrine." 


TESTIMONY    OF    SCRIPTURE.  81 

directed  the  reading  of  the  law;  expounded  it  when 
read;  offered  up  public  prayers;  and,  in  short,  took 
the  lead  in  conducting  the  public  service  of  the  syna- 
gogue. This  description  applies  with  remarkable  ex- 
actness to  the  duties  and  powers  of  the  Christian 
bishop.  The  bench  of  elders  in  the  synagogue  had 
entrusted  to  them  the  general  powers  of  government 
and  discipline:  and,  in  like  manner,  the  elders  or  pres- 
byters in  the  Christian  Church  are  directed  to  rule 
the  flock,  and  formal  directions  are  given  them,  for 
maintaining  the  purity  of  faith  and  practice.  The 
bench  of  elders,  in  the  synagogue,  was  made  up  of 
both  clergy  and  laity,  i.  e.  of  those  who  were  autho- 
rized to  teach  and  rule,  and  of  those  who  only  ruled. 
And  accordingly,  in  the  Christian  Church  we  read  of 
elders  who  labour  in  the  word  and  doctrine,  as  well 
as  rule ;  and  of  other  elders  who  rule  only.  In  the  syna- 
gogue the  office  of  the  deacons  was  to  collect  and  dis- 
tribute alms  to  the  poor,  and,  when  called  upon,  to 
assist  the  bishop,  in  conducting  the  public  service.  In 
conformity  with  which,  the  deacons  of  the  Christian 
Church  are  represented,  in  the  sixth  chapter  of  the 
Acts  of  the  Apostles,  as  appointed  for  the  purpose  of 
ministering  to  the  poor,  and  serving  tables. 

5.  Finally,  the  mode  of  ordaining  officers  in  the 
synagogue  was  transferred  to  the  Christian  Church. 
In  the  introduction  of  men  to  the  ceremonial  priest- 
hood of  the  Jews,  or  into  the  offices  pertaining  to  the 
temple  service,  there  was  no  such  thing,  strictly  speak- 
ing, as  ordination.  Both  the  priests  and  Levites  came 
to  their  respective  offices  by  inheritance,  and  were  in- 
ducted or  installed,  simply  by  being  brought  before 
the  Sanhedrim,  and  receiving  the  approbation  of  that 
body.     But,  in  the  synagogue   service,  the  officers 


82  TESTIMONY    OF    SCRIPTURE. 

were  solemnly  elected,  and  ordained  by  the  imposi- 
tion of  hands.  Every  presbyter,  who  had  himself 
been  regularly  ordained,  was  authorized  to  act  in  the 
ordination  of  other  presbyters:  and  to  make  a  valid 
ordination  in  the  synagogue,  it  was  necessary  that 
three  ordainers  should  be  present,  and  take  part  in 
the  transaction.  In  like  manner,  we  learn  from  the 
New  Testament,  that  in  apostolic  times,  as  well  as 
ever  since,  the  ministers  of  the  Christian  Church  were 
ordained  by  the  imposition  of  hands;  that  presbyters, 
as  well  as  the  apostles  themselves,  were  empowered 
to  ordain;  and  that  in  the  first  ordination  of  ministers 
of  the  gospel  recorded  by  the  inspired  writers,  there 
were  always  a  plurality  of  ordainers  present,  and  en- 
gaged in  the  solemnity. 

Thus  I  have  given  a  very  brief  sketch  of  the  evi- 
dence that  Christian  churches  were  organized  by  the 
apostles,  after  the  model  of  the  Jewish  synagogues. 
I  have  shown  that  the  mode  of  worship  adopted  in 
the  Church,  the  titles  of  her  officers,  their  powers, 
duties,  and  mode  of  ordination,  were  all  copied  from 
the  synagogue.  This  evidence  might  be  pursued  much 
further,  did  the  limits  which  I  have  prescribed  to  my- 
self admit  of  details.  It  might  easily  be  shown,  that 
in  all  those  respects  in  which  the  service  of  the  syna- 
gogue differed  from  that  of  the  temple,  the  Christian 
Church  followed  the  former.  The  temple  service  was 
confined  to  Jerusalem;  the  synagogue  worship  might 
exist,  and  did  exist  wherever  there  was  a  sufficient 
number  of  Jews  to  form  a  congregation.  The  temple 
service  was  restricted  with  regard  to  the  vestments 
of  its  officers;  while  in  the  synagogue  there  was  little 
or  no  regulation  on  this  subject.  And,  finally,  it  is 
remarkable  that  the  mode  in  which  the  bishop  and 


TESTIMONY    OF    SCRIPTURE.  83 

elders  of  each  synagogue  were  seated  during  the 
public  service,  was  exactly  copied  into  the  Christian 
assemblies.  With  regard  to  these  and  many  other 
particulars  which  might  be  mentioned,  the  Christian 
churches  in  primitive  times,  it  is  well  known,  departed 
from  the  ceremonial  splendour  of  the  temple,  and  fol- 
lowed the  simplicity  of  the  synagogue.  In  fact,  there 
is  ample  proof,  that  the  similarity  between  the  primi- 
tive Christian  churches  and  the  Jewish  synagogues 
was  so  great,  that  the  former  were  often  considered 
and  represented  by  the  persecuting  pagans  as  "  syna- 
gogues in  disguise." 

The  foregoing  representation  that  the  apostolic 
Church  was  organized,  not  after  the  model  of  the 
temple,  but  of  the  synagogue,  is  not  either  an  inven- 
tion or  a  peculiarity  of  Presbyterians.  It  has  been 
maintained,  in  common  with  them,  by  some  of  the 
most  learned  and  able  writers  of  which  the  Episcopal 
church  can  boast.  The  following  is  a  small  specimen 
out  of  many  who  might  be  cited  to  establish  this 
fact. 

The  first  quotation  shall  be  taken  from  Bishop  Bur- 
net. "Among  the  Jews,  (says  he,)  he  who  was  the  chief 
of  the  synagogue,  was  called  Chazan  Hakeneseth,  i. 
e.  the  bishop  of  the  congregation,  and  Sheliach  Tsib- 
bor,  the  angel  of  the  church.  And  the  Christian 
Church  being  modelled  as  near  the  form  of  the  syna- 
gogue as  they  could  be;  as  they  retained  many  of  the 
rites,  so  the  form  of  the  government  was  continued, 
and  the  names  remained  the  same."  And  again, 
"In  the  synagogues  there  was,  first,  one  who  was 
called  the  bishop  of  the  congregation;  next,  the  three 
orderers  and  judges  of  every  thing  about  the  syna- 
gogue, who  were  called  Tsekenim,  and  by  the  Greeks 


84  TESTIMONY    OF    SCRIPTURE. 

7i£t66ve f£<u,  or  yt^ov-tt s,  that  is,  elders.  These  ordered 
and  determined  every  thing  that  concerned  the  syna- 
gogue, or  the  persons  in  it.  Next  to  them  were  the 
three  Parnassin,  or  deacons,  whose  charge  was  to 
gather  the  collections  of  the  rich,  and  distribute  them 
to  the  poor."* 

The  next  quotation  shall  be  taken  from  Dr.  Light- 
foot,  another  Episcopal  divine,  still  more  distinguished 
for  his  oriental  and  rabbinical  learning.  "  The  apos- 
tle," says  he,  "  calleth  the  minister,  Episcopus,  (or 
bishop,)  from  the  common  and  known  title  of  the  Cha- 
zan  or  overseer  in  the  synagogue."  And  again, 
"  Besides  these,  there  was  the  public  minister  of  the 
synagogue,  who  prayed  publicly  and  took  care  about 
reading  the  law,  and  sometimes  preached,  if  there 
were  not  some  other  to  discharge  this  office.  This 
person  was  called  w«  niVr,  the  angel  of  the  church,  and 
nwsn  i?n  the  Chazan,  or  bishop  of  the  congregation.  The 
Aruch  gives  the  reason  of  the  name.  The  Chazan,  says 
he,  is  t^x  rvb&  the  angel  of  the  church,  (or  the  public  mi- 
nister,) and  the  Targum  renders  the  word  nan  by  the 
word  htiHj  one  that  oversees.  For  it  is  incumbent  on 
him  to  oversee  how  the  reader  reads,and  whom  he  may 
call  out  to  read  in  the  law.  The  public  minister  of  the 
synagogue  himself  read  not  the  law  publicly;  but  every 
sabbath  he  called  out  seven  of  the  synagogue,  (on 
other  days  fewer)  whom  he  judged  fit  to  read.  He  stood 
by  him  that  read,  with  great  care,  observing  that  he 
read  nothing  either  falsely  or  improperly,  and  called 
him  back,  and  corrected  him,  if  he  had  failed  in  any 
thing.  And  hence  he  was  called  Chazan,  that  is 
E*c<jxortos,  bishop,  or  overseer.     Certainly  the  signifi- 

*  Observations  on  the  1  Can.  p.  2  and  11.  Can.  p.  83. 


TESTIMONY    OF    SCRIPTURE.  85 

cation  of  the  words  bishop  and  angel  of  the  church, 
had  been  determined  with  less  noise,  if  recourse  had 
been  had  to  the  proper  fountains,  and  men  had  not 
vainly  disputed  about  the  signification  of  words  taken 
I  know  not  whence.  The  service  and  worship  of  the 
temple  being  abolished,  as  being  ceremonial,  God 
transplanted  the  worship  and  public  adoration  of  God 
used  in  the  synagogues,  which  was  moral,  into  the 
Christian  Church;  viz.  the  public  ministry,  public 
prayers,  reading  God's  Word,  and  preaching,  &c. 
Hence  the  names  of  the  ministers  of  the  gospel  were 
the  very  same,  the  angel  of  the  church,  and  the  bishop, 
which  belonged  to  the  ministers  in  the  synagogues. 
<  There  was  in  every  synagogue,  a  bench  of  three. 
This  bench  consisted  of  three  elders,  rightly  and  by 
imposition  of  hands  preferred  to  the  eldership.'  '  There 
were  also  three  deacons,  or  almoners,  on  whom  was 
the  care  of  the  poor.'  "* 

In  another  place,  the  same  learned  orientalist  says, 
describing  the  worship  in  the  Jewish  synagogue,  "  In 
the  body  of  the  church  the  congregation  met,  and 
prayed,  and  heard  the  law,  and  the  manner  of  their 
sitting  was  this — the  elders  sat  near  the  chancel,  with 
their  faces  down  the  church:  and  the  people  sat  one 
form  behind  another,  with  their  faces  up  the  church, 
toward  the  chancel  and  the  elders.  Of  these  elders 
there  were  some  that  had  rule  and  office  in  the  syna- 
gogue, and  some  that  had  not.  And  this  distinction 
the  apostle  seemeth  to  allude  unto,  in  that  much  dis- 
puted text,  1  Tim.  v.  17.  The  elders  that  rule  well, 
&c.  where  *  the  elders  that  ruled  well,'  are  set  not  only 
in  opposition  to  those  that  ruled  ill,  but  to  those  that 
ruled  not  at  all.     We  may,  see  then,  whence  these 

*  Lightfoot's  Works,  vol.  i.  p.  308 ;  vol.  ii.  p.  133. 755. 
8 


86  TESTIMONY    OF    SCRIPTURE. 

titles  and  epithets  in  the  New  Testament  are  taken, 
namely,  from  the  common  platform  and  constitution 
of  the  synagogues,  where  Angelus  Ecclesioe,  and 
Episcopus  were  terms  of  so  ordinary  use  and  know- 
ledge. And  we  may  observe  from  whence  the  apos- 
tle taketh  his  expressions,  when  he  speaketh  of  some 
elders  ruling,  and  labouring  in  word  and  doctrine,  and 
some  not;  namely,  from  the  same  platform  and  con- 
stitution of  the  synagogue,  where  *  the  ruler  of  the 
synagogue'  was  more  singularly  for  ruling  the  affairs 
of  the  synagogue,  and  '  the  minister  of  the  congrega- 
tion,' labouring  in  the  word,  and  reading  the  law,  and 
in  doctrine  about  the  preaching  of  it.  Both  these  to- 
gether are  sometimes  called  jointly,  <  the  rulers  of  the 
synagogue;'  Acts  xiii.  15;  Mark  v.  22,  being  both 
elders  that  ruled;  but  the  title  is  more  singularly  given 
to  the  first  of  them."* 

Again,  he  says,  "  In  all  the  Jews'  synagogues  there 
were  Parnasin,  deacons,  or  such  as  had  care  of  the 
poor,  whose  work  it  was  to  gather  alms  for  them  from 
the  congregation,  and  to  distribute  it  to  them.  That 
needful  office  is  here  (Acts  vi.)  translated  into  the 
Christian  Church. t 

The  same  doctrine  concerning  the  synagogue  is 
largely  asserted  and  proved  by  Bishop  Stillingfleet, 
in  his  Irenicum,  part  ii.  chap.  6.  To  do  justice  to  the 
learning  and  strength  of  his  demonstration  would  re- 
quire larger  extracts,  and  more  space  than  can  be 
afforded  in  such  a  manual.  A  single  citation  shall 
suffice. 

u,  It  is  a  common  mistake  to  think  that  the  ministers 
of  the  gospel  succeed  by  way  of  correspondence  and 
analogy  to  the  priests  under  the  law;  which  mistake 

*  Lightfoot's  Works,  vol.  i.  611,  612.  t  Ibid.  i.  279. 


TESTIMONY    OF    SCRIPTURE.  87 

hath  been  the  foundation  and  original  of  many  errors. 
For  when,  in  the  primitive  Church,  the  name  of  priests 
came  to  be  attributed  to  gospel  ministers,  from  a  fair 
compliance  (as  was  then  thought)  of  the  Christians 
only  to  the  name  used  both  among  Jews  and  gentiles; 
in  process  of  time,  corruptions  increasing  in  the  Church, 
those  names  that  were  used  by  the  Christians  by  way 
of  analogy  and  accommodation,  brought  in  the  things 
themselves  primarily  intended  by  those  names;  so  by 
the  metaphorical  names  of  priests  and  altars,  at  last 
came  up  the  sacrifice  of  the  mass,  without  which  they 
thought  the  name  of  priest  and  altar  insignificant. 
This  mistake  we  see  run  all  along  through  the  writers 
of  the  Church,  as  soon  as  the  name  priests  was  applied 
to  the  elders  of  the  Church,  that  they  derived  their 
succession  from  the  priest's  of  Aaron's  order.  That 
which  we  lay,  then,  as  a  foundation,  whereby  to  clear 
what  apostolical  practice  was,  is,  that  the  apostles  in 
forming  churches  did  observe  the  customs  of  the  Jew- 
ish synagogue.  About  the  time  of  Christ  we  find 
synagogues  in  very  great  request  among  the  Jews. 
God  so  disposing  it  that  the  moral  part  of  his  service 
should  be  more  frequented  now  that  the  ceremonial 
was  expiring;  and  by  those  places  so  erected,  it  might 
be  more  facile  and  easy  for  the  apostles  to  disperse 
the  gospel,  by  preaching  it  in  those  place  to  which  it 
was  the  custom  of  the  people  to  resort.  I  shall,  there- 
fore, endeavour  particularly  to  show  how  the  apostles 
did  observe  the  model  of  the  synagogue  in  the  public 
service  of  the  church;  in  the  community  of  names  and 
customs;  in  the  ordination  of  church  officers;  in  form- 
ing presbyteries  in  the  several  churches,  and  in  ruling 
and  governing  those  presbyteries;  and  even  inform- 
ing Christian  churches  out  of  Jewish  synagogues." 


88  TESTIMONY    OF    SCRIPTURE. 

The  celebrated  Grotius,  whose  great  learning  and 
talents  will  be  considered  by  all  as  giving  much  weight 
to  his  opinion  on  any  subject,  is  full  and  decided  in 
maintaining  that  the  primitive  Church  was  formed  after 
the  model  of  the  synagogue.  Many  passages  might 
be  quoted  from  his  writings,  in  which  this  opinion  is 
directly  asserted.  The  following  may  suffice.  In  his 
Commentary  on  Acts  xi.  30,  he  expresses  himself  thus : 
"  The  whole  polity  (regimen)  of  the  Christian  Church 
was  conformed  to  the  pattern  of  the  synagogue. "  And 
in  his  Commentary  on  1  Tim.  v.  17,  he  has  the  fol- 
lowing passage.  "  Formerly,  in  large  cities,  as  there 
were  many  synagogues,  so  there  were  also  many 
churches,  or  separate  meetings  of  Christians.  And 
every  particular  church  had  its  own  president,  or 
bishop,  who  instructed  the  people,  and  ordained  pres- 
byters. In  Alexandria  alone  it  was  the  custom  to  have 
one  president  or  bishop  for  the  whole  city,  who  dis- 
tributed presbyters  through  the  city,  for  the  purpose  of 
instructing  the  people;  as  we  are  taught  by  Sozomen 
i.  14." 

Out  of  many  more  modern  writers  who  concur  in 
the  same  testimony,  I  shall  content  myself  with  pro- 
ducing three,  whose  opinion  on  such  a  point  no  ade- 
quate judge  will  disregard. 

The  first  is  the  celebrated  Dr.  Augustus  Neander, 
Professor  in  the  University  of  Berlin,  and  generally 
considered  as,  perhaps,  more  profoundly  skilled  in  Ec- 
clesiastical History,  than  any  other  man  now  living. 
He  is,  moreover,  connected  with  the  Lutheran  Church, 
and,  of  course,  has  no  sectarian  spirit  to  gratify  in 
vindicating  Presbyterianism.  After  showing  at  some 
length  that  the  government  of  the  primitive  Church 
was  not  monarchical  or  lordly,  but  dictated  through- 


TESTIMONY    OF    SCRIPTURE.  89 

out  by  a  spirit  of  mutual  love,  counsel,  and  prayer, 
he  goes  on  to  express  himself  thus — "  We  may  sup- 
pose that  where  any  thing  could  be  found  in  the  way 
of  church  forms,  which  was  consistent  with  this  spirit, 
it  would  be  willingly  appropriated  by  the  Christian 
community.  Now  there  happened  to  be  in  the  Jew- 
ish synagogue  a  system  of  government  of  this  nature, 
not  monarchical,  but  rather  aristocratical,  (or  a 
government  of  the  most  venerable  and  excellent.) 
A  council  of  elders,  o^pj  7te.sofivete.ot,  who  conducted 
all  the  affairs  of  that  body.  It  seemed  most  natural 
that  Christianity,  developing  itself  from  the  Jewish 
religion,  should  take  this  form  of  goverment.  This 
form  must  also  have  appeared  natural  and  appropri- 
ate to  the  Roman  citizens,  since  their  nation  had,  from 
the  earliest  times,  been,  to  some  extent,  under  the  con- 
trol of  a  senate,  composed  of  seniors  or  elders.  When 
the  church  was  placed  under  a  council  of  elders,  they 
did  not  always  happen  to  be  the  oldest  in  reference  to 
years ;  but  age  here,  as  in  the  Latin  Senatus,  and  the 
Greek  y^oveia  was  expressive  of  worth  or  merit.  Be- 
sides the  common  name  of  these  overseers  of  the 
church,  to  wit,  n^afivtB^oi,  there  were  many  other 
names  given,  according  to  the  peculiar  situation  occu- 
pied by  the  individual,  or  rather  his  peculiar  field 
of  labour;  as  aro^evEs,  shepherds,  riyovpsvoi,  leaders, 
7te.os<f*utes  to>v  a<j£%<puv,  rulers  of  the  brethren,  and 
sTtiaxorioc,  overseers."* 

Of  the  same  purport,  is  the  judgment  of  the  cele- 
brated German  Commentator,  Professor  Kunoel,  of 
Leipsic,  as  exhibited  in  his  Commentary  on  the  20th 
chapter,  and  28th  verse  of  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles. 
After  showing  conclusively  that  the  very  same  per- 

*  Kirchengeschichte,  p.  283—285. 
8* 


90  TESTIMONY    OF    SCRIPTURE. 

sons,  who  in  the  New  Testament  are  called  bishops, 
and  shepherds,  are  also  called  presbyters,  which  he 
says,  "  some  have  rashly  denied,  dreaming  of  a  differ- 
ence between  bishops  and  presbyters  in  the  primitive 
Church;"  he  goes  on  to  say,  that  the  Christians  in  the 
time  of  the  apostles,  established  in  the  Church  a  form 
of  government  and  discipline  similar  to  what  prevailed 
in  the  Jewish  synagogue.  It  was  the  duty,  he  says, 
of  the  rulers  of  the  synagogue  to  preserve  discipline, 
superintend  the  external  concerns  of  the  respective 
societies  over  which  they  were  placed,  and  also  to 
teach  and  explain  the  law.  In  the  same  manner  it 
was  the  duty  of  the  bishops  or  presbyters  to  superin- 
tend the  government  of  the  church,  and  to  teach  the 
doctrines  of  the  Christian  religion.  They  were  both 
governors  and  teachers.  The  rulers  of  the  synagogues 
were  confined  to  particular  societies,  and  so  were  the 
first  bishops  or  presbyters.  No  one  had  any  control, 
except  in  the  single  society  over  which  he  had  been 
appointed. 

Rosenmiiller,  a  far  famed  critic  and  commentator, 
also  of  Germany,  delivers  with  great  confidence,  a 
similar  opinion,  with  respect  to  the  conformity  of  the 
order  of  the  primitive  Church  to  the  model  of  the  syna- 
gogue. And  asserts,  with  equal  confidence,  that  pres- 
byters and  bishops,  in  the  time  of  the  apostles,  were 
the  same ;  but  that  afterwards,  bestowing  the  title  of 
bishop  upon  one,  by  way  of  eminence,  was  brought 
in  by  the  custom  of  the  Church* 

Some  of  the  advocates  of  Episcopacy  find  no  other 
means  of  evading  the  force  of  the  argument  drawn 
from  the  fact  of  the  Christian  Church  being  formed  on 

*  D.  J.  RosenmUlleri  Scholia  N.  T.  in  Acta  Apostol.  vi.  3 ;  xi.  30; 
xiii.  1 ;  xx.  17.  28.    In  Epist.  1  Tim.  v.  17. 


TESTIMONY    OF    SCRIPTURE.  91 

the  model  of  the  Jewish  synagogue,  than  by  alleging 
that  the  synagogue  was  a  mere  human  institution, 
and  that  it  is,  therefore,  utterly  incredible  that  it 
should  be  made  the  pattern  of  any  Divine  institution. 
This  objection  is  entirely  futile.  It  is  a  matter  of  per- 
fect indifference  to  us  how  or  whence  the  synagogue 
system  originated.  All  that  the  argument  assumes  is, 
that  such  a  system  existed  when  our  Saviour  came 
in  the  flesh,  and  had  existed  for  several  centuries; 
that  synagogues  were  the  regular  parish  churches  of 
the  Jews,  the  places  of  their  stated  sabbatical  wor- 
ship; that  the  mass  of  the  Jewish  people  had  been 
long  accustomed  and  were  greatly  attached  to  that 
worship;  that  its  whole  character  was  not  ceremonial, 
but  moral,  and  adapted  to  all  nations  and  ages;  that 
the  Saviour  and  his  apostles  were  accustomed  to  sanc- 
tion the  synagogue  service  with  their  presence;  that 
all  the  first  converts  to  Christianity  were  Jews,  who 
had  been  long  habituated  to  the  synagogue  worship ; 
and  that,  as  a  matter  of  fact,  almost  every  feature, 
custom,  and  title  which  had  distinguished  the  syna- 
gogue were  actually  found  in  the  church.  These  are 
not  only  facts,  but  they  are  self-evident  facts,  which 
no  one  who  knows  what  the  synagogue  system  was, 
and  who  has  the  New  Testament  in  his  hand,  can  for 
a  moment  call  in  question.  This  is  sufficient  for  our 
purpose. 

Unless  I  deceive  myself,  I  have  now  established 
the  five  positions  which  were  stated  at  the  beginning 
of  this  chapter,  viz.  That  there  is  no  foundation  what- 
ever in  Scripture  for  the  "  order  of  deacons/'  as  minis- 
ters of  the  gospel: — That  the  Scriptures  contain  but 
one  commission  for  the  gospel  ministry,  and  that 
there  is  no  evidence  of  the  powers  conveyed  by  this 


92  TESTIMONY    OF    SCRIPTURE. 

commission  being  afterwards  divided  betwen  dif- 
ferent orders: — That  the  words  bishop  and  pres- 
byter are  uniformly  used  in  the  New  Testament  as 
convertible  titles  for  the  same  office: — That  the  same 
character  and  powers  are,  also,  in  the  sacred  writings, 
ascribed  interchangeably  to  bishops  and  presbyters, 
thus  plainly  establishing  their  identity  of  order  as  well 
as  of  name: — And  that  the  Christian  Church  was  or- 
ganized by  the  apostles,  after  the  model  of  the  Jew- 
ish synagogue,  which  was  undeniably  Presbyterian  in 
its  form. 

These  positions  thus  established,  decide  the  contro- 
versy. Such  a  concurrence  of  language  and  of facts 
in  support  of  the  doctrine  of  ministerial  parity,  is  at 
once  remarkable  and  conclusive.  I  mean  conclusive 
as  to  the  fact,  that  this  was  the  system  adopted  in  the 
apostles'  days.  This,  undoubtedly,  was  the  "truly 
primitive  and  apostolic  form."  And  the  more  closely 
we  adhere  to  this  form,  the  more  we  testify  our  re- 
spect for  that  system  which  was  framed  by  inspired 
men;  sanctioned  by  miraculous  powers;  and  made 
pre-eminently  instrumental  in  the  midst  of  a  frown- 
ing and  hostile  world  in  building  up  the  Church  in 
holiness,  through  faith  unto  salvation. 


TESTIMONY    OF    SCRIPTURE.  93 


CHAPTER  III. 

TESTIMONY    OF    SCRIPTURE    CONTINUED. 

We  have  seen  what  the  Scriptures  declare  in  support 
of  our  doctrine  concerning  the  Christian  ministry.  On 
this  testimony  the  cause  might  safely  be  rested.  But 
as  it  is  my  wish  to  do  ample  justice  to  every  part  of 
the  argument,  I  would  not  overlook  or  suppress  a  sin- 
gle plea  urged  by  the  friends  of  Episcopacy.  I  shall, 
therefore,  now  proceed  to  examine  the  principal  argu- 
ments in  favour  of  their  system,  which  they  suppose 
and  allege  are  to  be  found  in  the  Word  of  God. 

In  examining  these  arguments,  I  must  again  request 
the  reader  to  keep  steadily  in  view  the  doctrine  for 
which  our  Episcopal  brethren  contend,  and  the  nature 
of  that  proof  which  it  is  incumbent  on  them  to  pro- 
duce. They  appeal  to  Scripture  to  prove  that  bishops 
are  an  order  of  clergy  superior  to  presbyters,  that  is, 
superior  to  those  who  are  authorized  to  preach  and 
administer  the  sacraments  of  the  Church;  that  their 
superiority  rests  on  the  appointment  of  Christ;  that 
with  this  superior  order  alone  are  deposited  all  the 
power  to  ordain,to  confirm,  and  to  consecrate  churches 
and  chapels,  and,  in  short,  all  the  treasures  of  author- 
ity and  succession;  and  that  no  ministry  is  regular  or 
valid  excepting  that  which  is  constituted  by  this  order. 
Now,  to  support  such  a  claim,  we  are  surely  warranted 
in  demanding  scriptural  testimony  of  a  very  direct  and 
explicit  kind.     We  require  those  who  make  the  claim 


94  TESTIMONY    OF    SCRIPTURE. 

to  produce  passages  of  Scripture  which  contain  direct 
precept,  or  plain  undoubted  example,  or  at  least  some 
established  principle,  from  which  their  conclusion  ne- 
cessarily flows.  On  a  subject  so  fundamental  as  they 
represent  this  to  be,  we  cannot  be  content  with  gra- 
tuitous assumptions,  or  ingenious  analogies,  which 
have  nothing  to  support  them  but  a  fertile  imagina- 
tion or  human  authority.  We  must  have  no  remote 
hint;  no  circuitous  inference;  but  express  warrant;  a 
warrant  decisive  and  clear ;  a  warrant  which  would 
be  indubitable  and  satisfactory,  if  all  books  excepting 
the  Bible  were  banished  from  the  Church.  Let  us 
see  whether  our  claimants  are  prepared  with  testi- 
mony of  this  kind. 

I;  The  first  argument  urged  by  the  friends  of  pre- 
lacy is,  "  That,  as  the  Mosaic  economy  was  intended 
to  prefigure  the  gospel  dispensation,  we  may  reason- 
ably suppose  the  Christian  ministry  to  be  modelled 
after  the  Jewish  priesthood;  and  that,  as  there  were 
in  the  temple  service,  an  high  priest,  priests,  and  Le- 
vites,  so  we  may  consider  it  as  agreeable  to  the  will 
of  Christ,  that  there  should  be  the  corresponding 
three-fold  orders  of  bishops,  priests,  and  deacons,  in 
the  New  Testament  Church." 

After  the  ample  proof  adduced  in  the  foregoing 
chapter,  that  the  Christian  Church  was  organized  by 
the  apostles,  not  after  the  model  of  the  temple,  but  of 
the  synagogue  service,  I  might  with  propriety  dismiss 
this  argument,  as  sufficiently  refuted  by  the  establish- 
ment of  that  fact.  But  as  much  stress  has  been  laid 
upon  the  argument  imquestion,  and  as  some  cautious 
inquirers  may  wish  to  see  it  further  discussed,  let  us 
proceed  to  a  more  particular  examination  of  its 
merits. 


TESTIMONY   OF    SCRIPTURE.  95 

You  will  observe  the  form  of  this  argument.  It 
may  "  reasonably  be  supposed"  that  such  a  corres- 
pondence of  orders  should  exist.  But  why  "  suppose" 
it  ?  Does  the  Word  of  God,  the  great  charter  of  the 
Christian  Church,  say  that  this  is  the  case?  Is  there 
a  single  passage  to  be  found  in  the  sacred  volume, 
which  asserts,  or  gives  the  least  hint,  that  such  a  like- 
ness or  analogy  either  does,  or  ought  to  exist?  I  will 
venture  to  say,  there  is  not.  I  have  met,  indeed,  with 
much  animated  declamation  in  favour  of  this  analogy, 
urging  it  as  a  "  supposable"  thing — as  a  "  reasona- 
ble" thing,  &c.  &c.  but  I  have  never  yet  heard  of  a 
single  passage  of  Scripture,  which  is  even  pretended 
to  teach  the  doctrine  in  question.  For  the  general 
position,  that  many  of  the  Old  Testament  institutions 
had  a  reference  to,  and  were  intended  to  prefigure 
New  Testament  blessings,  it  will  be  instantly  seen  by 
every  discerning  reader  is  nothing  to  the  purpose. 

But  this  is  not  all.  There  is  not  only  nothing  to  be 
found  in  Scripture  which  bears  the  least  appearance 
of  support  to  this  argument;  but  there  is  much  to  be 
found  which  contradicts  and  destroys  it.  It  is  impos- 
sible to  read  the  New  Testament  without  perceiving, 
that  the  Jewish  priesthood  was  a  typical  and  tempo- 
rary institution,  which  had  both  its  accomplishment 
and  its  termination  in  Christ.  This  is  taught  in  pas- 
sages too  numerous  to  be  quoted;* but,  more  particu- 
larly, at  great  length,  and  with  irresistible  force  of  ar- 
gument, in  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews,*  in  which  the 
sacred  writer  declares,  that  since  Christ  the  substance 
is  come,  the  types  which  prefigured  him  are  done 
away;  that  the  Levitical  priesthood  was  chiefly  em- 
ployed in  offering  sacrifices,  and  attending  on  other 

*  See  especially  the  vii.  viii.  ix.  and  x.  chapters. 


96  TESTIMONY    OF    SCRIPTURE. 

ceremonial  observances  of  the  typical  economy,  for 
which  there  is  no  place,  since  the  great  Sacrifice  was 
offered  up  once  for  all;  and  that  Christ  Jesus  himself 
is  now  the  great  high  priest  of  our  profession.  Is  it 
not  above  measure  wonderful,  that  any  who  have  the 
Bible  in  their  hands,  and  profess  to  make  it  the  rule  of 
their  faith,  should,  in  the  face  of  language  so  explicit 
and  decisive,  represent  any  human  officer  in  the  Chris- 
tian Church  as  standing  in  the  place  of  the  high  priest 
under  the  ceremonial  dispensation? 

But  it  will  be  asked,  Do  we  deny  all  connection  be- 
tween the  Old  and  the  New  Testament  dispensations? 
Do  we  deny  that  the  types  and  ceremonies  of  the  Mo- 
saic economy,  were  a  shadow  of  good  things  to  come  ? 
By  no  means.  We  warmly  contend  for  this  connection. 
We  maintain,  with  no  less  zeal  than  our  opponents, 
that  the  whole  system  of  typical  and  figurative  obser- 
vances enjoined  upon  the  Jews,  was  full  of  important 
meaning,  and  had  a  pointed  reference  to  gospel  bless- 
ings. We  agree,  also,  that  the  Jewish  priesthood  was 
typical;  but  of  what? — of  a  mere  human  priesthood, 
to  be  established  under  the  New  Testament  dispensa- 
tion? So  far  from  this,  that  the  apostle  in  writing  to 
the  Hebrews,  says  directly  the  contrary.  He  tells  us, 
that,  as  the  sacrifices  offered  by  the  priests  under  the 
law,  prefigured  the  death  of  Christ,  and  could  not  with 
propriety  be  continued  after  that  event  had  taken 
place;  so  the  Levitical  priesthood  was  a  type  of  that 
Divine  High  Priest,  who  once  offered  himself  a  sacri- 
fice to  satisfy  offended  justice,  and  entered,  by  his  own 
blood,  into  the  holiest  of  all,  even  into  heaven.  If 
any  insist  that,  because  the  ministrations  under  the 
law  were  a  shadow  of  heavenly  things,  we  must  have 
a  priesthood  under  the  gospel  of  similar  grades  and 


TESTIMONY    OF    SCRIPTURE.  97 

organization;  they  are  bound,  on  the  same  principle, 
to  carry  the  parallel  through,  and  to  maintain  the  con- 
tinuance of  sacrifices,  and  of  many  other  things  con- 
nected with  the  priestly  office;  and  I  may  venture  to 
affirm,  that  they  will  find  it  quite  as  easy  to  make 
the  Scriptures  speak  in  favour  of  the  latter  as  of  the 
former. 

Accordingly  the  words  priest  and  priesthood  are 
never,  in  one  instance,  in  the  New  Testament,  ap- 
plied to  the  ministers  of  the  Christian  Church,  as 
such.*  Epicopalians  appear  to  be  particularly  fond 
of  this  language.  It  is  frequently  introduced  into 
their  public  forms,  and  no  less  frequently  used  by 
their  standard  writers.  But  they  employ  it  without 
the  smallest  countenance  from  Scripture.  This  is  the 
decided  opinion  of  eminent  Episcopal  divines.  We 
have  seen  in  the  preceding  chapter,  that  Dr.  (after- 
wards bishop)  Stillingfleet  reprobates  this  whole  lan- 
guage as  unscriptural,  and  adapted  to  nourish  radical 

*  I  am  not  ignorant  that  some  advocates  for  this  language  have 
contended,  that  as  the  word  priest  is  evidently  a  corruption  of  the 
word  presbyter ;  and  as  the  latter  (or  elder,)  is  certainly  applied  to 
New  Testament  ministers,  the  former  may  be  considered  as  having 
a  kind  of  scriptural  warrant.  But  this  conclusion  is  founded  on  a 
quibble.  In  the  original  Hebrew  of  the  Old  Testament  Scriptures, 
the  sacred  office  of  one  who  ministered  in  the  temple  service,  is  ex- 
pressed by  a  word  which,  in  the  Septuagint,  is  always  rendered 
'Ispfuj.  This  was  the  Old  Testament  word  for  a  Levitical  priest. 
Now  this  word  is  never  once  used  in  the  New  Testament  to  desig- 
nate a  minister  of  the  Christian  Church.  And  accordingly,  the  trans- 
lators of  our  English  Bible,  faithful  to  the  distinction  which  they  ob- 
served to  be  uniformly  kept  up  in  the  sacred  language,  between  the 
ministers  of  the  temple  and  those  of  the  Church,  uniformly  call  the 
former  priests,  and  their  office  the  priesthood ;  while  they  a3  uni- 
formly avoid  applying  these  names  to  the  latter,  but  call  them,  elders, 
bishops,  pastors,  &c. 

9 


98  TESTIMONY    OF    SCRIPTURE. 

error.  It  is  also  well  known  that  Archbishop  Cran- 
mer,  Bishop  Ridley,  and  several  other  eminently  pious 
reformers  of  the  Church  of  England,  made  zealous 
opposition  to  the  use  of  the  word  altar,  and  the  whole 
system  of  phraseology  connected  with  it,  as  a  Popish 
affectation  of  conformity  to  the  temple  service  of  the 
Jews;  as  utterly  unsupported  by  Scripture;  and  as 
highly  mischievous  in  its  tendency. 

No  less  opposed  to  this  principle  is  the  opinion  of 
Dr.  Haweis,  an  Episcopal  divine,  expressed  in  his 
Ecclesiastical  History.  "  If,  says  he,  the  unfounded 
idea,  that  bishops,  priests,  and  deacons,  were  to  suc- 
ceed to  the  high  priests,  priests,  and  Levites,  were 
true,  we  must  surely  have  found  some  intimation  of 
it  in  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews.  That  men  of  re- 
search," he  adds, "  should  broach  such  puerilities  is 
surprising.* 

Dr.  Mosheim,t  in  his  account  of  the  corruptions 
which  began  to  creep  into  the  Church,  in  the  second 
century,  makes  the  following  remarks.  "  The  Chris- 
tian doctors  had  the  good  fortune  to  persuade  the 
people,  that  the  ministers  of  the  Christian  Church  suc- 
ceeded to  the  character,  rights,  and  privileges  of  the 
Jewish  priesthood;  and  this  persuasion  was  a  new 
source  both  of  honours  and  profits  to  the  sacred  order. 
This  notion  was  propagated  with  industry  some  time 
after  the  reign  of  Adrian,  when  the  second  destruc- 
tion of  Jerusalem  had  extinguished  among  the  Jews 
all  hopes  of  seeing  their  government  restored  to  its 
former  lustre,  and  their  country  arising  out  of  ruins. 
And  accordingly  the  bishops  considered  themselves  as 

*  History  of  the  Church  of  Christ,  Cent.  I.  Chap.  IV. 
t  It  i3  generally  known  that  Dr.  Mosheim  was  a  Lutheran  divine, 
and  one  of  the  most  learned  men  of  the  18th  century. 


TESTIMONY    OF    SCRIPTURE.  99 

invested  with  a  rank  and  character  similar  to  those 
of  the  high  priest  among  the  Jews,  while  the  presby- 
ters represented  the  priests,  and  the  deacons  the  Le- 
vites.  It  is,  indeed,  highly  probable,  that  they  who 
first  introduced  this  absurd  comparison  of  offices  so 
entirely  distinct,  did  it  rather  through  ignorance  and 
error,  than  through  artifice  or  design.  The  notion, 
however,  once  introduced,  produced  its  natural  effects; 
and  these  effects  were  pernicious."* 

But  admitting,  for  a  moment,  that  the  Levitical 
priesthood  is  a  proper  model  for  the  Christian  minis- 
try; what  is  the  consequence?  It  follows  inevitably 
that  as  there  was  but  one  high  priest  over  the  Jewish 
church,  so  there  ought  to  be  but  one  bishop  over  the 
Christian  Church.  So  far,  then,  as  the  argument  has 
any  force,  it  goes  to  the  establishment,  not  of  diocesan 
Episcopacy,  but  of  a  Pope,  as  the  sole  vicar  of  Jesus 
Christ  upon  earth,  and  as  the  proper  head  of  the 
Church.  In  fact,  representing  the  Aaronic  priesthood 
as  a  type  of  the  ministry  in  the  Protestant  Episcopal 
church,  borders,  if  it  does  not  actually  encroach,  on 
the  province  of  incongruous  absurdity.  How  can 
one  head  be  a  type  of  many  heads?  The  type  sets  at 
defiance  the  principles  of  the  antetype.  The  argu- 
ment belongs  to  the  papists  alone.  By  them  it  has 
been  often  and  confidently  wielded  against  Protestant 
Episcopalians;  and  they  alone,  of  all  the  claimants 
under  it,  have  made  a  rational  and  legitimate  use 
of  it. 

If  the  advocates  of  Episcopacy,  however,  while 
they  confess,  as  they  must,  that  there  is  an  entire 
failure  of  the  typical  likeness  between  the  one  high 
priest  over  the  whole  Jewish  church,  and  the  many 

*  Mosheim,  Cent.  II.  Part  II.  Chapter  II. 


100  TESTIMONY    OF    SCRIPTURE. 

bishops  in  their  denomination;  if,  I  say,  notwithstand- 
ing this  acknowledged  failure,  they  attempt  to  lay  the 
whole  stress  of  the  argument  simply  on  the  likeness 
in  the  number  of  the  classes  of  officers  in  the  temple 
service,  and  in  the  Christian  Church;  Presbyterians 
can  meet  them  with  a  claim  quite  as  unexceptionable 
and  striking  as  their  own.  Though  there  be  an  entire 
want  of  conformity  between  the  one  high  priest,  and 
their  many  bishops ;  yet  they  may  and  do  allege  that, 
as  there  were  three  classes  of  officers  in  the  temple 
service,  so  there  must  be  a  corresponding  number  in 
the  Christian  Church.  Be  it  so.  But  do  they  not 
forget  that  in  the  bishops,  elders,  and  deacons  of  the 
Presbyterian  church,  there  is  just  as  complete  a  simi- 
larity as  in  their  own  ?  Here  are  three  orders  of  offi- 
cers, bearing  the  same  names  with  theirs,  and  having 
just  as  much  conformity  as  theirs  to  the  Aaronic  priest- 
hood. We,  however,  disclaim  the  argument;  not  be- 
cause we  have  not  just  as  good  a  right,  and  just  as 
solid  materials,  for  making  use  of  it  as  they;  but  be- 
cause we  think  it  altogether  destitute  of  countenance 
from  the  Word  of  God,  nay,  in  its  principle,  wholly 
unscriptural. 

II.  Another  argument  usually  urged  with  great  eon-?, 
fidence  by  the  advocates  of  Episcopacy,  is,  "  That 
the  apostles,  while  they  lived,  possessed  a  rank,  and 
a  class  of  powers  superior  to  those  of  all  other  minis- 
ters; that,  in  virtue  of  this  superior  rank,  they  or- 
dained other  ministers;  that  ordination  was  confined 
to  them ;  that  bishops  are  the  proper  successors  of  the 
apostles ;  and  that  they  hold  a  corresponding  supe- 
riority of  rank  and  power." 

If  this  argument  be  examined,  it  will  be  found,  in 
all  its  branches,  to  be  wholly  without  support  from 


TESTIMONY    OF    SCRIPTURE.  J  01 

Scripture,  and  to  have  do  other  force  than  that  which 
consists  in  a  mere  gratuitous  assertion  of  the  point  to 
be  proved. 

The  ministry  of  the  apostles  was,  in  some  respects, 
extraordinary,  and  of  course  terminated  with  their 
lives.  In  other  respects,  it  was  ordinary,  and  trans- 
mitted to  their  successors.  Considering  them  in  the 
former  light,  as  men  distinguished  by  the  extraordi- 
nary gifts  of  the  Holy  Ghost;  as  endowed  with  im- 
mediate inspiration,  with  the  knowledge  of  tongues, 
with  the  power  of  discerning  spirits,  and  working  mi- 
racles, and  of  conferring  that  power  on  others;  and  as 
invested  with  authority  to  order  every  thing  relating 
to  the  churches  of  Christ,  under  the  unerring  guidance 
of  the  Spirit  of  God,  until  the  canon  of  Scripture,  the 
grand  charter  and  directory  of  the  Church,  should  be 
completed — considering  them  in  this  character,  the 
apostles  had  no  successors.  They  were  exalted  above 
all  bishops.  The  Scriptures  give  no  hint  of  any  class 
of  ministers  coming  after  them,  to  be  endowed  with  a 
similar  character ;  and  until  those  who  claim  some- 
thing like  apostolic  pre-eminence,  produce  satisfactory 
testimonials  that  they  possess  similar  gifts  and  powers, 
they  must  excuse  us  for  rejecting  their  claims. 

Considering  the  ministry  of  the  apostles  in  those 
respects  in  which  it  was  ordinary,  and  perpetual,  they 
had,  and  still  have,  successors;  and  nothing  is  more 
easy  than  to  show  that  these  successors  consist  of  all 
those,  without  exception,  who  are  empowered  to  go 
forth  and  teach  men  the  way  of  salvation,  baptizing 
them  in  the  name  of  the  Father,  and  of  the  Son,  and 
of  the  Holy  Ghost;  that  is,  all  regular  ministers,  who 
are  clothed  with  authority  to  preach  the  gospel  and 
administer  sacraments.  For  it  was  in  immediate  con- 
9* 


102  TESTIMONY    OF    SCRIPTURE. 

nection  with  the  command  to  perform  these  ordinary- 
functions,  that  the  promise,  which  is  considered  as  con- 
stituting the  ministerial  succession,  was  given — "  Lo  I 
am  with  you  always,  even  unto  the  end  of  the  world." 
Could  the  advocates  of  Episcopacy,  show  from  Scrip- 
ture, that  the  powers  possessed  by  the  apostles  were 
afterwards  divided;  that,  while  one  class  of  ministers 
succeeded  them  in  the  ordinary  duties  of  preaching 
and  administering  sacraments,  another  class  succeeded 
them  in  some  higher  and  more  appropriate  duties, 
their  cause  would  rest  on  better  ground;  but  this,  as 
was  before  observed,  can  never  be  proved.  There 
is  not  a  syllable  in  Scripture  that  looks  like  such  a  di- 
vided succession;  nor  has  it  ever  been  so  much  as 
pretended  that  a  passage  is  to  be  found  which  gives  a 
hint  of  this  kind.  On  the  contrary,  as  has  been  re- 
peatedly before  mentioned,  the  Scriptures  uniformly 
represent  preaching  the  gospel,  and  administering  sa- 
craments, as  the  most  important  and  honourable  of 
all  ministerial  functions. 

Accordingly,  when  we  ask  those  who  adduce  this 
argument,  whence  they  derive  the  idea  that  diocesan 
bishops  peculiarly  succeed  the  apostles  in  their  apos- 
tolic character,  (for  this  supposition  alone  is  to  their 
purpose,)  they  refer  us  to  no  passages  of  Scripture 
asserting  or  even  hinting  it;  but  to  some  vague  sug- 
gestions, and  allusions  of  the  fathers.  Now  on  such 
a  subject,  even  if  the  fathers  were  unanimous,  we 
might  and  ought  to  hesitate,  if  nothing  like  what  they 
intimate  were  to  be  found  in  the  Word  of  God.  It  is 
the  testimony  of  Scripture  which  we  are  now  seek- 
ing, and  nothing  else  can  be  admitted.  But  it  ought 
to  be  known  and  remembered,  that  the  fathers  con- 
tradict one  another,  and  the  same  fathers  contradict 


TESTIMONY    OF    SCRIPTURE.  103 

themselves  on  this  subject.  Several  of  them  expressly 
represent  presbyters  as  the  successors  of  the  apostles. 
Among  others,  Ignatius,  than  whom  no  father  is  more 
highly  esteemed,  or  more  frequently  quoted  as  an  au- 
thority by  Episcopalians,  generally  represents  pres- 
byters as  standing  in  the  place  of  the  apostles.  The 
following  quotations  are  from  his  far-famed  Epistles. 
"  The  presbyters  succeed  in  the  place  of  the  bench  of 
the  apostles."  "In  like  manner  let  all  reverence  the 
deacons  as  Jesus  Christ,  and  the  bishop  as  the  father, 
and  the  presbyters  as  the  sanhedrim  of  God  and  col- 
lege of  the  apostles."  "  Be  subject  to  your  presbyters 
as  to  the  apostles  of  Jesus  Christ  our  hope. "  "  Follow 
the  presbytery  as  the  apostles,"  &c.  Other  quotations 
from  the  fathers  might  easily  be  adduced,  equally 
pointed  and  decisive  against  the  argument  in  question; 
but  these  are  reserved  for  a  subsequent  chapter. 

But  the  fact  is,  the  apostles,  in  their  appropriate 
apostolical  character,  had  no  successors.  The  follow- 
ing quotation  from  Dr.  Barrow's  treatise  on  the 
"  Pope's  Supremacy,"  though  long,  will  set  this  mat- 
ter in  a  clear  light.  See  how  conclusively  one  of 
the  most  learned  and  zealous  Episcopal  divines  of 
the  seventeenth  century,  when  arguing  against  the 
Romanists,  can  demonstrate  the  impossibility  of  any 
Christian  ministers  being  the  successors  of  the  apos- 
tles. 

"  The  apostolical  office,  as  such,  was  personal  and 
temporary,  and  therefore,  according  to  its  nature  and 
design,  not  successive,  nor  communicable  to  others  in 
perpetual  descendence  from  them." 

"  It  was,  as  such,  in  all  respects  extraordinary,  con- 
ferred in  a  special  manner,  designed  for  special  pur- 
poses, discharged  by  special  aids,  endowed  with  spe- 


104  TESTIMONY    OF    SCRIPTURE. 

cial  privileges,  as  was  needful  for  the  propagation  of 
Christianity,  and  the  founding  of  churches." 

"To  that  office  it  was  requisite  that  the  person 
should  have  an  immediate  designation  and  commis- 
sion from  God;  such  as  Saint  Paul  so  often  doth  in- 
sist upon  for  asserting  his  title  to  the  office  ;  "  Paul,  an 
apostle,  not  from  men,  nor  by  man."  Not  by  men, 
saith  St.  Chrysostom,  this  is  a  property  of  the  apos- 
tles. It  was  requisite  that  an  apostle  should  be  able 
to  attest  concerning  our  Lord's  resurrection  or  ascen- 
sion, either  immediately,  as  the  twelve,  or  by  evident 
consequence,  as  St.  Paul ;  thus  St.  Peter  implied  at  the 
choice  of  Matthias — '  Wherefore,  of  those  men  which 
have  companied  with  us,  must  one  be  ordained  to  be 
a  witness  with  us  of  the  resurrection;  and,  am  I  not, 
saith  St.  Paul,  an  apostle?  Have  I  not  seen  the  Lord? 
According  to  that  of  Ananias — The  God  of  our  fathers 
hath  chosen  thee,  that  thou  shouldest  know  his  will, 
and  see  that  Just  One,  and  shouldest  hear  the  voice 
of  his  mouth;  for  thou  shalt  bear  witness  unto  all 
men  of  what  thou  hast  seen  and  heard." 

"  It  was  needful  also  that  an  apostle  should  be  en- 
dowed with  miraculous  gifts  and  graces,  enabling  him 
both  to  assure  his  authority,  and  to  execute  his  office; 
wherefore  St.  Paul  calleth  these  the  marks  of  an  apos- 
tle, which  were  wrought  by  him  among  the  Corin- 
thians in  all  patience,  in  signs,  and  wonders,  and 
mighty  deeds." 

"  It  was  also,  in  St.  Chrysostom's  opinion,  proper 
to  an  apostle,  that  he  should  be  able,  according  to  his 
discretion,  in  a  certain  and  conspicuous  manner,  to 
impart  spiritual  gifts;  as  St.  Peter  and  St.  John  did  at 
Samaria,  which  to  do,  according  to  that  father,  was 
the  peculiar  gift  and  privilege  of  the  apostles." 


TESTIMONY    OP    SCRIPTURE.  105 

"  Apostles  did  also  govern  in  an  absolute  manner, 
according  to  discretion,  as  being  guided  by  infallible 
assistance,  to  the  which  they  might  upon  occasion, 
appeal,  and  affirm;  It  hath  seemed  good  to  the  Holy 
Ghost  and  to  us.  Whence  their  writings  have  passed 
for  inspired,  and  therefore  canonical,  or  certain  rules 
of  faith  and  practice." 

"  Now  such  an  office,  consisting  of  so  many  extra- 
ordinary privileges  and  miraculous  powers,  which 
were  requisite  for  laying  the  foundation  of  the  Church, 
and  the  diffusion  of  Christianity,  against  the  manifold 
difficulties  and  disadvantages  which  it  then  needs  must 
encounter,  was  not  designed  to  continue  by  derivation; 
for  it  contained  in  it  divers  things  which  apparently 
were  not  communicated,  and  which  no  man,  without 
gross  imposture  and  hypocrisy,  could  challenge  to 
himself." 

"  Neither  did  the  apostles  pretend  to  communicate 
it.  They  did,  indeed,  appoint  standing  pastors  and 
teachers  in  each  church:  they  did  assume  fellow- 
labourers  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.  Augustine,  that  principate 
of  apostleship  to  be  preferred  before  any  Episcopacy? 
And,  the  bishops,  saith  Bellarmine,  have  no  part  of 
the  true  apostolical  authority." 

"  If  it  be  objected  that  the  fathers  commonly  do 
call  bishops  successors  of  the  apostles;  to  assoil  that 
objection,  we  may  consider,  that  whereas  the  apos- 
tolical office  virtually  did  contain  the  functions  of 
teaching  and  ruling  God's  people;  the  which,  for  pre- 
servation of  Christian  doctrine  and  edification  of  the 
Church,  were  requisite  to  be  continued  perpetually  in 


106  TESTIMONY    OP    SCRIPTURE. 

ordinary  standing  offices,  these,  indeed,  were  derived 
from  the  apostles,  but  not  pro.perly  in  the  way  of  suc- 
cession, as  by  universal  propagation,  as  by  ordination, 
imparting  all  the  power  needful  for  such  offices;  which 
therefore  were  exercised  by  persons,  during  the  apos- 
tles' lives  concurrently,  or  in  subordination  to  them; 
even  as  a  Dictator  of  Rome  might  create  inferior  ma- 
gistrates, who  derived  from  him,  but  not  as  his  suc- 
cessors; for  asBellarmine  himself  telleth  us,  there  can 
be  no  proper  succession  but  in  respect  of  one  preced- 
ing; but  apostles  and  bishops  were  together  in  the 
Church."* 

The  reasoning  of  this  learned  Episcopal  divine  is 
conclusive.  It  never  has  been,  and  never  can  be  re- 
futed. The  apostles,  besides  their  special  and  extra- 
ordinary powers,  as  men  endowed  with  inspiration 
and  other  miraculous  gifts,  did  sustain  the  ordinary 
authority  of  teaching  and  ruling  the  body  of  believers, 
and  administering  the  sealing  ordinances  of  the 
Church.  The  sacred  office,  as  embracing  these  ordi- 
nary functions,  was  alone  intended  to  be  permanent, 
and  was  alone  transmitted  by  the  apostles.  To  con- 
tend for  any  succession  to  the  apostolical  office  in  its 
pre-eminent  character  and  powers  is  a  vain  dream,  to 
which  the  Scriptures  do  not  afford  the  smallest  coun- 
tenance. 

The  advocates  of  Episcopacy,  without  the  least 
warrant  from  Scripture,  assure  us,  that,  in  the  apos- 
tolic age,  the  power  of  ordaining  others  to  the  gospel 
ministry  was  confined  to  the  apostles.  When,  in  re- 
ply to  this  plea,  we  turn  to  the  New  Testament,  and 
show  them  that  Timothy,  and  Titus,  and  Barnabas, 

*  Barrow's  Pope's  Supremacy,  Supposition  II.  p.  122 — 125.  New 
York  edition. 


TESTIMONY    OF    SCRIPTURE.  107 

and  the  presbytery  in  the  case  of  Timothy,  are  all  re- 
presented as  having  acted  as  ordainers,  they  tell  us 
that  all  these  men  were  apostles;  in  other  words,  that 
they  were  all  invested  with  the  peculiar  and  pre- 
eminent powers  of  the  apostolic  office;  and  that  it 
was  in  virtue  of  this  pre-eminence  of  rank  that  they 
officiated  in  ordinations.  The  foregoing  quotation 
from  Dr.  Barrow  will  be  quite  sufficient  to  refute  this 
plea,  in  the  estimation  of  all  impartial  readers.  But, 
independently  of  his  authority,  the  slightest  examina- 
tion of  the  proof  professed  to  be  drawn  from  Scrip- 
ture in  support  of  this  plea,  will  be  sufficient  to  cover 
it  with  ridicule  in  the  view  of  every  intelligent  in- 
quirer. The  following  specimen  of  the  sort  of  proof 
relied  on  by  the  advocates  of  Episcopacy,  will  suffice. 
In  the  introduction  to  the  first  Epistle  to  the  Thessa- 
lonians,  we  find  the  apostle  expressing  himself  thus — 
"Paul,  and  Silvanus,  and  Timotheusunto  the  Church 
of  the  Thessalonians,"  &c.  And  in  the  second  chap- 
ter of  the  same  Epistle,  verse  6th,  he  tells  the  Thes- 
salonians — "  Nor  of  men  sought  we  glory,  neither  of 
you,  nor  yet  of  others,  when  we  might  have  been 
burdensome  as  the  apostles  of  Christ."  Now,  say  the 
advocates  of  Episcopacy,  the  same  persons  who,  in 
the  inscription  to  this  epistle,  salute  the  Thessalonians, 
afterwards  speak  of  themselves  as  apostles;  ergoihey 
all  equally  bore  that  office.  The  inference  here  is  so 
utterly  fallacious,  that  the  only  wonder  is,  it  was  ever 
gravely  thought  of  for  such  a  purpose.  In  the  latter 
verse,  the  apostle,  undoubtedly,  either  speaks  of  him- 
self in  the  plural  number,  which  those  who  are  fami- 
liar with  the  Scriptures  know  he  often  does ;  or  he 
refers  to  others  of  the  apostles,  of  all  whom  the  same 
might  be  said.     That,  in  using  this  language,  he  did 


108  TESTIMONY    OF    SCRIPTURE. 

not  refer  to  his  companions  in  the  inscriptions,  is  plain, 
because,  in  a  verse  or  two  before,  he  says,  still  using 
the  plural  number,  "  We  were  shamefully  entreated, 
as  ye  know,  at  Philippi."  When  the  apostle  was 
beaten  and  imprisoned  at  Philippi,  we  read  that  Silas 
(supposed  to  be  Silvanus)  participated  with  him  in 
this  shameful  treatment,  but  no  mention  is  made  of 
Timothy  as  being  his  fellow  sufferer.  Indeed  we 
know  that  he  was  neither  a  partaker  nor  a  witness 
of  that  brutal  treatment.  Besides,  Paul's  mode  of 
speaking  of  Timothy  on  other  occasions,  plainly 
shows  that  he  did  not  consider  his  youthful  "son 
in  the  faith"  as  bearing  an  office  similar  to  his 
own.  Take  as  an  example,  2  Cor.  i.  1.  "  Paul,  an 
apostle  of  Jesus  Christ,  and  Timothy,  our  brother" 
And  again,  Colossians  i.  1.  "  Paul,  an  apostle  of  Jesus 
Christ,  and  Timothy,  our  brother.  Surely  the  humble 
and  affectionate  Paul  would  not  have  expressed  him- 
self thus,  if  Timothy  had  possessed  an  equal  right 
with  himself  to  the  title  of  "  an  apostle  of  Jesus 
Christ,"  in  the  official  and  appropriate  sense  of  that 
title. 

But  after  all,  the  bare  application  of  the  name  apos- 
tle, to  any  man,  by  no  means  proves  that  it  was  in-, 
tended  to  be  applied  in  the  official  sense  of  that  term. 
It  is  well  known  that  all  the  ecclesiastical  titles  in  the 
New  Testament  have  a  general  and  an  official  sense, 
which  are  to  be  distinguished  by  the  connection  in 
which  they  occur.  For  example,  thus  8lo.xovo$  signi- 
fies either  a  servant  or  a  deacon;  (see  Matt.  xxii.  13; 
Phil.  i.  1,)  7t£te$\,tse,os  either  an  old  man  or  a  presby- 
ter; (John  viii.  9;  Titus  i.  5,)  and  artoato-Kog  either  a 
messenger,  (or  one  who  is  sent,)  or  an  apostle. 
Which  of  these  meanings  ought  to  be  affixed  to  the 


TESTIMONY    OF    SCRIPTURE.  109 

title  in  each  case,  is  ascertained  only  by  the  connexion. 
The  authors  of  our  translation  of  the  Bible,  who,  by 
the  way,  were  all  Episcopalians,  have,  in  most  cases, 
decided  this  question,  with  much  good  judgment  and 
fidelity.  Accordingly,  in  translating  John  xiii.  16, 
they  have  very  properly  done  it  thus — "The  servant 
is  not  greater  than  his  lord,  neither  he  that  is  sent 
(artoGto-Kos)  greater  than  he  that  sent  him."  And 
again,  in  translating  Philippians  ii.  25,  they  have, 
with  equal  fidelity  to  the  original,  rendered  it  in  the 
following  language — "  Yet  I  supposed  it  necessary  to 
send  to  you  Epaphroditus,  my  brother  and  companion 
in  labour,  and  fellow  soldier,  but  your  messenger  (i^iwv 
8s  axoatoxov)  and  he  that  ministered  to  my  wants." 
Epaphroditus,  we  are  told,  had  been  sent  as  a  special 
messenger,  by  the  Philippians,  to  bear  the  bounty  of 
their  church  to  the  apostle  Paul.  Accordingly  the 
translators,  who  were  certainly  among  the  most 
learned  friends  of  Episcopacy  then  on  earth,  faithful 
to  what  was  evidently  matter  of  fact,  speak  of  him, 
not  as  an  apostle,  in  the  official  sense  of  that  title, 
but  as  a  messenger.  Yet  this  is  one  of  the  cases  in 
which  modern  Episcopalians,  forsaking  the  judgment 
of  their  more  learned  fathers,  assure  us,  on  the  ground 
of  this  passage  alone,  that  Epaphroditus  was  an  apos- 
tle, in  the  official  sense  of  that  term,  though  not  one 
of  the  requisites  which  the  Scriptures  inform  us  were 
indispensable  to  that  office,  met  in  his  person.*    Nay, 

*  The  advocates  of  Episcopacy  tell  us  that  Epaphroditus  was  the 
apostle,  or,  in  other  words,  the  prelatical  bishop  of  the  church  of 
Philippi.  And  yet,  in  an  epistle  to  the  Philippians,  sent  to  them  by 
the  hands  of  Epaphroditus  himself,  their  alleged  bishop,  the  inspired 
Paul  says  not  one  word  of  the  authority  over  them  with  which  he 
was  alleged  to  be  invested,  or  of  the  duty  which  they  owed  him,  in 
this  character.  Is  this  credible  ?  Nay,  is  it  possible  ?  I  will  ven- 
10 


HO  TESTIMONY    OF    SCRIPTURE. 

they  go  further,  and  in  their  eagerness  to  make  as 
many  apostles  as  may  be  in  the  primitive  church, 
they  reckon  Andronicus,  and  Junia,  who  was  proba- 
bly a  woman*  among  the  number,  and  that  only  on 
the  ground  of  the  following  passage  in  Romans  xvi. 
7.  "  Salute  Andronicus  and  Junia,  my  kinsmen,  and 
my  fellow  prisoners,  who  are  of  note  among  the  apos- 
tles, who  also  were  in  Christ  before  me."  All  that 
can  be  legitimately  inferred  from  this  passage  is,  that 
the  persons  here  mentioned  were  peculiarly  valued  or 
highly  esteemed  by  or  among  the  apostles.  At  any 
rate  this  interpretation  corresponds  quite  as  well  with 
the  rest  of  the  apostle's  language  in  this  place  as  that 
which  prelacy  affixes  to  it;  and  far  better  with  the 

ture  to  say,  that  nothing  more  is  necessary  to  refute  the  allegation 
that  Epaphroditus  was  the  prelate  of  Philippi,  than  to  read  the  epistle 
to  that  church  of  which  he  was  the  bearer.  To  suppose  that  St. 
Paul,  with  the  opinions  and  feelings  of  modern  Episcopalians,  could, 
in  such  circumstances,  have  written  such  a  negative  epistle,  would  be 
the  greatest  outrage  on  his  character.  Accordingly,  the  learned 
Orotius,  with  all  his  leaning  to  Prelacy,  in  his  commentary  on  Phi- 
lippians  ii.  25,  remarks  on  the  word  apostle,  as  it  occurs  in  this  place, 
that  "  it  is  taken  largely  for  those  who  were  collectors  and  bearers  of 
alms  and  contributions,  and  so  can  be  of  no  service  for  the  establishing 
of  Epaphroditus  as  the  bishop  of  Philippi." 

*  The  name,  as  it  stands  in  the  original,  is  lovviav,  which  has  no 
article  to  indicate  the  gender,  and  which  may  come  as  well  from 
Iouvkx,  as  from  lovvta$.  Father  Calmet  remarks,  "St. Chrysostom, 
Theophylact,  and  several  others,  take  Andronicus  for  a  man,  and 
Junia  for  a  woman,  perhaps  his  wife.  The  Greeks  and  Latins  kept 
their  festival,  May  17th,  as  hvsband  and  wife."  Rosenmueller's 
annotation  on  the  passage  is  as  follows — "  xai  lovviav*  Qute  videtur 
fuisse  uxor  Andronici.  Aliis  Junias  est  nomen  viri,  pro  Junius." 
What  renders  it  more  probable  that  Junia  was  a  woman  is,  that  a 
man  and  his  wife,  a  man  and  his  sister,  and  two  other  females,  are 
undoubtedly  saluted  in  the  preceding  and  following  verses  of  the  same 
chapter. 


TESTIMONY    OF    SCRIPTURE.  \\\ 

account  which  this  same  inspired  man  gives,  in  other 
places,  of  the  apostolic  office. 

When,  therefore,  Barnabas,  in  one  place,  is  called 
an  apostle,  it  is  plain  that  nothing  can  be  inferred 
from  the  mere  name  as  to  the  character  of  his  minis- 
try. It  imports  nothing  more  than  that  he  was  sent 
forth  or  commissioned  to  perform  a  particular  work. 

It  is  evident,  then,  that  none  of  these  persons  can 
be  proved  to  have  been  apostles,  in  the  official  and 
preeminent  sense  of  that  title;  and  as  we  know  that 
Timothy,  Titus,  and  Barnabas  ordained,  it  follows, 
inevitably,  that  the  ordaining  power  was  not  confined 
to  the  apostles  while  they  lived;  and,  of  course,  that 
the  whole  argument  with  which  this  allegation  is 
connected  falls  to  the  ground.  Nothing  can  be  plainer 
than  that  "pastors,"  "teachers,"  and  "evangelists," 
even  while  the  apostles  lived,  often  officiated  in  ordi- 
nations, not  merely  as  humble  witnesses  or  assistants, 
as  is  gratuitously  pretended,  but  as  principals,  in  in- 
vesting others  with  the  sacred  office. 

IV.  A  fourth  argument  urged  by  the  advocates  of 
Episcopacy,  is — "  That  Timothy  and  Titus  were  each 
appointed  to  the  fixed  superintendency  of  a  large  dio- 
cese, the  former  over  Ephesus,  the  latter  over  Crete; 
that  the  duties  required  of  them,  and  the  powers 
vested  in  them  were  evidently  superior  to  those  of 
ordinary  presbyters;  in  a  word,  that  they  were  no 
other  than  proper  diocesan  bishops." 

This  argument  is  a  corner  stone  of  the  Episcopal 
fabric,  adduced  with  much  zeal,  and  relied  on  with 
the  utmost  confidence,  by  most  of  the  advocates  of 
prelacy. 

It  is  unfortunate,  however,  that  all  the  premises 
from   which  the  conclusion  is  drawn,  are  assumed 


112  TESTIMONY    OP    SCRIPTURE. 

without  any  satisfactory,  or  even  plausible  evidence. 
How  does  it  appear  that  Timothy  and  Titus  were 
bishops,  in  the  Episcopal  sense  of  the  word  ?  They 
are  no  where,  in  Scripture,  called  by  this  name. 
Timothy,  on  the  contrary,  is  expressly  styled  an 
evangelist,  2  Tim.  iv.  5.  Now  it  is  worthy  of  remark, 
that  evangelists  are  very  carefully  distinguished  by 
St.  Paul,  from  apostles  and  other  ministers.  "  And 
he  gave  some  apostles,  and  some  prophets,  and  some 
evangelists,  and  some  pastors  and  teachers/'  Ephes. 
iv.  11.  Here  Timothy's  office  is  pointed  out.  And 
it  is  probable  that  Titus,  being  called  to  similar  du- 
ties, bore  the  same  office.  Now  what  is  meant  by  an 
evangelist?  He  was  an  officer,  says  Eusebius,  ap- 
pointed "  to  lay  the  foundations  of  the  faith  in  barba- 
rous nations,  to  constitute  them  pastors,  and  having 
committed  to  them  the  cultivating  of  those  new  plan- 
tations, to  pass  on  to  other  countries  and  nations."* 
No  description  can  apply  more  perfectly  to  the  work 
assigned  to  Timothy  and  Titus,  as  every  one  who 
looks  into  the  sacred  history  must  instantly  perceive. 
They  were  not  settled  pastors,  but  itinerant  missiona- 
ries. They  sustained  no  fixed  or  permanent  relation 
to  the  churches  of  Ephesus  or  Crete;  and  amidst  their 
numerous  and  almost  constant  travels,  were  probably 
as  long,  and  perhaps  longer,  in  other  places  than  in 
these.  As  for  Titus,  Dr.  Whitby  himself  acknow- 
ledges, that  he  was  only  left  at  Crete  to  ordain  elders 

*  After  quoting-  an  authority  so  often  referred  to  by  Episcopa- 
lians, and  so  high  in  their  estimation  as  that  of  Eusebius,  I  will  add, 
that  the  word  evangelist  is  still  used  in  the  Presbyterian  Church,  and 
with  the  same  sense  attached  to  it  as  in  the  days  of  Eusebius.  Among 
us,  an  ordained  minister,  who  has  no  pastoral  charge,  and  who  itine- 
rates to  preach  the  gospel  in  regions  which  are  destitute  of  it,  is  called 
an  evangelist. 


TESTIMONY    OF    SCRIPTURE.  H3 

in  every  city,  and  to  set  in  order  the  things  that  were 
wanting;  and  that,  having  done  that  work,  he  had 
done  all  that  was  assigned  him  in  that  station;  and, 
therefore,  St.  Paul  sends  for  him  the  very  next  year 
to  Nicopolis.  Titus  iii.  12."  And  with  respect  to 
Timothy,  the  same  learned  Episcopal  writer  also 
confesses,  that  "  there  is  no  satisfactory  evidence  of 
his  having  resided  longer  at  Ephesus,  than  was  ne- 
cessary to  execute  a  special  and  temporary  mission  to 
the  church  in  that  place."  Preface  to  his  Comment, 
on  Titus. 

Some  Episcopalians  of  slender  information  have 
exulted,  because  in  our  common  Bibles,  at  the  close 
of  the  Second  Epistle  to  Timothy,  there  is  a  post- 
script, in  the  following  words — "  The  second  Epistle 
unto  Timotheus,  ordained  the  first  bishop  of  the 
Church  of  the  Ephesians,  was  written  from  Rome, 
when  Paul  was  brought  before  Nero  the  second  time." 
And,  also,  at  the  close  of  the  Epistle  to  Titus,  a  simi- 
lar postscript,  importing  that  Titus  was  the  first  bishop 
of  Crete.  But  it  is  well  known  that  these  postscripts 
make  no  part  of  the  sacred  text.  It  is  acknowledged, 
by  all  learned  men,  that  they  were  interpolated,  by 
some  officious  transcribers,  more  than  400  years  after 
the  Christian  sera.  They  are  not  to  be  found  in  any 
of  the  oldest  and  most  authentic  copies  of  the  origi- 
nal. They  are  not  the  same  in  all  the  copies  in  which 
they  are  found.  They  were  solemnly  excluded  from 
the  earliest  English  translations;  and  for  a  long  time 
after  their  introduction,  they  were  generally  printed 
in  a  different  type  from  the  inspired  text,  in  order  to 
show  that  they  form  no  part  of  the  sacred  canon.  Of 
course,  as  all  Episcopal  writers  of  respectability  ac- 
10* 


114  TESTIMONY    OF    SCRIPTURE. 

knowledge,  they  afford  no  evidence  which  deserves 
the  least  attention  in  the  case  before  us. 

But  if  there  be  no  evidence  that  Timothy  and  Titus 
were  diocesan  bishops,  either  in  the  sacred  text,  or  in 
the  spurious  interpolations,  which,  by  ignorant  per- 
sons, have  been  sometimes  mistaken  for  it;  whence, 
you  will  ask,  has  this  notion,  so  confidently  main- 
tained by  Episcopal  writers,  taken  its  rise?  It  seems 
to  have  been  first  suggested  by  Eusebius,  in  the  4th 
century,  as  a  thing  which  tradition  "  reported"  in  his 
day,  but  of  which  he  found  no  certain  record  ;*  and 
after  him  this  tradition  has  been  servilely  copied,  and 
assumed  as  a  fact  by  a  succession  of  writers.  Dr. 
Whitby,  notwithstanding  all  his  zeal  for  Episcopacy, 

*  Eusebius  says,  "It  is  reported  ('iGtogenfai)  that  Timothy  re- 
ceived the  first  oversight  of  the  parish  of  Ephesus,  and  Titus  of 
Crete."  This  important  writer,  to  whom  ecclesiastical  historians  are 
so  much  indebted,  frankly  confesses  that  he  was  obliged  to  rely  much 
on  tradition  ;  nay,  that  he  was  able  to  affirm  little  but  what  he  could 
gather  from  the  account  of  Paul  himself  in  the  New  Testament,  and 
from  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles.  Eccles.  Hist.  Lib.  iii.  cap.  4.  Here, 
then,  is  the  sum  of  the  evidence  from  the  Fathers,  as  to  this  point. 
Eusebius  stands  first  on  the  list.  He  quotes,  as  his  main  authority, 
the  New  Testament ;  and  assures  us  that  he  had  little  beside  to  guide 
him  excepting  tradition.  All  the  other  fathers  who  speak  on  the 
same  subject,  as  Ambrose,  Epiphanius,  Jerome,  Chrysostom,  &c, 
follow  Eusebius.  The  fathers,  then,  virtually  confess  that  they  know 
very  little  more  of  the  matter  than  we  do ;  and,  of  course,  their  testi- 
mony is,  to  us,  perfectly  worthless.  Eusebius  lived  in  a  day  when 
clerical  imparity  had  made  considerable  progress ;  and,  of  course, 
tradition  would  be  apt  to  attach  the  same  ideas  to  the  character  of  a 
bishop  in  the  apostles'  days,  as  actually  belonged  to  it  in  the  fourth 
century.  But  let  it  never  be  forgotten,  that  Episcopalians  themselves 
admit,  that  the  title  of  bishop  is  applied  in  Scripture  to  the  pastors  of 
particular  congregations  only ;  and  let  it  be  carefully  observed,  too, 
that  Eusebius,  in  speaking  of  the  pastoral  charge  of  Timothy,  calls  it 
a  parish. 


TESTIMONY    OF    SCRIPTURE.  H5 

speaks  on  the  subject  in  this  manner.  "  The  great 
controversy  concerning  this,  and  the  Epistle  to  Timo- 
thy is,  whether  Timothy  and  Titus  were  indeed  made 
bishops,  the  one  of  Ephesus,  and  the  proconsular 
Asia;  the  other  of  Crete.  Now  of  this  matter  I  con- 
fess I  can  find  nothing  in  any  writer  of  theirs/  three 
centuries,  nor  any  intimation  that  they  bore  that 
name."  And  afterwards  he  adds,  generally  concern- 
ing the  whole  argument — "  I  confess  that  these  two 
instances,  absolutely  taken,  afford  us  no  convincing 
arguments  in  favour  of  a  settled  diocesan  Episcopacy, 
because  there  is  nothing  which  proves  they  did  or 
were  to  exercise  these  acts  of  government  rather  as 
bishops  than  as  evangelists." 

But  it  is  still  urged,  that  some  of  the  powers  repre- 
sented in  Scripture  as  given  to  Timothy  and  Titus 
clearly  indicate  a  superiority  of  order.  Thus  Paul 
besought  the  former  to  abide  still  at  Ephesus,  and 
gave  him  directions  with  regard  to  the  selection  and 
ordination  of  ministers.  And  he  also  appointed  the 
latter  to  ordain  elders  in  every  city  of  Crete,  giving 
him,  at  the  same  time,  particular  instructions  as  to 
the  manner  in  which  he  should  exercise  his  ordaining 
power,  and  set  in  order  the  things  that  were  wanting. 
"  Here,"  say  the  advocates  for  Episcopacy,  "  we  find 
in  fact  the  preeminent  powers  of  diocesan  bishops 
vested  in  these  men;  and  as  long  as  they  possessed 
the  preeminent  powers  of  bishops,  it  is  of  small  mo- 
ment by  what  name  they  were  called."  But  on  this 
argument  several  remarks  immediately  occur,  which 
entirely  destroy  its  force. 

In  the  first  place,  the  whole  argument  is  founded 
on  a  petitio  principii,  and  is,  therefore,  perfectly 
worthless.     Shall  we  never  have  done  with  this  arti- 


116  TESTIMONY    OP    SCRIPTURE. 

fice  so  unworthy  of  fair  reasoners?  It  begins  by 
taking  for  granted  the  main  question  in  dispute. 
When  carefully  analysed  and  reduced  to  logical  rules, 
it  simply  amounts  to  the  following  syllogism:  "  None 
but  diocesan  bishops,  as  a  superior  order  of  clergy, 
have  a  right  to  ordain  ministers  and  organize  church- 
es; but  Timothy  and  Titus  were  sent  to  perform  ser- 
vices of  this  kind;  therefore  Timothy  and  Titus  were 
diocesan  bishops."  Now  in  this  syllogism,  the  major 
proposition,  as  logicians  call  it — viz.  that  which  as- 
serts that  none  but  bishops,  as  a  superior  order,  can 
ordain,  is  taken  for  granted.  But  does  not  every  in- 
telligent reader  see  that  this  is  precisely  the  main  point 
in  controversy;  and,  of  course,  that  it  cannot  be  as- 
sumed without  proof?  Why  may  not  all  these  func- 
tions have  been  as  well  discharged  by  presbyters  as 
by  bishops?  In  the  Presbyterian  Church  presbyters 
daily  discharge  them.  And,  of  course,  to  commence 
with  taking  for  granted  that  none  but  prelates  could 
ever  have  been  empowered  to  discharge  them,  is 
surely  to  abuse  popular  credulity.  We  utterly  deny 
that  the  ordaining  power  either  was  in  the  time  of 
Timothy,  or  is  now  confined  to  prelates;  and  until 
our  opponents  can  prove  that  it  is,  the  argument- 
from  the  cases  of  Timothy  and  Titus  can  be  of  no 
value  to  their  cause.  Do  not  the  judicatories  of  the 
Presbyterian  Church  every  year  send  out  evangelists 
(precisely  what  Timothy  was)  into  remote  parts  of 
the  country,  empowering  and  directing  them  to  plant 
churches;  to  "ordain  elders  and  deacons  in  every 
church;"  and  to  "set  in  order  whatever  may  be 
wanting,"  in  every  organization?  But  suppose  some 
future  ecclesiastical  historian  should  infer  from  this 
well  known  habit  that  the  Presbyterian  Church  is 


TESTIMONY    OF    SCRIPTURE.  H7 

now,  and  always  has  been  a  prelatical  body?  would 
not  his  statement  be  considered  as  illegitimate  in 
reasoning,  and  false  in  fact?  Yet  precisely  such  is 
the  statement  of  our  Episcopal  brethren  in  reference 
to  Timothy  and  Titus.  True,  the  evangelists  whom 
we  send  forth  are  empowered  to  ordain  ruling  elders 
and  deacons  only,  and  not  teaching  elders,  or  "  minis- 
ters of  the  word  and  doctrine;"  but  this  is  only  a 
peculiar  ecclesiastical  regulation,  which  might  have 
been  ordered  otherwise,  without  an  essential  inva- 
sion of  scriptural  principle.  Though  an  ordination 
of  a  minister  performed  by  a  single  person,  would 
not  now  be  deemed  regular  in  our  church,  yet  we 
should,  doubtless,  acknowledge  and  receive  as  validly 
invested  with  the  sacred  office,  any  one  who  had 
been  set  apart  by  a  single  ordainer,  in  a  body  which 
we  deemed  a  regular  church  of  Christ,  and  whose 
rules  admitted  of  such  an  ordination.     But, 

Secondly,  it  has  not  been,  and  cannot  be  proved, 
that  either  Timothy  or  Titus  ever  did  alone  ordain  a 
single  individual.  If  we  look  into  the  second  epistle 
to  Timothy,  we  shall  see  that  Mark  might  have  been 
with  him,  and  assisted  him  in  every  ordination;  and 
from  an  inspection  of  the  epistle  to  Titus,  it  is  plain 
that  Zenas  and  Apollos  might  have  been  with  him. 
Nothing  is  certain  on  this  point.  Neither  can  it  be 
shown  that  there  were  presbyters  at  either  of  the 
places  in  question  when  these  evangelists  were  sent 
thither.  Episcopalians  take  for  granted  that,  when 
Timothy  and  Titus  were  sent  to  Ephesus  and  Crete 
to  attend  to  the  ordination  of  presbyters  and  deacons, 
and  to  "  set  in  order  the  things  which  were  want- 
ing," there  were  already  at  both  those  places  presby- 


118  TESTIMONY    OF    SCRIPTURE. 

ters,  who,  upon  Presbyterian  principles,  might  have 
ordained  others.  And  hence  they  conclude  that  pres- 
byters were  not  considered  by  the  apostle  as  lawfully 
invested  with  the  power  of  ordaining,  "  or  else,"  say 
they,  "he  would  not  have  thought  it  necessary  "to 
send  superior  officers  so  great  a  distance,  to  perform 
this  work."  But  this  supposition  is  made  wholly 
without  evidence.  Archbishop  Potter,  one  of  the 
highest  authorities  among  Episcopalians,  concedes 
that  we  have  no  reason  to  believe  there  were  any 
ministers  ordained  in  Crete  prior  to  the  mission  of 
Titus  to  that  island.*  This  simple  concession,  when 
traced  to  its  legitimate  consequences,  amounts,  so  far 
as  Titus  is  concerned,  to  a  surrender  of  the  whole 
argument;  for  it  all  turns  on  taking  for  granted  that 
there  were  presbyters  present,  who  yet  had  no  power 
to  preside  in  ordinations. 

But,  thirdly — Admitting,  for  the  sake  of  argument, 
that  there  were  presbyters  ordained,  and  residing, 
both  at  Ephesus  and  Crete,  previous  to  the  respective 
missions  of  Timothy  and  Titus,  still  no  advantage  to 
the  Episcopal  cause  can  be  derived  from  this  conces- 
sion. We  learn,  from  the  epistles  directed  to  these 
evangelists,  that  divisions  and  difficulties  existed  in. 
both  the  churches  to  which  they  were  sent.  Among 
the  Christians  at  Ephesus  there  had  crept  in  ravenous 
wolves,  who  annoyed  and  wasted  the  flock;  and  also 
some  who  had  turned  aside  unto  vain  jangling,  de- 
siring to  be  teachers  of  the  law,  without  understand- 
ing what  they  said,  or  whereof  they  affirmed.  And, 
in  the  church  of  Crete,  it  appears,  that  there  were 
many  unruly  and  vain  talkers,  and  deceivers,  espe- 

*  Discourse  of  Church  Govt.  chap.  iii.  p.  100. 


TESTIMONY    OF    SCRIPTURE.  H9 

cially  they  of  the  circumcision;  who  gave  heed  to 
Jewish  fables,  and  commandments  of  men  that  turned 
from  the  truth.  Under  these  circumstances,  the  pious 
and  benevolent  Paul,  who  had  laboured  so  much  in 
those  churches,  would  naturally  feel  himself  called 
upon  to  do  something  for  their  relief.  But  what  was 
to  be  done?  He  was  not  able,  or  he  did  not  think 
proper,  to  go  himself  to  direct  their  affairs.  He  could 
not  send  them  copies  of  that  sacred  Charter,  with 
which  the  churches  are  now  furnished,  viz.  the  New 
Testament,  a  considerable  portion  of  which  was  not 
then  in  existence.  The  ministers  there,  if  any,  were 
probably  themselves  involved  in  the  disputes  and 
animosities  which  prevailed;  and,  therefore,  could 
not  be  considered  as  suitable  persons  to  compose  tu- 
mults, and  to  settle  differences  in  which  they  had 
taken  a  part.  There  was  no  alternative,  but  to  send 
special  missionaries,  immediately  empowered  by  a 
person  of  acknowledged  authority,  to  act  in  the 
various  exigencies  which  might  arise ;  to  curb  the 
unruly;  to  reclaim  the  wandering;  to  repress  the  am- 
bition of  those  who  wished  to  become  teachers,  or  to 
thrust  themselves  into  the  ministry,  without  being 
duly  qualified;  to  select  and  ordain  others,  of  more 
worthy  character;  and  in  general  to  set  in  order  the 
affairs  of  those  churches.  Now,  as  both  Timothy  and 
Titus  had  been  recently  with  the  apostle,  when  they 
set  out  on  their  respective  missions,  it  is  not  to  be 
supposed  that  the  Epistles  which  we  find  directed  to 
them,  were  written  solely,  or  even  principally  for 
their  instruction.  It  is  probable  that  they  were  rather 
intended  as  credentials,  to  be  shown  to  the  churches 
of  Ephesus  and  Crete;  as  means  of  commanding  their 


120  TESTIMONY    OF    SCRIPTURE. 

respect  and  obedience  to  these  missionaries;  and,  after 
answering  this  occasional  purpose,  to  be  placed  on 
record  in  the  sacred  Canon,  to  serve  as  a  guide  to  the 
Church  in  every  age.  Whether  we  suppose,  then, 
that  there  were,  or  were  not,  presbyters  already  or- 
dained and  residing  at  the  places  to  which  these 
evangelists  were  sent,  the  argument  is  not  in  the  least 
affected  on  either  supposition. 

Fourthly,  the  advocates  of  Episcopacy  tell  us,  that 
the  circumstance  of  the  epistles  to  Timothy  and  Titus 
being  directed  to  them  personally,  proves  that  they 
alone  were  empowered  to  perform  the  services  en- 
joined. But  this  plea  has  just  as  little  real  force  as 
any  that  have  been  mentioned.  Presbyterians,  in 
ordaining  candidates  for  the  gospel  ministry,  con- 
stantly address  to  each  individual  the  very  same 
charges  which  are  addressed  to  these  evangelists, 
and  in  the  very  same  words,  without  being  conscious 
of  the  least  inconsistency  with  their  principles.  We 
constantly  say  to  every  candidate,  as  Paul  said  to  his 
"  son  in  the  faith,"  "  Lay  hands  suddenly  on  no 
man" — "  That  which  thou  hast  received,  the  same 
commit  thou  to  faithful  men,  who  shall  be  able  to 
teach  others  also;"  but  who  ever  thought  of  our  ex- 
pecting him  to  be  the  sole  ordainer  in  any  case? 
Further;  directions  are  given  to  Timothy  respecting 
the  performance  of  public  preaching,  and  the  topics 
of  public  prayer;  but  surely  we  are  not  to  under- 
stand from  this  that  he  alone  was  to  preach  and  to 
pray.  Besides,  it  is  evident  that  some  parts  of  the 
epistles  directed  to  these  evangelists,  were  intended  to 
guide  the  churches  as  well  as  the  ministers  to  whom 
they  were  directed.  And  even  if  these  epistles  were  in- 
tended for  the  use  of  the  clergy  alone,  at  Ephesus  and 


TESTIMONY    OF    SCRIPTURE.  J.9| 

Crete,  it  would  have  been  a  matter  of  course,  accord- 
ing to  Presbyterian  habits,  to  direct  each  of  them  to 
the  moderator  of  the  Presbytery,  or  the  leading  man 
in  each  place,  to  be  imparted  to  his  brethren, 

Fifthly,  the  account  given  of  the  ordination  of 
Timothy  is  wholly  irreconcilable  with  the  notion  of 
his  having  been  a  diocesan  bishop.  That  account  is 
contained  in  the  following  passages — "  Neglect  not 
the  gift  that  is  in  thee,  which  was  given  thee  by 
prophecy,  with  the  laying  on  of  the  hands  of  the 
Presbytery/'  1  Tim.  iv.  14.  "Wherefore  I  put  thee 
in  remembrance  that  thou  stir  up  the  gift  of  God 
which  is  in  thee,  by  the  putting  on  of  my  hands/-'  2 
Tim.  i.  6.  These  passages  are  generally  considered, 
both  by  Presbyterians  and  Episcopalians,  as  furnish- 
ing a  record  of  Timothy's  ordination,  and  the  com- 
mon opinion  is  understood  to  be,  that  the  apostle 
himself  presided  in  the  Presbytery,  and  in  the  laying 
on  of  hands,  when  the  ordination  took  place.  The 
original  word  (apsafivtspiov,)  translated  presbytery,  in 
the  first  passage,  whenever  used  in  the  New  Testa- 
ment, or  in  the  early  ecclesiastical  writers,  invariably 
signifies  a  bench  or  body  of  elders;  and  the  inevita- 
ble conclusion  seems  to  be  that  a  plurality  of  elders, 
or  presbyters,  laid  on  hands,  with  the  apostle,  in 
setting  apart  Timothy  to  the  sacred  office.  To  avoid 
this  example  of  Presbyterian  ordination,  some  of  the 
advocates  of  prelacy  contend  that  the  apostle  repre- 
sents Timothy's  ordination  as  having  been  effected 
by  (5t»)  the  laying  on  of  his  hands,  and  ivith  (peta) 
the  laying  on  of  the  hands  of  the  presbytery.  Hence 
they  infer  that  the  apostle  only,  in  this  transaction, 
imparted  authority;  while  the  presbyters  imposed 
hands  merely  to  express  consent.     Without  stopping 

11 


|22  TESTIMONY    OF    SCRIPTURE. 

to  discuss  this  point  of  Greek  philology — which  no 
one  who  has  a  mature  acquaintance  with  the  original 
language  of  the  New  Testament  will  sustain — it  is 
sufficient  to  state,  as  intimated  in  the  preceding  chap- 
ter, that  if  this  criticism,  and  the  plea  founded  upon 
it  be  admitted,  it  will  wholly  destroy  that  branch  of 
the  Episcopal  argument  which  it  is  designed  to  sup- 
port; for,  although  on  the  principles  of  prelacy,  pres- 
byters or  elders  may  and  do  lay  on  hands  in  the  ordi- 
nation of  presbyters,  yet  they  never  are  or  can  be 
allowed  to  do  so  in  the  consecration  of  bishops;  to 
which  office  Timothy  is  alleged  to  have  been  now  set 
apart.  If,  therefore,  the  criticism  on  these  Greek 
words,  which  has  been  so  much  laboured  by  Episco- 
pal writers,  be  adhered  to,  it  must  destroy  Timothy's 
bishopric.  This,  however,  was  sufficiently  argued  in 
the  preceding  chapter.* 

*  The  view  of  Timothy's  ordination,  taken  by  Mr.  Townsend,  a 
late  and  popular  Episcopal  writer,  in  his  "  Chronological  and  Histori- 
cal Bible,"  is  the  following — "  Timothy  had  a  special  call  of  God  to 
the  work  of  an  evangelist,  which  the  elders  of  the  church  at  Lystra 
knowing,  set  him  solemnly  apart  to  the  work  by  the  imposition  of 
hands,  (1  Tim.  iv.  14.)  And  they  were  particularly  led  to  this  by 
several  prophetic  declarations  relative  to  him,  by  which  his  divine 
call  was  most  clearly  ascertained.  (See  1  Tim.  i.  18.  and  iii.  14.)'* 
After  this  appointment  by  the  elders,  the  apostle  himself  laid  his 
hands  on  him ;  not,  perhaps,  for  the  purpose  of  his  evangelical  desig- 
nation, but  that  he  might  receive  those  extraordinary  gifts  of  the 
Holy  Spirit,  so  necessary,  in  those  primitive  times,  to  demonstrate 
the  truth  of  the  gospel — (See  1  Tim.  i.  6. 7.)  It  is  not  probable  that 
Timothy  had  two  ordinations ;  one  by  the  elders  of  Lystra,  and  an- 
other by  the  apostle ;  as  it  is  most  probable  that  St.  Paul  acted  with 
that  rtpEdfivtspiov,  or  eldership,  mentioned  1  Tim.  iv.  14,  among 
whom,  in  the  imposition  of  hands,  he  would  undoubtedly  act  as 
chief."  New  Testament  II.  324,  325.  This  is  a  probable  and  ra- 
tional view  of  the  subject,  which  must  commend  itself  to  the  judg- 
ment of  every  impartial  reader. 


TESTIMONY    OF    SCRIPTURE.  123 

To  escape  from  this  difficulty,  another  class  of 
Episcopalians,  as  before  mentioned,  (for  they  are 
wholly  disagreed  among  themselves  as  to  this  point,) 
allege  that  by  the  presbytery  (itpeafivtepiov)  in  this 
case,  we  are  to  understand,  not  a  body  of  presbyters, 
but  the  college  of  the  apostles.  This  supposition  is  a 
mere  subterfuge.  There  is  not  a  shadow  of  counte- 
nance for  it  to  be  found  in  Scripture.  It  is  confessed, 
on  all  hands,  that  the  word  is  never  used  in  this 
sense  in  any  other  place  in  the  New  Testament.  Be- 
sides, if  the  college  of  apostles  united  with  Paul  in 
this  transaction,  then  the  whole  criticism  concerning 
by  (5ta)  and  with  (ptto.,)  so  often  and  so  laboriously 
urged  by  other  learned  Episcopalians,  must  be  aban- 
doned, as  not  only  irrelevant,  but  subversive  of  the 
whole  argument,"  indeed,  as  absurd. 

Sixthly.  Another  consideration  is  worthy  of  notice 
in  regard  to  the  alleged  character  of  Timothy  as 
bishop  of  Ephesus.  If  he  ever  bore  that  office  it  must 
have  been  when  Paul's  first  epistle  to  him  was 
written:  for  it  is  in  this  Epistle  alone  that  the  sup- 
posed evidence  of  his  Episcopal  powers  is  found. 
But  this  epistle,  as  the  most  learned  and  judicious 
commentators  agree,  was  written  from  Macedonia, 
about  the  year  of  Christ  58;  a  short  time  before  the 
celebrated  interview  of  Paul  with  the  elders  of  Ephe- 
sus, at  Miletus.  This  is  the  date  assigned  to  it  by 
Athanasius  and  Theodoret,  among  the  ancients;  and 

*  So  embarrassing  did  this  affair  of  Timothy's  being  ordained  by 
"  the  laying  on  of  the  hands  of  the  Presbytery"  appear  to  Bishop 
Onderdonk,  that,  in  his  Episcopacy  Tested  by  Scripture,  he  has 
abandoned  both  passages  in  1  Tim.  iv.  14,  and  2  Tim.  i.  6,  as  neither 
of  them  relating  to  the  ordination  of  Timothy  at  all !  In  this  he 
differs  entirely  from  Archbishop  Potter,  and  from  nineteen-twentieths 
of  the  most  learned  divines  of  his  own  denomination. 


124  TESTIMONY    OF    SCRIPTURE. 

by  Dr.  Hammond,  the  learned  Grotius,  Dr.  Lightfoot, 
Dr.  Benson,  Dr.  Doddridge,  Professor  Michaelis,  and 
other  modern  critics  of  equal  reputation.  Indeed  this 
is  pronounced  the  most  common  and  best  supported 
opinion  by  Mr.  Townsend,  in  his  "  Chronological 
and  Historical  Bible/'  now  so  popularly  current 
among  American  Episcopalians.  Now  if  Timothy 
were  constituted  bishop  of  Ephesus  at  this  period, 
how  came  the  apostle  Paul,  in  his  conference  with 
the  elders  whom  he  met  at  Miletus,  when  Timothy 
was  present,  not  to  say  one  word  to  them  about  him 
as  their  ecclesiastical  superior;  but  to  style  them  the 
bishops  of  that  church,  and  to  commit  to  them  its 
government,  as  we  have  seen  in  a  former  chapter  ? 
Was  Timothy,  after  holding  this  office  a  few  months, 
so  soon  displaced  ?  Or,  if  he  still  bore  the  office,  is  it 
credible  that  the  Apostle  should  have  totally  forgot- 
ten the  circumstance;  that  he  should  declare  the  pres- 
byters of  that  church  to  be  its  bishops,  and  charge 
them  to  execute  Episcopal  duties;  and  that,  when 
predicting  divisions  and  heresies  which  were  about 
to  arise  among  them,  he  should  say  nothing  of  any 
superior  officer,  as  their  spiritual  guide,  and  bond  of 
union?  It  is  not  credible.  No  impartial  reader  can- 
believe  that  Timothy,  at  this  time,  bore  any  such 
fixed  relation  to  the  church  of  Ephesus,  as  that  for 
which  the  friends  of  prelacy  contend.  But  even  if 
we  suppose  the  epistle  in  question  to  have  been 
written  at  a  later  period,  even  as  late  as  A.  D.  64  or 
65,  as  some  contend,  still  the  Episcopal  cause  will 
not  be  aided  in  the  least  degree  by  adopting  this 
alternative.  It  will  rather  be  still  more  weakened. 
For  about  that  very  time,  as  most  biblical  critics 
agree,  the  apostle  Paul  addressed  a  most  affectionate 


TESTIMONY    OF    SCRIPTURE.  125 

and  interesting  letter  to  the  Ephesians,  in  which  he 
gives  not  the  least  hint  of  any  such  ecclesiastical  su- 
perior as  a  prelate,  as  existing  among  them,  or  as 
ever  having  been  placed  over  them.  And  although 
the  apostle  speaks  of  corruption  in  the  midst  of  them, 
and  of  disorders  as  needing  to  be  corrected,  he  says 
not  one  word  of  such  a  superior  officer  as  either  ne- 
cessary or  desirable  for  rectifying  what  was  amiss, 
and  watching  over  the  church  there.  This  is  an 
omission  which  never  could  have  occurred  had  there 
been  such  an  officer  in  that  church,  or  had  it  been 
governed  at  all  upon  Episcopal  principles.  This  in- 
disputable fact  is  conclusive.  It  does  not  merely  ren- 
der the  Episcopal  claim  improbable;  it  places  its 
support  out  of  the  question. 

Seventhly,  the  continual  journeying  of  Timothy 
and  Titus  plainly  shows  that  they  were  rather  evan- 
gelists, as  the  apostle  distinctly  calls  one  of  them, 
than  fixed  diocesan  bishops.  It  is  evident  from  the 
New  Testament  history  that  neither  of  these  minis- 
ters was  long  stationary  in  any  one  place.  They 
appear  to  have  been  almost  constantly  itinerating,  to 
preach  the  gospel,  and  organize  churches.  With  re- 
spect to  Timothy,  we  find  him  at  one  period  with 
Paul  at  Philippi,  and  Thessalonica;  a  little  after- 
wards at  Athens;  then  at  Thessalonica  again.  Some 
years  after  this,  we  find  him  successively  at  Ephesus, 
Macedonia,  and  Corinth;  then  returning  to  Ephesus; 
soon  afterwards  revisiting  Corinth  and  Macedonia; 
then  going  to  Jerusalem;  and,  last  of  all,  travelling 
to  Rome,  where  the  sacred  history  leaves  him.  In 
like  manner,  we  may  trace  Titus  in  his  successive 
journeys,  from  Syria  to  Jerusalem;  thence  to  Co- 
rinth; from   Corinth  to   Macedonia;   back  again  to 

11* 


126  TESTIMONY    OF    SCRIPTURE. 

Corinth;  thence  to  the  island  of  Crete;  afterwards  to 
Dalmatia,  and,  as  some  suppose,  back  again  to 
Crete.  Does  this  look  like  a  fixed  Episcopal  charge? 
Nothing  more  unlike  it. 

Such  is  the  amount  of  proof  of  the  prelatical 
powers  of  Timothy  and  Titus,  as  alleged  to  be 
drawn  from  Scripture.  It  fails  in  every  point.  Every 
thing  is  taken  for  granted;  nothing  proved.  It  has 
not  been  shown  that  either  of  these  ministers  ever 
bore  a  permanent  pastoral  relation  to  Ephesus  or 
Crete.  It  has  not  been  shown  that,  in  their  tem- 
porary designation  to  those  places,  they  ever  sus- 
tained any  higher  rank  or  power  than  that  of  evan- 
gelist. It  has  not  been  shown  that  either  of  them 
ever  performed  a  single  ordination  alone ;  and  even 
if  it  were  shown,  it  would  not  contribute  any  thing 
toward  the  establishment  of  the  character  claimed  for 
them.  Not  one  of  these  things  has  been  or  can  be 
shown ;  and  yet  they  are  all  essential  to  the  Episco- 
pal argument.  Nay  more;  not  only  is  the  New  Tes- 
tament searched  in  vain  for  a  shadow  of  proof  of  any 
of  these  positions,  but  it  furnishes  much  which  is 
utterly  irreconcilable  with  them ;  much  which,  upon 
Episcopal  principles,  is  not  only  inexplicable,  but 
altogether  incredible. 

V.  Another  argument  frequently  adduced  in  favour 
of  diocesan  Episcopacy,  is  founded  on  the  addresses 
in  Rev.  ii.  and  iii.  to  the  angels  of  the  Asiatic 
churches.  "These  angels,"  say  the  advocates  of  pre- 
lacy, "were  individuals,  who  presided  over  the  Seven 
Churches,  which  are  addressed  in  those  chapters; 
and  who,  of  course,  could  be  no  other  than  bishops" 

On  this  argument,  also,  much  stress  is  laid.  But, 
really,  its  sole  merit,  as  in  several  preceding  cases, 


TESTIMONY    OF    SCRIPTURE.  127 

consists  in   confident   assertion,  and  in  begging  the 
whole  question. 

Is  it  certain  that  by  these  angels  were  meant  indi- 
vidual ministers?  and  if  so,  why  may  they  not  have 
been  Presbyterian  pastors,  as  well  as  Episcopal 
bishops?  Every  word  that  is  said  of  them  applies 
quite  as  appropriately  and  strictly  to  the  former  as  to 
the  latter.  Some,  and,  among  the  rest,  very  respecta- 
ble Episcopal  commentators,  have  thought  that  by 
this  word  collective  bodies  of  pastors  were  intended. 
Again;  supposing  individuals  to  be  meant,  what  is 
there  in  the  word  angel  which  ascertains  its  meaning 
to  be  a  diocesan  bishop  ?  Angel  signifies  a  messen- 
ger; and  accordingly,  some  able  Episcopal  writers 
have  conjectured  (and  no  mortal  can  do  more  than 
conjecture)  that  the  angels  referred  to  in  this  passage 
of  Scripture  were  a  kind  of  itinerant  legates,  or  spe- 
cial missionaries  to  the  several  churches  mentioned 
in  connexion  with  them.  But,  admitting  that  they 
were  resident  ministers;  perhaps  they  were  pastors 
of  single  congregations;  or,  perhaps,  in  each  of  those 
cities,  the  eldest  and  most  conspicuous  pastor  was 
selected  as  the  medium  for  addressing  the  church  of 
the  city  in  which  he  lived.  I  say  perhaps,  for  each 
of  these  opinions  has  had  its  advocates,  among  Epis- 
copalians, as  well  as  others;  and  it  is  impossible  to  be 
certain  which  of  them  approaches  nearest  to  the 
truth.  Amidst  this  total  uncertainty,  then,  is  it  not 
abusing  the  credulity  of  men,  to  the  last  degree,  to 
take  the  whole  question  in  controversy  for  granted  ; 
to  pronounce  with  confidence  that  no  other  than  dio- 
cesan bishops  could  have  been  intended ;  and  to  re- 
present as  blinded  with  prejudice  all  who  do  not  see 
and  acknowledge  this  to  be  the  case  ?     The  fact  is, 


128  TESTIMONY    OF    SCRIPTURE. 

the  whole  language  used  respecting  these  apocalyp- 
tic angels,  applies  much  more  naturally  to  the  Pres- 
byterian than  to  the  prelatical  hypothesis. 

Let  it  be  remembered,  too,  that,  so  far  as  the  insu- 
lated word  angel  carries  with  it  a  meaning  to  us, 
that  meaning  is  much  more  favourable  to  Presbytery 
than  Episcopacy.  It  was  shown  in  a  former  letter, 
that,  in  every  synagogue  among  the  Jews,  there  was 
an  officer,  who,  among  other  names,  was  called  the 
Jingel  of  the  Church,  and  that  that  officer  was  not  a 
prelate.  It  was  also  shown  that  the  synagogue  mo- 
del, particularly  with  respect  to  the  names  and  duties 
of  ministers,  was  adopted  in  the  Christian  Church. 
Now  if  this  statement  be  admitted,  we  must  consider 
these  angels  as  ordinary  pastors,  and  the  whole  strain 
of  the  addresses  to  them  serves  rather  to  confirm  than 
invalidate  this  conclusion.  We  know  not  that  there 
were  more  than  a  single  congregation  in  either  of  the 
cities  to  which  these  epistles  were  sent.  We  know 
certainly  that  it  was  customary  to  have  but  one  com- 
munion table  in  a  parish,  as  the  bishop's  charge  was 
generally  called  during  the  first  two  or  three  centu- 
ries; and  if  there  was  but  one  organized  church 
each  in  Ephesus,  Smyrna,  &c,  then,  as  in  the  syna- 
gogue system,  the  angel  was  the  parochial  bishop,  or 
pastor  of  each  congregation  addressed ;  and  the  Pres- 
byterian sense  of  the  word  angel  follows  of  course. 

VI.  One  more  Episcopal  argument  attempted  to 
be  drawn  from  Scripture  remains  to  be  considered. 
It  is  the  allegation  "that  the  Apostle  James  was  the 
bishop  of  Jerusalem,"  and  that  we  have  in  his  case 
a  decisive  example  of  the  rank  and  power  of  a  pre- 
late. The  reader  will,  no  doubt,  be  astonished  when 
he  is  told  on  what  sort  of  evidence  this  inference  is 


TESTIMONY    OF    SCRIPTURE.  129 

made.  It  is  from  such  considerations  as  the  follow- 
ing: 1.  That  in  the  Synod  at  Jerusalem  (Acts  xv.)  he 
spoke  last,  and  expressed  himself  thus,  "  Wherefore 
my  sentence  is,"  &c.  2.  That  the  apostle  Peter,  after 
his  release  from  prison,  said  to  certain  persons,  "  Go 
show  these  things  unto  James,  and  to  the  brethren," 
Acts  xii.  17.  And  3.  That,  in  Acts  xxi.  17,  18,  it  is 
said,  "  And  when  we  were  come  to  Jerusalem,  the 
brethren  received  us  gladly.  And  the  day  following 
Paul  went  in  with  us  unto  James,  and  all  the  elders 
were  present."  This  is  the  sum  total  of  the  Scrip- 
tural testimony  adduced  in  support  of  the  claim  in 
question.  When  stripped  of  all  its  plausible  decora- 
tions it  stands  simply  thus.  In  the  synod  which  as- 
sembled at  Jerusalem  the  Apostle  James  had  a  seat, 
and  spoke  last;  therefore,  he  was  Bishop  of  Jerusa- 
lem! When  Peter  was  delivered  from  prison,  he  re- 
quested that  an  account  of  his  release  might  be  sent 
"  to  James  and  to  the  brethren" — therefore  James 
was  the  Bishop  of  Jerusalem.  Paul  and  his  company, 
when  they  came,  on  a  certain  occasion,  to  Jerusalem, 
"  went  in  unto  James;  and  all  the  elders  were  present" 
— therefore,  James  was  the  diocesan  Bishop  of  Jeru- 
salem, and  these  elders  were  his  "  clergy!"  Does  this 
deserve  the  name  of  sober  reasoning?  Do  not  facts 
of  the  same  kind  happen  even  with  respect  to  Pres- 
byterian clergymen?  Does  the  circumstance  of  a  mi- 
nister of  the  gospel  speaking  last  in  a  debate  in  a  de- 
liberative assembly;  or  having  intelligence  of  an  in- 
teresting ecclesiastical  event  sent  to  him;  or  having  a 
meeting  of  brother  ministers  at  his  house  on  a  special 
occasion — constitute  him  a  prelate?  When  contro- 
vertists  who  would  be  thought  to  argue  and  not  to 
trifle,  can  condescend  to  amuse  their  readers  with  re- 


130  TESTIMONY  OF  SCRIPTURE. 

presentations  of  this  kind,  under  the  garb  of  reason- 
ing, it  is  really  difficult  to  answer  them  in  the  lan- 
guage of  respect  or  gravity. 

The  reader  has  now  seen  a  full  and  candid  exhibi- 
tion of  the  testimony  attempted  to  be  drawn  from 
Scripture  in  favour  of  Episcopacy.  No  part  of  it 
has  been  designedly  kept  back.  The  whole  of  it  is 
substantially  before  him.  Now  let  it  be  remembered 
that  Episcopalians  make  a  high  and  exclusive  claim; 
a  claim  which,  if  substantiated,  would  confine  to 
themselves,  among  Protestants,  the  possession  of  true 
ecclesiastical  character,  and  consign  all  others  to  the 
*  uncovenanted  mercies  of  God."  Of  course,  as  has 
been  said,  the  burden  of  proof  lies  on  them.  Has,  then, 
even  plausible  proof  from  Scripture,  of  any  one  point 
in  the  controversy,  been  produced?  It  has  not;  nor 
can  it  be.  Let  any  intelligent  and  impartial  reader  take 
the  New  Testament  in  his  hand,  and  read  it  carefully 
through;  bearing  in  mind  the  concession  now  unani- 
mously made  by  Episcopalians — that  the  title  of 
"  bishop,"  as  used  in  Scripture,  never  means  a  pre- 
late; and  then  ask  himself  whether  there  is  a  single 
passage  in  the  whole  which  so  much  as  looks  like  a 
Divine  institution  of  prelacy?  Whether  there  is  a 
single  declaration,  statement,  or  hint,  which  tends  to 
establish  any  one  part  of  the  Episcopal  claim?  On 
such  a  subject — a  subject  entering  so  deeply,  if  we 
may  believe  our  Episcopal  neighbours,  into  all  the 
most  important  questions  of  Christian  ordinances,  and 
Christian  hopes — we  have  a  right  to  demand  Scrip- 
tural warrant  of  the  most  clear  and  unquestionable 
kind.  But  instead  of  being  referred  to  testimony  of 
this  character  from  the  New  Testament,  we  are  put 
off  with  passages  which   we  are  told  may  have  a 


TESTIMONY    OF    SCRIPTURE.  ]31 

meaning  favourable  to  prelacy ;  which  probably  have 
such  a  meaning;  and  which,  therefore,  it  ought  not 
to  be  questioned,  have  in  fact  such  a  meaning !  This 
is  really  no  caricature  of  their  mode  of  reasoning.  It 
is  the  spirit  of  their  whole  argument,  as  attempted  to 
be  drawn  from  Scripture.  They  have  not  produced, 
and  they  cannot  produce,  a  single  passage  from  the 
whole  New  Testament  which  solidly  supports  any 
one  of  their  allegations;  nay,  which  does  not  more 
naturally  accord  with  the  Presbyterian  system  than 
with  that  of  prelacy.  The  truth  is,  the  moment  that 
modern  Episcopalians  consent  to  bring  their  cause  to 
the  "  test  of  Scripture,"  it  is  gone.  Their  wiser  fathers 
saw  and  confessed  that  the  Bible  alone  would  not 
bear  them  out  in  their  claim;  but  that  it  was  neces- 
sary to  unite  the  testimony  of  Scripture  with  that  of 
the  Fathers  to  sustain  it.  Even  with  this  aid,  as  we 
shall  presently  see,  they  are  destitute  of  solid  support. 
But  without  it,  their  testimony  is  a  mere  shadow, 
which  cannot  fail  of  being  driven  from  any  sober, 
impartial  tribunal,  as  scarcely  worthy  of  answer. 

I  say  again,  then,  to  suppose  that  our  Saviour  and 
his  inspired  apostles  concurred  in  opinion  with  modern 
divine-right  Episcopalians;  and  yet  that  they  could 
have  closed  the  sacred  canon  without  recording  one 
unequivocal  decisive  sentence  in  support  of  that  opi- 
nion, is,  of  all  incredible  things  one  of  the  most  in- 
credible. 


132  TESTIMONY    OF    THE    FATHERS. 


CHAPTER  IV. 

» 

TESTIMONY    OF    THE    FATHERS. 

The  most  respectable  and  authentic  writers  in  the 
Christian  Church,  who  lived  during  the  first  four  or 
five  centuries  after  Christ,  are  emphatically  styled,  by- 
ecclesiastical  historians,  by  way  of  eminence,  the 
Fathers.  The  writings  of  these  venerable  men  have 
been  much  resorted  to  in  this  controversy.  Many, 
even  of  those  who  acknowledge  the  feebleness  and 
insufficiency  of  the  arguments  in  support  of  Episco- 
pacy from  Scripture,  believe  that  the  fathers  speak 
decidedly  in  its  favour.  Whatever  doubts  may  attend 
the  evidence  in  support  of  this  system  drawn  from 
other  sources,  here,  they  imagine,  there  can  be  no 
question.  For  the  sake  of  such  persons,  and  to  ena- 
ble every  reader  to  decide  how  far  many  positive  de- 
clarations which  are  made  by  the  friends  of  Episco- 
pacy are  entitled  to  credit,  it  becomes  necessary  to 
inquire  what  these  early  writers  attest  on  the  subject 
before  us. 

Before  we  proceed,  however,  to  this  branch  of  our 
subject,  it  is  proper  to  pause  and  ask,  what  is  the  cha- 
racter of  the  fathers,  and  how  far  we  may  regard  their 
writings  with  confidence?  Were  they  inspired  men? 
Far  from  it.  It  is  impossible  for  any  intelligent  man, 
whose  understanding  is  not  absolutely  blinded  by  pre- 
judice, to  open  the  pages  of  any  one  of  them  without 
seeing  evidence  enough  that  they  were  not  guided  by 


TESTIMONY    OF    THE    FATHERS.  133 

the  unerring  Spirit  of  wisdom.  Were  they,  for  the 
most  part,  sound  and  judicious  theologians?  No;  the 
praise  of  this  must  also  be  denied  them.  Of  the  whole 
number  there  was  but  a  single  man  who  held  and 
taught  a  tolerably  consistent  and  scriptural  system. 
Most  of  the  rest,  though  some  of  them  were  men  of  ta- 
lents, learning,  and  eloquence,  were  chargeable  with 
so  many  serious  errors, that  they  would  be  poor  guides 
indeed  for  Bible  Christians.  When  we  open  their 
numerous  and  ponderous  volumes,  we  find  so  much 
weakness;  so  much  miserable  superstition;  so  much 
crude  thinking;  so  many  important  mistakes  concern- 
ing Christian  doctrine  and  practice,  as  to  make  it  per- 
fectly evident,  that  if  it  were  safe  or  proper  to  take 
any  uninspired  writers  as  guides,  in  spiritual  things, 
it  would  be  neither  proper  nor  safe  to  take  them. 
Those  who  wish  to  see  a  learned  and  able  account  of 
the  real  character  and  proper  use  of  the  fathers,  will 
be  gratified  by  a  perusal  of  a  work  on  that  subject  by 
the  celebrated  John  Daille,  a  distinguished  Protestant 
minister  of  France;  and  also  of  another  work  of  great 
erudition  and  ability,  on  the  same  subject,  by  the 
famous  Andrew  Rivet,  a  Protestant  divine,  of  the 
highest  reputation,  also  of  France.  The  admirable 
work  of  Daille,  ought  to  be  in  the  hands  of  every 
one  who  wishes  thoroughly  to  examine  this  subject. 
It  was  received  and  read  with  the  highest  approba- 
tion by  the  celebrated  Chillingworth,  a  well  known 
Episcopal  divine  of  England. 

But,  as  Presbyterians,  we  protest  against  appealing 
to  any  uninspired  guides  in  relation  to  the  question 
before  us.     The  Bible — the  Bible,  is  the  only  infalli- 
ble rule  of  faith  and  practice.     This  is  the  only  sta- 
12 


134  TESTIMONY    OF    THE    FATHERS. 

tutebook  of  the  Redeemer's  kingdom  that  we  are  ac- 
quainted with;  and  we  insist  on  the  question  before 
us  being  decided  by  this  standard.  What  is  it  con- 
cerning which  the  fathers  are  brought  forward  to 
bear  witness?  It  is  the  assertion  that  Episcopacy,  in 
the  prelatical  sense  of  that  word,  is  an  institution  of 
Jesus  Christ.  Now,  if  it  be  an  institution  of  Jesus 
Christ,  it  is,  doubtless,  in  the  Bible;  and  if  it  be  really 
there,  we,  having  the  Bible  in  our  hands,  are  as  good 
judges  of  what  it  contains  as  the  fathers  were.  By 
holy  Scripture  the  fathers  themselves  are  to  be  tried; 
and,  therefore,  to  all  arguments  drawn  from  the  au- 
thority of  the  fathers,  we  might  return  the  same  an- 
swer which  the  venerable  Augustine  did,  when  press- 
ed with  the  authority  of  Cyprian.  "  His  writings," 
says  he,  "  I  hold  not  to  be  canonical,  but  examine 
them  by  the  canonical  writings,  and  in  them  what- 
ever agrees  with  the  word  of  God,  I  accept  with  his 
praise;  what  agrees  not,  I  reject  with  his  leave." 

Suppose  it  could  be  shown,  that  all  the  fathers, 
without  any  exception,  do  testify  that  prelacy  existed 
every  where  in  fifty  years  after  the  last  apostle?  We 
know,  indeed,  that  no  such  fact,  nor  any  thing  like  it, 
can  be  shown,  as  we  shall  by  and  by  see;  but  sup- 
pose it  could  be  shown — still  if  prelacy  is  not  to  be 
found  in  the  New  Testament,  it  would  be  only  show- 
ing that  the  Church  very  early  became  corrupt — and 
certainly  nothing  more.  The  truth  is,  if  we  do  not 
find  prelacy  in  the  Bible,  we  are  not  bound  to  tell 
how  or  ivhen  it  arose.  That  is  the  province  of  its  ad- 
vocates, not  ours.  We  may,  perhaps,  be  able  to  throw 
some  light  on  that  subject  in  a  future  chapter.  But 
even  if  we  were  wholly  unable  to  do  so;  if  the  order 
of  which  we  speak,  makes  no  part  of  the  sacred  canon, 


TESTIMONY  OF  THE  FATHERS.         135 

it  is,  surely,  not  incumbent  on  us  to  say  by  whose 
folly,  or  ambition,  or  oversight,  it  crept  into  the 
Church. 

To  illustrate  our  meaning  by  an  example:  Suppose 
it  were  shown — as  it  doubtless  may  be,  from  the 
fathers — that  administering  milk  and  honey,  and  ex- 
orcism, and  the  sign  of  the  cross,  and  anointing  with 
oil,  were  added,  pretty  generally,  to  baptism  before 
the  close  of  the  second  century;  and  that  the  persons 
baptized  were  clothed  in  long  white  garments;  and 
suppose  that  testimony  equally  concurrent  and  strong 
could  be  produced,  that,  quite  as  early,  the  practice 
of  praying  toward  the  East  was  extensively  preva- 
lent; and  suppose  it  were  argued  from  the  acknow- 
ledged early  existence  of  these  superstitious  practices, 
that  they  existed  in  the  time  of  the  apostles,  and  were 
authorized  by  them?  Every  candid  reader  of  the 
Bible  and  of  early  ecclesiastical  history,  would  per- 
ceive the  conclusion  to  be  as  illegitimate  in  reasoning, 
as  it  is  false  in  fact. 

Now,  the  argument  of  our  Episcopal  brethren,  that 
Episcopacy,  in  their  sense  of  the  term,  is  an  apostoli- 
cal institution,  because  the  fathers  of  the  second  and 
third  centuries,  with  one  voice,  speak  of  it  as  really 
existing  in  their  day — even  if  the  alleged  fact  could 
be  made  out,  that  the  early  fathers  do  thus  speak, 
(which  we  know  cannot  be,)  would  be  essentially  de- 
fective as  an  argument.  It  would  still  no  more  prove 
that  this  fact  existed  in  the  days  of  the  apostles,  than 
proving  that  the  existence  of  the  superstitious  addi- 
tions to  baptism  just  mentioned,  in  the  days  preced- 
ing those  of  Tertullian  and  Cyprian,  shows  that  our 
Saviour  or  his  inspired  apostles  authorized  those  ad- 
ditions. 


136 


TESTIMONY    OF    THE    FATHERS. 


But,  say  the  friends  of  Episcopacy,  if  we  take  this 
ground,  if  we  refuse  to  resort  to  the  testimony  of  the 
fathers  for  deciding  a  point  which  the  Bible  leaves 
somewhat  uncertain,  then  how  shall  we  establish  a 
number  of  things  which  we  consider  as  very  impor- 
tant in  Christian  practice?  For  example,  say  they, 
how  shall  we  vindicate  the  divine  authority  of  the 
first  day  Sabbath,  or  of  infant  baptism,  without  re- 
sorting to  the  testimony  of  the  fathers,  who  bear  tes- 
timony to  the  early  practice  of  the  Church  in  respect 
to  these  two  institutions  ?  Nay,  they  ask  with  confi- 
dence how  we  could  obtain  evidence  in  favour  of  the 
sacred  canon  itself,  without  resorting  to  the  testimony 
of  the  fathers  to  ascertain  the  fact,  and  some  of  the 
circumstances  of  its  reception? 

To  this  it  is  replied,  that  if  it  were  really  so,  that  a 
divine  warrant  for  infant  baptism,  and  the  Christian 
Sabbath  is  not  to  be  found  in  the  Bible ;  but  that  we 
are  under  the  necessity  of  going  to  the  fathers  for  this 
warrant;  then  every  intelligent  and  consistent  Chris- 
tian will  say,  give  them  up;  instantly  discard  them. 
We  ought  not  to  retain  them  an  hour.  But  it  is  not 
true  that  these  important  institutions  cannot  be  esta- 
blished by  the  Bible  alone,  or  that  we  are  compelled 
to  resort  to  the  fathers  for  our  warrant  to  observe 
them.  On  the  contrary,  the  divine  right  of  infant 
baptism,  and  of  the  observance  of  the  first  day  of  the 
week  as  the  Christian  Sabbath,  can  be  decidedly  and 
fully  established  from  Scripture  alone.  We  should 
have  in  the  Bible  an  ample  foundation  for  both,  if 
every  shred  of  uninspired  antiquity  had  been  com- 
mitted to  the  flames  a  thousand  years  ago. 

The  same  remark,  in  substance,  may  be  applied  to 
the  testimony  in  behalf  of  the  canon  of  the  New  Tes- 


TESTIMONY  OF  THE  FATHERS.         137 

tament  Scriptures.  The  arguments  from  miracles, 
from  prophecy,  and  especially  from  all  that  rich  and 
immense  amount  of  testimony  arising  from  what  Dr. 
Owen  emphatically  calls  the  "self-evidencing  power" 
of  the  Scriptures,  would  still  remain  unimpaired,  if 
the  writings  of  all  the  fathers  were  blotted  out  of  ex- 
istence. 

But  perhaps  it  may  be  supposed  by  some,  indeed  it 
has  been  asserted  by  many  of  our  Episcopal  brethren, 
that  we  object  in  (his  manner  to  the  testimony  of  the 
fathers,  because  we  are  afraid  of  their  testimony.  In- 
deed the  ardent  advocates  of  prelacy  have  often  in- 
sinuated, that  we  have  no  other  way  of  avoiding  de- 
struction to  our  cause,  than  by  destroying  the  credi- 
bility of  the  fathers,  or  refusing  to  appeal  to  them. 
Never  was  there  a  greater  mistake.  We  are  not  afraid 
of  the  testimony  of  these  early  witnesses.  On  the 
contrary,  we  are  persuaded  that  the  more  this  branch 
of  testimony  is  examined,  the  more  it  will  be  found 
to  fail  its  Episcopal  advocates,  and  to  sustain  the 
Presbyterian  cause. 

After  the  foregoing  protest,  then,  against  appealing 
to  the  fathers  as  authority  on  this  subject,  we  shall 
waive  all  further  objection,  and  consent  to  examine 
their  testimony,  and  abide  the  result. 

But  before  we  proceed  to  examine  what  the  fathers 
say  on  the  subject  before  us,  let  us  be  careful  to  recol- 
lect precisely  what  it  is  that  our  Episcopal  brethren 
contend  for,  and  what  they  are  bound  to  prove  by 
these  witnesses,  in  order  to  make  good  their  claims. 
When  they  show  us  passages  in  which  these  early 
writers  merely  speak  of  bishops,  they  seem  to  ima- 
gine that  their  point  is  gained:  but  such  passages  are, 
in  fact,  nothing  to  their  purpose.  We  do  not  deny 
12* 


138  TESTIMONY    OF    THE    FATHERS. 

that  there  were  bishops  in  the  primitive  Church;  on 
the  contrary,  we  contend  that  the  word  bishop  was  a 
title  given,  in  apostolic  times,  and  long  afterwards,  to 
every  pastor  of  a  particular  congregation.  And  our 
opponents  themselves  generally  acknowledge  the 
same  thing.  Nay,  they  acknowledge  that  the  title 
bishop  is  always  used  in  the  New  Testament  in  a 
Presbyterian  sense.  Again,  when  they  quote  pas- 
sages which  barely  enumerate  bishops,  presbyters,  and 
deacons,  as  distinct  officers  in  the  church,  they  can 
derive  no  assistance  even  from  these;  because  there 
were,  doubtless,  presbyters,  at  that  time,  as  well  as 
now,  who,  though  in  full  orders,  were  not  invested 
with  a  pastoral  charge;  and  who  must,  therefore,  be 
distinguished  from  such  as  were  literally  overseers  or 
bishops  of  particular  flocks.  Besides,  we  know  that 
there  were  ruling  elders  in  the  primitive  Church;  a 
class  of  presbyters  confessed  to  be  inferior  to  teaching 
presbyters  in  their  ecclesiastical  character.  In  enu- 
merating church  officers,  then,  there  was  frequently 
a  necessity  for  making  the  distinction  above  stated, 
without  in  the  least  favouring  the  pretended  supe- 
riority of  order  among  those  who  laboured  in  the 
word  and  doctrine.  No;  the  advocates  for  diocesan 
Episcopacy,  if  they  would  derive  any  support  to  their 
cause  from  the  writings  of  the  fathers,  must  do  what 
they  have  never  yet  done.  They  must  produce,  from 
those  venerable  remains  of  antiquity,  passages  which 
prove,  either  by  direct  assertion,  or  fair  inference,  that 
the  bishops  of  the  primitive  Church  were  a  distinct 
order  of  clergy  from  those  presbyters  who  were  au- 
thorized to  preach  and  administer  sacraments,  and 
superior  to  them;  that  these  bishops,  when  they  were 
advanced  to  this  superior  office,  had  a  new  and  dis- 


TESTIMONY    OF    THE    FATHERS.  139 

tinct  ordination;  that  each  bishop  had  under  him  a 
number  of  congregations,  with  their  pastors,  whom 
he  governed;  that  these  bishops  were  exclusively  in- 
vested with  the  right  of  ordaining,  and  administering 
the  rite  of  confirmation;  and  that  this  kind  of  Epis- 
copacy was  considered,  by  the  whole  primitive 
Church,  as  an  institution  of  Jesus  Christ.  When  any 
one  of  these  facts  is  fairly  proved,  from  early  anti- 
quity, the  friends  of  Presbyterian  church  government 
will  feel  as  if  they  had  something  like  solid  argument 
to  contend  with;  but  not  till  then.  Now,  after  having 
given  much  close  and  serious  attention  to  this  sub- 
ject, I  can  venture  to  assure  the  reader,  that  in  all  the 
authentic  writings  which  have  come  down  to  us,  of 
those  fathers  who  lived  within  the  first  two  hundred 
years  after  Christ,  there  is  not  a  single  sentence  which 
can  be  considered,  by  an  impartial  reader,  as  affording 
the  least  support  to  any  one  of  these  positions. 

When  one  finds  the  friends  of  Episcopacy  assert- 
ing that  the  fathers,  in  the  "plainest  terms,"  u una- 
nimously p  and  "  with  one  voice"  declare  in  their 
favour,  he  would  naturally  expect  to  find  these  early 
writers  saying  much,  and  expressing  themselves  in 
decisive  and  unequivocal  language  on  this  subject. 
But,  how  will  he  be  surprised  to  learn,  that  there  is 
not  a  single  authentic  writing  extant,  composed 
within  the  first  three  hundred  years  after  Christ,  that 
speaks  directly  and  formally  to  the  purpose,  on  any 
one  point  in  this  controversy!  The  first  writer  who 
undertook  to  discuss  the  question,  whether  bishops 
and  presbyters  were  distinct  in  the  apostles'  days, 
was  Jerome,  who  lived  in  the  fourth  century:  and 
how  he  has  decided  the  question  we  shall  see  in  the 
next  chapter.     In  all  the  writings  of  earlier  date,  the 


140        TESTIMONY  OF  THE  FATHERS. 

character  and  powers  of  church  officers  are  men- 
tioned in  au  indistinct  and  cursory  manner ;  fre- 
quently by  way  of  remote  allusion,  so  as  to  leave  it 
doubtful  whether  they  were  intended  at  all;  gene- 
rally without  any  apparent  design  to  convey  infor- 
mation respecting  them;  and  always  as  if  the  subject 
were  considered  by  the  writers  as  of  minor  impor- 
tance. It  is  from  these  hints,  allusions,  and  occasional 
intimations,  that  we  are  to  deduce  the  early  opinions 
on  the  point  before  us. 

Let  us  make  the  experiment.  Let  us  bring  for- 
ward the  testimony  of  these  ancient  worthies  in  order. 
And  in  doing  this,  it  shall  be  my  aim,  not  only  to 
adduce  those  passages  which  appear  favourable  to 
my  own  cause;  but  also  faithfully  to  state  a  fair 
specimen  of  the  strongest  of  those  which  are  usually 
quoted  by  our  Episcopal  brethren  in  support  of  their 
claim. 

In  the  catalogue  of  the  fathers,  who  say  any  thing 
worthy  of  our  attention  on  this  subject,  Clemens  Ro- 
marms  holds  the  first  place.  He  lived  towards  the 
close  of  the  first  century;  had  doubtless  conversed 
with  several  of  the  apostles  ;  and  left  behind  him  one 
epistle,  directed  to  the  brethren  of  the  church  at  Co- 
rinth, the  authenticity  of  which  is  generally  admitted. 
The  occasion  of  the  epistle  was  this.  There  had  been 
a  kind  of  schism  in  the  church  of  Corinth,  in  which 
the  body  of  the  brethren  had  risen  up  against  their 
pastors,  and  unjustly  deposed  them.  The  design  of 
Clemens  in  writing  was  to  call  these  brethren  to  a 
sense  of  their  duty,  and  to  induce  them  to  restore  and 
obey  their  pastors.  In  this  epistle  the  following 
passages  are  found.  "  The  apostles,  going  abroad, 
preaching  through  countries  and  cities,  appointed  the 


TESTIMONY    OF    THE    FATHERS.  141 

first  fruits  of  their  ministry  to  be  bishops  and  deacons. 
Nor  was  this  any  thing  new;  seeing  that  long  before 
it  was  written  concerning  bishops  and  deacons.  For 
thus  saith  the  Scripture  in  a  certain  place,  <  I  will 
appoint  their  bishops  in  righteousness  and  their  dea- 
cons in  faith.'*  Again — "  The  apostles  knew  by 
our  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  that  contentions  would  arise 
about  the  name  of  episcopacy;  and,  therefore,  having 
a  perfect  foreknowledge  of  this,  they  appointed  per- 
sons, as  we  have  before  said ;  and  gave  direction 
how,  when  they  should  die,  other  chosen  and  appro- 
ved men  should  succeed  in  their  ministry.  Where- 
fore we  cannot  think  that  those  may  be  justly  thrown 
out  of  their  ministry,  who  were  either  appointed  by 
them,  or  afterwards  chosen  by  other  eminent  men, 
with  the  consent  of  the  whole  church.  For  it  would 
be  no  small  sin  in  us  should  we  cast  off  those  from 
their  episcopate  (or  bishopric)  who  holily  and  with- 
out blame  fulfil  the  duties  of  it.  Blessed  are  those 
presbyters  who,  having  finished  their  course  before 
these  times,  have  obtained  a  perfect  and  fruitful  dis- 
solution. For  they  have  no  fear  lest  any  one  should 
turn  them  out  of  the  place  which  is  now  appointed 
for  them."    And  a  little  afterwards — "  It  is  a  shame, 

*  Clemens  here,  no  doubt,  refers  to  Isa.  lx.  17,  which,  in  our 
English  Bibles,  is  rendered,  /  will  also  make  thy  officers  peace,  and 
thine  exactors  righteousness ;  but  which,  in  the  Septuagint,  with 
which  he  was  probably  most  conversant,  is  interpreted  thus:  1  will 
appoint  thy  rulers  in  peace,  and  thy  bishops  (trtvaxortovc;)  in  right- 
eousness. If  we  interpret  Clemens  rigidly,  he  will  stand  as  an  advo- 
cate for  two  orders  instead  of  three.  But  he,  doubtless,  only  meant 
to  quote  this  passage  as  a  general  promise,  that  under  the  New  Tes- 
tament dispensation  there  should  be  a  regularly  organized  church, 
and  proper  officers;  without  undertaking  to  define  either  their  num- 
ber or  grades. 


142  TESTIMONY    OF    THE    FATHERS. 

my  beloved,  yea,  a  very  great  shame,  and  unworthy 
of  your  Christian  profession,  to  hear,  that  the  most 
firm  and  ancient  church  of  the  Corinthians,  should, 
by  one  or  two  persons,  be  led  into  a  sedition  against 
its  presbyters.  Only  let  the  flock  of  Christ  be  in 
peace  with  the  presbyters  that  are  set  over  it.  He 
that  shall  do  this,  shall  get  to  himself  a  very  great 
honour  in  the  Lord.  Do  ye,  therefore,  who  first  laid 
the  foundation  of  this  sedition,  submit  yourselves  to 
your  presbyters;  and  be  instructed  into  repentance, 
bending  the  knee  of  your  hearts. "* 

Clemens,  in  these  passages,  evidently  represents 
the  church  at  Corinth  as  subject  not  to  an  individual, 
but  to  a  company  of  persons,  whom  he  calls  presby- 
ters, or  elders.  He  exhorts  the  members  of  that 
church  to  be  obedient  to  these  presbyters;  and  ex- 
postulates with  them,  because  they  had  opposed  and 
ill-treated  their  presbyters,  and  cast  them  out  of  their 
bishopric.  Thus  we  see  that  in  the  writings  of  Cle- 
mens, as  well  as  in  the  New  Testament,  the  titles 
bishop  and  presbyter,  are  interchangeably  applied  to 
the  same  men.  This  venerable  father  gives  not  the 
least  hint  of  any  distinction  between  the  office  of 
bishop  and  presbyter,  but  plainly  represents  them  as 
the  same;  nor  does  he  once  speak  of  three  orders  in 
the  Christian  ministry.  He  mentions  a  plurality  of 
bishops  in  the  same  city;  nay,  he  not  only  represents 
the  great  cities  as  being  furnished  with  bishops,  but 
speaks  of  them  as  being  also  appointed  in  the  country 
villages. 

Had  there  been  an  individual  in  the  church  at  Co- 
rinth vested  with  the  powers  of  a  modern  bishop, 
could  Clemens,  with  any  decency  have  avoided  men- 

*  Clemens's  epistle  to  the  Corinthians,  sections  42,  43,  44. 


TESTIMONY  OF  THE  FATHERS.         143 

tioning  or  alluding  to  him  ?  Who  so  proper  to  settle 
differences  between  presbyters  and  their  people,  as 
the  bishop,  empowered  to  rule  both?  And  if  the 
place  of  such  a  bishop  were  vacant,  by  death,  or 
otherwise,  was  it  not  natural  for  Clemens  to  say 
something  about  the  appointment  of  a  successor,  as 
the  most  likely  way  to  restore  order  in  the  church? 
The  single  fact  of  his  total  silence  concerning  such  an 
officer,  under  these  circumstances,  is  little  short  of 
conclusive  evidence,  that  the  venerable  writer  knew 
of  no  other  bishojjs  than  the  presbyters  to  whom  he 
exhorted  the  people  to  be  subject.* 

Our  Episcopal  brethren  tell  us  that,  after  the  death 
of  the  last  apostle,  the  title  of  bishop,  which  had  been 
before  given  to  "  the  second  order  of  clergy,"  was 
taken  from  them  and  appropriated  to  the  first.  But 
the  writings  of  Clemens  contradict  this  story.  He 
continues  to  use  bishop  and  presbyter  interchange- 
ably for  the  same  office,  as  the  inspired  writers  had 
constantly  done. 

There  is  one  passage  in  this  epistle  of  Clemens  Ro- 
manus,  which  has  been  frequently  and  confidently 
quoted  by  Episcopal  writers,  as  favourable  to  their 
cause.  It  is  in  these  words;  sect.  40,  41.  "Seeing, 
then,  these  things  are  manifest  to  us,  it  will  behove 
us  to  take  care  that  we  do  all  things  in  order,  what- 
soever our  Lord  has  commanded  us  to  do.  And, 
particularly,  that  we  perform  our  offerings  and  ser- 

*  The  learned  Grotius  speaks  of  it  as  a  proof  of  the  antiquity  and 
genuineness  of  Clemens's  epistle,  "that  he  no  where  takes  notice  of 
that  peculiar  authority  of  bishops,  which  was  first  introduced  into 
the  church  of  Alexandria,  and  from  that  example  into  other  churches; 
but  evidently  shows,  that  the  churches  were  governed  by  the  com- 
mon council  of  presbyters,  who,  by  him,  and  the  apostle  Paul,  are 
all  called  bishops.'*'' — Epist.  ad  Bignonium. 


144  TESTIMONY    OF    THE    FATHERS. 

vice  to  God  at  their  appointed  seasons;  for  these  he 
has  commanded  to  be  done,  not  rashly  and  disorderly, 
but  at  certain  times  and  hours.  And,  therefore,  he 
has  ordained,  by  his  supreme  will  and  authority,  both 
where,  and  by  what  persons,  they  are  to  be  perform- 
ed. They,  therefore,  who  make  their  offerings  at  the 
appointed  season  are  happy  and  accepted;  because, 
that,  obeying  the  commandments  of  the  Lord,  they 
are  free  from  sin.  For  the  High-Priest  has  his  pro- 
per services;  and  to  the  priests  their  proper  place  is 
appointed;  and  to  the  Levites  appertain  their  proper 
ministries;  and  the  lay-man  is  confined  within  the 
bounds  of  what  is  commanded  to  lay-men.  Let 
every  one  of  you,  therefore,  brethren,  bless  God  in 
his  proper  station,  with  a  good  conscience,  and  with 
all  gravity;  not  exceeding  the  rule  of  the  service  to 
which  he  is  appointed.  The  daily  sacrifices  are  not 
offered  every  where;  nor  the  peace-offerings;  nor 
the  sacrifices  appointed  for  sin  and  transgression; 
but  only  at  Jerusalem:  nor  in  any  place  there;  but 
only  at  the  altar  before  the  temple;  that  which  is 
offered  being  first  diligently  examined  by  the  High- 
Priest,  and  the  other  ministers  we  before  mentioned." 
From  this  allusion  to  the  priesthood  of  the  Jews, 
the  advocates  of  Episcopacy  infer  that  Clemens  in- 
tended to  exhibit  that  priesthood  as  a  pattern  for  the 
Christian  ministry.  But  nothing  more  is  necessary  to 
set  aside  this  inference  than  a  little  attention  to  the 
scope  and  connexion  of  the  passage.  Clemens  is  en- 
deavouring to  convince  the  members  of  the  Corin- 
thian church  of  the  necessity  of  submission  to  their 
pastors,  and  of  the  great  importance  of  ecclesiastical 
order.  For  this  purpose,  in  passages  a  little  prece- 
ding that  which  is  above  quoted,  he  alludes  to  the 


TESTIMONY    OF    THE    FATHERS.  145 

regularity  which  prevails  in  the  natural  world,  and 
particularly  among  the  various  members  of  the  hu- 
man body.  He  refers  also  to  the  subordination  which 
is  found  necessary  in  military  affairs,  remarking,  that 
some  are  only  common  soldiers,  some  prefects,  some 
captains  of  fifties,  some  of  hundreds,  and  some  of 
thousands;  every  one  of  whom  is  bound  to  keep  his 
own  station.  And,  finally,  in  the  passage  under  con- 
sideration, he  calls  the  attention  of  those  to  whom  he 
wrote  to  the  strict  order  that  was  observed  in  the 
temple  service  of  the  Jews,  and  especially  with  re- 
spect to  the  times  and  circumstances  of  their  offering 
the  commanded  sacrifices.  Such  is  the  plain  and  un- 
questionable scope  of  the  whole  passage.  Is  there 
any  thing  here  like  an  intimation  of  three  orders  in 
the  Christian  ministry?  As  well  might  it  be  con- 
tended that  Clemens  would  have  the  Christian  Church 
organized  like  an  army;  and  that  he  recommends 
four  orders  of  ministers,  corresponding  with  the  four 
classes  of  military  officers,  to  which  he  alludes.  How 
wonderful  must  be  the  prejudice  that  can  make  this 
use  of  an  allusion!  And,  above  all,  how  weak  and 
desperate  must  be  that  cause,  which  cannot  be  sup- 
ported but  by  recurring  to  such  means! 

The  next  early  writer,  who  says  any  thing  on  this 
subject,  is  Hernias.  Concerning  the  life  and  charac- 
ter of  this  father,  we  have  no  information.  We  only 
know,  that  he  left  behind  him  a  work  entitled  Pas- 
tor, which  has  come  down  to  our  times,  and  the  au- 
thenticity of  which  is  generally  admitted.  It  was 
originally  written  in  Greek;  but  we  have  now  extant 
only  an  old  Latin  version,  of  the  author  or  date  of 
which  we  know  nothing.  In  this  work  the  following 
passages  relating  to  the  ministry  are  found. 

13 


146  TESTIMONY    OF    THE    FATHERS. 

"  Thou  shalt,  therefore,  say  to  those  who  preside 
over  the  Church,  that  they  order  their  ways  in  right- 
eousness, that  they  may  fully  receive  the  promise, 
with  much  glory."  Again — "  After  this,  I  saw  a 
vision  at  home,  in  my  own  house;  and  the  old  wo- 
man, whom  I  had  seen  before,  came  to  me,  and 
asked  me,  whether  I  had  yet  delivered  her  book  to 
the  elders.  And  I  answered  that  I  had  not  yet.  She 
replied,  thou  hast  done  well;  for  I  have  certain 
words  more  to  tell  thee.  And  when  I  have  finished 
all  the  words,  they  shall  be  clearly  understood  by  the 
elect.  And  thou  shalt  write  two  books,  and  send  one 
to  Clement,  and  one  to  Grapte.  For  Clement  shall 
send  it  to  the  foreign  cities,  because  it  is  permitted  to 
him  to  do  so.  But  Grapte  shall  admonish  the  widows 
and  orphans.  But  thou  shalt  read  in  this  city  with 
the  elders  who  preside  over  the  church"  Again — 
"Hear  now  concerning  the  stones  that  are  in  the 
building.  The  square  and  white  stones,  which  agree 
exactly  in  their  joints  are  the  apostles,  and  bishops, 
and  doctors,  and  ministers,  who,  through  the  mercy 
of  God,  have  come  in,  and  governed,  and  taught,  and 
ministered,  holily  and  modestly,  to  the  elect  of  God." 
Again — "  As  for  those  who  had  their  rods  green,  but 
yet  cleft;  they  are  such  as  were  always  faithful  and 
good;  but  they  had  some  envy  and  strife  among 
themselves,  concerning  dignity  and  pre-eminence. 
Now  all  such  are  vain  and  without  understanding, 
as  contend  with  one  another  about  these  things.  For 
the  life  of  those  who  keep  the  commandments  of  the 
Lord,  consists  in  doing  what  they  are  commanded; 
not  in  principality,  or  in  any  other  dignity."  Once 
more — "For  what  concerns  the  tenth  mountain,  in 
which  were  the  trees  covering  the  cattle,  they  are 


TESTIMONY  OF  THE  FATHERS.        147 

such  as  have  believed,  and  some  of  them  have  been 
bishops,  that  is,  presidents  of  the  churches.  Then 
such  as  have  been  set  over  inferior  ministries,  and 
have  protected  the  poor,  and  the  widows"  &c.* 

From  one  of  the  foregoing  extracts,  it  is  evident 
that  Hermas  resided  at  Rome;  that  he  had  a  particu- 
lar reference  to  the  church  in  that  city;  and  that  the 
period  at  which  he  wrote  was,  when  Clement,  before 
mentioned,  was  one  of  the  bishops  or  presidents  oi 
that  church.  From  a  comparison  of  these  extracts, 
it  will  also  appear  that  Hermas  also  considered 
bishops  and  elders  as  different  titles  for  the  same 
office.  He  speaks  of  elders  as  presiding  over  the 
church  of  Rome;  he  represents  a.  plurality  of  elders 
as  having  this  presidency  at  the  same  time;  having 
used  the  word  bishops,  he  explains  it  as  meaning 
those  ivho  presided  over  the  churches;  and  imme- 
diately after  bishops,  (without  mentioning  presbyters) 
he  proceeds  to  speak  of  deacons,  that  is,  those  who 
are  intrusted  with  the  protection  of  the  poor  and  of 
the  widows. 

On  one  of  the  passages  quoted  above,  some  zealous 
friends  of  Episcopacy  have  laid  considerable  stress. 
It  is  this.  "The  square  and  white  stones,  which 
agree  exactly  in  their  joints,  are  the  apostles,  and 
bishops,  and  doctors,  and  ministers,  who,  through  the 
mercy  of  God,"  &c.  On  this  passage,  Cotelerius,  a 
learned  Roman  Catholic  editor,  has  the  following 
note.  "  You  have  here  the  distinct  orders  of  the 
hierarchy,  in  apostles,  in  bishops,  exercising  episco- 
pacy, in  doctors  or  presbyters,  teaching,  and  in  dea- 
cons ministering."  In  language  of  the  same  import, 
some  protestant  friends  of  prelacy  have  commented 

*  Vision,  II.  4.  III.  5,  6.  Similitude,  IX.  27. 


148  TESTIMONY    OF    THE    FATHERS. 

on  the  passage.  It  is  really  amusing  to  find  grave  and 
sober  men  attempting  to  make  so  much  of  a  passage, 
in  every  respect,  so  little  to  their  purpose.  For,  to 
say  nothing  of  the  evidently  loose  and  fanciful  nature 
of  the  whole  comparison,  it  is  not  a  warrant  for  three, 
but  for  four  orders  of  clergy;  and,  of  course,  if  it 
proves  any  thing,  will  prove  too  much  for  the  system 
of  any  protestant  Episcopalian.  Besides,  Hermas 
says  nothing  like  apostles  and  bishops  being  the 
same,  which  is  a  favourite  doctrine  with  modern  pre- 
latists. 

The  epistle  of  Polycarp  to  the  church  at  Philippi, 
written  early  in  the  second  century,  stands  next  on 
the  roll  of  antiquity.  This  venerable  martyr,  like 
Clemens,  speaks  of  only  two  orders  of  church  officers, 
viz.  presbyters  and  deacons.*  He  exhorts  the  Philip- 
pians  to  obey  these  officers  in  the  Lord.  "  It  behoves 
you,"  says  he,  "  to  abstain  from  these  things,  being 
subject  to  the  presbyters  and  deacons  as  to  God  and 
Christ."  And  again:  "Let  the  presbyters  be  com- 
passionate and  merciful  towards  all;  turning  them 
from  their  errors;  seeking  out  those  that  are  weak; 
not  forgetting  the  widows,  the  fatherless,  and  the 
poor;  abstaining  from  all  wrath,  respect  of  persons, 
and  unrighteous  judgment;  not  easy  to  believe  any 
thing  against  any;  nor  severe  in  judgment;  knowing 
that  we  are  all  debtors  in  point  of  law."  The  word 
bishop  is  no  where  mentioned  in  his  whole  epistle; 

*  It  is  worthy  of  remark,  that  the  apostle  Paul,  in  writing  to  the 
same  church  about  fifty  or  sixty  years  before,  also  speaks  of  their 
having  only  two  orders  of  officers,  viz.  bishops  and  deacons.  See 
Philip,  i.  1.  But  those  whom  Paul  styled  bishops,  Po'ycarp  after- 
wards calls  presbyters,  the  names  in  the  time  of  Polycarp,  as  well  as 
in  the  time  of  Paul,  being  still  common. 


TESTIMONY    OF    THE    FATHERS.  149 

nor  does  he  give  the  most  distant  hint  as  if  there  were 
any  individual  or  body  of  men  vested  with  powers 
superior  to  presbyters.  On  the  contrary,  he  speaks  of 
the  presbyters  as  being  intrusted  with  the  inspection 
and  rule  of  the  church;  for,  while,  on  the  one  hand, 
he  exhorts  the  members  of  the  church  to  submit  to 
them,  he  intreats  the  presbyters  themselves  to  abstain 
from  unrighteous  judgment,  and  to  have  no  respect 
of  persons. 

Perhaps  it  will  be  asked,  Is  not  Polycarp  spoken 
of,  by  several  early  writers,  as  bishop  of  Smyrna? 
And  does  not  this  fact  alone  establish  the  principle 
for  which  Episcopalians  contend  ?  I  answer,  by  no 
means.  Polycarp  is  indeed  called  by  this  name.  So 
also  is  Clement  called  bishop  of  Rome,  and  Ignatius 
of  Antioch.  Nor,  perhaps,  have  we  any  reason  to 
doubt  that  they  were  so.  But  in  what  sense  were 
they  bishops  ?  We  say,  they  were  scriptural,  primi- 
tive bishops,  that  is,  pastors,  or  among  the  pastors 
of  particular  congregations.  And  in  support  of  this 
assertion,  we  produce  the  testimony  of  Scripture, 
and  the  uniform  language  of  the  truly  primitive 
church.  But  whatever  kind  of  bishop  Polycarp  was, 
we  shall  presently  see  that  a  contemporary  father  ex- 
horts him  to  be  personally  acquainted  with  every 
member  of  his  flock ;  to  seek  out  all  by  name;  and 
not  to  overlook  even  the  servant  men  and  maids  of 
his  charge.  Whether  the  minister  who  could  do  this, 
was  more  than  the  pastor  of  a  single  congregation,  I 
leave  every  man  of  common  sense  to  judge. 

The  fourth  place,  in  the  list  of  apostolical  fathers, 
belongs  to  Ignatius.  The  epistles  which  go  under  the 
name  of  this  venerable  Christian  bishop,  have  been 
the  subject  of  much  controversy.     That  some  copies 

13* 


150        TESTIMONY  OF  THE  FATHERS. 

of  them  were  interpolated,  and  exceedingly  corrupted, 
in  the  dark  ages,  all  learned  men  now  agree.*  And, 
that  even  the  "shorter  epistles,"  as  published  by 
Usher  and  Vossius,  are  unworthy  of  confidence,  as 
the  genuine  works  of  the  father  whose  name  they 
bear,  is  the  opinion  of  many  of  the  ablest  and  best 
judges  in  the  protestant  world. 

These  epistles  were  first  published  at  Strasburg  in 
the  year  1502.  And,  although  only  seven  are  now 
received  as  genuine,  they  were  then  eleven  in  number. 
In  an  edition  published  a  few  years  afterwards  there 
appeared  twelve;  and  not  long  after  that,  fifteen; 
together  with  an  additional  letter  from  the  Virgin 
Mary  to  Ignatius.  Nor  did  they  alter  thus  in  num- 
ber merely;  for  in  some  of  those  editions,  several  of 
the  epistles  were  nearly  twice  as  large  as  in  others. 
Accordingly,  archbishop  Wake,  in  the  preface  to  his 
translation  of  these  epistles,  remarks:  "there  have 
been  considerable  differences  in  the  epistles  of  this 
holy  man,  no  less  than  in  the  judgment  of  our  Latin 
critics  concerning  them.  To  pass  by  the  first  and 
most  imperfect  of  them,  the  best  that  for  a  long  time 
was  extant,  contained  not  only  a  great  number  of 
epistles  falsely  ascribed  to  this  author,  but  even 
those  that  were  genuine,  so  altered  and  corrupted, 
that  it  was  hard  to  find  out  the  true  Ignatius  in  them. 
The  first  that  began  to  remedy  this  confusion,  and  to 
restore  this  great  writer  to  his  primitive  simplicity, 

*  It  is  even  agreed  that  some  of  these  interpolations  were  made 
with4he  express  view  of  furnishing  support  to  the  ambitious  claims 
of  bishops.  Speaking  of  some  of  the  interpolations,  Dr.  Hammond,  a 
zealous  Episcopalian,  represents  them  as  "■  immoderate,"  "  extrava- 
gant," and  "  senseless,"  and  concludes  that  they  are  evidently  the 
work  of  some  "  impostor." 


TESTIMONY    OF    THE    FATHERS.  151 

was  our  most  reverend  and  learned  Archbishop 
Usher,  in  his  edition  of  them  at  Oxford,  Anno  1664." 
The  venerable  Archbishop  of  Armagh  found  two 
copies  of  six  of  these  epistles  in  England;  not  in  the 
original  Greek,  but.  in  very  barbarous  Latin  transla- 
tions. In  1646,  the  learned  Isaac  Vossius  found  in 
the  Medicean  Library,  a  copy  in  Greek,  containing 
seven  epistles,  and  published  it  soon  afterwards  in 
Amsterdam.  From  these  three  copies  Archbishop 
Wake  has  formed  his  English  version,  adopting  from 
each  what  he  thought  most  likely  to  be  correct.  Usher 
had  much  doubt  of  the  genuineness  of  the  seventh 
epistle  to  Polycarp.  "Nor,"  observes  Archbishop 
Wake,  "  does  Isaac  Vossius  himself  deny  but  that 
there  are  some  things  in  it,  which  may  seem  to  ren- 
der it  suspicious."  Yet,  on  the  whole,  he  published 
it,  and  Wake  adopted  it  as  genuine,  with  the  other 
six.  From  the  time  of  Usher  to  the  present,  there 
has  been  unceasing  controversy  concerning  the  ge- 
nuineness of  these  epistles.  The  great  body  of  Epis- 
copal writers  have  felt  so  much  interest  in  their  sup- 
posed importance  as  witnesses  in  favour  of  prelacy, 
that  they  have  generally  contended  for  them  as  the 
genuine  remains  of  the  pious  father  whose  name 
they  bear.  But  it  is  believed,  that  a  large  majority 
of  the  learned  of  other  Protestant  denominations,  for 
nearly  two  centuries  have  been  of  the  opinion  that 
they  could  not  be  relied  upon,  and  ought  never  to  be 
quoted  as  the  unadulterated  work  of  Ignatius;  but 
that  they  bear  manifest  marks  of  having  been  inter- 
polated long  after  the  martyrdom  of  their  reputed 
author.  The  following  judgment  of  a  learned  and 
zealous  Episcopalian,  who  writes  in  the   Christian 


152  TESTIMONY    OF    THE    FATHERS. 

Observer, an  English  periodical,  conducted  with  great 
ability  by  members  of  the  established  Church,  is 
worthy  of  notice.  "  Could  six  of  the  seven  epistles, 
usually  ascribed  to  Ignatius  be  cited  with  the  same 
undoubting  confidence  which  has  accompanied  the 
foregoing  quotations,  the  controversy  concerning  the 
early  existence  of  Episcopacy  would  be  at  an  end. 
But,  after  travelling  so  long  in  comparative  obscurity, 
after  being  compelled  to  close  and  strongly  directed 
attention,  in  order  to  pick  up  three  or  four  rays  of 
scattered  light,  we  are  in  a  moment  oppressed  and 
confounded  by  the  brightness  of  the  mid-day  sun. 
For  in  these  epistles  we  have  the  three  orders  of 
bishops,  priests,  and  deacons,  marshalled  with  un- 
seasonable exactness,  and  repeated  with  importunate 
anxiety.  There  appear,  moreover,  so  many  symp- 
toms of  contrivance,  and  such  studied  uniformity  of 
expression,  that  these  compositions  will  surely  not  be 
alleged  by  any  capable  and  candid  advocate  for 
primitive  Episcopacy,  without  great  hesitation:  by 
many  they  will  be  entirely  rejected.  I  do  not  mean 
to  insinuate  that  the  whole  of  these  six  epistles  is  a 
forgery ;  on  the  contrary  many  parts  of  them  afford 
strong  internal  evidence  of  their  own  genuineness: 
but  with  respect  to  the  particular  passages  which 
affect  the  present  (the  Episcopal)  dispute,  there  is  not 
a  sentence  which  I  would  venture  to  allege.  The 
language,  at  the  earliest,  is  that  of  the  fourth  cen- 
tury."* When  a  zealous  advocate  of  prelacy  can 
write  thus,  there  is  surely  ground  for  utter  distrust  of 
these  epistles,  when  quoted  as  testimony  on  the  sub- 
ject before  us. 

*  Christian  Observer,  Vol.  ii.  p.  723. 


TESTIMONY  OP  THE  FATHERS.         153 

But,  instead  of  entering  into  this  controversy,  I 
will  take  for  granted  that  the  shorter  epistles  of  Igna- 
tius, (and  they  alone  are  now  quoted  among  Protes- 
tants) are  genuine,  and  worthy  of  implicit  confidence.* 
On  this  supposition  let  us  examine  them.  And  I  will 
venture  to  affirm  that  instead  of  yielding  to  the  cause 
of  diocesan  Episcopacy  that  efficient  support  which 
is  imagined,  they  do  not  contain  a  single  sentence 
which  can  be  construed  in  its  favour;  but,  on  the 
contrary,  much  which  can  only  be  reconciled  with 
the  primitive,  parochial  Episcopacy,  or  Presbyterian 
government,  so  evidently  pourtrayed  in  Scripture,  and 
so  particularly  defined  in  the  first  chapter. 

The    following   extracts  from    these    epistles  are 

*  The  author  has  been  reproached,  in  the  most  course  and  vulgar 
manner,  for  consenting  to  refer  to  the  epistles  of  Ignatius,  as  authority, 
for  any  purpose,  when  he  confidently  believed  that  they  had  been  inter- 
polated as  to  a  particular  subject.  He  feels  it  to  be  due — not  to  his 
calumniators,  but  to  himself — to  say,  that  he  has  no  doubt  that  Igna- 
tius did  really  write  some  epistles ;  that  many  parts  of  those  which 
bear  his  name  were  probably  written  by  him;  that  he  would  quote 
them,  without  scruple,  on  a  variety  of  subjects,  after  apprizing  his 
readers  of  their  dubious  reputation;  but  that  when  the  epistles  of  this 
Father  speak  of  parochial  bishops  (for  there  were  no  others  in  his 
day)  there  appears  such  a  laboured  and  fulsome  study  to  honour 
them  above  measure,  as  gives  reason  to  suspect  the  foulest  interpola- 
tion. Neander  and  Schroeckh,  the  celebrated  German  ecclesiastical 
historians,  do  not  hesitate  to  quote  the  epistles  of  Ignatius  on  a 
variety  of  subjects;  but  express  a  strong  persuasion  of  their  interpo- 
lation on  the  subject  of  clerical  character.  The  latter,  in  his  epitome, 
says — "  Apparuit  tandem,  etiam  breviores  earum,  nisi  ab  alio  scrip- 
tas,  at  certe  interpolatas  esse  in  gratiam  Episcoporum,"  i.  e.  "It  is 
evident  that  even  his  shorter  epistles,  unless  written  by  some  other 
hand,  have  certainly  been  interpolated  for  the  purpose  of  exalting 
bishops."  The  writer  of  this  manual  has  never  made  a  citation  from 
the  epistles  of  Ignatius  upon  principles  not  reconcilable  with  this 
statement. 


154        TESTIMONY  OF  THE  FATHERS. 

among  the  strongest  quoted  by  Episcopal  writers  in 
support  of  their  cause.* 

Epistle  to  the  church  of  Ephesus.  Sect.  v.  "  Let 
no  man  deceive  himself;  if  a  man  be  not  within  the 
altar  he  is  deprived  of  the  bread  of  God.  For  if  the 
prayer  of  one  or  two  be  of  such  force,  as  we  are  told; 
how  much  more  powerful  shall  that  of  the  bishop  and 
the  whole  church  be?  He,  therefore,  that  does  not 
come  together  into  the  same  place  with  it,  is  proud, 
and  has  already  condemned  himself.1' 

Epistle  to  the  church  of  Magnesia.  Sect.  2. 
"  Seeing  then,  I  have  been  judged  worthy  to  see  you, 
by  Damas,  your  most  excellent  bishop,  and  by  your 
worthy  presbyters,  Bassus  and  Apollonius,  and  by 
my  fellow  servant,  Sotio,  the  deacon — I  determined 
to  write  unto  you."  Sect.  6.  "  I  exhort  you  that  ye 
study  to  do  all  things  in  divine  concord;  your  bishop 
presiding  in  the  place  of  God;  your  presbyters  in 

THE  PLACE  OF  THE  COUNCIL  OF  THE  APOSTLES  ;  and 

your  deacons  most  dear  to  me,  being  intrusted  with 
the  ministry  of  Jesus  Christ,  who  was  with  the 
Father  before  all  ages,  and  appeared  in  the  end  to  us. 
Let  there  be  nothing  that  may  be  able  to  make  a 
division  among  you;  but  be  ye  united  to  your  bishop, 
and  those  who  preside  over  you,  to  be  your  pattern 
and  direction  in  the  way  to  immortality. "  Sect.  7. 
"  As,  therefore,  the  Lord  did  nothing  without  the 
Father  being  united  to  him;  neither  by  himself,  nor 
yet  by  his  apostles:  so  neither  do  ye  any  thing  with- 
out your  bishop  and  presbyters.  Neither  endeavour 
to  let  any  thing  appear  rational  to  yourselves  apart ; 

*  To  cut  off  all  occasion  of  doubt  as  to  the  fairness  used  in  trans- 
lating these  extracts,  I  think  proper  to  state,  that  I  adopt  the  transla- 
tion of  Archbishop  Wake. 


TESTIMONY  OF  THE  FATHERS.        155 

but  being  come  together  into  the  same  place,  have 
one  common  prayer,  one  supplication,  one  mind  ;  one 
hope,  in  charity,  and  in  joy  undented.  There  is  one 
Lord  Jesus  Christ,  than  whom  nothing  is  better. 
Wherefore  come  ye  all  together  as  unto  one  temple 
of  God;  as  to  one  altar;  as  to  one  Jesus  Christ;  who 
proceeded  from  one  Father,  and  exists  in  one,  and  is 
returned  to  one." 

Epistle  to  the  Trallians.  Sect.  2.  "  Whereas  ye 
are  subject  to  your  bishop  as  to  Jesus  Christ,  ye  ap- 
pear to  me  to  live  not  after  the  manner  of  men,  but 
according  to  Jesus  Christ;  who  died  for  us,  that  so 
believing  in  his  death,  ye  might  escape  death.  It  is 
therefore  necessary,  that,  as  ye  do,  so  without  your 
bishop  you  should  do  nothing.     Also  be  ye  subject 

TO  YOUR  PRESBYTERS,  AS  TO  THE  APOSTLES  OF  JESUS 

Christ  our  hope,  in  whom  if  we  walk,  we  shall  be 
found  in  him.  The  deacons,  also,  as  being  the  minis- 
ters of  the  mysteries  of  Jesus  Christ,  must  by  all 
means  please  all."  Sect.  2.  "  In  like  manner  let  all 
reverence  the  deacons  as  Jesus  Christ,  and  the  bishop 
as  the  Father,  and  the  presbyters  as  the  Sanhe- 
drim of  God,  and  college  of  the  apostles." 
Sect.  7.  "Wherefore  guard  yourselves  against  such 
persons.  And  that  you  will  do,  if  you  are  not  puffed 
up;  but  continue  inseparable  from  Jesus  Christ  our 
God,  and  from  your  bishop,  and  from  the  command 
of  the  apostles.  He  that  is  within  the  altar  is  pure; 
but  he  that  is  without,  that  is,  that  does  any  thing 
without  the  bishop,  and  presbyters,  and  deacons,  is 
not  pure  in  his  conscience." 

The  Epistle  to  the  Church  at  Smyrna.  Sect.  8. 
"  See  that  ye  all  follow  your  bishop,  as  Jesus  Christ, 
the  Father;  and  the  presbytery  as  the  apostles: 


156        TESTIMONY  OF  THE  FATHERS. 

and  reverence  the  deacons  as  the  command  of  God. 
Let  no  man  do  any  thing  of  what  belongs  to  the 
church  separately  from  the  bishop.  Let  that  Eucha- 
rist 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  also  be:  as  where  Jesus 
Christ  is,  there  is  the  Catholic  church.  It  is  not  law- 
ful, without  the  bishop,  either  to  baptize  or  to  cele- 
brate the  holy  communion.  But  whatsoever  he  shall 
approve  of,  that  is  also  pleasing  to  God  ;  that  so  what- 
ever is  done,  may  be  sure  and  well  done."  Sect.  12. 
"  I  salute  your  very  worthy  bishop,  and  your  venera- 
ble presbytery,  and  your  deacons,  my  fellow  servants; 
and  all  of  you  in  general,  and  every  one  in  particular, 
in  the  name  of  Jesus  Christ." 

Epistle  to  Polycnrp.  "  Ignatius,  who  is  called 
Theophorus,  to  Polycarp,  bishop  of  the  church  which 
is  at  Smyrna;  their  overseer,  but  rather  himself  over- 
looked by  God  the  Father,  and  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ; 
all  happiness!"  Sect.  1.  "Maintain  thy  place  with 
all  care,  both  of  flesh  and  spirit:  Make  it  thy  en- 
deavour to  preserve  unity,  than  which  nothing  is  bet- 
ter. Speak  to  every  one  as  God  shall  enable  thee." 
Sect.  4.  "  Let  not  the  widows  be  neglected:-,  be  thou, 
after  God,  their  guardian.  Let  nothing  be  done  with- 
out thy  knowledge  and  consent:  neither  do  thou  any 
thing  but  according  to  the  will  of  God;  as  also  thou 
dost  with  all  constancy.  Let  your  assemblies  be 
more  full:  inquire  into  all  by  name:  overlook  not  the 
men  nor  maid  servants;  neither  let  them  be  puffed  up, 
but  rather  let  them  be  more  subject  to  the  glory  of 
God,  that  they  may  obtain  from  him  a  better  liberty." 
Sect.  5.  "  It  becomes  all  such  as  are  married,  whether 


TESTIMONY    OF    THE    FATHERS.  ]  57 

men  or  women,  to  come  together  with  the  consent  of 
the  bishop;  that  so  their  marriage  may  be  according 
to  godliness,  and  not  in  lust."  Sect.  6.  "  Hearken 
unto  the  bishop,  that  God  also  may  hearken  unto  you. 
My  soul  be  security  for  them  that  submit  to  their 
bishop,  with  their  presbyters  and  deacons." 

These  are  the  passages  in  the  epistles  of  Ignatius, 
which  Episcopal  writers  have  triumphantly  quoted, 
as  beyond  all  doubt  establishing  their  claims.  No- 
thing stronger  or  more  decisive  is  pretended  to  be 
found  in  these  far-famed  relics  of  antiquity.  Now  I 
ask,  whether  there  is  in  these  extracts,  a  sentence  that 
can  serve  their  purpose?  Let  me  again  remind  the 
reader  that  they  plead,  not  for  such  bishops  as  we  ac- 
knowledge, that  is,  pastors  of  single  congregations, 
each  furnished  with  elders  and  deacons,  to  assist  in 
the  discharge  of  parochial  duties.  On  the  contrary, 
they  plead  for  diocesan  bishops,  as  a  distinct  and  su- 
perior order  of  clergy,  who  alone  are  invested  with 
the  right  to  govern  the  church,  to  ordain,  and  to  con- 
firm. But  is  there  a  single  hint  in  these  extracts 
which  looks  as  if  the  bishops  mentioned  in  them  were 
of  a  distinct  and  superior  order?  Is  there  a  single 
word  said  about  the  powers  of  ordainingand  confirm- 
ing being  appropriated  to  these  bishops?  Not  a  syl- 
lable that  has  the  most  distant  resemblance  to  any 
thing  of  this  kind  is  to  be  found  in  all  the  epistles  be- 
fore us.*     On  the  contrary,  it  is  evident — 

*  Accordingly,  Dr.  (afterwards  Bishop)  Stillingfleet  declares — "  Of 
all  the  thirty -five  testimonies  produced  out  of  Ignatius  his  epistles, 
for  Episcopacy,  I  can  meet  with  but  one  which  is  brought  to  prove 
the  least  semblance  of  an  institution  oft  hrLst  for  Episcopacy,  and,  if 
I  be  not  much  deceived ,  the  sense  of  that  place  is  clearly  mis- 
taken."— Jrenicum, 

14 


158  TESTIMONY    OF    THE    FATHERS. 

1.  That  the  bishop  so  frequently  mentioned  by 
this  venerable  father,  is  only  a  parochial  bishop,  or, 
in  other  words,  the  pastor  of  a  single  congregation. 
The  church  of  which  this  bishop  has  the  care  is  re- 
presented, throughout  the  epistles,  as  coming  together 
to  one  place;  as  worshipping  in  one  assembly;  as 
having  one  altar,  or  communion  table;  as  eating  of 
one  loaf;  having  one  prayer;  and,  in  short,  uniting  in 
all  the  acts  of  solemn  worship.  But  all  this  can  only 
apply  to  a  single  congregation.  Again,  the  bishop 
here  spoken  of,  is  represented  as  present  with  his 
flock  whenever  they  come  together;  as  conducting 
their  prayers,  and  presiding  in  all  their  public  service; 
as  the  only  person  who  was  authorized,  in  ordinary 
cases,  to  administer  baptism  and  the  Lord's  supper; 
as  the  person  by  whom  all  marriages  were  celebrated; 
and  whose  duty  it  was  to  be  personally  acquainted 
with  all  his  flock;  to  take  notice,  with  his  own  eye,  of 
those  who  were  absent  from  public  worship;  to  attend 
to  the  widows  and  the  poor  of  his  congregation;  to 
seek  out  all  by  name,  and  not  to  overlook  even  the 
men  and  maid- servants  living  in  his  parish.  I  appeal 
to  the  candour  of  every  reader,  whether  these  repre- 
sentations and  directions  can  be  reasonably  applied  to 
any  other  officer  than  the  pastor  of  a  single  church  ? 

2.  It  is  equally  evident,  that  the  presbyters  and 
presbytery  so  frequently  mentioned  in  the  foregoing 
extracts,  together  with  the  deacons,  refer  to  officers 
which,  in  the  days  of  Ignatius,  belonged,  like  the 
bishop,  to  each  particular  church.  Most  of  the  epis- 
tles of  this  father  are  directed  to  particular  churches; 
and  in  every  case,  we  find  each  church  furnished  with 
a  bishop,  a  presbytery,  and  deacons.  But  what  kind 
of  officers  were  these  presbyters  ?  The  friends  of  pre- 


TESTIMONY  OF  THE  FATHERS.         159 

lacy,  without  hesitation,  answer,  they  were  the  "infe- 
rior clergy,"  who  ministered  to  the  several  congrega- 
tions belonging  to  each  of  the  dioceses  mentioned  in 
these  epistles;  an  order  of  clergy  subject  to  the  bishop, 
empowered  to  preach,  baptize,  and  administer  the 
Lord's  Supper;  but  having  no  power  to  ordain  or 
confirm.  But  all  this  is  said  without  the  smallest  evi- 
dence. On  the  contrary,  the  presbyters  or  presbytery 
are  represented  as  always  present,  with  the  bishop 
and  his  congregation,  when  assembled;  as  bearing  a 
relation  to  the  same  flock  equally  close  and  insepara- 
ble with  its  pastor;  and  as  being  equally  necessary 
in  order  to  a  regular  and  valid  transaction  of  its  affairs. 
In  short,  to  every  altar,  or  communion  table,  there 
was  one  presbytery,  as  well  as  one  bishop.  To  sup- 
pose then  that  these  presbyters  were  the  parish  priests, 
or  rectors  of  different  congregations,  within  the  dio- 
cese to  which  they  belonged,  is  to  disregard  every  part 
of  the  representation  which  is  given  respecting  them. 
No;  the  only  rational  and  probable  construction  of  the 
language  of  Ignatius  is,  that  each  of  the  particular 
churches  to  which  he  wrote,  besides  its  pastor  and 
deacons,  was  furnished  with  a  bench  of  elders  or  pres- 
byters, some  of  them,  probably,  ordained  to  the  work 
of  the  ministry,*  and  therefore  empowered  to  teach 
and  administer  ordinances,  as  well  as  rule;  and  others 
empowered  to  rule  only.     The  whole  strain  of  these 

*  It  is  said  some  of  these  elders  were  probably  ordained  to  the 
work  of  the  ministry,  and  of  course,  empowered  to  preach  and  admi- 
nister ordinances:  But  this  is  not  certain.  They  might  all  have 
been  ruling  elders  for  aught  that  appears  to  the  contrary.  For  in  all 
these  epistles,  it  is  no  where  said  that  they  either  preached  or  dis- 
pensed the  sacraments.  It  cannot  be  shown  then,  that  Ignatius,  by 
his  presbyters  and  presbytery,  or  eldership,  means  any  thing  else 
than  a  bench  of  ruling  ciders  in  each  church. 


160  TESTIMONY    OF    THE    FATHERS. 

epistles,  then,  may  be  considered  as  descriptive  of 
Presbyterian  government.  They  exhibit  a  number 
of  particular  churches,  each  furnished  with  a  bishop 
or  pastor,  and  also  with  elders  and  deacons,  to  whose 
respective  ministrations  every  private  member  is  ex- 
horted, as  long  as  they  are  regular,  implicitly  to 
submit.* 

3.  It.  is  particularly  worthy  of  notice,  too,  that  Ig- 
natius constantly  represents  the  presbyters  (not  the 
bishops)  as  the  successors  of  the  apostles.  This  state- 
ment is  found  so  frequently  and  pointedly  made  in 
the  foregoing  extracts,  that  it  cannot  have  escaped 
the  notice  of  any  reader.  In  fact,  Ignatius  never  re- 
presents the  bishops  as  succeeding  in  the  place  of  the 
apostles.     How  this  fact  is  to  be  disposed  of  by  those 

*  Every  regularly  organized  Presbyterian  church  has  a  bishop, 
elders,  and  deacons.  Of  the  bench  of  elders,  the  bishop  is  the  stand- 
ing president  or  moderator.  Sometimes,  where  a  congregation  is 
large,  it  has  two  or  more  bishops,  united  in  the  pastoral  charge,  and 
having  in  all  respects  an  official  equality.  When  this  is  the  case,  each 
of  the  bishops  is  president  or  moderator  of  the  eldership  in  turn.  In 
some  Presbyterian  churches,  the  bishop,  instead  of  having  one  or 
more  colleagues,  of  equal  authority  and  power  with  himself,  has  an 
assistant  or  assistants.  These  assistants,  though  clothed  with  the 
whole  ministerial  character,  and  capable  without  any  other  ordination, 
of  becoming  pastors  themselves;  yet  as  long  as  they  remain  in  this 
situation,  they  bear  a  relation  to  the  bishop  similar  to  that  which  cu- 
rates bear  to  the  rector,  in  some  Episcopal  churches;  and  of  course, 
cannot  regularly  baptize  or  administer  the  Lord's  Supper  without  the 
concurrence  of  the  bishop.  Ignatius,  therefore,  could  scarcely  give  a 
more  perfect  representation  than  he  does  of  Presbyterian  government. 
And  if  a  modern  Presbyterian  were  about  to  speak  of  the  officers  of 
his  church,  and  were  to  use  the  Greek  language  as  Ignatius  did,  he 
would  almost  necessarily  say  as  he  did,  Ejtiffxartot,  jtgs ofivttgoi 
xo.v  Staxovoi.  So  perfectly  futile  is  the  allegation  that  this  language 
is  decisive  in  support  of  prelacy!  It  is  absolutely  in  perfect  coinci- 
dence with  our  system. 


TESTIMONY    OF    THE    FATHERS.  161 

prelatists  who  make  the  plea  that,  on  the  decease  of 
the  apostles,  the  bishops  succeeded  them  in  their  ap- 
propriate station — a  plea  which  is  the  sheet-anchor  of 
their  whole  system — must  be  left  to  their  ingenuity.* 

I  have  been  thus  particular  in  attending  to  the  tes- 
timony of  Ignatius,  because  the  advocates  of  prelacy 
have  always  considered  him  as  more  decidedly  in 
their  favour  than  any  other  father,  and  have  contended 
for  the  genuineness  of  his  writings  with  as  much  zeal 
as  if  the  cause  of  Episcopacy  were  involved  in  their 
fate.  But  it  will  be  perceived  that  these  writings, 
when  impartially  examined,  instead  of  affording  aid 
to  that  cause,  furnish  decisive  testimony  against  it. 
The  Church,  as  represented  by  Ignatius  is  Presbyte- 
rian throughout,  and  agrees  with  nothing  else. 

Papias,  bishop  of  Hierapolis,  a  city  of  Asia,  is  said 
to  have  been  "  an  hearer  of  John,  and  a  companion  of 
Polycarp."  He  nourished  about  the  year  110  or  115. 
Some  fragments  of  his  writings  have  been  preserved. 
Out  of  these  the  following  passage  is  the  only  one 
that  I  have  been  able  to  find,  that  has  any  relation  to 
the  subject  under  debate.  It  is  cited  by  Eusebius,  in 
his  Ecclesiastical  history,  lib.  iii.  cap.  39. 

"  I  shall  not  think  it  grievous  to  set  down  in  writing, 
with  my  interpretations,  the  things  which  I  have 
learned  of  the  presbyters,  and  remember  as  yet  very 
well,  being  fully  certified  of  their  truth.  If  I  met  any 
where  with  one  who  had  conversed  with  the  presby- 
ters, I  inquired  after  the  sayings  of  the  presbyters; 

*  It  has,  indeed,  been  stoutly  denied  that  Ignatius  docs  make  such 
a  representation  concerning  presbyters;  and  the  author  of  this  vo» 
lumc  has  been  loaded  with  the  most  slanderous  abuse,  by  certain 
Episcopal  writers,  for  making  the  statement.  The  above  quotations 
will  speak  for  themselves,  and  show  the  real  character  of  the  slander 
alluded  to. 

14* 


162  TESTIMONY    OF    THE    FATHERS. 

what  Andrew,  what  Peter,  what  Philip,  what  Tho- 
mas, or  James  had  said  ;  what  John,  or  Matthew,  or 
any  other  disciples  of  the  Lord  were  wont  to  say;  and 
what  Ariston,  or  John  the  presbyter,  said;  for  I  am 
of  the  mind  that  I  could  not  profit  so  much  by  read- 
ing books,  as  by  attending  to  those  who  spake  with  the 
living  voice." 

The  only  thing  remarkable  in  this  passage,  is,  that 
the  writer,  obviously,  styles  the  apostles  presbyters ; 
and  this  when  speaking  of  them,  not  with  the  light- 
ness of  colloquial  familiarity,  but  as  oracles,  whose 
authority  he  acknowledged,  whose  character  he  re- 
vered, and  whose  sayings  he  treasured  up.  Could  we 
have  more  satisfactory  evidence  that  this  title,  as  em- 
ployed in  the  primitive  Church,  was  not  considered  as 
expressing  official  inferiority  in  those  to  whom  it  was 
applied? 

Irenaeus,  who  was  a  disciple  of  Polycarp,  and  who 
is  said  to  have  suffered  martyrdom  about  the  year  202 
after  Christ,  is  an  important  and  decisive  witness  on 
the  subject  before  us.  The  following  passages  are 
found  in  his  writings. 

Book  against  Heresies,  lib.  iii.  cap.  2.  "  When  we 
challenge  them  (the  heretics)  to  that  apostolical  tradi- 
tion which  is  preserved  in  the  churches  through  the 
succession  of  the  presbyters,  they  oppose  the  tradition, 
pretending  that  they  are  wiser,  not  only  than  the  pres- 
byters, but  also  than  the  apostles." 

Lib.  iii.  cap.  3.  "  The  apostolic  tradition  is  present 
in  every  church.  We  can  enumerate  those  who  were 
constituted  bishops  by  the  apostles  in  the  churches, 
and  their  successors  even  to  us,  who  taught  no  such 
thing.  By  showing  the  tradition  and  declared  faith 
of  the  greatest  and  most  ancient  church  of  Rome, 


TESTIMONY    OF    THE    FATHERS.  163 

which  she  received  from  the  apostles,  and  which  is 
come  to  us  through  the  succession  of  the  bishops, 
we  confound  all  who  conclude  otherwise  than  they 
ought." 

"  The  apostles,  founding  and  instructing  that  church, 
(the  church  of  Rome)  delivered  to  Linus  the  Episco- 
pate; Anacletus  succeeded  him;  after  him  Clemens 
obtained  the  Episcopate  from  the  apostles.  To  Cle- 
mens succeeded  Evaristns;  to  him  Alexander ;  then 
Sixtus;  and  after  him  Telesphorus ;  then  Hugynus; 
after  him  Pius;  then  Anicetus;  and  when  Soter  had 
succeeded  Anicetus,  then  Eleutherius  had  the  episco- 
pate in  the  twelfth  place.  By  this  appointment  and 
instruction  that  tradition  in  the  Church,  and  publi- 
cation of  the  truth,  which  is  from  the  apostles,  is 
come  to  us." 

"  Poly  carp,  also,  who  was  not  only  taught  by  the 
apostles,  and  conversed  with  many  of  those  who  had 
seen  our  Lord ;  but  was  also  appointed  by  the  apos- 
tles, bishop  of  the  church  of  Smyrna  in  Asia." 

Lib.  iv.  cap.  43.  "  Obey  those  presbyters  in  the 
Church  who  have  the  succession  as  we  have  shown 
from  the  apostles;  who  with  the  succession  of  the 
Episcopate,  received  the  gift  of  truth,  according  to 
the  good  pleasure  of  the  Father." 

Lib.  iv.  cap.  44.  "  We  ought,  therefore,  to  adhere 
to  those  presbyters  who  keep  the  apostles'  doctrine, 
and  together  with  the  presbyterial  succession,  do 
show  forth  sound  speech.  Such  presbyters,  the 
church  nourishes;  and  of  such  the  prophet  says:  I 
will  give  them  princes  in  peace,  and  bishops  in  right- 
eousness."* 

*  It  will  be  observed  that  Clemens,  in  a  preceding  page,  applies 
this  text  to  the  bishops  constituted  by  the   apostles.     Irenaeus  here 


164        TESTIMONY  OF  THE  FATHERS. 

Lib.  iv.  cap.  53.  "  True  knowledge  is  the  doctrine 
of  the  apostles  according  to  the  succession  of  bishops, 
to  whom  they  delivered  the  church  in  every  place, 
which  doctrine  hath  reached  us  preserved  in  its  most 
full  delivery." 

Lib.  v.  cap.  20.  "These  are  far  later  than  the 
bishops  to  whom  the  apostles  delivered  the  churches; 
and  this  we  have  carefully  made  manifest  in  the  third 
book." 

Epistle  to  Victor,  then  bishop  of  Rome.*  "  Those 
presbyters  before  Soter,  who  governed  the  church 
which  thou,    Victor,  now  governest,  (the  church  of 

applies  it  to  presbyters,  whom  he  represents  as  receiving  and  convey- 
ing the  apostolic  succession. 

*  Eusebius  tells  us,  that  the  occasion  on  which  Irenaeus  wrote  this 
letter  to  Victor,  then  bishop  of  Rome,  was  as  follows.  A  dispute  had 
arisen  about  the  proper  time  of  celebrating  Easter.  In  this -dispute, 
the  churches  of  Asia  took  one  side,  and  the  western  churches  an- 
other. Both  sides  declared  that  they  had  the  most  decided  apostolical 
authority  in  their  favour:  the  former  pleading  the  authority  of  John 
and  Philip;  and  the  latter  with  equal  confidence,  adducing  Peter  and 
Paul  in  justification  of  their  practice.  In  the  progress  of  this  dis- 
pute, Victor,  bishop  of  the  Romish  church,  issued  letters  proscribing 
the  churches  of  Asia,  and  the  neighbouring  provinces,  and  endeavour- 
ing to  cut  them  off  from  the  communion  of  the  faithful.  Upon  this 
occasion  Irenaeus  addressed  to  him  the  letter  in  question,  showing 
him  the  imprudence  and  injustice  of  the  step  which  he  had  taken. 
Eccles.  Hist.  1.  lib.  v.  cap.  24.  These  facts  show,  1.  That  even  in 
the  second  century  Christians  began  to  teach  for  doctrines  the  com- 
mandments of  men.  2.  That  even  so  near  the  apostolic  age,  the  au- 
thority of  the  apostles  was  confidently  quoted  in  favour  of  opposite 
opinions  and  practices,  plainly  showing,  how  little  reliance,  in  reli- 
gious controversies,  is  to  be  placed  on  any  testimony  excepting  that 
of  the  written  word  of  God.  3.  That  as  early  as  the  time  of  Irenaeus, 
the  principal  pastor  or  bishop  of  the  church  of  Rome  had  begun  to 
usurp  that  pre-eminence,  which  afterwards  attained  such  a  wonder- 
ful height;  and  which  all  Protestants  allow  to  be  totally  unscriptural 
and  anticliristian. 


TESTIMONY    OF    THE    FATHERS.  [65 

Rome)  I  mean  Anicetus,  Pius,  Hugynus,  Telespho- 
rus,  and  Sixtus,they  did  not  observe  it;  (he is  speak- 
ing of  the  day  of  keeping  Easter)  and  those  presbyters 
who  preceded  you,  though  they  did  not  observe  it 
themselves,  yet  sent  the  Eucharist  to  those  of  other 
churches  who  did  observe  it.  And  when  blessed  Po- 
lycarp,  in  the  days  of  Anicetus,  came  to  Rome,  he  did 
not  much  persuade  Anicetus  to  observe  it,  as  he 
(Anicetus)  declared  that  the  custom  of  the  presbyters 
who  ivere  his  predecessors  should  be  retained." 

Epistle  to  FloriniLS.  "This  doctrine,  to  speak 
most  cautiously  and  gently,  is  not  sound.  This  doc- 
trine disagreeth  with  the  church,  and  bringeth  such  as 
listen  to  it  into  extreme  impiety."  (And  having 
mentioned  Polycarp,  and  said  some  things  of  him,  he 
proceeds:)  "I  am  able  to  testify  before  God,  that  if 
that  holy  and  apostolical  presbyter  had  heard  any 
such  thing,  he  would  at  once  have  exclaimed,  as  his 
manner  was,  "  Good  God!  into  what  times  hast  thou 
reserved  me!" 

The  foregoing  extracts  comprise  some  of  the 
strongest  passages,  in  the  writings  of  Irena3us  that 
bear  on  the  subject  before  us.  And  I  take  for  granted 
that  no  impartial  reader  can  cast  his  eye  on  them 
without  perceiving  how  strongly  and  unequivocally 
they  support  our  doctrine.  This  father  not  only  ap- 
plies the  names  bishop  and  presbyter  to  the  same  per- 
sons, but  he  does  it  in  a  way  which  precludes  all 
doubt  that  he  considers  them  as  only  different  titles 
for  the  same  office.  That  regular  succession  from 
the  apostles  which  in  one  place  he  ascribes  to  bishops, 
he  in  another  expressly  ascribes  to  presbyters.  Nay, 
he  explicitly  declares  that  presbyters  received  the  suc- 
cession of  the  Episcopate.     Those  ministers  whom 


166        TESTIMONY  OF  THE  FATHERS. 

be  mentions  by  name  as  having  presided  in  the 
church  of  Rome,  viz.  Linus,  Anacletus,  Clemens,  &c. 
and  whom  he  in  one  instance  calls  bishops,  he  in  an- 
other denominates  presbyters.  In  one  paragraph  he 
speaks  of  the  apostolic  doctrine  as  handed  down 
through  the  succession  of  bishops;  in  another,  he  as 
positively  affirms  that  the  same  apostolic  doctrine  is 
handed  down  through  the  succession  of  presbyters. 
In  short,  the  Apostolical  succession,  the  Episcopal 
succession,  and  the  Presbyterial succession,  are  inter- 
changeably ascribed  to  the  same  persons,  and  ex- 
pressly represented  as  the  same  thing.  What  could 
be  more  conclusive?  If  this  venerable  father  had 
been  taking  pains  to  show  that  he  employed  the 
terms  bishop  and  presbyter  as  different  titles  for  the 
same  office,  he  could  scarcely  have  kept  a  more  scru- 
pulous and  exact  balance  between  the  dignities, 
powers,  and  duties  connected  with  each  title,  and 
ascribed  interchangeably  to  both.  What  becomes  of 
the  Episcopal  allegation,  that  after  the  death  of  the 
last  apostle,  the  title  of  bishop  was  taken  away  from 
presbyters,  and  confined  to  prelates? 

But  much  is  made  by  the  friends  of  prelacy  of  that 
portion  of  the  foregoing  extracts  in  which  Irena3us 
speaks  of  the  succession  in  particular  churches  as 
flowing  through  single  individuals;  whereas  there 
were,  doubtless,  a  number  of  presbyters  in  each  of 
the  churches  to  which  he  refers.  "  Why,"  say  they, 
"single  out  Linus,  Anacletus,  &c.  in  the  church  of 
Rome,  when  there  were  probably  many  contempora- 
neous presbyters  in  that  church  ?"  The  answer  is 
obvious  and  easy.  One  of  the  presbyters  was,  no 
doubt,  the  pastor  or  president,  and  the  others  his 
assistants.     This  has  often  happened  in  Presbyterian 


TESTIMONY  OF  THE  FATHERS.        167 

churches,  both  in  ancient  and  modern  times.  And 
surely  a  succession  may  flow  as  properly  and  per- 
fectly through  a  series  of  pastors  as  ol  prelates.  This 
at  once  illustrates  and  harmonizes  all  that  Irenseus 
has  said. 

The  testimony  of  Justin  Martyr,  who  also  lived  in 
the  second  century,  comes  next  in  order.  In  describ- 
ing the  mode  of  worship  adopted  by  the  Christians  in 
his  day,  he  says,  "  Prayers  being  ended,  bread  and  a 
cup  of  water  and  wine  are  then  brought  to  the  presi- 
dent of  the  brethren,  and  he,  receiving  them,  offers 
praise  and  glory  to  the  Father  of  all  things  through 
the  name  of  the  Son  and  the  Holy  Spirit:  and  he  is 
long  in  giving  thanks,  for  that  we  are  thought  worthy 
of  these  blessings.  When  he  has  ended  prayer,  and 
giving  of  thanks,  the  whole  people  present  signify 
their  approbation  by  saying  amen.  The  president 
having  given  thanks,  and  the  whole  people  having 
expressed  their  approbation,  those  that  are  called 
among  us  deacons,  distribute  to  every  one  of  those 
that  are  present,*  that  they  may  partake  of  the  bread 
and  wine,  and  water,  for  which  thanks  have  been 
given;  and  to  those  that  are  not  present,  they  carry." 
And  again,  a  little  afterwards,  he  tells  us,  "  Upon 
Sunday,  all  those  who  live  in  cities  and  country- 
towns,  or  villages  belonging  to  them,  meet  together, 
and  the  writings  of  the  apostles  and  prophets  are 
read,  as  the  time  will  allow.  And  the  reader  being 
silent,  (or  having  ended)  the  president  delivers  a  dis- 
course, instructing  and  exhorting  to  an  imitation  of 
those  things  that  are  comely.  We  then  all  rise  up, 
and   pour   out   prayers.     And,  as    we  have  related, 

*  This  is  still  one  of  the  functions  of  the  deacons  in  the  Presbyte- 
rian Church. 


168  TESTIMONY    OF    THE    FATHERS. 

prayers  being  ended,  bread  and  wine  and  water  are 
brought,  and  the  president,  as  above,  gives  thanks 
according  to  his  ability;*  and  the  people  signify 
their  approbation,  saying,  amen.  Distribution  and 
communication  is  then  made  to  every  one  that  has 
joined  in  giving  thanks;  and  to  those  that  are  absent 
it  is  sent  by  the  deacons.  And  those  that  are  wealthy 
and  willing,  contribute  according  to  their  pleasure. 
What  is  collected  is  deposited  in  the  hands  of  the 
president,  and  he  helps  the  orphans  and  widows, 
those  that  are  in  want  by  reason  of  sickness,  or  any 
other  cause ;  those  that  are  in  bonds,  and  that  come 
strangers  from  abroad.  He  is  the  kind  guardian  of 
all  that  are  in  want.  We  all  assemble  on  Sunday, 
because  God,  dispelling  the  darkness  and  informing 
the  first  matter,  created  the  world;  and  also  because, 
upon  that  day,  Jesus  Christ  our  Saviour  rose  from 
the  dead."     Jlpol.  1.  p.  95—97. 

It  is  generally  agreed,  by  Episcopal  writers  as  well 
as  others,  that  the  officer  several  times  mentioned  in 
these  extracts  from  Justin  Martyr,  viz.  the  president, 
was  the  bishop  of  the  church,  whose  public  service  is 
described.  Now  as  this  venerable  father  is  obviously 
describing  the  manner  in  which  each  particular  con- 

*  This  passage  is  one  among  numerous  testimonies  with  which 
antiquity  abounds,  that  there  were  no  Forms  of  Prayer  used  in  the 
primitive  church.  Each  pastor  or  bishop  led  the  devotions  of  his 
congregation  according  to  his  ability.  For  the  firs>t  three  hundred 
years  after  Christ,  no  trace  of  prescribed  liturgies  is  to  be  found.  The 
liturgies  which  go  under  the  names  of  Peter,  Mark,  James,  Clemens, 
and  Basil,  have  been  given  up  as  forgeries,  even  by  the  most  re- 
spectable Episcopal  writers.  See  A  Discourse  concerning  Liturgies, 
by  the  Rev.  David  Clarkson,  a  Presbyterian  minister  of  England,  the 
venerable  ancestor  of  the  large  family  of  that  name  in  the  United 
States. 


TESTIMONY    OF    THE    FATHERS.  169 

gregation  conducted  its  worship  in  his  day,  it  follows, 
that  in  the  time  of  Justin,  every  congregation  had  its 
bishop;  or,  in  other  words,  that  this  was  a  title 
applied  in  primitive  times  to  the  ordinary  pastors  of 
particular  churches. 

The  testimony  of  Clemens  Alexandrinus,  who  flou- 
rished at  the  close  of  the  second  century,  is  likewise 
in  favour  of  our  doctrine  concerning  the  Christian 
ministry.  Clement  was  a.  presbyter  of  the  church  in 
Alexandria,  and  a  prodigy  of  learning  in  his  day. 
The  following  extracts  from  his  writings  will  enable 
us  to  judge  in  what  light  he  ought  to  be  considered 
as  a  witness  on  this  subject. 

Pxdagog.  lib.  1.  "  We  who  have  rule  over  the 
churches,  are  shepherds  or  pastors,  after  the  image  of 
the  Good  Shepherd."  Ibid.  lib.  iii.  In  proof  of  the 
impropriety  of  women  wearing  foreign  hair,  among 
other  arguments,  he  uses  this,  "  On  whom,  or  what 
will  the  presbyter  impose  his  hand?  To  whom  or 
what  will  he  give  his  blessing  ?  Not  to  the  woman 
who  is  adorned,  but  to  strange  locks  of  hair,  and 
through  them  to  another's  head."  Ibid.  "  Many 
other  commands,  appertaining  to  select  persons,  are 
written  in  the  sacred  books;  some  to  presbyters, 
some  to  bishops,  some  to  deacons,  and  some  to 
widows." 

Stromat.  lib.  i.  "  Just  so  in  the  church,  the  pres- 
byters are  intrusted  with  the  dignified  ministry  ;  the 
deacons  with  the  subordinate."  Ibid.  lib.  iii.  Having 
cited  the  apostolic  directions  concerning  marriage,  in 
1  Tim.  v.  14,  &c.  he  adds,  "  But  he  must  be  the  hus- 
band of  one  wife  only,  whether  he  be  a  presbyter,  or 
deacon,  or  layman,  if  he  would  use  matrimony  with- 
out reprehension."  Again — "  What  can  they  say  to 
15 


170       TESTIMONY  OF  THE  FATHERS. 

these  things  who  inveigh  against  marriage?  Since 
the  apostle  enjoins,  that  the  bishop  to  be  set  over  the 
church  be  one  who  rules  his  own  house  well.  Ibid, 
lib.  vi.  "  This  man  is  in  reality  a  presbyter ',  and  a 
true  deacon  of  the  purpose  of  God — not  ordained  of 
men,  nor  because  a  presbyter,  therefore  esteemed  a 
righteous  man ;  but  because  a  righteous  man,  there- 
fore now  reckoned  in  the  presbytery;  and  though 
here  upon  earth  he  hath  not  been  honoured  with  the 
chief  seat,  yet  he  shall  sit  down  among  the  four  and 
twenty  thrones,  judging  the  people,  as  John  says  in 
the  Revelation."  Again,  Ibid.  "  Now  in  the  church 
here,  the  progressions  of  bishops,  presbyters^  deacons, 
I  deem  to  be  imitations  of  the  evangelical  glory,  and 
of  that  dispensation  which  the  Scriptures  tell  us  they 
look  for,  who  following  the  steps  of  the  apostles,  have 
lived  according  to  the  Gospel  in  the  perfection  of 
righteousness.  These  men,  the  apostle  writes,  being 
taken  up  into  the  clouds,  shall  first  minister  as  dea- 
cons, then  be  admitted  to  a  rank  in  the  presbytery, 
according  to  the  progression  in  glory:  for  glory  dif- 
fereth  from  glory,  until  they  grow  up  to  a  perfect 
man."  Again — u  Of  that  service  of  God  about  which 
men  are  conversant,  one  is  that  which  makes  them 
better;  the  other  ministerial.  In  like  manner  in 
the  church,  the  presbyters  retain  the  form  of  that 
kind  which  makes  men  better;  and  the  deacons  that 
which  is  ministerial.  In  both  these  ministries,  the 
angels  serve  God  in  the  dispensation  of  earthly 
things."  Again,  in  his  book,  Quis  dives  salvandus 
sit,  he  has  the  following  singular  passage:  "Hear  a 
fable,  and  yet  not  a  fable,  but  a  true  story  reported  of 
John  the  apostle,  delivered  to  us,  and  kept  in  memo- 
ry.    After  the  death  of  the  tyrant,  when  he  (John) 


TESTIMONY    OF    THE    FATHERS.  171 

had  returned  to  Ephesus,  out  of  the  isle  of  Patmos, 
being  desired,  he  went  to  the  neighbouring  nations, 
where  he  appointed  bishops,  where  he  set  in  order 
whole  cities,  and  where  he  chose  by  lot  unto  the 
ecclesiastical  function,  of  those  who  had  been  pointed 
out  by  the  Spirit  as  by  name.  When  he  was  come 
to  a  certain  city,  not  far  distant,  the  name  of  which 
some  mention,  and  among  other  things  had  refreshed 
the  brethren;  beholding  a  young  man  of  a  portly 
body,  a  gracious  countenance,  and  fervent  mind,  he 
looked  upon  the  bishop,  who  was  set  over  all,  and 
said,  I  commit  this  young  man  to  thy  custody,  in  pre- 
sence of  the  church,  and  Christ  bearing  me  witness. 
When  he  had  received  the  charge,  and  promised  the 
performance  of  all  things  relative  to  it,  John  again 
urged,  and  made  protestations  of  the  same  thing;  and 
afterwards  departed  to  Ephesus.  And  the  presbyter, 
taking  the  young  man,  brought  him  to  his  own 
house,  nourished,  comforted,  and  cherished  him ;  and 
at  length  baptized  him." 

From  these  extracts  it  will  be  seen  that  Clement, 
though  a  presbyter  of  the  church  of  Alexandria,  speaks 
of  himself  as  of  one  of  its  governors,  and  claims  the 
title  of  "  a  shepherd  or  pastor,  after  the  image  of  the 
good  Shepherd,"  a  title  which  the  greater  part  of 
Episcopal  writers  acknowledge  to  have  been  given 
in  the  primitive  Church  to  the  highest  order  of  minis- 
ters. He  represents  the  presbyters  as  intrusted  with 
"  the  dignified  ministry,"  and  the  deacons  with  the 
subordinate,  without  suggesting  any  thing  of  a  more 
dignified  order.  He  applies  the  apostolic  direction  in 
1  Tim.  iii.  2, 4,  in  one  place  to  bishops,  and  in  another  to 
presbyters,  which  would  have  no  pertinency  if  he  did 
not  refer  in  both  cases  to  the  same  order  of  ministers. 


172  TESTIMONY    OF    THE    FATHERS. 

He  compares  the  grades  of  church  officers  with  the 
orders  of  angels;  but  we  read  only  of  angels  and 
archangels.  It  is  observable  also,  that  the  person  to 
whom  John  committed  the  young  man,  is  in  one  place 
called  a  bishop,  and  immediately  afterwards  a  presby- 
ter, which  we  cannot  suppose  would  have  been  done, 
had  the  superiority  of  order  for  which  prelatists  con- 
tend, been  known  in  his  day.  It  is  further  supposed 
by  some,  that  when  Clement  speaks  of  imposition  of 
hands  on  the  heads  of  those  females  who  wore  false 
hair,  he  alludes  to  the  rite  of  confirmation.  If  this 
be  so,  which  is  extremely  doubtful,  it  is  the  first  hint 
we  have,  in  all  antiquity,  of  this  right  being  practised; 
but,  unfortunately  for  the  Episcopal  cause,  the  impo- 
sition of  hands  here  mentioned,  is  ascribed  to  presby- 
ters. "  On  whom  or  what  will  the  presbyter  impose 
his  hands?"  From  these  circumstances  we  may  con- 
fidently infer,  that  Clement  knew  nothing  of  an  order 
of  bishops,  distinct  from  and  superior  to  presbyters, 
and  that  the  purity  of  the  apostolic  age  was  not,  when 
he  wrote,  in  this  respect,  materially  corrupted. 

It  is  readily  granted,  that  this  father  once  speaks  of 
"  bishops,  presbyters,  and  deacons,"  and  once  more, 
inverting  the  order,  of  "  presbyters,  bishops,  and  dea- 
cons." He  also  represents  these  as  "  progressions 
which  imitate  the  angelic  glory,"  and  refers  to  the 
"chief  seat  in  the  presbytery."  But  none  of  these 
modes  of  expression  afford  the  least  countenance  to 
the  Episcopal  doctrine.  He  no  where  tells  us  that 
there  was  any  'difference  of  order  in  his  day,  between 
bishops  and  presbyters;  and  far  less  does  he  convey 
any  hint,  that  only  the  former  ordained  and  confirmed. 
He  says  nothing  of  either  of  these  rites,  directly  or 
indirectly,  in  any  of  his  works.  And  when  the  friends 


TESTIMONY    OF    THE    FATHERS.  173 

of  Episcopacy  suppose,  that  the  mere  use  of  the 
words  bishop  and  presbyters,  establishes  their  claim, 
they  only  adopt  the  convenient  method  of  taking  the 
point  in  dispute  for  granted,  without  a  shadow  of 
proof.  If  we  suppose  the  bishop,  alluded  to  by  Cle- 
ment, to  be  the  pastor  of  the  church,  the  president  or 
presiding  presbyter,  and  the  other  presbyters  to  be 
his  assistants,  or  perhaps  ruling  elders,  it  will  account 
for  the  strongest  expressions  above  recited,  and  will 
entirely  agree  with  the  language  of  Scripture,  and  of 
all  the  preceding  fathers. 

The  well  informed  reader  will  observe,  that  I  have 
taken  no  notice  of  certain  writings,  called  the  "  Apos- 
tolical Canons,"  and  the  "  Apostolical  Constitutions/' 
which  have  been  sometimes  quoted  in  this  contro- 
versy. They  are  so  generally  considered  as  alto- 
gether unworthy  of  credit,  that  I  deem  no  apology 
necessary  for  this  omission.  When  Episcopal  writers 
of  the  greatest  eminence  style  them  "  impudent  forge- 
ries," and  their  author  "  a  cheat,  unworthy  of  credit," 
I  may  well  be  excused  for  passing  them  by. 

Indeed,  concerning  the  "  Apostolical  Constitutions," 
it  is  believed  that  scarcely  any  writer  of  intelligence 
and  credit  pretends  to  plead  for  their  authenticity. 
As  to  the  "  Apostolical  Canons,"  though  Beveridge, 
and  a  few  others  have  been  disposed  to  contend  in 
their  behalf,  it  is  certain  that  the  weight  of  evidence 
is  against  them.  Bishop  Taylor  speaks  of  them  in 
the  following  strong  terms:  "Even  of  the  fifty 
(Canons)  which  are  most  respected,  it  is  evident  that 
there  are  some  things  so  mixed  with  them,  and  no 
mark  of  difference  left,  that  the  credit  of  all  is  much 
impaired;  insomuch  that  Isidore,  of  Seville,  says, 
"  they  were  apocryphal,  made  by  heretics,  and  pub- 

15* 


174        TESTIMONY  OF  THE  FATHERS. 

lished  under  the  title  apostolical;  but  neither  the 
Fathers  nor  the  Church  of  Rome  did  give  assent  to 
them."* 

I  have  now  given  a  fair  specimen  of  the  manner  in 
which  the  fathers  of  the  first  two  hundred  years  speak 
on  the  subject  before  us.  I  know  not  of  a  single  pas- 
sage to  be  found  among  the  writers  of  that  early- 
period,  more  direct  or  decisive  in  favour  of  prelacy 
than  those  which  I  have  quoted.  It  would  give  me 
the  greatest  pleasure,  if  the  limits  to  which  this  manual 
is  confined  allowed  me,  to  present  every  line  and  word 
left  by  the  early  fathers,  that  can  be  considered  as 
having  the  remotest  relation  to  the  subject  under  con- 
sideration. I  am  perfectly  persuaded  that  the  more 
complete  and  faithful  the  collection  of  such  extracts, 
the  greater  would  be  the  amazement  of  the  reader  at 
the  claims  which  our  Episcopal  brethren  profess  to 
found  upon  them,  and  the  stronger  his  conviction  of 
the  utter  failure  of  their  testimony. 

Let  me,  then,  appeal  to  the  candour  of  the  reader, 
whether  the  assertions  made  at  the  beginning  of  this 
chapter,  are  not  fully  supported.  Has  he  seen  a  sin- 
gle passage  which  proves  that  Christian  bishops,  with- 
in the  first  two  centuries,  were,  in  fact,  an  order  of 
clergy  distinct  from  those  presbyters  who  were  au- 
thorized to  preach  and  administer  sacraments,  and 
superior  to  them?  Has  he  seen  a  sentence  which  fur- 
nishes even  probable  testimony,  that  these  bishops 
received,  as  such,  anew  and  superior  ordination;  that 
each  bishop  had  under  him  a  number  of  congregations 
with  their  pastors,  whom  he  governed;  and  that  with 
this  superior  order  exclusively  was  deposited  the 
power  of  ordaining  and  administering  the  rite  of  con- 

*  Liberty  of  Prophesying,  Sect.  5,  Art.  9- 


TESTIMONY   OF    THE    FATHERS.  175 

firmation?  Has  he  found  even  plausible  evidence  in 
support  of  any  one  of  these  articles  of  Episcopal  be- 
lief? Above  all,  has  he  found  a  syllable  which  inti- 
mates that  these  were  not  only  facts,  but  also  that 
they  were  deemed  of  so  much  importance  as  to  be 
essential  to  the  very  existence  of  the  Church?  Even 
supposing  he  had  found  such  declarations  in  some  or 
all  of  the  early  fathers;  what  then  ?  Historic  fact  is 
not  divine  institution.  There  were  many  facts  in  the 
apostolic  church  which  none  of  us  now  think  it  our 
duty  to  adopt  in  practice.  But  has  he  found  the  fact  ? 
I  will  venture  to  say,  he  has  not.  We  are  so  far  from 
being  told  by  the  writers  within  this  period,  "  with 
one  voice,"  that  bishops  are  a  superior  order  to 
preaching  presbyters,  that  not  one  among  them  says 
any  thing  like  it.  Instead  of  finding  them  "  unani- 
mously," and  "constantly"  declaring  that  the  right 
of  ordination  is  exclusively  vested  in  bishops  as  a 
superior  order,  we  cannot  find  a  single  passage  in 
which  such  information,  or  any  thing  that  resembles 
it,  is  conveyed.  And,  with  respect  to  confirmation, 
which  is  claimed  as  one  of  the  appropriate  duties  of 
the  diocesan  bishop,  it  is  not  so  much  as  once  men- 
tioned by  any  authentic  writer,  within  the  first  two 
hundred  years,  as  a  ceremony  which  was  in  use  at 
all,*  and  much  less  as  appropriated  to  a  particular 
order  of  clergy. 

On  the  contrary,  we  have  seen  that  these  writers, 
with  remarkable  uniformity,  apply  the  terms  bishop, 
presbyter,  president,  shepherd,  pastor,  interchange- 

*  Unless  the  doubtful  passage  before  quoted  from  Clemens  Alex- 
andrinus,  may  be  supposed  to  refer  to  this  rite:  and  if  so,  then  it  will 
follow,  from  that  passage,  that,  in  the  days  of  Clemens,  presbyters 
confirmed. 


176        TESTIMONY  OF  THE  FATHERS. 

ably  to  the  same  officers;  that  the  apostolical  succes- 
sion is  expressly  ascribed  to  presbyters;  that  a  bishop 
is  represented  as  performing  duties  which  would  in- 
volve absurdity  on  any  other  supposition  than  that  of 
his  being  the  pastor  of  a  single  flock ;  and  that  in  all 
cases  in  which  any  distinction  is  made  between 
bishops  and  presbyters,  it  evidently  points  out,  either 
the  distinction  between  preaching  and  ruling  presby- 
ters; or  that  between  those  who  were  fixed  pastors 
of  churches,  and  those  who,  though  in  full  orders,  and 
of  the  same  rank,  had  no  pastoral  charge,  and,  until 
they  obtained  such  a  place,  acted  the  part  of  assistants 
to  pastors.  In  short,  when  the  testimony  of  the  early 
fathers  is  thoroughly  sifted,  it  will  be  found  to  yield 
nothing  to  the  Episcopal  cause  but  simply  the  use  of 
the  title  bishop.  Now,  when  the  advocates  of  Epis- 
copacy find  this  title  in  the  New  Testament  evidently 
applied  to  presbyters,  they  gravely  tell  us  that  the 
mere  title  is  nothing,  and  that  the  interchange  of  these 
titles  is  nothing.  But  when  we  find  precisely  the 
same  titles  in  the  early  fathers,  and  the  same  inter- 
change of  these  titles,  as  in  the  Scriptures,  they  are 
compelled  either  to  alter  their  tone,  and  to  abandon 
their  former  reasoning,  or  else  to  submit  to  the  morti- 
fication of  being  condemned  out  of  their  own  mouths. 
The  friends  of  prelacy  have  often,  and  with  much 
apparent  confidence,  challenged  us  to  produce  out  of 
all  the  early  fathers,  a  single  instance  of  an  ordination 
performed  by  presbyters.  Those  who  give  this  chal- 
lenge might  surely  be  expected,  in  all  decency  and 
justice,  to  have  a  case  of  Episcopal  ordination  ready 
to  be  brought  forward,  from  the  same  venerable 
records.  But  have  they  ever  produced  such  a  case? 
They  have  not.     Nor  can  they  produce  it.     As  there 


TESTIMONY    OF    THE    FATHERS.  177 

is,  unquestionably,  no  instance  mentioned  in  Scrip- 
ture of  any  person,  with  the  title  of  bishop,  perform- 
ing an  ordination;  so  it  is  equally  certain  that  no 
such  instance  has  yet  been  found  in  any  Christian 
writer  within  the  first  two  centuries.  Nor  can  a  sin- 
gle instance  be  produced  of  a  person  already  ordained 
as  a  presbyter,  receiving  a  new  and  second  ordination 
as  bishop.  To  find  a  precedent  favourable  to  their 
doctrine,  the  advocates  of  Episcopacy  have  been  un- 
der the  necessity  of  wandering  into  periods  when  the 
simplicity  of  the  gospel  had,  in  a  lamentable  degree, 
given  place  to  the  devices  of  men;  and  when  the  "  man 
of  sin"  had  commenced  that  system  of  unhallowed 
usurpation,  which  for  so  many  centuries  corrupted 
and  degraded  the  church  of  God. 

I  promised,  in  a  preceding  chapter,  to  produce  some 
testimony  from  the  fathers  in  regard  to  the  deacon's 
office.  The  following  extracts  from  early  writers 
plainly  show,  not  only  that  the  deacon  was  originally 
what  we  have  stated  in  a  former  chapter,  but  that 
this  continued  to  be  the  case  for  several  centuries. 
Hermas,  one  of  the  apostolical  fathers,  in  his  Simili- 
tude, ix.  27,  tells  us,  that  "  of  such  as  believed,  some 
were  set  over  inferior  functions,  or  services,  being  in- 
trusted with  the  poor  and  widows."  Origen  (Tract. 
16,  in  Matt.)  says,  "The  deacons  preside  over  the 
money  tables  of  the  church."  And  again,  "Those 
deacons  who  do  not  manage  well  the  money  of  the 
church  committed  to  their  care,  but  act  a  fraudulent 
part,  and  dispense  it,  not  according  to  justice,  but  for 
the  purpose  of  enriching  themselves;  these  act  the 
part  of  money-changers,  and  keepers  of  those  tables 
which  our  Lord  overturned.     For  the  deacons  were 


178  TESTIMONY    OF    THE    FATHERS. 

appointed  to  preside  over  the  tables  of  the  church,  as 
we  are  taught  in  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles."  Cyprian 
(Epist.  52)  speaks  of  a  certain  deacon  who  had  been 
deposed  from  his  sacred  deaconship  on  account  of  his 
fraudulent  and  sacrilegious  misapplication  of  the 
church's  money  to  his  own  private  use,  and  for  his 
denial  of  the  widow's  and  orphan's  pledges  deposited 
with  him."  And,  in  another  place,  (Epist.  ad  Ro- 
gatianum)  as  a  proof  that  his  view  of  this  office  is 
not  misapprehended,  he  refers  the  appointment  of 
the  first  deacons  to  the  choice  and  ordination  at 
Jerusalem,  as  recited  at  large  in  the  Acts  of  the 
Apostles.  Ambrose,  in  speaking  of  the  fourth  cen- 
tury— the  time  in  which  he  lived — (Comment,  in 
Ephes.  iv.)  says,  "  The  deacons  do  not  publicly 
preach."  Chrysostom,  who  lived  in  the  same  century, 
in  his  Commentary  on  Acts  vi.  remarks,  that  "  The 
deacons  had  need  of  great  wisdom,  although  the 
preaching  of  the  gospel  was  not  committed  to  them;" 
and  observes  further,  that  "  it  is  absurd  to  suppose 
that  they  should  have  the  offices  of  preaching  and 
taking  care  of  the  poor  committed  to  them,  seeing  it 
is  impossible  for  them  to  discharge  both  functions  ade- 
quately." Jerome,  in  his  letter  to  Evagrius,  calls  dea- 
cons "  ministers  of  tables  and  widows."  And  in  the 
Apostolical  Constitutions,  which,  though  undoubtedly 
spurious  as  an  apostolical  work,  may  probably  be 
referred  to  the  fourth  or  fifth  century,  it  is  declared, 
(Lib.  viii.  cap.  28,)  "  It  is  not  lawful  for  the  deacons 
to  baptize,  or  to  administer  the  eucharist,  or  to  pro- 
nounce the  greater  or  smaller  benediction."  Other 
citations,  to  the  same  amount,  might  easily  be  pro- 
duced.    But  it  is  unnecessary.     The  above  furnish  a 


TESTIMONY    OP    THE    FATHERS.  179 

clear  indication  of  the  nature  of  the  deacon's  office,  in 
the  primitive  Church,  and  during  the  first  three  or 
four  centuries. 

I  will  therefore  only  add,  that  the  learned  Suicer, 
of  Germany,  in  his  "  Thesaurus  Ecclesiasticus,"  under 
the  article  AeaxdW,  speaks  thus,  "In  the  apostolic 
Church,  deacons  were  those  who  distributed  alms  to 
the  poor,  and  took  care  of  them;  in  other  words  they 
were  the   treasurers  of  the  Church's  charity.     The 
original  institution  of  this  class  of  officers  is  set  forth 
in  the  sixth  chapter  of  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles.    With 
respect  to  them,  the  sixteenth  chapter  of  the  council  of 
Constantinople  (in  Trullo)  says,  "  They  are  those  to 
whom  the   common  administering  unto   poverty  is 
committed;    not   those   who   administer   the    sacra- 
ments."     And  Aristinus,   in  his   Synopsis   of    the 
Canons  of  the  same  Council,  Can.  18th,  says,  "  Let 
him  who  alleges  that  the  seven,  of  whom  mention  is 
made  in  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles,  were  deacons,  know 
that  the  account  there  given  is  not  of  those  who  ad- 
minister  the   sacraments,  but   of   such   as   "served 
tables."     Zonaras,  ad  Can.  16.  Trullanum,  p.  145, 
says,  "  Those  who  by  the  apostles  were  appointed  to 
the  deaconship,  were  not  ministers  of  spiritual  things, 
but  ministers  and  dispensers  of  meats."     CEcume- 
nius,  also,  on  the   sixth  chapter  of  the  Acts  of  the 
Apostles,  says,  "  They  laid  their  hands  on  the  deacons 
who  had  been  elected,  which  office  was  by  no  means 
the  same  with  that  which  obtains  at  the  present  day 
in  the  Church,  (i.  e.  under  the  same  name,)  but  that 
with  the  utmost  care  and  diligence,  they  might  distri- 
bute what  was  necessary  to  the  sustenance  of  widows 
and  orphans." 

Such  is  the  result  of  the  appeal  to  the  early  fathers. 


180  TESTIMONY    OP    THE    FATHERS. 

They  are  so  far  from  giving  even  a  semblance  of  sup- 
port to  the  Episcopal  claim,  that,  like  the  Scriptures, 
they  every  where  speak  a  language  wholly  incon- 
sistent with  it,  and  favourable  only  to  the  doctrine  of 
ministerial  parity.  What  then  shall  we  say  of  the 
assertions  so  often  and  so  confidently  made,  that  the 
doctrine  of  a  superior  order  to  presbyters,  styled 
bishops,  has  been  maintained  in  the  Church,  "  from 
the  earliest  ages,"  in  "  the  ages  immediately  succeed- 
ing the  apostles,"  and  by  "  all  the  fathers,  from  the 
beginning?"  What  shall  we  say  of  the  assertion, 
that  the  Scriptures,  interpreted  by  the  writings  of  the 
early  fathers,  decidedly  support  the  same  doctrine? 
I  will  only  say,  that  those  who  find  themselves  able 
to  justify  such  assertions,  must  have  been  much  more 
successful  in  discovering  early  authorities  in  aid  of 
their  cause,  than  the  most  diligent,  learned,  and  keen- 
sighted  of  their  predecessors. 


TESTIMONY  OF  THE  FATHERS.         181 


CHAPTER  V. 

TESTIMONY    OF    THE    LATER    FATHERS. 

In  citing  the  fathers,  it  was  necessary  to  draw  a  dis- 
tinct line  between  those  who  are  to  be  admitted  as 
credible  witnesses,  and  those  whose  testimony  is  to  be 
suspected.  I  have  accordingly  drawn  this  line  at  the 
close  of  the  second  century.  About  this  time,  as  will 
be  afterwards  shown,  among  many  other  corruptions, 
that  of  clerical  imparity  appeared  in  the  Church ;  and 
even  the  Papacy,  as  we  have  before  seen,  had  begun 
to  urge  its  antichristian  claims.  From  the  commence- 
ment of  the  third  century,  therefore,  every  witness  on 
the  subject  of  Episcopacy  is  to  be  received  with  cau- 
tion. As  it  is  granted,  on  all  hands,  that  the  mystery 
of  iniquity  had  then  begun  to  work:  as  great  and  good 
men  are  known,  from  this  time  to  have  countenanced 
important  errors,  errors  acknowledged  to  be  such  by 
Episcopalians  as  well  as  ourselves:  as  uncommanded 
rites  and  forms,  both  of  Jewish  and  pagan  origin,  be- 
gan to  be  introduced  into  Christian  worship,  and  to 
have  a  stress  laid  upon  them  as  unreasonable  as  it 
was  unwarranted;  we  are  compelled  to  examine  the 
writers  from  the  commencement  of  the  third  century 
downwards,  with  the  jealousy  which  we  feel  towards 
men  who  stand  convicted  of  having  departed  from  the 
simplicity  of  the  gospel;  and  concerning  some  of  whom 
it  is  perfectly  well  known,  that  many  of  their  alleged 
facts  are  as  false  as  their  principles. 
16 


182  TESTIMONY    OF    THE    FATHERS. 

But  though  the  fathers  from  the  beginning  of  the 
third  century  are  not  to  be  contemplated  with  the 
same  respect,  nor  relied  upon  with  the  same  confi- 
dence as  their  predecessors;  still  they  deserve  much 
attention;  and  in  the  perusal  of  their  writings,  we  shall 
find  many  passages  which  confirm  the  doctrine  and 
the  statements  exhibited  in  the  foregoing  pages.  We 
shall  sometimes,  indeed,  meet  with  modes  of  expres- 
sion and  occasional  hints,  which  indicate  that  the  love 
of  pre-eminence,  which  has,  in  all  ages,  so  much  dis- 
turbed the  church  as  well  as  the  state,  had  begun  to 
form  into  a  system  its  plans  and  claims.  Not  a  sen- 
tence, however,  can  be  found  until  the  fourth  century, 
which  gives  any  intimation  that  bishops  were  con- 
sidered as  a  different  order  from  presbyters ;  or  that 
the  former  were  peculiarly  invested  with  the  ordain- 
ing power.  Let  us  then  inquire  in  what  manner  some 
of  these  later  fathers  speak  on  the  subject  under  con- 
sideration. 

Tertullian  began  to  flourish  about  the  year  200. 
His  writings  are  voluminous,  and  their  authenticity  is 
generally  admitted.  And  though  he  has  been  often 
quoted  by  our  opponents  in  this  controversy,  as  a  wit- 
ness favourable  to  their  cause,  yet  if  I  mistake  not, 
a  little  attention  to  the  few  hints  which  he  drops  on 
this  subject,  will  show  that  his  testimony  is  directly  of 
an  opposite  kind.  The  following  passages  are  found 
in  his  works. 

*dpolog.  "  In  our  religious  assemblies  certain  ap- 
proved elders  preside,  who  have  obtained  their  office 
by  merit  and  not  by  bribes."  Be  Corona.  "  We  re- 
ceive the  sacrament  of  the  Lord's  Supper  from  the 
hands  of  none  but  the  presidents  of  our  assemblies." 
In  the  same   work,  cap.   3,  he  informs  us,  that  the 


TESTIMONY  OF  THE  FATHERS.        183 

Christians  among  whom  he  dwelt,  were  in  the  habit 
of  receiving  the  Lord's  Supper  three  times  in  each 
week,  viz.  on  Wednesdays  and  Fridays,  as  well  as  on 
the  Lord's  days."  Ibid.  "  Before  we  go  to  the  water 
to  be  baptized,  we  first  in  the  church,  under  the  hand 
of  the  president,  profess  to  renounce  the  devil."  Be 
Baptismo.  "  It  remains  that  I  remind  you  of  the  cus- 
tom of  giving  and  receiving  baptism.  The  right  of 
giving  this  ordinance  belongs  to  the  highest  priest, 
who  is  the  bishop;  then  to  elders  and  deacons;  yet 
not  without  the  authority  of  the  bishop,  for  the  sake 
of  the  honour  of  the  church.  This  being  secured, 
peace  is  secured;  otherwise,  even  the  laity  have  the 
right."  He  then  goes  on  to  observe,  that  although 
the  laity  have  the  right  of  baptizing  in  cases  of  neces- 
sity, yet  "  that  they  ought  to  be  modest,  and  not  to 
assume  to  themselves  the  appointed  office  of  the 
bishop."  Be  Hseretic.  "  Let  them  (the  heretics)  pro- 
duce the  original  of  their  churches ;  let  them  turn  over 
the  roll  of  their  bishops;  so  running  down  in  a  con- 
tinued succession,  that  their  first  bishop  had  some  one 
of  the  apostles,  or  of  the  apostolic  men  (who  perse- 
vered with  the  apostles)  for  his  author  and  predeces- 
sor. Thus  the  apostolical  churches  have  their  rolls, 
as  the  church  of  Smyrna  has  Polycarp  constituted 
there  by  John,  and  the  Church  of  Rome,  Clement  or- 
dained by  Peter.  And  the  other  churches  can  tell 
who  were  ordained  bishops  over  them  by  the  apos- 
tles, and  who  have  been  their  successors  to  this  day." 
These  quotations  are  the  strongest  that  Episcopa- 
lians produce  from  Tertullian  in  support  of  their  sys- 
tem. Let  us  examine  them.  This  father  tells  us, 
that  in  his  day,  presbyters  presided  in  their  assemblies; 
that  the  presidents  of  their  assemblies  alone,  in  ordi- 


184        TESTIMONY  OF  THE  FATHERS. 

nary  cases,  baptized ;  and  that  they  received  the  Lord's 
Supper  from  no  other  hands  but  those  of  the  presi- 
dents: and  at  the  same  time  he  informs  us,  that  ad- 
ministering baptism  is  the  appropriate  right  of  the 
highest  priest,  who  is  the  bishop.  What  are  we  to 
infer  from  this  representation,  but  that  presbyter,  pre- 
sident, and  bishop,  are  employed  by  Tertullian  as 
titles  of  the  same  men?  Again;  this  father,  while  he 
declares  that  each  bishop  or  president  performed  all 
the  baptisms  for  his  flock,  and  that  they  received  the 
eucharist  from  no  other  hands  than  his,  mentions  that 
they  were  in  the  habit  of  attending  on  the  eucharist 
three  times  in  each  week.  Now  the  man  who  per- 
formed every  baptism  in  the  church  under  his  care, 
and  who  administered  the  Lord's  Supper  three  times 
every  week  to  all  the  members  of  his  church,  could 
only  have  been  the  pastor  of  one  congregation.  To 
suppose  that  any  minister,  however  great  his  activity 
and  zeal,  could  statedly  perform  this  service  for  more 
than  a  single  church,  involves  a  manifest  impossibility. 
Nor  is  this  all:  absurdity  is  added  to  impossibility,  by 
supposing,  as  Episcopalians  must,  that  the  bishop  did 
all  this  when  he  had  many  presbyters  under  him,  who 
were  all  invested  by  the  very  nature  of  their  office, 
with  the  power  of  administering  both  sacraments  as 
well  as  himself. 

But  it  will  be  asked — why  then  is  the  bishop  called 
by  Tertullian  the  highest  priest?  Does  not  this  ex- 
pression indicate  that  there  was  one  priest  in  a  church, 
at  that  time,  who  had  some  kind  of  superiority  over 
the  other  priests  of  the  same  church  ?  I  answer,  this 
expression  implies  no  superiority  of  order.  The  high- 
est priest  might  have  been  the  only  pastor  of  the 
church;  nor  is  there  any  thing  in  the  title  inconsistent 


TESTIMONY    OF    THE    FATHERS.  185 

with  this  supposition.  A  common  pastor  is  "  the 
highest  priest"  known  in  the  Presbyterian  church. 
To  draw  a  conclusion  either  in  favour  of  diocesan 
Episcopacy,  or  against  it,  from  language  so  entirely 
ambiguous  in  its  import,  is  surely  more  calculated  to 
expose  the  weakness  than  to  exhibit  the  strength  of 
the  cause  in  which  it  is  adduced.  Besides,  Tertullian 
informs  us  that  this  bishop,  or  highest  priest,  was  alone 
invested  with  the  right  of  baptizing  and  administer- 
ing the  Lord's  Supper;  that  the  bishop  might,  when 
he  thought  proper,  empower  elders  and  deacons  to 
baptize;  and  that  even  private  Christians,  who  bore 
no  office  in  the  church,  might  also  baptize  in  cases  of 
necessity.  But  still  he  declares  that  administering 
baptism  was  "  the  appointed  office  of  the  bishop,"  and 
that  they  received  the  Lord's  Supper  from  no  other 
hands  than  his.  Either,  then,  Tertullian  writes  in  a 
very  confused  and  contradictory  manner,  or  else  both 
the  bishop  and  elders  mentioned  by  him  are  officers 
of  a  very  different  character  from  those  who  are  dis- 
tinguished by  the  same  titles  in  modern  Episcopal 
churches.  His  highest  priest  was  evidently  no  other 
than  the  pastor  of  a  single  congregation;  the  president 
of  the  assembly,  and  of  the  presbytery  or  eldership, 
which  belonged,  like  himself,  to  a  particular  church. 

With  respect  to  the  passage  quoted  above,  in  which 
this  father  speaks  of"  the  roll  of  bishops,"  and  of  the 
line  of  bishops  running  down  in  a  continual  succes- 
sion, it  is  nothing  to  the  purpose  of  those  who  adduce 
it  to  support  diocesan  Episcopacy.  What  kind  of 
bishops  were  those  of  whom  Tertullian  here  speaks? 
were  they  parochial  or  diocesan  ?  If  we  consider  them, 
as  other  passages  in  his  writings  compel  us  to  con- 
sider them,  as  the  pastors  of  single  congregations,  then 
16* 


186       TESTIMONY  OF  THE  FATHERS. 

the  obvious  construction  of  the  passage  is  perfectly- 
agreeable  to  Presbyterian  principles.  But,  what  esta- 
blishes this  construction  is,  that  Irenseus,  who  was 
nearly  contemporary  with  Tertullian,  in  a  passage 
quoted  in  a  preceding  chapter,  in  a  similar  appeal  to 
the  heretics,  speaks  of  the  list  or  roll  of  presbyters, 
and  represents  the  apostolical  succession  as  flowing 
through  the  line  of  presbyters;  an  incontestible  proof 
that  the  words  bishop  and  presbyter  were  used  by 
both  these  fathers,  as  convertible  titles  for  the  same 
office. 

Cyprian,  the  venerable  bishop  of  Carthage,  who 
flourished  and  wrote  about  the  year  250,  is  often 
quoted  by  Episcopal  writers  as  a  strong  witness  in 
their  favour.  The  following  quotations  will  show  in 
what  light  his  testimony  ought  to  be  viewed.  Epist. 
73.  "  Whence  we  understand,  that  it  is  lawful  for 
none  but  the  presidents  of  the  church  to  baptize  and 
grant  remission  of  sins."  And  again,  Epist.  67.  "The 
people  should  not  flatter  themselves  that  they  are  free 
from  fault,  when  they  communicate  with  a  sinful 
priest,  and  give  their  consent  to  the  presidency  of  a 
wicked  bishop.  Wherefore  a  flock  that  is  obedient  to 
God's  commands,  and  fears  him,  ought  to  separate 
from  a  wicked  bishop,  and  not  to  join  the  sacrifices  of 
a  sacrilegious  priest;  since  the  flock  or  people  has  the 
chief  power  of  choosing  worthy  priests  and  refusing 
unworthy  ones,  which  we  see  comes  down  to  us  from 
divine  authority,  that  the  priest  should  be  chosen  in 
the  presence  of  the  flock,  and  in  the  sight  of  all,  that 
he  may  be  approved  as  worthy  and  fit,  by  the  judg- 
ment and  testimony  of  all.  This  is  observed,  accord- 
ing to  divine  authority,  in  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles, 
when  Peter,  speaking  to  the  people  concerning  the 


TESTIMONY  OF  THE  FATHERS.        187 

ordination  of  a  bishop  in  the  place  of  Judas;  it  is  said 
Peter  rose  up  in  the  midst  of  the  disciples,  the  whole 
multitude  being  met  together-  And  we  may  take 
notice  that  the  apostles  observed  this,  not  only  in  the 
ordination  of  bishops  and  priests,  but  also  of  deacons, 
concerning  whom  it  is  written  in  the  Acts,  that  the 
twelve  gathered  together  the  whole  multitude  of  the 
disciples,  and  said  unto  them,  &c.  which  was,  there- 
fore, so  diligently  and  carefully  transacted  before  all 
the  people,  lest  any  unworthy  person  should,  by  secret 
arts,  creep  into  the  ministry  of  the  altar,  or  the  sacer- 
dotal station.  This,  therefore,  is  to  be  observed  and 
held  as  founded  on  divine  tradition  and  apostolic  prac- 
tice; which  is  also  kept  up  with  us,  and  almost  in  all 
the  provinces,  that  in  order  to  the  right  performance 
of  ordination,  the  neighbouring  bishops  of  the  same 
province  meet  with  that  flock  to  which  the  bishop  is 
ordained,  and  that  the  bishop  be  chosen  in  presence 
of  the  people,  who  know  every  one's  life,  and  are  ac- 
quainted with  their  whole  conversation.  Which  we 
see  was  done  by  you  in  the  ordination  of  Sabinus, 
our  colleague,  that  the  Episcopacy  was  conferred  on 
him  by  the  suffrage  of  the  whole  brotherhood,  and  of 
the  bishops  who  were  met  there,  and  wrote  to  you 
concerning  him." 

-  Epist.  32.  "  Through  all  the  vicissitudes  of  time, 
the  ordination  of  bishops,  and  the  constitution  of  the 
church,  are  so  handed  down,  that  the  church  is  built 
on  the  bishops,  and  every  act  of  the  church  is  ordered 
and  managed  by  them.  Seeing,  therefore,  this  is 
founded  on  the  law  of  God,  I  wonder  that  some  should 
be  so  rash  and  insolent  as  to  write  to  me  in  the  name 
of  the  church,  seeing  a  church  consists  of  a  bishop, 
clergy,  and  all  that  stand  faithful." 


188  TESTIMONY    OF    THE    FATHERS. 

Tract.  Be  Unitat.  Eccles.  "  Our  Lord  speaks  to 
Peter,  I  say  unto  thee,  thou  art  Peter,  and  upon  this 
rock  I  will  build  my  church,  &c.  Upon  one  he  builds  his 
church;  and  though  he  gave  an  equal  power  to  all 
his  apostles,  yet  that  he  might  manifest  unity,  he 
ordered  the  beginning  of  that  unity  to  proceed  from 
one  person.  The  rest  of  the  apostles  were  the  same 
that  Peter  was,  being  endued  with  the  same  fellow- 
ship both  of  honour  and  power.  But  the  beginning 
proceeds  from  unity,  that  the  church  may  be  shown 
to  be  one." 

Epist.  3.  "  The  deacons  ought  to  remember,  that 
the  Lord  hath  chosen  apostles,  that  is,  bishops  and 
presidents;  but  the  apostles  constituted  deacons,  as 
the  ministers  of  their  episcopacy  and  of  the  church." 

These  extracts  are  remarkable.  Though  they  are 
precisely  those  which  Episcopalians  generally  adduce 
from  Cyprian  in  support  of  their  causey  yet  the  dis- 
cerning reader  will  perceive  that  all  their  force  lies 
against  that  cause.  It  is  evident  from  these  extracts, 
that  bishop  and  president  are  used  by  this  father  as 
words  of  the  same  import;  that  the  officer  thus  de- 
nominated was  the  only  one  who  had  the  power  of 
administering  baptism;  that  the  bishop  in  Cyprian's 
days  was  chosen  by  the  people  of  his  charge,  was  or- 
dained over  a  particular  "  flock,"  and  received  his  or- 
dination in  the  presence  of  that  flock.  All  these  cir- 
cumstances agree  perfectly  with  the  Presbyterian 
doctrine,  that  the  bishop  is  the  pastor  of  a  single  con- 
gregation; but  wear  a  most  unnatural  and  improba- 
ble aspect  when  applied  to  a  diocesan  bishop,  having 
a  number  of  flocks  or  congregations  with  their  pas- 
tors under  his  care. 

It  is  readily  granted,  that  Cyprian  speaks  of  the 


TESTIMONY  OF  THE  FATHERS.        189 

church  of  Carthage  as  having  several  presbyters  or 
elders  as  well  as  deacons,  and  that  he  distinguishes 
between  presbyters  of  that  church,  and  himself  their 
bishop.  But  how  many  of  these  were  ruling  presby- 
ters, and  how  many  were  empowered  to  teach  and  ad- 
minister sacraments,  as  well  as  to  rule  •,  and  in  what 
respects  he  differed  from  the  other  presbyters,  whether 
only  as  a  standing  chairman  or  president  among  them, 
as  seems  to  be  intimated  by  his  calling  them  repeat- 
edly his  colleagues  or  co-presbyters,  we  are  no  where 
informed.  The  probability  is,  that  he  was  simply  the 
pastor  of  the  church,  and  that  the  presbyters  of  whom 
he  speaks,  were  either  his  assistants,  or  ruling  elders. 
All  we  know  is,  that  writing  to  them  in  his  exile,  he 
requests  them,  during  his  absence,  to  perform  his  du- 
ties as  well  as  their  own;  which  looks  as  if  Cyprian 
considered  the  presbyters  of  his  church,  or  at  least 
some  of  them,  as  clothed  with  full  power  to  perform 
all  those  acts  which  were  incumbent  on  him  as  bishop, 
and  consequently  as  of  the  same  order  with  himself. 

Again;  when  Cyprian  speaks  of  the  Church  as  "  be- 
ing built  on  the  bishops,"  and  of  all  the  acts  of  the 
Church  as  being  managed  by  them,  Episcopalians 
hastily  triumph,  as  if  this  were  decided  testimony  in 
their  favour.  But  their  triumph  is  premature.  Does 
Cyprian,  in  these  passages,  refer  to  diocesan  or  paro- 
chial bishops?  To  prelates,  who  had  the  government 
of  a  diocese,  containing  a  number  of  congregations 
and  their  ministers;  or  to  pastors  of  single  flocks  ?  The 
latter,  from  the  whole  strain  of  his  epistles,  is  evi- 
dently his  meaning.  He  no  where  gives  the  least 
hint  of  having  more  than  one  congregation  under  his 
own  care.  He  represents  his  whole  church  as  ordi- 
narily joining  together  in  the  celebration  of  the  eucha- 


190  TESTIMONY    OF    THE    FATHERS. 

rist.  He  declares  his  resolution  to  do  nothing  with- 
out the  council  of  his  elders,  and  the  consent  of  his 
flock.  He  aflirms  that  every  church,  when  properly 
organized,  consists  of  a  bishop,  clergy,  and  the  bro- 
therhood. All  these  representations  apply  only  to 
parochial,  and  by  no  means  to  diocesan  Episcopacy. 
For  if  such  officers  belong  to  every  church,  or  or- 
ganized religious  society,  then  we  must  conclude  that 
by  the  clergy  of  each  church,  as  distinguished  from 
the  bishop,  is  meant  those  elders  who  assisted  the 
pastor  in  the  discharge  of  parochial  duty.  It  is  well 
known  that  Cyprian  applies  the  term  clergy  to  all 
sorts  of  church  officers.  In  his  epistles,  not  only  the 
presbyters,  or  elders,  but  also  the  deacons,  sub- 
deacons,  readers,  and  acolyths  are  all  spoken  of  as 
belonging  to  the  clergy.  The  ordination  of  such  per- 
sons, (for  it  seems  in  his  time  they  were  all  formally 
ordained)  he  calls  ordinationes  clericce;  and  the  let- 
ters which  he  transmitted  by  them,  he  styles  liters 
clericse.  *  The  same  fact  may  be  clearly  established 
from  the  writings  of  Ambrose,  Hilary,  and  Epipha- 
nius,  and  also  from  the  canons  of  the  Council  of  Nice. 
When  Cyprian,  then,  speaks  of  a  church,  when  pro- 
perly organized,  as  consisting  of  a  bishop,  clergy,  and 
brotherhood,  he  not  only  speaks  a  language  which  is 
strictly  reconcilable  with  Presbyterian  church  govern- 
ment; but  which  can  scarcely  be  reconciled  with  any 
thing  else.  For  it  is  alone  descriptive  of  a  pastor  or 
overseer  of  a  single  church,  with  his  elders  and  dea- 
cons to  assist  in  their  appropriate  functions.  But  there 
is  one  passage  in  the  above  cited  extracts,  which  com- 
pletely establishes  the  position,  that  Cyprian  con- 
sidered bishops  and  preaching  presbyters  as  of  the 
same  order.     He  recognizes  the  same  kind  of  pre- 


TESTIMONY    OP    THE    FATHERS.  191 

eminence  in  bishops  over  presbyters,  as  Peter  had 
over  the  other  apostles.  But  of  what  nature  was  this 
superiority  ?  He  shall  speak  for  himself.  "  The  rest 
of  the  apostles/'  says  he,  "  were  the  same  that  Peter 
was,  being  endued  with  the  same  fellowship,  both  of 
honour  and  power;  but  the  beginning  proceeds  from 
unity,  that  the  church  may  be  shown  to  be  one."  In 
other  words,  every  bishop  is  of  the  same  order  with 
those  presbyters  who  labour  in  the  word  and  doc- 
trine: and  only  holds,  in  consequence  of  his  being 
vested  with  a  pastoral  charge,  the  distinction  of  presi- 
dent or  chairman  among  them.  That  I  do  not  mis- 
take Cyprian's  meaning,  you  will  readily  be  per- 
suaded, when  I  inform  you  that  Mr.  Dodwell,  that 
learned  and  able  advocate  for  Episcopacy,  expressly 
acknowledges,  that  Cyprian  makes  Peter  the  type  of 
every  bishop,  and  the  rest  of  the  apostles  the  type  of 
every  presbyter. 

Firmilian,  bishop  of  Cesarea,  who  was  contempo- 
rary with  Cyprian,  in  an  epistle  addressed  to  the  lat- 
ter, has  the  following  passage.  Cyprian.  Epist.  15. 
"  But  the  other  heretics  also,  if  they  separate  from  the 
Church,  can  have  no  power  or  grace,  since  all  power 
and  grace  are  placed  in  the  Church,  where  presbyters 
preside,  in  whom  is  vested  the  power  of  baptizing  and 
imposition  of  hands,  and  ordination."  This  passage 
needs  no  comment.  It  not  only  represents  the  right 
to  baptize  and  the  right  to  ordain  as  going  together; 
but  it  also  expressly  ascribes  both  to  the  elders  who 
preside  in  the  churches. 

The  testimony  of  Jerome  on  this  subject  is  remark- 
ably explicit  and  decisive.  This  distinguished  father, 
who  nourished  about  the  year  380,  and  who  was  ac- 
knowledged by  the  whole  Christian  world  to  be  one 


192       TESTIMONY  OF  THE  FATHERS. 

of  the  most  pious  and  learned  men  of  his  day,*  does 
not  merely  convey  his  opinion  in  indirect  terms  and 
occasional  hints,  as  most  of  the  preceding  fathers  had 
done,  but  in  the  most  express  and  formal  manner.  In 
his  Commentary  on  Titus  we  find  the  following  pas- 
sage. "  Let  us  diligently  attend  to  the  words  of  the 
apostle,  saying,  That  thou  mayest  ordain  elders  in 
every  city,  as  I  have  appointed  thee.  Who  discoursing 
in  what  follows,  what  sort  of  presbyter  is  to  be  or- 
dained, saith,  If  any  one  be  blameless,  the  husband 
of  one  wife,  &c,  afterwards  adds,  For  a  bishop  must 
be  blameless,  as  the  steward  of  God,  &c.  A  presby- 
ter, therefore,  is  the  same  as  a  bishop;  and  before 
there  were,  by  the  devil's  instinct,  parties  in  religion, 
and  it  was  said  among  the  people,  I  am  of  Paul,  I  of 
Apollos,and  I  of  Cephas,!  the  churches  were  govern- 

*  The  celebrated  Erasmus  declared  concerning  Jerome,  that  "  he 
was,  without  controversy,  the  most  learned  of  all  Christians,  the 
prince  of  divines,  and  for  eloquence  that  he  excelled  Cicero." 

f  Some  Episcopal  writers  have  attempted,  from  this  allusion  of  Je- 
rome to  1  Cor.  i.  12,  to  infer  that  he  dates  Episcopacy  as  early  as  the 
dispute  at  Corinth,  to  which  this  passage  refers.  But  this  inference 
is  effectually  refuted  by  two  considerations.  In  the  first  place,  Je- 
rome  adduces  proof  that  bishop  and  presbyter  were  originally  the 
same,  from  portions  of  the  New  Testament  which  were  certainly 
written  after  the  first  Epistle  to  the  Corinthians.  In  the  second  place, 
that  language  of  the  apostle,  one  saith  I  am  of  Paul,  and  another  I 
am  of  Apollos,  &c,  has  been  familiarly  applied  in  every  age,  by  way 
of  allusion,  to  actual  divisions  in  the  Church.  And  were  those  who 
put  the  construction  on  Jerome  which  I  am  opposing,  a  little  better 
acquainted  with  his  writings,  they  would  know  that  in  another  place 
he  himself  applies  the  same  passage  to  some  disturbers  of  the  Church's 
peace  in  the  fourth  century.  Suppose  any  one  were  describing  a  di- 
vision in  a  church  in  the  nineteenth  century,  and  were  to  say,  as  has 
been  said  a  thousand  times  since  the  days  of  Paul,  "  They  are  all  at 
strife,  one  saying,  '  I  am  of  Paul,  and  another  I  am  of  Apollos,  &c.'  " 
how  would  he  be  understood  ?  As  referring  to  that  Scripture  by  way 
of  allusion,  or  as  meaning  to  say  that  the  division  which  he  described, 
took  place  in  the  days  of  Paul  ] 


TESTIMONY    OF    THE    FATHERS.  193 

ed  by  the  common  council  of  presbyters.  But  after- 
wards, when  every  one  thought  that  those  whom  he 
baptized  were  rather  his  than  Christ's,  it  was  deter- 
mined through  the  whole  world,  that  one  of  the  pres- 
byters should  be  set  above  the  rest,  to  whom  all  care 
of  the  Church  should  belong,  that  the  seeds  of  schism 
might  be  taken  away.  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,  the  other  of  office,  let  him  read  the  words  of  the 
apostles  to  the  Philippians,  saying,  "  Paul  and  Timo- 
thy, the  servants  of  Jesus  Christ,  to  all  the  saints  in 
Christ  Jesus  that  are  at  Philippi,  with  the  bishops  and 
deacons."  Philippi  is  a  city  of  Macedonia,  and  cer- 
tainly in  one  city  there  could  not  be  more  than  one 
bishop  as  they  are  now  styled.  But  at  that  time  they 
called  the  same  men  bishops  whom  they  called  pres- 
byters; therefore,  he  speaks  indifferently  of  bishops 
as  of  presbyters.  This  may  seem  even  yet  doubtful 
to  some,  till  it  be  proved  by  another  testimony.  It  is 
written  in  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles,  that  when  the 
apostle  came  to  Miletus  he  sent  to  Ephesus,  and  called 
the  presbyters  of  that  church,  to  whom,  among  other 
things,  he  said,  "Take  heed  to  yourselves,  and  to  all 
the  flock  over  whom  the  Holy  Ghost  hath  made  you 
bishops,  to  feed  the  Church  of  God  which  he  hath 
purchased  with  his  own  blood."  Here  observe  dili- 
gently that  calling  together  the  presbyters  of  one  city, 
Ephesus,  he  afterwards  styles  the  same  persons 
bishops.  If  any  will  receive  that  epistle  which  is 
written  in  the  name  of  Paul  to  the  Hebrews,  there 
also  the  care  of  the  Church  is  equally  divided  among 
many,  since  he  writes  to  the  people,  "  Obey  them  that 
have  the  rule  over  you,  and  submit  yourselves,  for 
17 


194       TESTIMONY  OF  THE  FATHERS. 

they  watch  for  your  souls  as  those  that  must  give  an 
account,  that  they  may  do  it  with  joy  and  not  with 
grief,  for  that  is  unprofitable  for  you.''  And  Peter  (so 
called  from  the  firmness  of  his  faith)  in  his  epistle, 
saith,"  The  presbyters  which  are  among  you  I  exhort, 
who  am  also  a  presbyter,  and  a  witness  of  the  suffer- 
ings of  Christ,  and  also  a  partaker  of  the  glory  that 
shall  be  revealed.  Feed  the  flock  of  God  which  is 
among  you,  not  by  constraint  but  willingly."  These 
things  I  have  written  to  show,  that  among  the  an- 
cients, presbyters  and  bishops  were  the  same.  But, 
by  little  and  little,  that  all  the  seeds  of  dissension 
might  be  plucked  up,  the  whole  care  was  devolved  on 
one.  As,  therefore,  the  presbyters  know,  that  by  the 
custom  of  the  church  they  are  subject  to  him  who  is 
their  president,  so  let  bishops  know  that  they  are 
above  presbyters  more  by  the  custom  of  the  Church 
than  by  the  true  dispensation  of  Christ;  and  that  they 
ought  to  rule  the  Church  in  common,  imitating  Moses, 
"who,  when  he  might  alone  rule  the  people  of  Israel, 
chose  seventy  with  whom  he  might  judge  the  people. " 
In  Jerome's  epistle  to  Evagrius,  he  speaks  on  the 
same  subject  in  the  following  pointed  language.*    "  I 

*  Among  the  numerous  expedients  to  get  rid  of  this  decisive  testi- 
mony of  Jerome,  one  is,  to  represent  that  the  epistle  to  Evagrius  was 
written  in  a  fit  of  passion,  in  which  the  worthy  father  had  particular 
inducements  to  magnify  the  office  of  presbvter  as  much  as  possible. 
To  suppose  that  a  man  of  Jerome's  learning  and  piety,  even  in  a  fit 
of  anger,  would  deliberately  commit  to  writing  a  doctrine  directly 
opposite  to  "  the  faith  of  the  universal  church  from  the  beginning," 
and  that  too  on  a  point  of  fundamental  importance  to  the  very  exist- 
ence of  the  Redeemer's  kingdom  on  earth;  that  he  should  so  earnestly 
insist  upon  it,  and  make  such  formal  and  solemn  appeals  to  Scripture 
in  support  of  it,  is  a  supposition  which  can  only  be  made  by  those 
who  are  driven  to  the  utmost  extremity  for  a  subterfuge.  But  how 
shall  we  account  for  Jerome's  having  maintained  the  same  doctrine, 


TESTIMONY    OF    THE    FATHERS.  195 

hear  that  a  certain  person  has  broken  ont  into  such 
folly  that  he  prefers  deacons  before  presbyters,  that  is 
before  bishops:  for  when  the  apostle  clearly  teaches 
that  presbyters  and  bishops  were  the  same,  who  can 
endure  it,  that  a  minister  of  tables  and  of  widows 
should  proudly  exalt  himself  above  those  at  whose 
prayers  the  body  and  blood  of  Christ  is  made  ?  Do 
you  seek  for  authority?  hear  that  testimony :  "Paul 
and  Timothy,  servants  of  Jesus  Christ,  to  all  the  saints 
in  Christ  Jesus  that  are  at  Philippi,  with  the  bishops 
and  deacons."  Would  you  have  another  example  ?  In 
the  Acts  of  the  Apostles,  Paul  speaks  thus  to  the 
priests  of  one  church — "  Take  heed  to  yourselves  and 
to  all  the  flock  over  which  the  Holy  Ghost  hath  made 
you  bishops,  that  you  govern  the  church  which  he 
hath  purchased  with  his  own  blood."  And  lest  any 
should  contend  about  there  being  a  plurality  of  bishops 
in  one  church,  hear  also  another  testimony,  by  which 
it  may  most  manifestly  be  proved,  that  a  bishop  and 
presbyter  are  the  same — "  For  this  cause  left  I  thee  in 
Crete,  that  thou  shouldest  set  in  order  the  things  that 
are  wanting,  and  ordain  presbyters  in  every  city,  as 
I  have  appointed  thee.  If  any  be  blameless,  the  hus- 
band of  one  wife,  &c.  For  a  bishop  must  be  blame- 
less, as  the  steward  of  God."  And  to  Timothy — "  Ne- 
glect not  the  gift  that  is  in  thee,  which  was  given  thee 
by  prophecy,  with  the  laying  on  of  the  hands  of  the 
presbytery."  And  Peter  also,  in  his  first  epistle,  saith, 
"  The  presbyters  which  are  among  you  I  exhort,  who 

illustrated  by  the  same  reasonings,  and  fortified  by  the  same  Scrip- 
tural quotations,  in  his  Commentary  on  Titus,  before  quoted,  which 
must  be  supposed  to  have  been  written  with  much  reflection  and  se- 
riousness, and  which  was  solemnly  delivered  as  a  legacy  to  the 
Church,  by  one  of  her  most  illustrious  ministers  ? 


196  TESTIMONY    OF    THE    FATHERS. 

am  also  a  presbyter,  and  a  witness  of  the  sufferings 
of  Christ,  and  also  a  partaker  of  the  glory  that  shall  be 
revealed ;  to  rule  the  flock  of  Christ,  and  to  inspect 
it,  not  of  constraint,  but  willingly  according  to  God;" 
which  is  more  significantly  expressed  in  the  Greek 
'ErtusxoTtow'tss,  that  is,  superintending  it,  whence  the 
name  of  bishop  is  drawn.  Do  the  testimonies  of  such 
men  seem  small  to  thee?  Let  the  evangelical  trum- 
pet sound,  the  son  of  thunder,  whom  Jesus  loved 
much,  who  drank  the  streams  of  doctrine  from  our 
Saviour's  breast.  "  The  presbyter  to  the  elect  lady  and 
her  children,  whom  I  love  in  the  truth."  And  in  an- 
other epistle,  "the  presbyter  to  the  beloved  Gaius, 
whom  I  love  in  the  truth."  But  that  one  was  after- 
wards chosen,  who  should  be  set  above  the  rest,  was 
done  as  a  remedy  against  schism;  lest  every  one 
drawing  the  Church  of  Christ  to  himself,  should  break 
it  in  pieces.  For  at  Alexandria,  from  Mark,  the 
Evangelist,  to  Heraclas  and  Dionysius,  the  bishops 
thereof,  the  presbyters  always  named  one,  chosen 
from  among  them,  and  placed  in  an  higher  degree, 
bishop.  As  if  an  army  should  make  an  emperor;  or 
the  deacons  should  choose  one  of  themselves  whom 
they  knew  to  be  most  diligent,  and  call  him  arch- 
deacon." And  a  little  afterwards,  in  the  same  epistle, 
he  says,  "  presbyter  and  bishop,  the  one  is  the  name 
of  age,  the  other  of  dignity:  Whence  in  the  epistles 
to  Timothy  and  Titus,  there  is  mention  made  of  the 
ordination  of  bishop  and  deacon,  but  not  of  presbyters, 
because  the  presbyter  is  included  in  the  bishop." 

After  perusing  this  most  explicit  and  unequivocal 
testimony;  a  testimony  which  one  would  imagine 
could  scarcely  have  been  more  formal  or  more  deci- 
sive; the  reader  will  be  surprised  to  learn  that  some 


TESTIMONY  OF  THE  FATHERS.         197 

Episcopal  writers  have  ventured  to  say,  that  Jerome 
merely  offers  a  "conjecture,"  that  in  the  apostles'  days, 
bishop  and  presbyter  were  the  same.  If  the  extracts 
above  stated  be  the  language  of  conjecture  I  should 
be  utterly  at  a  loss  to  know  what  is  the  language  of 
assertion  and  proof.  In  what  manner  could  he  have 
spoken  more  clearly  or  more  positively  ?  But  I  will 
not  insult  the  understanding  of  the  reader  by  pursuing 
the  refutation  of  this  pretence.  From  the  foregoing 
extracts,  it  is  abundantly  apparent: 

1.  That  the  interpretation  given,  in  a  former  chap- 
ter, of  those  passages  of  Scripture  which  represent 
bishops  and  presbyters  as  the  same,  in  office  and 
power,  as  well  as  in  title,  is  by  no  means  a  novel  in- 
terpretation, invented  to  serve  the  purposes  of  a  party, 
as  Episcopalians  have  frequently  asserted;  but  an  in- 
terpretation more  than  fourteen  hundred  years  old  ; 
and  represented  as  the  general  sense  of  the  apostolic 
age,  by  one  who  had  as  good  an  opportunity  of  be- 
coming acquainted  with  early  opinions  on  this  sub- 
ject as  any  man  then  living. 

2.  That  a  departure  from  the  primitive  model  of 
church  government  had  taken  place  in  Jerome's  day; 
that  this  departure  consisted  in  making  a  distinction 
of  order  between  bishops  and  presbyters ;  and  that 
this  distinction  was  neither  warranted  by  Scripture, 
nor  conformable  to  the  apostolic  model;  but  owed  its 
origin  to  the  decay  of  religion,  and  especially  to  the 
ambition  of  ministers.  It  commenced  "  when  every 
one  began  to  think  that  those  whom  he  baptized  were 
rather  his  than  Christ's."  And  to  crown  all  he  as- 
serts, that  it  was  "founded  on  the  custom  of  the 
Church,"  rather  than  upon  "  any  true  dispensation  of 
Christ."     This  conclusively  decides  his  meaning. 

17* 


198  TESTIMONY    OF    THE    FATHERS. 

3.  It  is  expressly  asserted  by  Jerome,  that  this 
change  in  the  constitution  of  the  Christian  ministry 
came  in  (paulatim)  by  little  and  little.  He  says,  in- 
deed, in  one  of  the  passages  above  quoted,  that  it  was 
agreed  "  all  over  the  world,"  as  a  remedy  against 
schism,  to  choose  one  of  the  presbyters,  and  make 
him  president  or  moderator  of  the  body ;  and  some 
commentators  on  this  passage  have  represented  it  as 
saying  that  the  change  was  made  all  at  once.  For- 
tunately, however,  we  have  Jerome's  express  decla- 
ration in  another  place,  that  the  practice  came  in 
gradually.  But  whether  half  a  century  or  two  cen- 
turies elapsed  before  the  "  whole  world"  came  to  an 
agreement  on  this  subject,  he  does  not  say. 

4.  Jerome  further  informs  us,  that  the  first  pre- 
eminence of  bishops  was  only  such  as  the  body  of 
the  presbyters  were  able  to  confer.  They  were  only 
standing  presidents  or  moderators;  and  all  the  ordi- 
nation they  received,  on  being  thus  chosen,  was  per- 
formed by  the  presbyters  themselves.*  This  he  tells 
us  was  the  only  Episcopacy  that  existed  in  the  church 

*  To  this  some  Episcopal  writers  reply,  that  Jerome  does  not  ex- 
pressly assert  that  the  presbyters  ordained  the  bishop,  but  only  that 
they  chose  him,  placed  him  in  a  higher  seat,  and  called  him  bishop. 
And  hence  they  take  the  liberty  of  inferring  that  the  election  was  by 
the  presbyters,  but  the  ordination  by  other  diocesan  bishops.  To  sup- 
pose  this,  is  to  make  Jerome  reason  most  inconclusively,  and  adduce 
an  instance  which  was  not  only  nothing  to  the  purpose,  but  directly 
hostile  to  his  whole  argument.  If  the  presbyters  did  not  do  all  that 
was  done,  the  case  had  nothing  to  do  with  his  reasoning.  Besides, 
Eutychius  the  patriarch  of  Alexandria,  in  his  "Origines  Ecclesia 
Alexandrince,"  published  by  the  learned  Selden,  expressly  declares, 
"  that  the  twelve  presbyters  constituted  by  Mark,  upon  the  vacancy 
of  the  see,  did  choose  out  of  their  number  one  to  be  head  over  the 
rest,  and  the  other  eleven  did  lay  their  hands  upon  him,  and  blessed 
him,  and  made  him  patriarch." 


TESTIMONY    OF    THE    FATHERS.  199 

of  Alexandria,  one  of  the  most  conspicuous  then  in 
the  world,  until  after  the  middle  of  the  third  century. 

5.  It  is  finally  manifest,  from  these  quotations,  that 
while  Jerome  maintains  the  parity  of  all  ministers  of 
the  gospel  in  the  primitive  Church,  he  entirely  ex- 
cludes deacons  from  being  an  order  of  clergy  at  all. 
"  Who  can  endure  it,  that  a  minister  of  tables  and  of 
widows  should  proudly  exalt  himself  above  those  at 
whose  prayers  the  body  and  blood  of  Christ  is  made?" 

Some  zealous  Episcopal  writers  have  endeavoured 
to  destroy  the  force  of  these  express  declarations  of 
Jerome,  by  quoting  other  passages,  in  which  he  speaks 
of  bishops  and  presbyters  in  the  current  language  of 
his  time.  For  instance,  in  one  place,  speaking  of  that 
pre-eminence  which  bishops  had  then  attained,  he 
asks,  "  What  can  a  bishop  do  that  a  presbyter  may 
not  also  do,  excepting  ordination?"  But  it  is  evident 
that  Jerome,  in  this  passage,  refers,  not  to  the  primi- 
tive right  of  bishops,  but  to  a  prerogative  which  they 
had  gradually  acquired,  and  which  was  generally 
yielded  to  them  in  his  day.  His  position  is,  that  even 
then  there  was  no  right  which  they  arrogated  to 
themselves  above  presbyters,  excepting  that  of  ordi- 
nation. In  like  manner,  in  another  place,  he  makes 
a  kind  of  loose  comparison  between  the  officers  of  the 
Christian  Church,  and  the  Jewish  priesthood.  These 
passages,  however,  and  others  of  a  similar  kind,  fur- 
nish nothing  in  support  of  the  Episcopal  cause.*  Je- 
rome, when  writing  on  ordinary  occasions,  spoke  of 

*  Accordingly  bishop  Stillingfleet  declares,  "  Among  all  the  fifteen 
testimonies  produced  by  a  learned  writer  out  of  Jerome,  for  the  supe- 
riority of  bishops  above  presbyters,  I  cannot  find  one  that  does  found 
it  upon  divine  right;  but  only  on  the  convenience  of  such  an  order 
for  the  peace  and  unity  of  the  Church." — Irenicum,  Part  II.  Chap- 
ter 6th. 


200        TESTIMONY  OF  THE  FATHERS. 

Episcopacy  as  it  then  stood.  But  when  he  undertook 
explicitly  to  deliver  an  opinion  respecting  primitive 
Episcopacy,  he  expressed  himself  in  the  words  we 
have  seen;  words  as  absolutely  decisive  as  any  friend 
of  Presbyterian  parity  could  wish.  To  attempt  to  set 
vague  allusions,  and  phrases  of  dubious  import  in  op- 
position to  such  express  and  unequivocal  passages; 
passages  in  which  the  writer  professedly  and  formally 
lays  down  a  doctrine,  reasons  at  great  length  in  its 
support,  and  deliberately  deduces  his  conclusion,  is  as 
absurd  as  it  is  uncandid.  Jerome,  therefore,  notwith- 
standing all  the  arts  which  have  been  employed  to 
set  aside  his  testimony,  remains  a  firm  and  decisive 
witness  in  support  of  our  principle,  that  the  doctrine 
of  ministerial  parity  was  the  doctrine  of  the  primitive 
Church.  Accordingly  some  of  the  most  learned  advo- 
cates of  prelacy  that  ever  lived  interpret  Jerome  pre- 
cisely as  I  have  done,  and  consider  him  as  expressly 
declaring  that  bishop  and  presbyter  were  the  same  in 
the  apostolic  age.    Take  the  following  as  a  specimen: 

Bishop  Bilson,  a  warm  friend  of  prelacy,  in  his 
work  against  Seminaries,  book  i.  p.  318,  expressly 
quotes  Jerome,  as  teaching  the  doctrine  which  we 
ascribe  to  him,  viz.  "  That  bishops  must  understand 
that  they  are  greater  than  presbyters,  rather  by  cus- 
tom than  by  the  Lord's  appointment;  and  that  bishops 
came  in  after  the  apostles'  time." 

Dr.  Willet,  a  very  eminent  divine  of  the  Church  of 
England,  in  the  latter  part  of  the  reign  of  Queen  Eli- 
zabeth, in  his  "  Synopsis  Papismi"  a  large  and 
learned  work,  dedicated  to  the  queen,  and  professedly 
containing  the  doctrines  of  his  Church,  in  opposition 
to  the  Romanists,  speaks  thus — "  Of  the  difference 
between  bishops  and  priests  there  are  three  opinions: 


TESTIMONY  OP  THE  FATHERS.        201 

the  first,  of  Aerius,  who  did  hold  that  all  ministers 
should  be  equal,  and  that  a  bishop  was  not,  nor  ought 
to  be  superior  to  a  priest.  The  second  opinion  is  the 
other  extreme  of  the  Papists  who  would  have  not 
only  a  difference,  but  a  princely  pre-eminence  of  their 
bishops  over  the  clergy,  and  that  by  the  word  of  God. 
The  third  opinion  is  between  both;  that  although  this 
distinction  of  bishops  and  priests  as  it  is  now  received, 
cannot  be  proved  out  of  Scripture,  yet  it  is  very  ne- 
cessary for  the  policy  of  the  Church,  to  avoid  schism, 
and  to  preserve  it  in  unity.  Jerome  thus  writeth, 
'  The  apostle  teaches  evidently  that  bishops  and  pres- 
byters were  the  same,  but  that  one  was  afterwards 
chosen  to  be  set  over  the  rest,  as  a  remedy  against 
schism.'  To  this  opinion  of  St.  Jerome  subscribeth 
bishop  Jewel,  and  another  most  reverend  prelate  of 
our  own  church,  Archbishop  Whitgift." — Synopsis 
Papismi,  p.  273. 

The  celebrated  Episcopal  divine,  Dr.  Saravia,  who 
was  honoured  and  preferred  in  England,  explicitly 
grants  that  Jerome  was  against  the  divine  right  of 
Episcopacy.  "  Jerome's  opinion,"  says  he,  "  was 
private,  and  coincided  with  that  of  Aerius."* 

The  learned  prelate,  Alphonso  de  Castro,  understood 
Jerome  in  the  same  manner.  He  sharply  reproves  a 
certain  writer  who  had  endeavoured  to  set  aside  the 
testimony  commonly  derived  from  that  father  in 
favour  of  Presbytery,  and  insists  that  the  testimony, 
as  usually  adduced,  is  correct.  "  But  Thomas  Wai- 
densis,"  says  he,  "truly  is  deceived;  for  Jerome  does 
endeavour  to  prove  that,  according  to  divine  institu- 
tion, there  was  no  difference  between  presbyter  and 

*  De  Gradibus  Minist.  Evangel.  Cap.  23. 


202  TESTIMONY   OF    THE    FATHERS. 

bishop."  He  afterwards  adds,  u  Neither  ought  any- 
one to  wonder  that  Jerome,  though  otherwise  a  most 
learned  and  excellent  man,  was  mistaken."* 

Bishop  Jewel  understood  Jerome  as  we  do,  and  ex- 
pressly quotes  the  passage  which  is  commonly  quoted 
by  Presbyterians,  to  show  that  this  father  asserts  the 
original  equality  and  identity  of  bishops  and  pres- 
byters.t 

Bishop  Morton  interprets  Jerome  in  the  same  man- 
ner. He  expressly  acknowledges  that  Jerome  repre- 
sents the  difference  between  bishop  and  presbyter  as 
brought  into  the  Church  not  by  divine,  but  human 
authority.  He  further  asserts,  that  there  was  no  sub- 
stantial difference,  on  the  subject  of  Episcopacy,  be- 
tween Jerome  and  Aerius.  And  further,  that  not  only 
all  the  Protestants,  but  also  all  the  primitive  Doctors 
were  of  the  same  mind  with  Jerome.:}: 

The  learned  Episcopalian,  Professor  Whitaker,  of 
the  University  of  Cambridge,  England,  who  flourished 
in  the  reign  of  Queen  Elizabeth,  concurred  in  this  in- 
terpretation. "  If  Aerius,"  says  he,  "  was  a  heretic 
in  this  point,  he  had  Jerome  to  be  his  neighbour  in 
that  heresy;  and  not  only  him,  but  other  fathers,  both 
Greek  and  Latin,  as  is  confessed  by  Medina.  Aerius 
thought  that  presbyter  did  not  differ  from  bishop  by 
any  divine  law  and  authority;  and  the  same  thing 
was  contended  for  by  Jerome,  and  he  defended  it  by 
those  very  Scripture  testimonies  that  Aerius  did."§ 

Few  men  have  been  more  distinguished  for  their 

*  Contra  Heres.  p.  103,  104. 

t  Defence  of  his  Apology  for  the  Church  of  England,  p.  248. 

t  Cathol.  Apolog.  Lib.  i.  p.  118—120. 

§  Controv.  iv.  Quest,  i.  Cap.  iii.  Sect.  30. 


TESTIMONY    OF    THE    FATHERS.  203 

learned  and  zealous  labours  in  favour  of  Episcopacy 
than  Dr.  William  Nichols.  Yet  this  eminent  Episco- 
palian, speaking  of  Jerome,  thus  expresses  himself. 
"At  last  came  St.  Jerome,  though  not  till  above  three 
centuries  after  the  apostles'  times,  who  valuing  him- 
self upon  his  learning,  which,  indeed,  was  very  great; 
and  being  provoked  by  the  insolence  of  some  deacons, 
who  set  themselves  above  presbyters;  to  the  end  he 
might  maintain  the  dignity  of  his  order  against  such 
arrogant  persons,  he  advanced  a  notion  never  heard 
of  before,  viz.  that  presbyters  were  not  a  different 
order  from  bishops;  and  that  a  bishop  was  only  a 
more  eminent  presbyter,  chosen  out  of  the  rest,  and 
set  over  them,  for  preventing  of  schism."* 

Luther,  in  the  Articles  of  Smalcald,  which  he 
framed,  expressly  declares  that  Jerome  taught  that 
bishop  and  presbyter  were  the  same  by  divine  right, 
and  that  the  distinction  between  them  was  brought  in 
only  by  human  authority.  This  declaration  was  also 
subscribed  by  Melancthon.  And  in  the  Confessions 
of  Wirtemberg  and  Helvetia  the  same  statement  is 
explicitly  made.t 

*  Defence  of  the  Doctrine  and  Discipline  of  the  Church  of  England, 
p.  241. 

t  The  manner  in  which  Hooker,  the  author  of  the  "  Ecclesiastical 
Polity,"  treats  Jerome's  testimony  is  remarkable.  After  giving  one 
of  those  Episcopal  glosses  of  the  learned  father  which  would  fasten 
upon  him  either  self-contradiction  or  absurdity,  he  adds  "  This  an- 
swer to  St.  Jerome  seemeth  dangerous.  I  have  qualified  it  as  I  may 
by  the  addition  of  some  words  of  restraint.  Yet  I  satisfy  not  myself. 
In  my  judgment  it  would  be  altered."  Perhaps  the  most  natural 
construction  of  this  passage  is,  that  the  author  wrote  it  on  the  mar- 
gin of  his  manuscript,  to  express  some  misgiving  of  mind  as  to  the 
gloss  he  had  offered,  and  to  suggest  the  propriety  of  some  alteration ; 
but  that  some  ignorant  transcriber  incorporated  it  with  the  text 


204  TESTIMONY    OF    THE    FATHERS. 

I  shall  close  my  remarks  on  the  testimony  of  Je- 
rome, with  the  judgment  of  Bishop  Croft,  an  English 
prelate,  who  flourished  in  the  reign  of  Charles  Unex- 
pressed in  the  following  words — "  And  now  I  desire 
my  reader,  if  he  understands  Latin,  to  view  the  epis- 
tle of  St.  Jerome  to  Evagrius ;  and  doubtless  he  will 
wonder  to  see  men  have  the  confidence  to  quote  any 
thing  out  of  it  for  the  distinction  between  Episcopacy 
and  Presbytery;  for  the  whole  epistle  is  to  show  the 
identity  of  them."* 

But  what  strongly  confirms  our  interpretation  of 
Jerome  is,  that  several  fathers  contemporary,  or  nearly 
so,  with  him,  when  called  to  speak  specifically  on  the 
same  subject,  make,  in  substance,  the  same  statement. 
In  other  parts  of  their  writings,  they  speak,  as  Jerome 
did,  in  the  current  language  of  their  time:  but  when 
they  had  occasion  to  express  a  precise  opinion  on  the 
point  now  under  consideration,  they  do  it  in  a  way 
not  to  be  mistaken.  Two  or  three  examples  of  this 
will  be  sufficient. 

Augustine,  bishop  of  Hippo,  in  writing  to  Jerome, 
who  was  a  presbyter,  expresses  himself  thus:  "  I  en- 
treat you  to  correct  me  faithfully  when  you  see  I 
need  it;  for  although,  according  to  the  names  of  honour 
which  the  custom  of  the  Church  has  now  brought 
into  use,  the  office  of  bishop  is  greater  than  that  of 
presbyter,  nevertheless,  in  many  respects,  Augus- 
tine is  still  inferior  to  Jerome."  Epist.  19.  ad 
Hierom.  It  is  worthy  of  notice  that  Bishop  Jewel 
in  the  "  Defence  of  his  Apology  for  the  Church  of 
England,"  produces  this  passage  for  the  express  pur- 
pose of  showing  the  original  identity  of  bishop  and 

*  Naked  Truth,  p.  45. 


TESTIMONY    OP    THE    FATHERS.  205 

presbyter,  and  translates  it  thus:  "  The  office  of  bishop 
is  above  the  office  of  priest,  not  by  authority  of  the 
Scriptures,  but  after  the  names  of  honour  which  the 
custom  of  the  Church  hath  now  obtained."  Defence, 
122,  123. 

If  there  is  meaning  in  words,  Augustine  represents 
the  superiority  of  bishops  to  presbyters  as  introduced 
by  the  custom  of  the  Church,  rather  than  divine  ap- 
pointment. 

Hilary,  (sometimes  called  Ambrose,)  who  wrote 
about  the  year  376,  in  his  Commentary  on  Ephesians 
iv.  2,  has  the  following  passage.  "  After  that  churches 
were  planted  in  all  places,  and  officers  ordained,  mat- 
ters were  settled  otherwise  than  they  were  in  the  be- 
ginning. And  hence  it  is,  that  the  apostles'  writings 
do  not  in  all  things  agree  to  the  present  constitution 
of  the  Church:  because  they  were  written  under  the 
first  rise  of  the  Church ;  for  he  calls  Timothy,  who  was 
created  a  presbyter  by  him,  a  bishop,  for  so  at  first 
the  presbyters  were  called;  among  whom  this  was 
the  course  of  governing  churches,  that  as  one  with- 
drew another  took  his  place;  and  in  Egypt,  at  this 
day,  the  presbyters  ordain  (or  consecrate,  consignant) 
in  the  bishop's  absence.  But  because  the  following 
presbyters  began  to  be  found  unworthy  to  hold  the  first 
place,  the  method  was  changed,  the  council  providing 
that  not  order,- but  merit,  should  create  a  bishop." 

In  this  passage,  we  have  not  only  an  express  decla- 
ration that  the  Christian  Church,  in  the  days  of  Hilary, 
had  deviated  from  its  primitive  pattern,  but  also  that 
this  deviation  had  a  particular  respect  to  the  name 
and  office  of  bishop,  which,  in  the  beginning,  was  the 
same  with  presbyter.  He  also  declares,  that,  not- 
withstanding this  change,  presbyters,  even  then, 
18 


206  TESTIMONY    OF    THE    FATHERS. 

sometimes  ordained;  and  that  the  reason  of  their  not 
continuing  to  exercise  this  power  was,  that  an  eccle- 
siastical arrangement,  subsequent  to  the  apostolical 
age,  alone  prevented  it. 

It  has  been  doubted,  indeed,  whether  the  word  con- 
signant  refers  to  ordination  at  all.  It  is  conceded  by 
several  eminent  Episcopal  divines  that  the  reference 
is  to  that  rite;  but  whether  it  be  so  or  not,  the  pas- 
sage undoubtedly  teaches  that  there  was  something 
which  the  bishops  in  his  day  claimed  as  their  pre- 
rogative, which  had  not  been  always  appropriated  to 
them,  and  which  even  then,  in  the  bishop's  absence, 
the  presbyters  considered  themselves  as  empowered 
to  perform.  This  is  quite  sufficient  for  my  purpose. 
It  shows  that  in  the  days  of  Hilary  there  had  been  a 
change  from  the  original  state  of  things,  and  that  the 
bishops  had  encroached. 

The  testimony  of  Chrysostom,  who  wrote  about  the 
year  398,  is  also  strongly  in  our  favour.  "  The  apos- 
tle," says  he,  "  having  discoursed  concerning  the 
bishops,  and  described  them,  declaring  what  they 
ought  to  be,  and  from  what  they  ought  to  abstain, 
omitting  the  order  of  presbyters,  descends  to  the  dea- 
cons; and  why  so,  but  because  between  bishop  and 
presbyter  there  is  scarcely  any  difference;  and  to  them 
are  committed  both  the  instructions  and  the  presidency 
of  the  Church;  and  whatever  he  said  of  bishops 
agrees  also  to  presbyters.  In  ordination  alone  they 
have  gone  beyond  the  presbyters,  and  of  this  they 
seem  to  have  defrauded  them."*  1  Epist.  ad  Tim. 

*  This  perfectly  agrees  with  the  representation  of  Jerome,  (with 
whom  Chrysostom  was  nearly  contemporary)  who  says  that  the  only 
right  which  bishops  had  gained  over  presbyters,  in  his  day,  was  that 
of  ordination. 


TESTIMONY    OF    THE    FATHERS.  207 

Horn.  11.  The  slightest  inspection  of  Chrysostom's 
original  here  will  add  peculiar  strength  to  this  passage. 
The  word  here  rendered  defrauded,  is  n^sovextsiv, 
which  implies  a  dishonest  overreaching;  and  distinctly 
conveys  the  idea,  not  only  that  ordination  was  the 
only  point,  in  his  day,  concerning  which  bishops  had 
gained  the  precedence  over  presbyters;  but  that  they 
had  gained  this  by  fraudulent  means.  This  is  the 
evident  meaning  of  the  word  ^-Ksovextav.  See  1  Thes- 
salonians  iv.  6.  "  That  no  man  go  beyond  and  defraud 
his  brother  in  any  matter,"  &c.  See  also  2  Cor.  vii. 
2;  and  again,  xii.  17,  IS,  where  the  same  word  is 
used.  Such  a  declaration  from  the  pen  of  Chrysostom, 
who  was  himself  a  prelate,  settles  the  matter  that  in 
the  estimation  of  this  father,  (and  it  was  impossible 
he  should  be  mistaken  about  it,)  the  superiority  of 
bishops  was  a  contrivance  of  unhallowed  ambition, 

Theodoret,  who  flourished  about  the  year  430,  in 
his  Commentary  on  1  Tim.  iii.,  makes  the  following 
declaration:  "The  apostles  call  a  presbyter  a  bishop, 
as  we  showed  when  we  expounded  the  epistle  to  the 
Philippians,  and  which  maybe  also  learned  from  this 
place,  for  after  the  precepts  proper  to  bishops,  he  de- 
scribes the  things  which  belong  to  deacons.  But,  as 
I  said,  of  old  they  called  the  same  men  both  bishops 
and  presbyters." 

Primasius,  who  was  contemporary  with  Theodoret, 
and  is  said  to  have  been  Augustine's  disciple,  in  ex- 
plaining 1  Tim.  iii.  asks,  "  Why  the  apostle  leaps  from 
the  duties  of  bishops  to  the  duties  of  deacons,  without 
any  mention  of  presbyters?"  and  answers,  "because 
bishops  and  presbyters  are  the  same  degree." 

.Sedulius,  also,  who  wrote  about  the  year  470,  in  his 


208  TESTIMONY    OF    THE    FATHERS. 

Commentary  on  Titus  i.,  expressly  asserts  the  identity 
of  bishop  and  presbyter.  He  declares,  not  only  that 
the  titles  are  interchangeably  applied  to  the  same 
men,  but  also  that  the  office  is  the  same;  many  of 
them  being  found  in  the  primitive  Church,  in  one  city; 
which  could  not  be  true  of  diocesan  bishops.  In  proof 
of  this,  he  adduces  the  case  of  the  elders  of  Ephesus, 
Acts  xx.,  who  all  dwelt  in  one  city,  and  who,  though 
called  elders  or  presbyters  in  the  17th  verse  of  that 
chapter,  are  yet,  in  the  28th  verse,  called  bishops. 

And,  finally,  Aerius,  a  presbyter  of  Sebastia,  and 
contemporary  with  Jerome,  maintained  the  same  doc- 
trine with  that  father,  on  the  subject  before  us.  He 
not  only  opposed  prayers  for  the  dead,  the  supersti- 
tious observance  of  fasts  and  festivals,  and  other  un- 
commanded  rites;  but  he  insisted,  with  zeal,  that 
bishop  and  presbyter  were  the  same  in  the  apostolic 
Church,  and  that  there  ought  to  be  no  distinction  of 
orders  in  the  holy  ministry. 

We  are  told,  indeed,  by  the  friends  of  prelacy,  that 
Aerius  was  reputed  an  heretic  for  holding  that  there 
was  no  difference  between  bishops  and  presbyters. 
And  as  an  authority  on  this  subject,  they  refer  us  to 
Epiphanius,  who,  towards  the  close  of  the  fourth  cen- 
tury, undertook  to  give  a  list  of  heresies,  and  included 
Aerius  in  the  number.  But  when  this  alleged  fact  is 
impartially  examined,  it  will  be  found  to  weigh  no- 
thing in  this  controversy.  For,  in  the  first  place,  Epi- 
phanius is  a  writer  of  no  credit.  The  learned  Mosheim 
speaks  of  him  in  the  following  terms.  "His  book 
against  all  the  heresies  which  had  sprung  up  in  the 
Church  until  his  time,  has  little  or  no  reputation;  as 
it  is  full   of  inaccuracies  and  errors,  and  discovers 


TESTIMONY    OF    THE    FATHERS.  209 

almost  in  every  page  the  levity  and  ignorance  of  its 
author."  But,  secondly,  by  comparing  the  whole  tes- 
timony of  antiquity  on  this  subject,  it  appears  that 
Aerius  was  condemned,  not  so  much  for  maintaining 
that  bishop  and  presbyter  were  the  same  by  the  word 
of  God,  as  for  insisting  that  there  ought  not  to  be  any 
difference  made  between  them;  in  asserting  which,  he 
opposed  that  pre-eminence  which  the  bishops  had 
gradually  gained,  and  set  himself  against  the  actual 
constitution  of  most  of  the  churches  in  his  day.  For 
this  he  was  hated  and  reviled  by  the  friends  of  high- 
church  doctrines,  and  stigmatized  as  a  heretic  and 
schismatic*  This  appears  to  have  been  the  true 
reason  why  Aerius  rendered  himself  so  obnoxious, 
and  was  condemned  by  so  many;  while  Jerome  and 
Augustine,  unquestionably  the  most  learned  divines  of 
the  age,  though  they  held  and  avowed  substantially 
the  same  doctrine,  yet  escaped  similar  treatment,  by 
tolerating,  and  even  approving  the  moderate  prelacy 
which  was  established  in  their  time,  not  as  a  divine 
appointment,  but  as  a  system  founded  on  human  pru- 
dence. Accordingly  Bishop  Stillingfleet  observes,  "  I 
believe,  upon  the  strictest  inquiry,  Medina's  judgment 
will  prove  true,  that  Jerome,  Augustine,  Ambrose, 
Chrysostom,  Theodoret,  and  Theophylact,  were  all  of 

*  The  following  passage  from  Dr.  Hawies's  (an  Episcopal  clergy- 
man) Ecclesiastical  History,  i.  p.  340,  is  worthy  of  notice.  "  Aerius 
made  a  fiercer  resistance,  and  maintained  more  offensive  doctrines ; 
that  bishops  and  presbyters  in  the  Scripture  are  the  same  persons, 
and  only  different  descriptions  of  age  and  office;  that  prayers  for  the 
dead  were  futile,  and  hopes  from  their  intercession  vain ;  that  stated 
fasts  and  festivals  had  no  prescription  in  the  New  Testament.  These, 
with  similar  assertions,  roused  a  host  of  enemies,  and  he  was  quickly 
silenced.  So  superstition  stalked  triumphant,  and  no  man  dared  open 
his  mouth  against  any  abuses." 

18* 


210  TESTIMONY    OF    THE    FATHERS. 

Aerius  his  judgment,  as  to  the  identity  of  both  the 
name  and  the  order  of  bishops  and  presbyters  in  the 
primitive  Church.  But  here  lay  the  difference  :  Aerius 
proceeded  from  hence  to  separate  from  bishops  and 
their  churches,  because  they  were  bishops.  Whereas 
Jerome,  while  he  held  the  same  doctrine,  did  not 
think  it  necessary  to  cause  a  schism  in  the  Church  by 
separating  from  the  bishops,  for  his  opinion  is  clear, 
that  the  first  institution  of  them  was  for  preventing 
schism,  and  therefore  for  peace  and  unity  he  thought 
their  institution  very  useful  in  the  "  Church  of  God.57 
Irenicum.  To  the  judgment  of  Stillingfleet  may  be 
added  that  of  Professor  Raignolds,  Bishop  Morton, 
and  other  eminent  Episcopal  writers,  who  frankly  ac- 
knowledge that  Aerius  coincided  in  opinion  on  this 
subject  with  Jerome,  and  other  distinguished  fathers, 
who  undeniably  taught  the  same  doctrine,  without 
being  stigmatized  as  heretics. 

Another  witness  on  whose  testimony  much  stress 
is  laid  by  Episcopalians,  is  Eusebius.  They  tell  us 
that  this  historian,  who  lived  early  in  the  fourth  cen- 
tury, frequently  speaks  of  bishops  as  superior  to  com- 
mon presbyters;  that  he  gives  catalogues  of  the 
bishops  who  presided  over  several  of  the  most  emi- 
nent churches;  that  he  mentions  their  names  in  the 
order  of  succcession,  from  the  apostolic  age  down  to 
his  own  time;  and  that  all  succeeding  ecclesiastical 
writers  speak  the  same  language.  But  what  does  all 
this  prove?  Nothing  more  than  we  have  before 
granted.  No  one  disputes  that  before  the  time  of 
Constantine,  in  whose  reign  Eusebius  lived,  a  kind  of 
prelacy  prevailed,  which  was  more  fully  organized 
and  established  by  that  emperor.  But  does  Eusebius 
inform  us  what  kind  of  difference  there  was  between 


TESTIMONY    OF    THE    FATHERS.  211 

the  bishops  and  presbyters  of  his  day?  Does  he  say 
that  the  former  were  a  different  order  from  the  latter? 
Does  he  declare  that  there  was  a  superiority  of  order 
vested  in  bishops  by  divine  appointment  ?  Does  he 
assert  that  bishops  in  the  days  of  the  apostles,  and  for 
a  century  afterwards,  were  the  same  kind  of  officers 
with  those  who  were  called  by  the  same  title  in  the 
fouth  century?  Does  he  tell  us  that  this  superior  order 
of  clergy  were  the  only  ecclesiastical  officers  who 
were  allowed,  in  his  day,  to  ordain  and  confirm?  I 
have  never  met  with  a  syllable  of  all  thisinEusebius. 
All  that  can  be  gathered  from  him  is,  that  there  were 
persons  called  bishops  in  the  days  of  the  apostles;  that 
there  had  been  a  succession  of  bishops  in  the  Church 
from  the  apostles  to  the  fourth  century,  when  he  lived; 
and  that  in  his  day,  there  was  a  distinction  between 
bishops  and  other  presbyters.  But  does  any  one  deny 
this?  To  assert  that,  because  Eusebius  speaks  of  par- 
ticular persons  in  the  first  and  second  centuries  as 
bishops  of  particular  churches,  therefore  they  were 
so  in  the  prelatical  sense  of  the  word,  is  really,  im- 
posing on  the  credulity  of  unwary  readers;  since 
Episcopalians  themselves  grant  that  the  term  bishop 
was  applied,  in  the  apostolic  age,  and  for  some  time 
afterwards,  differently  from  what  it  was  in  the  age  of 
Eusebius.  We  agree  that  there  were  bishops  in  the 
first  century,  and  have  proved  from  Scripture  and  the 
early  fathers,  that  this  title  was  then  applied  to  the 
ordinary  pastors  of  single  congregations.  We  agree, 
also,  that  there  was  a  succession  of  bishops  in  the 
second  and  third  centuries.  And,  finally,  we  agree 
that  in  the  time  of  Constantine,  prelacy  was  established 
in  the  Church.  All  this  is  perfectly  consistent  with 
our  doctrine,  viz.  that  diocesan  Episcopacy,  or  bishops, 


212  TESTIMONY    OF    THE    FATHERS. 

as  an  order  superior  to  presbyters,  were  unknown  in 
the  primitive  Church.  I  have  never  read  a  sentence 
in  Eusebius  that  touches  this  point;  and  I  need  not 
repeat  that  it  is  the  grand  point  in  dispute.  On  the 
other  hand,  we  have  seen  that  Jerome,  who  lived  and. 
wrote  a  little  after  Eusebius,  not  only  touches  this 
point,  but  formally  discusses  it,  and  unequivocally  de- 
cides, that  the  bishops  of  Ephesus,  Phiiippi,  and 
Crete,  in  the  days  of  Paul,  were  a  very  different  kind 
of  church  officers  from  those  bishops  who  lived  in  the 
fourth  century. 

But  this  is  not  all.  When  Eusebius  gives  us  formal 
catalogues  of  bishops  in  sucession,  from  the  apostles' 
time  until  his  own,  he  himself  warns  us  against  lay- 
ing too  much  stress  on  his  information;  frankly  con- 
fessing, "that  he  was  obliged  to  rely  much  on  tradi- 
tion, and  that  he  could  trace  no  footsteps  of  other  his- 
torians going  before  him  only  in  a  few  narratives." 
This  confession  of  Eusebius,  I  shall  present  in  the 
words  of  the  great  Milton.  "  Eusebius,  the  ancientest 
writer  of  church  history  extant,  confesses  in  the  4th 
chapter  of  his  3d  book,  that  it  was  no  easy  matter  to 
tell  who  were  those  that  were  left  bishops  of  the 
churches  by  the  apostles,  more  than  what  a  man 
might  gather  from  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles,  and  the 
Epistles  of  St.  Paul,  in  which  number  he  reckons 
Timothy  for  bishop  of  Ephesus.  So  as  may  plainly 
appear,  that  this  tradition  of  bishopping  Timothy 
over  Ephesus,  was  but  taken  for  granted  out  of  that 
place  in  St.  Paul,  which  was  only  an  entreating  him 
to  tarry  at  Ephesus,  to  do  something  left  him  in 
charge.  Now  if  Eusebius,  a  famous  writer,  thought 
it  so  difficult  to  tell  who  were  appointed  bishops  by 
the  apostles,  much  more  may  we  think  it  difficult  to 


TESTIMONY    OF    THE    FATHERS.  213 

Leontius,  an  obscure  bishop,  speaking  beyond  his 
own  diocese;  and  certainly  much  more  hard  was  it 
for  either  of  them  to  determine  what  kind  of  bishops 
these  were,  if  they  had  so  little  means  to  know  who 
they  were;  and  much  less  reason  have  we  to  stand  to 
their  definite  sentence,  seeing  they  have  been  so  rash 
as  to  raise  up  such  lofty  bishops  and  bishopricks,  out 
of  places  of  Scripture  merely  misunderstood.  Thus 
while  we  leave  the  Bible  to  gad  after  these  traditions 
of  the  ancients,  we  hear  the  ancients  themselves  con- 
fessing, that  what  knowledge  they  had  in  this  point 
was  such  as  they  had  gathered  from  the  Bible." 
Milton  against  Prelatical  Episcopacy ,  p.  3. 

Besides  the  quotations  above  presented,  which 
abundantly  prove  that  the  primitive  bishop  was  the 
pastor  of  a  single  congregation,  there  are  some  facts, 
incidentally  stated,  by  early  writers,  which  serve  re- 
markably to  confirm  the  same  truth. 

The  first  fact  is,  that  as  the  superiority  of  bishops 
was  first  embraced  in  populous  and  wealthy  cities,  so 
the  pastors  of  the  country  churches  maintained  the 
primitive  form  of  government  considerably  longer  than 
those  of  the  cities.  The  ministers  of  the  congregations 
surrounding  the  cities  were  called  chorepiscopi,  or 
country  bishops.  They  continued  to  exercise  full 
episcopal  powers  a  considerable  time  after  the  pres- 
byters within  and  near  the  great  cities  had  become 
subject  to  diocesans;  until  at  length  the  influence 
of  the  Bishop  of  Rome,  and  of  some  other  ambitious 
prelates,  procured  a  decree  of  the  Council  of  Sardis 
to  suppress  the  chorepiscopi  entirely.  The  reason 
given  by  the  Council  for  this  decree  is  remarkable. 
Ne  vilescat  nomen  Episcopi;  i.  e.  "  lest  the  title  of 
bishop  should  become  too  cheap''  This  fact  distinctly 


214  TESTIMONY    OF    THE    FATHERS. 

marks  the  course  of  transition  from  plain  rural  pastors, 
to  proud  and  wealthy  prelates. 

A  second  fact  is  equally  decisive.  It  is  the  small 
number  of  souls  committed  to  the  care  of  some  of  the 
early  bishops.  We  are  informed  that  Gregory  Thau- 
maturgus,  when  he  was  made  bishop  of  Neo-caesarea, 
in  Pontus,  about  A.  D.  250,  had  but  seventeen  pro- 
fessing Christians  in  his  parish.*  And  in  many  of  the 
early  writers  we  read  of  bishops  being  located  in 
small  obscure  villages,  within  three  or  four  miles  of 
each  other.  This  is  surely  descriptive  of  parochial, 
and  not  of  diocesan  Episcopacy.  It  would,  manifestly, 
be  the  height  of  absurdity  to  suppose  that  pastors  who 
could  not  possibly  have  more  than  a  few  hundred 
souls  under  their  care,  were  any  other  than  overseers 
of  single  congregations. 

A  third  fact,  which  goes  far  towards  proving  that 
bishops,  in  early  times,  were  the  ordinary  pastors  of 
single  congregations,  is  that  it  was  then  customary  for 
the  flock  of  which  the  bishop  was  to  have  the  charge, 
to  meet  together  for  the  purpose  of  electing  him;  and 
he  was  always  ordained  in  their  presence.  Cyprian, 
in  a  passage  quoted  in  a  preceding  page,  expressly 
tells  us,  that  these  were  standing  rules  in  choosing 
and  ordaining  bishops;  and  Eusebius,  (lib.  6.  cap.  28, 
p.  229,)  in  giving  an  account  of  the  election  of  Fabi- 
anus  to  the  office  of  bishop,  in  Rome,  confirms  the 
statement  of  Cyprian.  He  tells  us,  that  upon  the 
death  of  Bishop  Anterus,  "  All  the  people  met  to- 
gether in  the  church  to  choose  a  successor,  proposing 
several  illustrious  and  eminent  personages  as  fit  for 
that  office,  whilst  no  one  so  much  as  thought  upon 
Fabianus,  then  present,  till  a  dove  miraculously  came 

*  Gregor.  Nyss.  Oper.  vol.  ii.  p.  979. 


TESTIMONY    OF    THE    FATHERS.  215 

and  sat  upon  his  head,  in  the  same  manner  as  the 
Holy  Ghost  formerly  descended  on  our  Saviour;  and 
then  all  the  people,  guided  as  it  were  with  one  divine 
spirit,  cried  out  with  one  mind  and  soul,  that  Fabianus 
was  worthy  of  the  bishoprick;  and  so  straightway 
taking  him,  they  placed  him  on  the  episcopal  throne." 
The  very  existence  of  these  rules  in  early  times  shows 
that  bishops  were  then  nothing  more  than  the  pastors 
of  single  churches;  for  in  no  other  case  is  the  appli- 
cation of  such  rules  possible.  And  accordingly  after- 
wards, when  diocesan  Episcopacy  crept  into  the 
Church,  this  mode  of  choosing  and  ordaining  bishops 
became  impracticable,  and  was  gradually  laid  aside. 

A  fourth  fact,  which  shows  that  the  primitive 
bishop  was  the  pastor  of  a  single  church  or  congrega- 
tion, is  that  in  the  first  three  centuries,  the  bishop's 
charge  was  commonly  called  rfagotxta,  a  parish,  signi- 
fying those  who  resided  in  the  immediate  vicinity  of 
each  other.  But,  in  process  of  time,  when  the  bishop's 
power  was  enlarged,  and  his  territorial  limits  extend- 
ed, his  charge  began  to  be  called  Scoixqots,  a  diocese, 
a  word  notoriously  taken  from  the  secular  language 
of  the  Roman  empire,  and  expressive  of  a  larger  juris- 
diction. This  change  of  diction,  evidently  contempo- 
rary with  the  change  of  fact,  is  too  significant  to  be 
overlooked. 

A  fifth  fact,  which  shows  that  primitive  Episco- 
pacy was  parochial  and  not  diocesan,  is,  that  for  a 
considerable  time  after  the  days  of  the  apostles,  all 
the  elders  who  were  connected  with  a  bishop,  are 
represented  as  belonging  to  the  same  congregation 
with  him,  and  sitting  with  him  when  the  congrega- 
tion was  convened  for  public  worship.  Indeed,  some 
of  the  early  writers  go  so  far  as  to  inform  us  in  what 


^216  TESTIMONY    OF    THE    FATHERS. 

manner  they  were  seated,  viz.  that  the  bishop  sat  in 
the  middle  of  a  semi-circular  bench ;  that  the  elders 
took  their  places  on  the  same  bench,  on  each  side  of 
their  president  or  moderator;  and  that  the  deacons 
remained  in  a  standing  posture  in  the  front  of  this 
seat,  and  in  a  lower  place,  ready  to  perform  the  ser- 
vices required  of  them.  This  representation  perfectly 
accords  with  our  doctrine  of  primitive  Episcopacy,  in 
which  every  congregation  was  furnished  with  a 
bishop,  elders,  and  deacons ;  but  cannot  possibly  be 
reconciled  with  the  diocesan  form. 

A  sixth  fact,  which  shows  that  the  primitive  bishop 
was  only  the  pastor  of  a  single  congregation,  is,  that 
the  early  writers  represent  the  bishop  as  living  in  the 
same  house  with  his  presbyters  or  elders;  a  house 
near  the  place  of  worship  to  which  they  resorted,  and 
capable  of  accommodating  them  all.  They  tell  us,  also, 
that  the  bishop,  together  with  his  elders,  were  sup- 
ported by  the  same  oblations;  that  these  oblations 
were  offered  on  one  altar,  or  communion  table ;  and 
that  they  were  constantly  divided,  agreeably  to  cer- 
tain established  rules  between  the  bishop  and  elders. 
It  must  be  obvious  to  every  impartial  reader,  that  this 
account  agrees  only  with  the  system  of  parochial 
Episcopacy,  and  that  on  any  other  principle  such  a 
plan  of  procedure  would  be  at  once  impracticable  and 
absurd. 

The  last  circumstance  relating  to  the  primitive 
bishop  which  serves  to  fix  his  character,  as  the  pastor 
of  a  single  congregation,  is  the  nature  of  that  service 
which  he  was  accustomed  to  perform.  We  have  seen 
something  of  this  in  the  foregoing  quotations;  but  it 
will  be  proper  to  bring  together  into  one  view  the 
duties  incumbent  on  the  bishop,  in  the  apostolic  and 


TESTIMONY    OF    THE    FATHERS.  217 

immediately  succeeding  ages.  The  early  writers,  then, 
speak  of  the  primitive  bishop  as  performing,  in  gene- 
ral, all  the  baptisms  in  his  flock;  as  the  only  person 
who,  in  ordinary  cases,  administered  the  Lord's  Sup- 
per; as  constantly  present  with  his  people,  when  con- 
vened; as  the  leader  of  their  worship;  as  their  stated 
public  instructor;  as  visiting  all  the  sick  under  his 
care ;  as  catechising  the  young  people  several  times 
in  each  week ;  as  having  the  superintendency  of  the 
poor,  none  of  whom  were  to  be  relieved  by  the  dea- 
cons without,  in  each  particular  case,  consulting  the 
bishop;  as  celebrating  all  marriages  ;  as  attending  all 
funerals;  as  under  obligations  to  be  personally  ac- 
quainted with  every  individual  of  his  flock,  not  over- 
looking even  the  servant-men  and  maids;  as  employed 
in  healing  differences  among  neighbours;  and  besides 
all  these,  attending  to  the  discipline  of  his  society,  re- 
ceiving and  excluding  members,  &c.  &c.  Now  is  it 
not  evident  that  no  man  could  perform  these  duties 
for  more  than  a  single  congregation?  Can  any  im- 
partial reader  believe  that  the  officers  to  whom  all 
these  details  of  parochial  labours  were  allotted,  were 
any  other  than  the  pastors  of  particular  churches?  To 
suppose  that  they  were  diocesan  bishops,  having  a 
number  of  congregations,  with  subordinate  pastors, 
under  their  control,  is  a  supposition  too  absurd  to  be 
for  a  moment  admitted. 

Such  is  the  testimony  of  the  later  fathers  on  the  sub- 
ject before  us.  We  can  find  much  evidence  that,  after 
the  close  of  the  third  century,  a  difference  of  rank 
between  bishops  and  ordinary  presbyters  began  to  be 
generally  acknowledged;  but  we  can  find  no  evidence 
whatever,  within  the  first  four  centuries,  that  the 
Christian  Church  considered  diocesan  Episcopacy  as 
19 


218  TESTIMONY    OF    THE    FATHERS. 

the  apostolic  and  primitive  form.  On  the  contrary, 
we  have  found  several  fathers  of  high  reputation  ex- 
pressly declaring,  that  in  the  primitive  Church,  bishop 
and  presbyter  were  the  same;  and  that  prelacy,  as  it 
existed  in  the  fourth  and  following  centuries,  was 
a  human  invention,  and  gradually  adopted  in  the 
Church,  as  a  measure  of  prudence.  We  have  found, 
in  particular,  one  father,  who  stands  at  the  pinnacle 
of  honour,  for  learning  as  well  as  piety,  maintaining 
both  these  positions  with  a  clearness,  a  force  of  argu- 
ment, and  a  detail  of  illustration,  which  one  would 
imagine  might  satisfy  incredulity  itself.  And  we  have 
seen  in  these  early  writers,  a  variety  of  facts  inci- 
dentally stated;  facts  which,  taken  alone,  would  be 
considered  by  any  court  on  earth  as  affording  con- 
clusive proof,  that  even  after  a  moderate  kind  of  pre- 
lacy arose,  the  bishops  were  still  the  pastors  of  single 
congregations. 

I  repeat,  it  is  not  true  that  any  one  of  the  fathers, 
within  the  first  four  centuries,  does  assert  the  apos- 
tolical institution  of  prelacy.  Some  writers  produce 
Cyprian  as  saying,  that  "  Jesus  Christ  and  he  alone 
has  the  power  of  setting  bishops  over  the  Church  to 
govern  it;"  that  "  Christ  constitutes  as  well  as  pro- 
tects bishops;"  and  that  "it  is  by  divine  appointment 
a  bishop  is  set  over  the  church."  They  produce  Ori- 
gen,  as  saying,  "  Shall  I  not  be  subject  to  the  bishop, 
who  is  of  God  ordained  to  be  my  father?  Shall  not  I 
be  subject  to  the  presbyter,  who  is,  by  divine  vouch- 
safement,  set  over  me?"  They  quote  Hilary  as  de- 
claring, "  The  bishop  is  the  chief;  though  every  bishop 
is  a  presbyter,  yet.  every  presbyter  is  not  a  bishop." 
And  also  as  asserting,  that  James,  and  Timothy,  and 
Titus,  and  the  angels  of  the  Asiatic  churches  were 


TESTIMONY    OF    THE    FATHERS.  219 

bishops.  They  cite  Athanasius  as  remonstrating  with 
one  who  declined  a  bishopric,  in  the  following  terms — 
"  If  you  think  there  is  no  reward  allotted  to  the  office 
of  a  bishop,  you  despise  the  Saviour  who  instituted 
that  office."  They  represent  Chrysostom,  as  com- 
menting on  1  Tim.  iv.  4,  in  these  words — "  Paul  does 
not  speak  of  presbyters,  but  of  bishops,  for  presbyters 
did  not  ordain  Timothy  a  bishop."  And,  finally,  they 
produce  the  fathers  of  the  Council  of  Antioch,  in  the 
year  265,  as  declaring,  that  "the  office  of  a  bishop  is 
sacred  and  exemplary,  both  to  the  clergy  and  to  the 
people."  Now,  is  it  possible  that  such  writers  have  yet 
to  learn,  that  all  these  quotations,  and  ten  thousand 
more  like  them,  are  nothing  to  their  purpose  ?  It  is 
truly  amazing!  Have  not  I,  who  am  a  Presbyterian, 
repeatedly  said, in  the  foregoing  sheets,  that  "bishops 
were,  by  divine  appointment,  set  over  the  Church  ?" 
Do  not  Presbyterians  perpetually  speak  of  the  office 
of  bishop  in  their  Church  as  a  "  sacred  office?"  And 
would  any  Presbyterian  on  earth  scruple  to  say,  that 
bishops  were  and  are  ordained  of  God  to  be  set  over 
the  Church;  and  also  that  every  member  of  their 
flock,  and  even  assistant  preachers,  within  their  parish, 
if  not  invested  with  a  share  in  the  pastoral  charge, 
are  bound  to  be  "  subject  to  them  ?"  But  no  one, 
surely,  could  construe  these  expressions,  on  our  part, 
as  implying  that  we  believed  in  the  divine  institution 
of  such  bishops  as  our  Episcopal  brethren  contend 
for.  The  truth  is,  these  quotations,  so  confidently 
made,  only  prove  two  points;  First,  that  the  fathers 
in  question  believed  that  there  were  pastors  called 
bishops  in  the  apostolic  Church ;  which  no  man,  in 
his  senses,  ever  doubted:  and,  Secondly,  that  at  the 
time  when  they  wrote,  bishops  were  considered  as 


220        TESTIMONY  OF  THE  FATHERS. 

having  some  kind  of  superiority  over  common  pres- 
byters ;  which  is  as  little  doubted  as  the  former.  In 
short,  these  writers  are  deceived  by  the  bare  occur- 
rence of  the  word  bishop.  Whenever  they  find  this 
word  in  the  writings  of  the  fathers,  their  imagination 
is  instantly  filled  with  prelates,  and  with  all  the  pecu- 
liarities of  the  Episcopal  system.  But  before  the 
smallest  touch  of  inquiry  this  hallucination  vanishes. 
Though  bishops  in  the  third  and  fourth  centuries  had 
appropriated  to  themselves  powers,  which  before  had 
been  enjoyed  by  others  in  common  with  them;  yet 
their  office  itself  was  of  divine  appointment.  Pre- 
latists,  indeed,  say,  and  endeavour  to  persuade  their 
readers,  that  the  writers  whom  they  quote,  declare  the 
bishops  which  existed  in  the  days  of  the  apostles  to 
have  been  just  such  bishops  as  existed  several  centu- 
ries afterwards,  in  their  own  times — bishops  in  the 
prelatical  sense  of  the  word.  But  they  have  produced 
no  passage  which  makes  any  such  declaration,  or 
which  legitimately  implies  it;  nor  are  they  able  to 
produce  such  a  passage,  from  all  the  stores  of  anti- 
quity, within  the  specified  limits. 

I  will  not  exhaust  the  reader's  patience,  by  pursu- 
ing further  a  chain  of  testimony  so  clear  and  indis- 
putable. I  have  intentionally  disguised  nothing  that 
seemed  to  favour  the  Episcopal  cause ;  and,  indeed, 
amidst  such  poverty  of  even  plausible  evidence  in 
their  behalf,  there  is  little  temptation  to  disguise  any 
thing.  It  has  truly  filled  me  with  surprise  at  every 
step  of  my  progress,  to  observe,  that,  with  all  the  con- 
fidence of  assertion,  and  all  the  parade  of  testimony, 
exhibited  by  the  friends  of  prelacy,  they  should  be 
able  to  produce  so  little  from  the  fathers,  their  strong 
hold,  which  can  yield  them  any  solid  support.   I  can- 


TESTIMONY  OF  THE  FATHERS.        221 

not,  therefore,  conclude  this  chapter  in  words  more 
expressive  of  my  fixed  opinion,  than  those  of  a  distin- 
guished bishop  of  the  Church  of  England,  who,  though 
he  regarded  prelacy  as  a  wise  human  institution,  stead- 
fastly resisted  the  claim  of  divine  right,  which  some 
high  churchmen  in  his  day  were  disposed- to  urge. 
After  having  stated  some  of  their  most  plausible  argu- 
ments, he  declares,  "  I  hope  my  reader  will  now  see 
what  weak  proofs  are  brought  for  this  distinction 
and  superiority  of  order.  No  Scripture  ;  no  primitive 
general  council;  no  general  consent  of  primitive  doc- 
tors and  fathers;  no,  not  one  primitive  father  of  note, 
speaking  particularly  and  home  to  their  purpose. "* 

After  this  brief  survey  of  the  testimony  of  the 
Fathers,  I  cannot  help  repeating  a  remark  which  I 
made  in  reference  to  the  testimony  of  Scripture. 
Those  early  writers  say  very  little  on  the  subject  in 
question;  and  of  that  little  a  very  small  proportion  is 
at  all  decisive  or  "  home  to  the  purpose."  Now,  I  ask, 
could  this  possibly  have  been  the  case  had  those  vene- 
rable men  viewed  the  subject  in  the  same  light  with 
modern  high  churchmen?  Can  it  be  imagined  that 
if  they  had  considered  prelacy  as  a  divine  institution, 
and  above  all,  as  essential  to  regular  ecclesiastical  or- 
der, without  which  there  could  be  no  gospel  ministry; 
no  valid  ordinances;  in  fact,  no  Church — can  it  be 
imagined,  I  say,  that,  if  they  had  regarded  the  sub- 
ject in  this  light,  they  would  have  said  so  little  respect- 
ing it,  and  that  that  little  should  have  been  so  remark- 
ably wanting  in  explicitness  and  decision,  as  all  must 
acknowledge  it,  at  least  for  the  most  part,  to  be?  No, 
I  will  venture  to  say  it  is  impossible.  Had  I  no  other 
reason  for  the  confident  persuasion  that  they  were 

*  Bishop  Croft's  Naked  Truth,  p.  47. 
19 


222  TESTIMONY    OF    THE    FATHERS. 

entire  strangers  to  the  doctrine  of  Episcopacy,  in  the 
sense  of  our  opponents,  than  the  consideration  of 
what  they  omitted  to  say,  that  alone  would  be  suffi- 
cient to  banish  all  remains  of  doubt.  If  they  were 
honest  men,  and  really  believed  prelacy  to  be  so  im- 
portant a  matter  as  modern  high  churchmen  would 
persuade  us,  they  could  never  have  written  on  the 
subject  as  they  have,  nor  left  it  under  so  questionable 
an  aspect  as  the  most  sanguine  and  confident  pre- 
latists  must  acknowledge  them  to  have  done.  To 
suppose  that,  under  such  circumstances,  they  could 
have  done  so,  is  one  of  the  most  incredible  of  all  sup- 
positions, 


EARLY    RISE    OF    PRELACY.  223 


CHAPTER  VI. 


EARLY    RISE    OF    PRELACY. 


One  of  the  most  plausible  arguments  in  favour  of 
prelacy,  is  drawn  by  Episcopalians  from  the  early 
rise  of  the  prelatical  system.  The  argument  is  thus 
stated — "  Bishops,  as  an  order  superior  to  presbyters, 
are  freely  acknowledged  by  Presbyterians  to  have 
existed  toward  the  close  of  the  third,  and,  beyond  all 
doubt,  early  in  the  fourth  century.  Now,  in  what 
manner  shall  we  account  for  the  introduction  of  such 
an  order?  Can  any  man  believe  that  it  was  an  inno- 
vation, brought  in  by  human  ambition  within  the 
first  three  hundred  years  ?  Is  it  supposable  that  men 
of  such  eminent  piety,  self-denial,  and  zeal  as  the 
ministers  of  the  first  two  hundred  and  fifty,  or  three 
hundred  years  are  represented  to  have  been,  could 
have  been  disposed  to  usurp  unscriptural  authority  ? 
But,  even  if  they  had  been  wicked  enough  to  be  so 
disposed,  can  we  believe  that  any  temptation  to  do  so 
then  existed,  when  it  is  known  that,  by  gaining  eccle- 
siastical pre-eminence,  they  only  became  more  promi- 
nent objects  to  their  pagan  enemies,  and,  of  course, 
more  exposed  to  the  fury  of  persecution?  But,  even 
supposing  them  to  have  been  so  ambitious  and  un- 
principled as  to  attempt  encroachment  on  the  rights 
of  others,  and  to  have  had  ever  so  strong  a  tempta- 
tion to  do  it,  can  we  imagine  that  such  an  attempt 
could  have  been  successful  ?  would  the  rest  of  the 


224  EARLY    RISE    OF    PRELACY. 

clergy  have  quietly  submitted  to  such  an  usurpation? 
would  the  people  have  endured  it?  In  a  word;  even 
supposing  the  clergy  of  that  period  to  have  been  un- 
principled enough  to  aspire  to  unauthorized  honours, 
and  to  encroach  on  the  rights  of  their  brethren;  and 
to  have  had  the  strongest  inducements  thus  to  act; 
is  it  credible  that  so  great  a  change  in  the  constitution 
of  the  Church  could  have  taken  place  without  oppo- 
sition, without  much  conflict  and  noise?  And  if  any 
such  conflict  and  noise  had  occurred,  should  we  not 
now  find  some  record  of  it?  Could  such  an  encroach- 
ment possibly  have  taken  place  without  convulsion; 
without  leaving  on  the  records  of  antiquity  some 
traces  of  the  steps  by  which  it  was  accomplished? 
No,  say  the  Episcopal  advocates,  it  is  not  credible; 
nay,  it  is  impossible.  The  unavoidable  inference, 
then,  is  that  no  such  alteration  ever  took  place  ;  that 
prelates,  as  an  order  superior  to  presbyters,  have  ex- 
isted in  the  Church  from  the  beginning;  and,  conse- 
quently, were  of  apostolical  origin." 

This  is  the  substance  of  an  argument  which  emi- 
nent Episcopal  writers  have  ventured  to  call  "demon- 
stration," and  on  which  great  stress  has  been  laid  by 
them  all.  And,  indeed,  I  am  free  to  confess,  that  I 
think  it  is  the  most  plausible  argument  they  have. 
Their  Scriptural  testimony  amounts  to  nothing — 
absolutely  nothing.  Their  testimony  from  the  Fa- 
thers, we  have  seen  to  be  a  failure.  But  the  argu- 
ment which  I  am  about  to  examine,  has,  at  first  view, 
something  like  cogency.  I  am  persuaded,  however, 
that  a  very  slight  examination  will  suffice  to  show 
that  this  cogency  is  only  apparent,  and  that  it  can 
boast  of  nothing  more  than  mere  plausibility. 

And  the  first  remark  which  I  shall  make  on  this 


EARLY    RISE    OP    PRELACY.  225 

argument  is,  that  it  is  the  very  same  which  the  Pa- 
pists have  been  accustomed,  ever  since  the  time  of 
Bellarmine,  to  employ  against  the  Protestants,  and, 
among  the  rest,  against  Protestant  Episcopalians. 
The  Papists  argue  thus — "Every  one  grants,"  say 
they,  "  that  the  bishop  of  Rome  claimed  a  certain 
pre-eminence  over  all  other  bishops,  before  the  close 
of  the  third  century ;  and  in  the  fourth  century  some 
pre-eminence  seems  to  have  been  extensively  con- 
ceded to  him."  Now,  they  ask — "  How  could  this 
happen?  The  bishops  of  that  day  were  all  too  pious 
to  be  suspected  of  an  attempt  to  encroach  on  the 
rights  of  their  brethren.  But  if  it  were  not  so;  if  the 
prelate  of  Rome  had  been  wicked  enough  to  make 
the  attempt,  what  inducement  had  he  to  desire  such 
pre-eminence,  since  it  would  only  expose  him  to  more 
certain  and  severe  persecution?  Even  supposing, 
however,  that  he  was  proud  and  selfish  enough  to 
attempt  to  gain  such  pre-eminence,  and  had  had  the 
strongest  temptation  to  seek  it,  could  he  have  accom- 
plished any  usurpation  of  that  kind,  without  many 
struggles,  and  much  opposition?  What  were  the 
other  bishops  about?  Is  it  credible  that  men  of  sense, 
with  their  eyes  open,  and  <  of  like  passions  with  other 
men,'  should  be  willing  to  surrender  their  rights  to 
an  ambitious  individual?  And  even  if  an  ambitious 
individual  had  attempted  thus  to  usurp  authority,  and 
had  succeeded  in  the  attempt,  would  there  not  have 
been  resistance — warm  resistance — much  conflict  in 
the  unhallowed  struggle  for  pre-eminence?  And 
among  all  the  records  of  antiquity,  should  we  not  be 
able  to  find  some  traces  of  the  conflict  and  noise  occa- 
sioned by  this  ambitious  and  fraudulent  encroach- 
ment?    Now,  since  we  find,"  say  they,  "  no  distinct 


226  EARLY    RISE    OF    PRELACY. 

account  of  any  such  conflict  and  noise  ;  since  we  are 
wholly  unable  to  trace  the  various  steps  by  which  the 
bishop  of  Rome  is  alleged  to  have  gained  the  ecclesi- 
astical throne  on  which  he  has  been  sitting  for  ages — 
we  infer  that  he  was  never  guilty  of  any  such  usur- 
pation; that  his  pre-eminence  existed  from  the  days 
of  the  apostles ;  and,  of  course,  is  an  institution  of 
Christ." 

It  is  perfectly  manifest  that  the  argument  of  the 
Papists — and  which  they  too  call  "  demonstration" — 
is  of  the  very  same  character  with  that  of  modern 
Episcopalians.  It  is,  in  fact,  mutatis  mutandis — 
the  very  same  argument ;  and  every  intelligent  reader 
will  see  that  it  is  quite  as  potent  in  Popish  as  in  Pro- 
testant hands.  But,  as  was  pronounced  in  the  former 
case,  it  is,  in  regard  to  both,  plausible — simply  plausi- 
ble— and  nothing  more.  A  few  plain  statements,  and 
especially  a  few  indubitable  facts,  will  be  quite  suffi- 
cient to  destroy  its  force  in  the  estimation  of  all  intel- 
ligent and  impartial  readers. 

The  first  assumption  in  this  argument  is,  that  the 
clergy,  during  the  first  three  hundred  years,  had  too 
much  piety,  zeal,  gospel  simplicity,  and  disinterested- 
ness, to  admit  of  their  engaging  in  any  scheme  for 
usurping  a  power  in  the  Church  which  Christ  never 
gave  them. 

We  are  accustomed  to  look  back  to  the  early 
Church  with  a  veneration  nearly  bordering  on  super- 
stition. It  is  one  of  the  common  artifices  of  Popery 
to  refer  all  their  corruptions  to  primitive  times,  and, 
in  concurrence  with  this,  to  represent  those  times  as 
exhibiting  the  models  of  all  excellence.  But  every 
representation  of  this  kind  ought  to  be  received  with 
much  distrust.     The  Christian  Church  during  the 


EARLY    RISE    OF    PRELACY.  227 

apostolic  age,  and  perhaps  for  half  a  century,  and 
even  a  whole  century  afterwards,  did  indeed  present 
a  venerable  aspect.  Persecuted  by  the  world  on 
every  side,  she  was  favoured  in  an  uncommon  mea- 
sure with  the  presence  and  Spirit  of  her  divine  Head 
and  Lord;  and  perhaps  exhibited  a  degree  of  sim- 
plicity and  purity,  which  has  never  since  been  ex- 
ceeded— possibly  not  equalled.  But  long  before  the 
close  of  the  second  century  the  scene  began  to 
change  ;  and  before  the  commencement  of  the  fourth, 
a  deplorable  corruption  of  doctrine,  discipline,  and 
morals,  had  crept  into  the  Church,  and  dreadfully  dis- 
figured the  body  of  Christ.  Hegesippus,  an  ecclesias- 
tical historian,  who  wrote  in  the  second  century,  de- 
clares that  "  the  virgin  purity  of  the  Church  was  con- 
fined to  the  days  of  the  apostles."  Nay,  Jerome 
asserts  that  "  the  primitive  churches  were  tainted 
with  gross  errors,  while  the  apostles  were  still  alive, 
and  while  the  blood  of  Christ  was  still  warm  in  Ju- 
dea."  We  know  that  in  the  very  presence  of  the 
Saviour  himself,  the  evening  before  he  suffered,  there 
was  a  contest  among  his  disciples,  "which  of  them 
should  be  the  greatest."  The  apostle  Paul  expressly 
cautions  ministers  of  his  day  against  attempting  to  be 
"lords  over  God's  heritage."  What  a  caution,  you 
will  say,  at  such  a  time,  when  they  were  in  jeopardy 
of  martyrdom  every  hour!  Yet  the  undoubted  fact 
is,  that  we  read,  in  several  of  the  epistles,  strong  in- 
dications of  the  ambition,  the  selfishness,  and  the  en- 
croaching spirit  even  of  those  who  were  set  as  leaders 
and  guides  of  the  people,  and  who  ought  to  have 
been  "  ensamples  to  the  flock."  We  read  of  Diotre- 
phes,  who  "  loved  to  have  the  pre-eminence,"  and 
who,  on  that  account,  troubled  the  Church.    In  short, 


228  EARLY    RISE    OF    PRELACY. 

the  apostle  Paul  informs  us,  2  Thessalonians,  ii.  7, 
that  the  mystery  of  iniquity,  which  afterwards 
wrought  such  an  amount  of  corruption  and  mischief 
in  the  church,  had  already  begun  to  work. 

All  this  we  find  in  the  New  Testament.  But  let 
us  pursue  the  course  of  the  Church  a  little  further,  and 
see  whether  the  supposition  of  its  entire  freedom  from 
corruption,  and  from  the  influence  of  ambition  and 
conflict  at  this  early  period  can  be  sustained. 

Was  there  no  spirit  of  domination  manifested  in  the 
fierce  dispute  between  Victor,  Bishop  of  Rome,  and 
Polycrates,  of  Ephesus,  which  took  place  in  the 
second  century,  as  related  by  Eusebius?  Was  no 
love  of  pre-eminence  displayed  by  Cerinthus  and 
Basilides,  whose  burning  desire  was  "  to  be  accounted 
great  apostles?"  Did  Montanus,  in  the  same  century, 
exhibit  no  ambition  in  broaching  his  celebrated 
heresy?  Was  Samosatenus,  in  the  third,  wholly  free 
from  the  same  charge?  Did  Demetrius  of  Alexandria, 
discover  nothing  of  an  aspiring  temper,  when  he  sick- 
ened with  envy  at  the  fame  and  the  success  of  Origen? 
Are  there  no  accounts  of  Novatus  having  sought, 
ambitiously  and  fraudulently,  to  obtain  the  bishopric 
of  Rome?  Did  not  his  contemporary,  Felicissimus, 
make  a  vigorous  attempt  to  supplant  Cyprian,  as 
Bishop  of  Carthage?  Was  not  Cyprian  brought  in  to 
be  bishop  in  that  city,  by  the  influence  of  the  people, 
in  opposition  to  the  majority  of  the  presbyters,  some 
of  whom  were  anxious  to  obtain  the  place  for  them- 
selves? And  did  there  not  hence  arise  frequent  colli- 
sions between  him  and  them,  and  at  length  an  open 
rupture?  I  ask,  are  any  of  these  things  related  in  the 
early  history  of  the  Church?  And  can  any  man,  with 
such  records  before  him,  lay  his  hand  on  his  heart, 


EARLY    RISE    OF    PRELACY.  229 

and  assert  that  there  were  no  symptoms  of  a  spirit  of 
ambition  and  domination  in  those  times? 

But  I  will  not  content  myself  with  this  general  re- 
ference to  the  early  conflicts  of  selfishness  and  ambi- 
tion. The  following  specific  quotations  will  be  more 
than  sufficient,  if  I  do  not  mistake,  to  establish  all  that 
the  opponents  of  prelacy  can  need  to  refute  the  plea 
before  us. 

Hermas,  one  of  the  earliest  fathers  whose  writings 
are  extant,  says,  in  his  Pastor,  "  As  for  those  who  had 
their  rods  green,  but  yet  cleft;  they  are  such  as  were 
always  faithful  and  good;  but  they  had  some  envy 
and  strife  among  themselves,  concerning  dignity  and 
pre-eminence.  Now  all  such  are  vain  and  without 
understanding,  as  contend  with  one  another  about 
these  things.  Nevertheless,  seeing  they  are  otherwise 
good,  if,  when  they  shall  hear  these  commands,  they 
shall  amend  themselves,  and  shall,  at  my  persuasion, 
suddenly  repent;  they  shall,  at  last,  dwell  in  the  tower, 
as  they  who  have  truly  and  worthily  repented.  But 
if  any  one  shall  again  return  to  his  dissensions,  he 
shall  be  shut  out  of  the  tower,  and  lose  his  life.  For  the 
life  of  those  who  keep  the  commandments  of  the  Lord, 
consists  in  doing  what  they  are  commanded;  not  in 
principality,  or  in  any  other  "dignity."* 

Hegesippus,  who  lived  in  the  second  century,  and 
who  was  the  first  father  who  undertook  to  compose  a 
regular  ecclesiastical  history,  writes  thus.  "  When 
James,  the  just,  had  been  martyred  for  the  same  doc- 
trine which  our  Lord  preached,  Simon,  the  son  of 
Cleophas,  was  constituted  bishop  with  universal  pre- 
ference, because  he  was  the  Lord's  near  kinsman. 
Wherefore  they  called  that  church  a  pure  virgin,  be- 

*  Simil.  8.  §  7. 
20 


230  EARLY    RISE    OF    PRELACY. 

cause  it  was  not  defiled  with  corrupt  doctrine.  But 
Thebuli,  because  he  was  not  made  bishop,  en- 
deavoured to  corrupt  the  church;  being  one  of  the 
seven  heretics  among  the  people,  whereof  was  Simon, 
of  whom  the  Simonians."* 

Some  zealous  Episcopalians  represent  the  age  of 
Cyprian  as  among  the  very  purest  periods  of  the  Chris- 
tian Church,  and  quote  that  father  with  a  frequency 
and  a  confidence  which  evince  the  highest  respect  for 
his  authority.  The  following  passages  will  show  how 
far  the  illustrious  pastor  of  Carthage  considered  the 
bishops  of  his  day  as  beyond  the  reach  of  selfishness 
and  ambition. 

"  A  long  continuance  of  peace  and  security!  had 
relaxed  the  rigour  of  that  holy  discipline  which  was 
delivered  to  us  from  above.  All  were  set  upon  an 
immeasurable  increase  of  gain;  and,  forgetting  how 
the  first  converts  to  our  religion  had  behaved  under 
the  personal  direction  and  care  of  the  Lord's  apostles, 
or  how  all  ought  in  after  times  to  conduct  themselves; 
the  love  of  money  was  their  darling  passion,  and  the 
master-spring  of  all  their  actions.  The  religion  of  the 
clergy  slackened  and  decayed ;  the  faith  of  priests  and 
deacons  grew  languid  and  inactive;  works  of  charity 
were  discontinued;  and  an  universal  license"  and  cor- 
ruption prevailed.  Divers  bishops,  who  should  have 
taught  both  by  their  example  and  persuasion,  neglect- 
ing their  high  trust,  and  their  commission  from  above, 
entered  upon  the  management  of  secular  affairs;  and 
leaving  their  chair,  and  their  charge  with  it,  wandered 
about,  from  place  to  place  in  different  provinces,  upon 

*  See  fragments  of  this  writer  preserved  in  Eusebius,  Lib.  iv. 
Cap.  22. 

t  They  had  been  free  from  persecution  a  very  few  years. 


EARLY    RISE    OP    PRELACY.  231 

mercantile  business,  and  in  quest  of  disreputable  gain. 
Thus  the  poor  of  the  Church  were  miserably  neglect- 
ed, while  the  bishops,  who  should  have  taken  care  of 
them,  were  intent  upon  nothing  but  their  own  private 
profit,  which  they  were  forward  to  advance  at  any 
rate,  and  by  any,  even  the  foulest  methods/*'* 

Speaking  of  Cornelius,  who  had  been  made  bishop, 
Cyprian  says,  "  In  the  next  place,  he  neither  desired, 
nor  canvassed  for  the  dignity  conferred  upon  him; 
much  less  did  he  invade  it,  as  some  others  would, 
who  were  actuated  by  a  great  and  lofty  conceit  of 
their  own  qualifications;  but  peaceably  and  modestly, 
like  such  as  are  called  of  God  to  this  office. — Instead 
of  using  violence,  as  a  certain  person  in  this  case  hath 
done,  to  be  made  a  bishop,  he  suffered  violence,  and 
was  raised  to  his  dignity  by  force  and  compulsion."! 

The  same  father,  in  the  same  epistle,  has  the  follow- 
ing passage.  "  Unless  you  can  think  him  a  bishop, 
who,  when  another  was  ordained  by  sixteen  of  his 
brethren  bishops,  would  obtrude  upon  the  Church  a 
spurious  and  foreign  bishop,  ordained  by  a  parcel  of 
renegadoes  and  deserters;  and  that  by  canvassing  and 
intriguing  for  it.":}: 

Cyprian  speaks  also  of  a  certain  deacon  who  had 
been  deposed  from  his  "  sacred  deaconship,  on  account 
of  his  fraudulent  and  sacrilegious  misapplication  of 
the  church's  money  to  his  own  private  use ;  and  by 
his  denial  of  the  widows'  and  orphans'  pledges  de- 
posited with  him."§ 

Origen,  the  contemporary  of  Cyprian,  more  than 
once  lashes  the  clergy  of  his  day  for  their  vices.  The 
following  passage  is  surely  strong  enough,  were  there 
no  other,  to  take  away  all  doubt.     "  If  Christ  justly 

*  De  Lapsis,  §  4.  t  Epist.  55.  t  Ibid.  §  Epist.  52. 


232  EARLY    RISE    OF    PRELACY. 

wept  over  Jerusalem,  he  may  now,  on  much  better 
grounds,  weep  over  the  Church,  which  was  built  to 
the  end  that  it  might  be  an  house  of  prayer;  and  yet, 
through  the  filthy  usury  of  some,  (and  I  wish  these 
were  not  even  the  pastors  of  the  people,)  is  made  a 
den  of  thieves.  But  I  think  that  that  which  is  writ- 
ten concerning  the  sellers  of  doves,  doth  agree  to  those 
who  commit  the  churches  to  greedy,  tyrannical,  un- 
learned, and  irreligious  bishops,  presbyters,  and  dea- 
cons."* The  same  father  elsewhere  declares,  "  We 
are  such  as  that  we  sometimes  in  pride  go  beyond 
even  the  wickedest  of  the  princes  of  the  gentiles;  and 
are  just  at  the  point  of  procuring  for  ourselves  splen- 
did guards,  as  if  we  were  kings,  making  it  our  study 
moreover  to  be  a  terror  to  others,  and  giving  them, 
especially  if  they  be  poor,  very  uneasy  access.  We 
are  to  them,  when  they  come  and  seek  any  thing  from 
us,  more  cruel  than  are  even  tyrants,  or  the  crudest 
princes  to  their  supplicants.  And  you  may  see,  even 
in  the  greater  part  of  lawfully  constituted  Churches, 
especially  those  of  greater  cities,  how  the  pastors  of 
God's  people,  suffer  none,  though  they  were  even  the 
chiefest  of  Christ's  disciples,  to  be  equal  with  them- 
selves.'7! 

Eusebius,  who  lived  in  the  next  century,  writes  in 
the  same  strain  concerning  the  age  of  Cyprian. 
"  When,  through  too  much  liberty,  we  fell  into  sloth 
and  negligence;  when  every  one  began  to  envy  and 
backbite  another;  when  we  waged,  as  it  were,  an  in- 
testine war  amongst  ourselves,  with  words  as  with 
swords;  pastors  rushed  against  pastors,  and  people 
against  people,  and  strife  and  tumult,  deceit  and  guile 
advanced  to  the   highest  pitch  of  wickedness — Our 

*  In  Matt.  p.  441.  t  Ibid.  p.  420. 


EARLY    RISE    OF    PRELACY.  233 

pastors,  despising  the  rule  of  religion,  strove  mutually 
with  one  another,  studying  nothing  more  than  how 
to  outdo  each  other  in  strife,  emulations,  hatred,  and 
mutual  enmity;  proudly  usurping  principalities,  as  so 
many  places  of  tyrannical  domination.  Then  the 
Lord  covered  the  daughter  of  Zion  with  a  cloud  in 
his  anger."* 

Gregory  Nazianzen,  who  flourished  in  the  fourth 
century,  at  a  time  which  many  are  disposed  to  assume 
as  the  very  best  model  of  the  Christian  Church,  speaks, 
in  a  number  of  places  in  his  writings,  with  bitter  re- 
gret of  the  proud  and  ambitious  contests  among  the 
clergy  of  his  day.  His  language  is  the  more  remarkable 
because  he  was  himself  a  bishop,  and  of  course  some- 
what interested  in  maintaining  the  credit  of  his  order. 
Speaking  of  one  of  the  most  famous  councils  of  his 
time,  he  says,  "  These  conveyers  of  the  Holy  Ghost, 
these  preachers  of  peace  to  all  men,  grew  bitterly  out- 
rageous and  clamorous  against  one  another,  in  the 
midst  of  the  church,  mutually  accusing  each  other, 
leaping  about  as  if  they  had  been  mad,  under  the 
furious  impulse  of  a  lust  of  power  and  dominion,  as 
if  they  would  have  rent  the  whole  world  in  pieces." 
He  afterwards  adds,  "  This  was  not  the  effect  of  piety, 
but  of  a  contention  for  thrones." — Tom.  ii.  25.  27. 

On  another  occasion,  in  the  bitterness  of  his  spirit, 
he  expresses  himself  in  the  following  strong  language, 
"  Would  to  God  there  were  no  prelacy,  no  prerogative 
of  place,  no  tyrannical  privileges;  that  by  virtue  alone 
we  might  be  distinguished.  Now  this  right  and  left 
hand,  and  middle  rank,  these  higher  and  lower  dig- 
nities, and  this  state-like  precedence,  have  caused 
many  fruitless  conflicts  and  bruises;  have  cast  many 

•  Hist.  Eccles.  Lib.  viii.  Cap.  1. 
20* 


234  EARLY    RISE    OF    PRELACY. 

into  the  pit,  and  carried  away  multitudes  to  the  place 
of  the  goats." — Orat.  28. 

Nay,  Archbishop  Whitgift,  with  all  his  Episcopal 
partialities,  was  constrained  to  acknowledge  the  am- 
bitious and  aspiring  temper  which  disgraced  many 
bishops  even  as  early  as  the  time  of  Cyprian.  "  There 
was  great  contention,"  says  he,  "  among  the  bishops 
in  the  Council  of  Nice,  insomuch  that  even  in  the 
presence  of  the  emperor,  they  ceased  not  to  libel  one 
against  another.  What  bitterness  and  cursing  was 
there  between  Epiphanius  and  Chrysostom!  What 
jarring  between  Jerome  and  Augustine!  Bishops 
shall  not  now  need  to  live  by  pilling  and  polling,  as 
it  seems  they  did  in  Cyprian's  time;  for  he  complain- 
eth  thereof  in  his  sermon  De  Lapsis."* 

With  Whitgift  agrees  his  contemporary  Rigaltius, 
who  was  so  much  distinguished  for  his  learned  An- 
notations on  the  works  of  Cyprian.  Speaking  of 
Cyprian's  age,  and  of  the  deacon's  office,  he  says, 
"  By  little  and  little,  and  from  small  beginnings,  a 
kingdom  and  a  love  of  dominion  entered  into  the 
Church.  In  the  apostles'  time  there  were  only  dea- 
cons; Cyprian's  age  admitted  sub-deacons;  the  fol- 
lowing age  arch-deacons,  and  then  arch-bishops  and 
patriarchs." 

These  extracts  are  produced,  not  to  blacken  the 
ministerial  character;  but  to  establish  the  fact,  that 
clerical  ambition,  and  clerical  encroachments  were 
familiarly  known,  even  during  that  period  which 
modern  Episcopalians  pronounce  the  purest  that  was 
ever  enjoyed  by  the  Christian  Church.  I  certainly 
have  no  interest,  and  can  take  no  pleasure  in  depict- 
ing the  foibles,  the  strife,  and  the  vices  of  the  clergy 

*  Defence  of  his  Answer  against  Cartwright,  p.  472,  &c. 


EARLY    RISE    OP    PRELACY.  235 

in  any  age.  But  when  assertions  are  made  respect- 
ing them  as  directly  contradictory  to  all  history,  as 
they  are  contrary  to  the  course  of  depraved  human 
nature  j  and  especially  when  these  assertions  are  tri- 
umphantly employed  as  arguments  to  establish  other 
assertions  equally  unfounded,  it  is  time  to  vindicate 
the  truth.  To  do  this,  in  the  present  case,  is  an  easy 
task.  The  man  who,  after  perusing  the  foregoing 
extracts,  can  dare  to  say,  that  the  clergy  of  the  first 
three  centuries,  were  all  too  pious  and  disinterested  to 
admit  the  suspicion,  that  they  aspired  to  titles  and 
honours,  and  intrigued  for  the  attainment  of  episcopal 
chairs,  must  have  a  hardihood  of  incredulity,  or  an 
obliquity  of  perception  truly  extraordinary.  We 
have  seen  that  Hermas  plainly  refers  to  certain  eccle- 
siastics of  his  time,  who  had  "  envy  and  strife  among 
themselves  concerning  dignity  and  pre-eminence." 
Hegesippus  goes  further,  and  points  out  the  case  of  a 
particular  individual,  who  ambitiously  aspired  to  the 
office  of  bishop,  and  was  exceedingly  disappointed 
and  mortified  at  not  obtaining  it.  Cyprian  expressly 
declares  not  only  that  a  spirit  of  intrigue,  of  worldly 
gain,  and  of  ecclesiastical  domination,  existed  among 
the  clergy  of  his  day,  but  that  such  a  spirit  was 
awfully  prevalent  among  them.  Eusebius  gives  us 
similar  information  in  still  stronger  terms.  Archbishop 
Whitgift  makes  the  same  acknowledgment,  more  par- 
ticularly with  respect  to  the  bishops  of  that  period. 
And  even  Dr.  Bowden  acknowledges  that  a  number 
of  persons,  as  early  as  the  days  of  Cyprian,  and  be- 
fore his  time,  who  aspired  to  the  office  of  bishop,  and 
who  used  every  effort  and  artifice  to  attain  it,  on  be- 
ing disappointed,  distinguished  themselves  as  heretics 
or  schismatics,  and  became  the  pests  of  the  Church. 


236  EARLY    RISE    OF    PRELACY. 

These  extracts  might  be  multiplied  twenty-fold.  If 
any  intelligent  reader  will  look  through  the  pages  of 
Clemens  Alexandrinus,  Tertullian,  Cyprian,  Origen, 
Chrysostom,  and,  above  all,  Basil,  to  name  no  more,  he 
will  find,  within  the  first  three  hundred  and  fifty,  or  four 
hundred  years,  an  amount  of  evidence  of  the  depravity 
of  ecclesiastics  which  will  amaze  and  revolt  him.  He 
will  find  evidence,  not  only  of  selfishness,  of  pride,  and 
of  grasping  ambition,  but  of  voluptuous  and  licentious 
habits,  with  the  description  of  which  I  cannot  pollute 
my  pages;  and  which  would  convince  every  impartial 
mind  that  not  merely  some,  but  large  numbers  of 
them  were  utterly  unprincipled  and  profligate. 

Now,  I  repeat,  if  any  man,  after  reading  such  ac- 
counts, can  lay  his  hand  on  his  heart,  and  say,  that 
there  is  no  evidence  that  the  ministers  of  the  Christian 
Church,  even  for  the  first  two  hundred  years  after  the 
apostolic  age,  were  too  pious,  pure,  and  disinterested 
to  make  any  ambitious  attempts  to  usurp  power;  or 
to  pursue  their  own  aggrandizement  at  the  expense 
of  the  rights  and  claims  of  others;  I  say,  if  any  man, 
after  reading  the  foregoing  statements  and  citations 
can  lay  his  hand  on  his  heart,  and  say  this — he  must 
be  blinded  by  a  prejudice  of  the  most  extraordinary 
kind.  Nay,  I  will  venture  to  assert,  that,  so  far  from 
having  reason  to  doubt  the  possibility  of  the  clergy 
of  those  early  times  striving  with  unhallowed  ambi- 
tion to  gain  the  upper  hand  of  each  other,  and  to  ob- 
tain titles  and  places;  if  they  were  really  such  men 
as  their  most  venerable  and  trust-worthy  contempo- 
raries describe — it  would  have  been  something  bor- 
dering on  miracle,  if  prelacy,  or  some  such  innovation 
on  the  simple  and  primitive  model  of  church  order 
had  not  arisen. 


EARLY    RISE    OF    PRELACY.  237 

Still,  however,  the  question  recurs;  What,  in  those 
days  of  persecution  and  peril,  before  Christianity  was 
established,  when  the  powers  of  the  world  were 
leagued  against  it,  and  when  every  Christian  pastor 
especially  held  a  station  of  much  self-denial  and  dan- 
ger, what  could  induce  any  selfish  or  ambitious  man 
to  desire  the  pastoral  office,  and  to  intrigue  for  the 
extension  of  the  powers  and  honours  of  that  office? 
When  my  opponents  can  tell  me  what  induced  Judas 
Iscariot  to  follow  Christ,  at  the  risk  of  his  life;  when 
they  can  tell  me  what  impelled  Diotrephes  to  desire 
the  pre-eminence  in  the  Church;  or  what  were  the 
objects  of  Demas,  Hymensens,  and  Alexander,  in 
their  restless  and  ambitious  conduct,  while  Calvary 
was  yet  smoking  with  the  blood  of  their  crucified 
Lord,  and  while  their  own  lives  were  every  moment 
exposed  to  the  rage  of  persecution; — when  my  oppo- 
nents can  tell  me  what  actuated  these  men,  I  shall  be 
equally  ready  to  assign  a  reason  for  the  early  rise  and 
progress  of  prelacy. 

But  there  is  no  need  of  retreating  into  the  obscu- 
rity of  conjecture,  when  causes  enough  to  satisfy  every 
mind  may  easily  be  assigned.  If  the  advocates  of 
Episcopacy  do  not  know  that  there  are  multitudes  of 
men,  in  all  ages,  in  the  Church,  and  out  of  it,  who  are 
ready  to  court  distinction  merely  for  distinction's 
sake,  and  at  the  evident  hazard  of  their  lives,  they 
have  yet  much  to  learn  from  the  instructions  both  of 
human  nature  and  of  history.  But  this  is  not  all.  It 
is  a  notorious  fact,  that  the  office  of  bishop,  even  in 
those  early  times,  had  much  to  attract  the  cupidity, 
as  well  as  the  ambition  of  selfish  and  aspiring  men. 
The  revenues  of  the  primitive  Church  were  large  and 
alluring.     It  is  granted  that,  during  the  first  three 


238  EARLY   RISE    OP    PRELACY. 

centuries,  the  Church  held  little  or  no  real  property ; 
as  the  Roman  laws  did  not  allow  any  person  to  give 
or  bequeath  real  estates  to  ecclesiastical  bodies,  with- 
out the  consent  of  the  Senate  or  the  Emperor.  The 
contributions,  however,  which  were  made  to  the 
Church,  for  the  support  of  the  clergy,  the  poor,  &c. 
were  immense.  During  the  apostolic  age,  the  pro- 
ceeds of  the  sale  of  real  estates  were  devoted  to  eccle- 
siastical and  charitable  purposes,  and  laid  at  the  apos- 
tles' feet.  We  find  the  gentile  churches  contributing 
liberally  to  the  relief  of  the  churches  of  Judea,  in  Acts 
xi.  29.  Rom.  xv.  26.  1  Cor.  xvi.  1,  and  2  Cor.  viii. 
The  same  liberality  manifested  itself  in  subsequent 
times.*  So  ample  were  the  funds  of  the  Church  of 
Rome,  about  the  middle  of  the  second  century,  that 
they  were  adequate  not  only  to  the  support  of  her 
own  clergy  and  poor  members,  but  also  to  the  relief 
of  other  churches,  and  of  a  great  number  of  Christian 
captives  in  the  several  provinces,  and  of  such  as  were 
condemned  to  the  mines.t  Such  was  the  wealth  of 
the  same  church,  in  the  third  century,  that  it  was 
considered  as  an  object  not  unworthy  of  imperial  ra- 
pacity. By  order  of  the  Emperor  Decius,  the  Roman 
deacon  Laurentius  was  seized,  under  the  expectation 
of   finding  in  his  possession  the  treasures  of  the 

*  One  cause  of  the  liberality  of  the  primitive  Christians  in  their 
contributions  to  the  Church,  was  the  notion  which  generally  prevail- 
ed, that  the  end  of  the  world  was  at  hand.  This  notion  was  adopted 
by  some  of  the  early  fathers,  and  propagated  among  the  people  with 
great  diligence.  Cyprian  taught,  in  his  day,  with  great  confidence, 
that  the  dissolution  of  the  world  was  but  a  few  years  distant.  Epist. 
ad  Thibart.  The  tendency  of  this  opinion  to  diminish  the  self-denial 
of  parting  with  temporal  wealth  is  obvious.  See  Father  Paul's 
Hist,  of  Benefices  and  Revenues.  Chap.  II. 

t  Father  Paul's  Hist,  of  Ecclesiastical  Benefices  and  Revenues, 
Chap.  iii. 


EARLY    RISE    OP    PRELACY.  239 

Church,  and  of  transferring  them  to  the  coffers  of  the 
Emperor:  but  the  vigilant  deacon,  fearing  the  avarice 
of  the  tyrant,  had  distributed  them,  as  usual,  when  a 
persecution  was  expected.  Prudentius  introduces  an 
officer  of  the  Emperor,  thus  addressing  the  deacon, 
Quod  Csesaris  scis,  Csesari  da,  nempe  justum  postulo; 
ni  fallor,  haud  ullam  tuus  signat  Deus  pecuniam.  i.  e. 
Give  to  Caesar  what  you  know  to  be  his,  I  ask  what 
is  just;  for  if  I  mistake  not,  your  God  coins  no 
money.* 

Now  the  revenues  of  the  churches,  whether  great 
or  small,  were  at  the  disposal  of  the  bishops.  The 
deacons  executed  their  orders.  Of  course  they  had 
every  opportunity  of  enriching  themselves  at  the  ex- 
pense of  the  Church.  And  that  they  not  unfrequently 
embraced  this  opportunity,  is  attested  by  Cyprian, 
who  laments  the  fact,  and  is  of  opinion  that  the  per- 
secution which  took  place  in  the  reign  of  Decius,  was 
intended  by  God  to  punish  a  guilty  people,  and  to 
purge  this  corruption  from  his  Church. t  And  yet,  in 
the  face  of  all  this  testimony,  the  advocates  of  Epis- 
copacy permit  themselves  to  maintain  that  there  was 
no  temptation,  either  before  or  during  the  age  of 
Cyprian,  to  induce  any  man  to  desire  the  office  of 
bishop.  Nay,  they  tell  us,  that  to  suppose  there  was 
any  such  temptation,  is,  in  fact,  to  yield  the  argument, 
because  it  is  to  concede  that  the  office  then  included 
such  a  superiority  and  pre-eminence  of  rank  as  we 
utterly  deny.  Nothing  will  be  more  easy  than  to 
show  that  this  whole  plea  is  false,  and  every  thing 
founded  upon  it  worthless. 

*  Prudent,  in  Lib.  de  Coronis.     Father  Paul's  History  of  Ecclesi- 
astical Benefices  and  Revenues,  Chap.  iii. 
t  See  his  discourse  De  Lapsis,  before  quoted. 


240  EARLY    RISE    OF    PRELACY. 

The  love  of  pre-eminence  and  of  power  is  natural 
to  man.  It  is  one  of  the  most  early,  powerful,  and 
universal  principles  of  our  nature.  It  reigns  without 
control  in  wicked  men ;  and  it  has  more  influence 
than  it  ought  to  have  in  the  minds  of  the  most  pure 
and  pious.  It  shows  itself  in  the  beggar's  cottage,  as 
well  as  on  the  imperial  throne;  in  the  starving  and 
gloomy  dungeon,  no  less  than  in  the  luxurious  palace. 
Nay,  it  has  been  known  to  show  itself  with  the  rack, 
the  gibbet,  and  the  flames  of  martyrdom  in  the  imme- 
diate prospect.  This  is  wonderful;  but  so  it  is.  And 
to  attempt  to  set  up  our  imaginary  reasonings  against 
the  fact,  is  in  the  highest  degree  presumptuous  and 
irrational. 

Now,  though  the  bishop,  for  the  first  two  centuries 
after  Christ,  was,  as  we  have  seen,  nothing  more  than 
a  mere   parochial  "  overseer,"  in  other   words,  the 
pastor   of  a  single  church ;   yet   his  office   was   not 
without  its  attractions.    It  was  a  place  of  honour  and 
of  trust.     He  was  looked  up  to  as  a  leader  and  guide. 
The  ruling  elders  and  deacons  of  the  parish  by  whom 
he  was  surrounded,  regarded  him  as  their  superior, 
and  treated  him  with  reverence.    And,  as  the  bounty 
distributed  by  the  deacons  was,  to  a  considerable  ex- 
tent, directed  by  his  pleasure — the  poor,  of  course, 
considered  and  revered  him  both  as  their  spiritual  and 
temporal  benefactor ;  and  gave  him  much  of  the  in- 
cense of  respect,  gratitude,  and  praise.     Here  was 
abundantly  enough  to  tempt  an  humble  ecclesiastic 
in  those  days,  or  in  any  days.     There  are  thousands 
of  men — thousands  of  honest,  good  men,  quite  capa- 
ble of  being  attracted  by  such  fascinations  as  these. 
Many  an  humble  rectory;  many  a  plain,  and  even 
poor  pastoral  charge  has  been  sought,  from  that  time 


EARLY    RISE    OF    PRELACY.  241 

to  the  present,  with  zeal  and  earnestness,  for  one  half 
the  temptation  which  has  been  described.  But  this 
was  not  all.  While  such  were  the  attractions  con- 
nected with  the  bishop's  office,  in  its  primitive  paro- 
chial form,  these  attractions  were  not  a  little  increased 
in  the  third  century,  when  ambition  sought  and  ob- 
tained some  extension  of  the  bishop's  prerogative; 
and  still  more  augmented  in  the  fourth,  when  worldly- 
pride  and  splendour  in  that  office  began  to  be  openly- 
enthroned  in  the  Church. 

But  still  it  may  be  asked — Even  supposing  the 
clergy  of  the  first  three  centuries  to  have  been  capa- 
ble of  aspiring,  ambitious  conduct;  and  supposing 
that  there  were  temptations  to  induce  them  thus  to 
aspire;  can  we  suppose  that  their  unjust  claims  would 
have  been  calmly  yielded,  and  their  usurpations  sub- 
mitted to  without  a  struggle  on  the  part  of  the  other 
clergy,  and  the  great  body  of  the  people  ?  If,  then, 
such  claims  were  made,  and  such  usurpations  effected, 
why  do  we  not  find,  in  the  early  history  of  the 
Church,  some  account  of  a  change  so  notable,  and  of 
conflicts  so  severe  and  memorable  as  must  have  at- 
tended its  introduction? 

In  answer  to  this  question,  let  it  be  remembered, 
that  the  nations  over  which  the  Christian  religion  was 
spread  with  so  much  rapidity  during  the  first  three 
centuries,  were  sunk  in  deplorable  ignorance.  Grossly 
illiterate,  very  few  were  able  to  read;  and  even  to 
these  few,  manuscripts  were  of  difficult  access.  At 
that  period,  popular  eloquence  was  the  great  engine 
of  persuasion  ;  and  where  the  character  of  the  mind 
is  not  fixed  by  reading,  and  a  consequent  habit  of  at- 
tention and  accurate  thinking,  it  is  impossible  to  say 
how  deeply  and  suddenly  it  may  be  operated  upon 

21 


242  EARLY    RISE    OP    PRELACY. 

by  such  an  engine.  A  people  of  this  description, 
wholly  unaccustomed  to  speculations  on  government; 
universally  subjected  to  despotic  rule  in  the  state; 
having  no  just  ideas  of  religious  liberty;  altogether 
unfurnished  with  the  means  of  communicating  and 
uniting  with  each  other,  which  the  art  of  printing  has 
since  afforded;  torn  with  dissensions  among  them- 
selves, and  liable  to  be  turned  about  with  every 
wind  of  doctrine;  such  a  people  could  offer  little  re- 
sistance to  those  who  were  ambitious  of  ecclesiastical 
power.  A  fairer  opportunity  for  the  few  to  take  the 
advantage  of  the  ignorance,  the  credulity,  the  divi- 
sions, and  the  weakness  of  the  many,  can  scarcely  be 
imagined.  In  truth,  under  these  circumstances,  eccle- 
siastical usurpation  is  so  far  from  being  improbable, 
that,  to  suppose  it  not  to  have  taken  place,  would  be 
to  suppose  a  continued  miracle. 

Nor  is  there  more  difficulty  in  supposing  that  these 
encroachments  were  submitted  to  by  the  clergy,  than 
by  the  people.  Some  yielded  through  fear  of  the 
bold  and  domineering  spirits  who  contended  for  seats 
of  honour;  some  with  the  hope  of  obtaining  prefer- 
ment themselves  in  their  turn;  and  some  from  that 
lethargy  and  sloth  which  ever  prevent  a  large  portion 
of  mankind  from  engaging  in  any  thing  which  re- 
quires enterprise  and  exertion.  To  these  circum- 
stances it  may  be  added,  that,  while  some  of  the  pres- 
byters, under  the  name  of  bishops,  assumed  unscrip- 
tural  authority  over  the  rest  of  that  order;  the  in- 
creasing power  of  the  latter  over  the  deacons,  and 
other  subordinate  grades  of  church  officers,  offered 
something  like  a  recompense  for  their  submission  to 
those  who  claimed  a  power  over  themselves. 

In  addition  to  all  these  circumstances,  it  is  to  be 


EARLY   RISE    OF    PRELACY.  243 

recollected,  that  the  encroachments  and  the  change 
in  question  took  place  gradually.  The  advocates  of 
Episcopacy  sometimes  represent  us  as  teaching  that 
the  change  in  question  was  adopted  at  once,  or  by  a 
single  step.  We  believe  no  such  thing.  As  we  have 
seen,  Jerome  expressly  tells  us  that  prelacy  was 
brought  in  paulatim — by  little  and  little.  It  was 
three  hundred  years  in  coming  to  maturity.  When 
great  strides  in  the  assumption  of  power  are  suddenly 
made,  they  seldom  fail  to  rouse  resentment,  and  ex- 
cite opposition.  But  when  made  artfully,  and  by 
slow  degrees,  nothing  is  more  common  than  to  see 
them  pass  without  opposition,  and  almost  without 
notice.  Instances  of  this  kind  among  nations  sunk  in 
ignorance,  and  long  accustomed  to  despotic  govern- 
ment, are  numberless;  and  they  are  by  no  means 
rare  even  among  the  more  enlightened.  The  British 
nation,  in  the  seventeenth  century,  saw  a  monarch 
restored  with  enthusiasm,  and  almost  without  oppo- 
sition, to  the  throne,  by  those  very  persons,  who,  a 
few  years  before,  had  dethroned  and  beheaded  his 
father,  and  declared  the  bitterest  hatred  to  royalty. 
At  the  beginning  of  the  nineteenth  century,  one  of 
the  most  enlightened  nations  of  Europe,  in  a  little 
more  than  twelve  years  after  dethroning  and  decapi- 
tating a  mild  and  gentle  king,  and  after  denouncing 
kingly  government,  with  almost  every  possible  ex- 
pression of  abhorrence,  yielded,  without  a  struggle, 
to  the  will  of  a  despotic  usurper.  And,  still  more  re- 
cently, we  have  seen  a  people  enlightened  and  free, 
who  had  for  more  than  two  centuries  maintained  and 
boasted  of  their  republican  character,  submit  ignobly 
and  at  once,  to  the  yoke  of  a  monarch  imposed  on 


244  EARLY    RISE    OP    PRELACY. 

them  by  a  powerful  neighbour.  In  short,  the  most 
limited  knowledge  of  human  nature,  and  of  history, 
shows  not  only  the  possibility,  but  the  actual  and  fre- 
quent occurrence  of  changes  from  free  government  to 
tyranny  and  despotism,  in  a  much  shorter  period  than 
a  century;  and  all  this  in  periods  when  information 
was  more  equally  diffused,  and  the  principles  of  social 
order  much  better  understood,  than  in  the  second  and 
third  centuries  of  the  Christian  era. 

Nor  is  it  wonderful  that  we  find  so  little  said  con- 
cerning these  usurpations  in  the  early  records  of  anti- 
quity. There  was  probably  but  little  written  on  the 
subject;  since  those  who  were  most  ambitious  to 
shine  as  writers,  were  most  likely  to  be  forward  in 
making  unscriptural  claims  themselves;  and,  of  course, 
would  be  little  disposed  to  record  their  own  shame. 
It  is  likewise  probable,  that  the  little  that  was  written 
on  such  a  subject,  would  be  lost;  because  the  art  of 
printing  being  unknown,  and  the  trouble  and  expense 
of  multiplying  copies  being  only  incurred  for  the  sake 
of  possessing  interesting  and  popular  works,  it  was 
not  to  be  expected,  that  writings  so  hostile  to  the  am- 
bition and  vices  of  the  clergy,  would  be  much  read, 
if  it  were  possible  to  suppress  them.  And  when  to 
these  circumstances  we  add,  that  literature  after  the 
fourth  century,  was  chiefly  in  the  hands  of  ecclesias- 
tics; that  many  important  works  written  within  the 
first  three  centuries  are  known  to  be  lost;  and  that  of 
the  few  which  remain,  some  are  acknowledged  on  all 
hands,  to  have  been  grossly  corrupted,  and  radically 
mutilated,  we  cannot  wonder  that  so  little  in  explana- 
tion of  the  various  steps  of  clerical  usurpation  has 
reached  our  times. 

In  confirmation  of  this  reasoning,  a  variety  of  facts, 


EARLY    RISE    OF    PRELACY.  245 

acknowledged  as  such  by  the  advocates  of  Episcopacy 
themselves,  may  be  adduced. 

The  first  is,  the  rise  of  arch-bishops  and  metropo- 
litans in  the  Church.  All  Protestant  Episcopalians, 
with  one  voice,  grant  that  all  bishops  were  originally 
equal;  that  arch-bishops,  metropolitans,  and  patri- 
archs were  offices  of  human  invention,  and  had  no 
other  than  human  authority.  Yet  it  is  certain  that 
they  arose  very  nearly  as  soon  as  diocesan  bishops. 
In  fact  they  arose  so  early,  became  in  a  little  while 
so  general,  and  were  introduced  with  so  little  opposi- 
tion and  noise,  that  some  have  undertaken,  on  this 
very  ground,  to  prove  that  they  were  of  apostolical 
origin.  How  did  this  come  about?  How  did  it  hap- 
pen that  any  of  the  bishops  were  proud  or  ambitious 
enough  to  usurp  titles  and  powers  which  the  Master 
never  gave  them?  How  came  their  fellow-bishops 
to  submit  so  quietly  to  the  encroachment?  And  why 
is  it  that  we  have  quite  as  little  on  the  records  of  an- 
tiquity to  point  out  the  arts  and  steps  by  which  this 
usurped  pre-eminence  was  reached,  as  we  have  to 
show  the  methods  by  which  diocesan  Episcopacy  was 
established  ? 

Closely  connected  with  the  introduction  of  arch- 
bishops, and  other  grades  in  the  Episcopal  office,  is 
the  rise  and  progress  of  the  Papacy.  It  is  certain  that 
the  anti-christian  claims  of  the  Bishop  of  Rome  were 
begun  before  the  close  of  the  second  century.  The 
writings  of  Irenseus  and  Tertullian,  both  furnish  abun- 
dant evidence  of  this  fact.  Yet  the  records  of  antiquity 
give  so  little  information  respecting  the  various  steps 
by  which  this  "man  of  sin"  rose  to  the  possession  of 
his  power;  they  contain  so  little  evidence  of  any  effi- 
cient opposition  to  his  claims;  and  represent  the  sub- 
*21 


246  EARLY    RISE    OF    PRELACY. 

mission  of  the  other  bishops  as  being  so  early  and 
general,  that  the  Papists  attempt,  from  these  circum- 
stances, to  prove  the  divine  origin  of  their  system.  Yet 
what  Protestant  is  there  who  does  not  reject  this  rea- 
soning as  totally  fallacious,  and  conclude  that  the 
supremacy  of  the  Bishop  of  Rome  is  an  unscriptural 
usurpation?  And  although  the  most  impartial  and 
learned  divines  may  and  do  differ  among  themselves 
in  fixing  the  several  dates  of  the  rise,  progress,  and 
establishment  of  this  great  spiritual  usurper;  yet  the 
fact  that  he  did  thus  rise,  and  advance,  and  erect  a 
tyrannical  throne  in  the  Church,  contrary  to  all  that 
might  have  been  expected  both  from  the  piety  and 
the  selfishness  of  the  early  Christians,  is  doubted  by 
none. 

Accordingly,  this  view  of  the  gradual  and  insidious 
rise  of  prelacy  is  presented  by  a  number  of  the  most 
learned  and  impartial  ecclesiastical  historians.  Of 
these  a  specimen  will  be  given. 

The  first  whom  I  shall  quote  is  the  learned  Dr. 
Mosheim,  a  Lutheran  divine,  whose  Ecclesiastical 
History  has  been  for  a  century  the  theme  of  praise, 
for  the  general  impartiality  as  well  as  erudition  mani- 
fested by  its  author.  In  his  account  of  the  first  cen- 
tury, he  has  the  following  remarks:  "  The' rulers  of 
the  Church  at  this  time,  were  called  either  presbyters 
or  bishops,  which  two  titles  are  in  the  New  Testa- 
ment, undoubtedly  applied  to  the  same  order  of  men. 
These  were  persons  of  eminent  gravity,  and  such  as 
had  distinguished  themselves  by  their  superior  sanc- 
tity and  merit.  Their  particular  functions  were  not 
always  the  same;  for  while  some  of  them  confined 
their  labours  to  the  instruction  of  the  people,  others 
contributed  in  different  ways  to  the  edification  of  the 


EARLY   RISE    OP    PRELACY.  247 

Church.  Such  was  the  constitution  of  the  Christian 
Church  in  its  infancy,  when  its  assemblies  were  neither 
numerous  nor  splendid.  Three  or  four  presbyters, 
men  of  remarkable  piety  and  wisdom,  ruled  these 
small  congregations  in  perfect  harmony,  nor  did  they 
stand  in  need  of  any  president  or  superior  to  maintain 
concord  and  order,  where  no  dissensions  were  known. 
But  the  number  of  the  presbyters  and  deacons  in- 
creasing with  that  of  the  churches,  and  the  sacred 
work  of  the  ministry  growing  more  painful  and 
weighty  by  a  number  of  additional  duties,  these  new 
circumstances  required  new  regulations.  It  was  then 
judged  necessary  that  one  man  of  distinguished  gravity 
and  wisdom  should  preside  in  the  council  of  presby- 
ters, in  order  to  distribute  among  his  colleagues  their 
several  tasks,  and  to  be  a  centre  of  union  to  the  whole 
society.  This  person  was  at  first  stjrled  the  angel  of 
the  church  to  which  he  belonged  ;  but  was  afterwards 
distinguished  by  the  name  of  bishop  or  inspector;  a 
name  borrowed  from  the  Greek  language,  and  ex- 
pressing the  principal  part  of  the  Episcopal  function, 
which  was  to  inspect  into,  and  superintend  the  affairs 
of  the  Church.  Let  none,  however,  confound  the 
bishops  of  this  primitive  and  golden  period  of  the 
Church  with  those  of  whom  we  read  in  the  following 
ages.  For  though  they  were  both  distinguished  by 
the  same  name,  yet  they  differed  extremely,  and  that 
in  many  respects.  A  bishop,  during  the  first  and 
second  centuries,  was  a  person  who  had  the  care  of  one 
Christian  assembly,  which,  at  that  time,  was,  gene- 
rally speaking,  small  enough  to  be  contained  in  a  pri- 
vate house.  In  this  assembly  he  acted,  not  so  much 
with  the  authority  of  a  master,  as  with  the  zeal  and 
diligence  of  a  faithful  servant.  He  instructed  the  peo- 


248  EARLY    RISE    OP    PRELACY. 

pie,  performed  the  several  parts  of  divine  worship, 
attended  the  sick,  and  inspected  into  the  circum- 
stances and  supplies  of  the  poor." — Eccles.  Hist.  I. 
101.  104 — 106.  Such  is  the  representation  which  this 
learned  historian  gives  of  the  government  of  the  Chris- 
tian Church  during  the  first,  and  the  greater  part  of 
the  second  century. 

Of  the  third  century  he  speaks  in  the  following 
manner:  "  The  face  of  things  began  now  to  change 
in  the  Christian  Church.  The  ancient  method  of  eccle- 
siastical government  seemed,  in  general,  still  to  sub- 
sist, while,  at  the  same  time,  by  imperceptible  steps, 
it  varied  from  the  primitive  rule,  and  degenerated  to- 
wards the  form-  of  a  religious  monarchy.  For  the 
bishops  aspired  to  higher  degrees  of  power  and 
authority  than  they  had  formerly  possessed,  and  not 
only  violated  the  rights  of  the  people,  but  also  made 
gradual  encroachments  upon  the  privileges  of  the 
presbyters.  And  that  they  might  cover  these  usurpa- 
tions with  an  air  of  justice,  and  an  appearance  of  rea- 
son, they  published  new  doctrines  concerning  the  na- 
ture of  the  Church,  and  of  the  Episcopal  dignity.  One 
of  the  principal  authors  of  this  change  in  the  govern- 
ment of  the  Church,  was  Cyprian,  who  pleaded  for 
the  power  of  the  bishops  with  more  zeal  and  vehe- 
mence than  had  ever  been  hitherto  employed  in  that 
cause.  This  change  in  the  form  of  ecclesiastical 
government  was  soon  followed  by  a  train  of  vices, 
which  dishonoured  the  character  and  authority  of 
those  to  whom  the  administration  of  the  Church  was 
committed.  For  though  several  yet  continued  to  ex- 
hibit to  the  world  illustrious  examples  of  primitive 
piety  and  Christian  virtue,  yet  many  were  sunk  in 
luxury  and  voluptuousness;  puffed  up  with  vanity, 


EARLY    RISE    OP    PRELACY.  249 

arrogance,  and  ambition;  possessed  with  a  spirit  of 
contention  and  discord;  and  addicted  to  many  other 
vices,  that  cast  an  undeserved  reproach  upon  the  holy 
religion  of  which  they  were  the  unworthy  professors 
and  ministers.  This  is  testified  in  such  an  ample 
manner,  by  the  repeated  complaints  of  many  of  the 
most  respectable  writers  of  this  age,  that  truth  will 
not  permit  us  to  spread  the  veil  which  we  should 
otherwise  be  desirous  to  cast  over  such  enormities 
among  an  order  so  sacred.  The  bishops  assumed,  in 
many  places,  a  princely  authority.  They  appropri- 
ated to  their  evangelical  function,  the  splendid  ensigns 
of  temporal  majesty.  A  throne  surrounded  with 
ministers,  exalted  above  his  equals  the  servant  of  the 
meek  and  humble  Jesus;  and  sumptuous  garments 
dazzled  the  eyes  and  the  minds  of  the  multitude  into 
an  ignorant  veneration  for  their  arrogated  authority. 
The  example  of  the  bishops  was  ambitiously  imitated 
by  the  presbyters,  who,  neglecting  the  sacred  duties 
of  their  station,  abandoned  themselves  to  the  indo- 
lence and  delicacy  of  an  effeminate  and  luxurious 
life.  The  deacons,  beholding  the  presbyters  deserting 
thus  their  functions,  boldly  usurped  their  rights  and 
privileges;  and  the  effects  of  a  corrupt  ambition  were 
spread  through  every  rank  of  the  sacred  order." — I. 
265—267. 

I  shall  only  add  a  short  extract  from  the  same  wri- 
ter's account  of  the  fourth  century.  "  The  bishops, 
whose  opulence  and  authority  were  considerably  in- 
creased since  the  reign  of  Constantine,  began  to  intro- 
duce gradually  innovations  into  the  form  of  ecclesi- 
astical discipline,  and  to  change  the  ancient  govern- 
ment of  the  Church.  Their  first  step  was  an  entire 
exclusion  of  the  people  from  all  part  in  the  adminis- 


250  EARLY    RISE    OF    PRELACY. 

tration  of  ecclesiastical  affairs;  and  afterwards,  they, 
by  degrees,  divested  even  the  presbyters  of  their  an- 
cient privileges,  and  their  primitive  authority,  that 
they  might  have  no  importunate  protesters  to  control 
their  ambition,  or  oppose  their  proceedings;  and  prin- 
cipally that  they  might  either  engross  to  themselves, 
or  distribute  as  they  thought  proper,  the  possessions 
and  revenues  of  the  Church.  Hence  it  came  to  pass 
that  at  the  conclusion  of  the  fourth  century,  there  re- 
mained no  more  than  a  mere  shadow  of  the  ancient 
government  of  the  Church.  Many  of  the  privileges 
which  had  formerly  belonged  to  the  presbyters  and 
people,  were  usurped  by  the  bishops;  and  many  of 
the  rights  which  had  been  formerly  vested  in  the  Uni- 
versal Church,  were  transferred  to  the  emperors,  and 
to  subordinate  officers  and  magistrates." — I.  348. 

Such  is  the  representation  of  Mosheim,  one  of  the 
most  learned  men  of  the  eighteenth  century;  and  who 
had  probably  investigated  the  early  history  of  the 
Church  with  as  much  diligence  and  penetration  as  any 
man  that  ever  lived. 

The  next  citation  shall  be  taken  from  Gibbon's 
"  Decline  and  Fall  of  the  Roman  Empire."  The  hos- 
tility of  this  writer  to  the  Christian  religion  is  well 
known.  Of  course,  on  any  subject  involving  the 
divine  origin  of  Christianity,  I  should  feel  little  dispo- 
sition either  to  respect  his  judgment,  or  to  rely  on  his 
assertions.  But  on  the  subject  before  us,  which  is  a 
question  of  fact,  and  which  he  treats  historically,  he 
had  no  temptation  to  deviate  from  impartiality;  or,  if 
such  temptation  had  existed,  it  would  have  been  likely 
to  draw  him  to  the  side  of  ecclesiastical  aristocracy 
and  splendour,  rather  than  to  that  of  primitive  sim- 
plicity.    In  fact,  his  leaning  to  the  external  show  of 


EARLY    RISE    OF    PRELACY.  251 

Romanism  is  well  known.  His  deep  and  extensive 
learning,  no  competent  judge  ever  questioned:  and, 
indeed,  his  representations  on  this  subject,  are  fortified 
by  so  many  references  to  the  most  approved  writers, 
that  they  cannot  be  considered  as  resting  on  his  can- 
dour or  veracity  alone.* 

Mr.  Gibbon  thus  describes  the  character  and  duties 
of  Christian  bishops  in  the  first  and  second  centuries: 
"  The  public  functions  of  religion  were  solely  entrusted 
to  the  established  ministers  of  the  Church,  the  bishops 
and  the  presbyters;  two  appellations  which,  in  their 
first  origin,  appear  to  have  distinguished  the  same 
office,  and  the  same  order  of  persons.  The  name  of 
presbyter  was  expressive  of  their  age,  or  rather  of 
their  gravity  and  wisdom.  The  title  of  bishop  de- 
noted their  inspection  over  the  faith  and  manners  of 
the  Christians  who  were  committed  to  their  pastoral 
care.  In  proportion  to  the  respective  numbers  of  the 
faithful,  a  larger  or  smaller  number  of  these  episcopal 
presbyters  guided  each  infant  congregation,  with  equal 
authority,  and  with  united  counsels.  But  the  most  per- 
fect equality  of  freedom  requires  the  directing  hand  of 
a  superior  magistrate ;  and  the  order  of  public  delibera- 
tions soon  introduces  the  office  of  a  president,  invested, 
at  least  with  the  authority  of  collecting  the  sentiments, 
and  of  executing  the  resolutions  of  the  assembly.  A 
regard  for  the   public  tranquillity,  which  would  so 

*  The  pious  Episcopal  divine,  Dr.  Haweis,  speaking  of  Mr.  Gib- 
bon's mode  of  representing  this  subject,  expresses  himself  in  the  fol- 
lowing manner :  "  Where  no  immediate  bias  to  distort  the  truth 
leaves  him  an  impartial  witness,  I  will  quote  Gibbon  with  pleasure. 
I  am  conscious  his  authority  is  more  likely  to  weigh  with  the  world 
in  general,  than  mine.  I  will,  therefore,  simply  report  his  account 
of  the  government  and  nature  of  the  primitive  Church.  I  think  we 
shall  not  in  this  point  greatly  differ." — Eccles.  Hist.  I.  416. 


252  EARLY    RISE    OF    PRELACY. 

frequently  have  been  interrupted  by  annual,  or  by  oc- 
casional elections,  induced  the  primitive  Christians  to 
constitute  an  honourable  and  perpetual  magistracy, 
and  to  choose  one  of  the  wisest  and  most  holy  among 
their  presbyters,  to  execute,  during  his  life,  the  duties 
of  their  ecclesiastical  governor.  It  was  under  these 
circumstances  that  the  lofty  title  of  bishop  began  to 
raise  itself  above  the  humble  appellation  of. presbyter; 
and  while  the  latter  remained  the  most  natural  dis- 
tinction for  the  members  of  every  Christian  senate, 
the  former  was  appropriated  to  the  dignity  of  its  new 
president.  The  pious  and  humble  presbyters  who 
were  first  dignified  with  the  Episcopal  title,  could  not 
possess,  and  would  probably  have  rejected  the  power 
and  pomp  which  now  encircle  the  tiara  of  the  Roman 
pontiff,  or  the  mitre  of  a  German  prelate.  The  primi- 
tive bishops  were  considered  only  as  the  first  of  their 
equals,  and  the  honourable  servants  of  a  free  people. 
Whenever  the  Episcopal  chair  became  vacant  by 
death,  a  new  president  was  chosen  among  the  pres- 
byters, by  the  suffrage  of  the  whole  congregation. 
Such  was  the  mild  and  equal  constitution  by  which 
the  Christians  were  governed  more  than  an  hundred 
years  after  the  death  of  the  apostles."* — Decline  and 
Fall,  Vol.  II.  272—275. 

Concerning  the  state  of  Episcopacy  in  the  third 
century,  Mr.  Gibbon  thus  speaks:  "  As  the  legisla- 
tive authority  of  the  particular  churches  was  insensi- 
bly superseded  by  the  use  of  councils,  the  bishops 
obtained,  by  their  alliance,  a  much  larger  share  of 

*  Here  is  an  explicit  declaration,  that  the  presidency  or  standing 
moderatorship  of  one  of  the  presbyters,  among  his  colleagues,  without 
any  claim  to  superiority  of  order,  was  the  only  kind  of  Episcopacy 
that  existed  in  the  Church,  until  near  the  close  of  the  second  century, 


EARLY    RISE    OP    PRELACY.  253 

executive  and  arbitrary  power;  and,  as  soon  as  they 
were  connected  by  a  sense  of  their  common  interest, 
they  were  enabled  to  attack  with  united  vigour  the 
original  rights  of  the  clergy  and  people.  The  prelates  ^ 
of  the  third  century  imperceptibly  changed  the  Ian- " 
guage  of  exhortation  into  that  of  command,  scattered 
the  seeds  of  future  usurpations;  and  supplied  by  Scrip- 
ture allegories,  and  declamatory  rhetoric,  their  defi- 
ciency of  force  and  of  reason.  They  exalted  the  unity 
and  power  of  the  Church,  as  it  was  represented  in  the 
Episcopal  office,  of  which  every  bishop  enjoyed  an 
equal  and  undivided  portion.  Princes  and  magistrates, 
it  was  often  repeated,  might  boast  an  earthly  claim  to 
a  transitory  dominion.  It  was  the  Episcopal  authority 
alone,  which  was  derived  from  the  Deity,  and  ex- 
tended itself  over  this,  and  over  another  world.  The 
bishops  were  the  vicegerents  of  Christ,  the  successors 
of  the  apostles,  and  the  mystic  substitutes  of  the  high 
priest  of  the  Mosaic  law.  Their  exclusive  privilege 
of  conferring  the  sacerdotal  character,  invaded  the 
freedom  both  of  clerical  and  of  popular  elections;  and 
if,  in  the  administration  of  the  Church,  they  some- 
times consulted  the  judgment  of  the  presbyters,  or  the 
inclination  of  the  people,  they  most  carefully  incul- 
cated the  merit  of  such  a  voluntary  condescension/' 
I.  p.  276,  277. 

Dr.  Haweis,  an  Episcopal  divine,  in  his  Ecclesias- 
tical History,  a  late  and  popular  work,  before  quoted, 
substantially  agrees  with  Dr.  Mosheim  and  Mr.  Gib- 
bon, in  their  representations  on  this  subject.  He  ex- 
plicitly pronounces  with  them,  that  primitive  Episco- 
pacy was  parochial,  and  not  diocesan;  that  clerical 
pride  and  ambition  gradually  introduced  prelacy;  that 
there  was  no  material  innovation,  however,  on  the 
22 


■ 


254  EARLY    RISE    OF    PRELACY. 

primitive  model,  until  the  middle  of  the  second  cen- 
tury; and  that  after  this,  the  system  of  imparity  made 
rapid  progress,  until  there  arose,  in  succession,  dioce- 
san bishops,  archbishops,  metropolitans,  patriarchs, 
and,  finally,  the  Pope  himself. 

I  shall  only  add  one  more  to  this  class  of  testimo- 
nies. It  is  that  of  the  celebrated  Professor  Neander, 
of  Prussia,  probably  the  most  deeply  learned  eccle- 
siastical antiquary  now  living.  And  his  connexion 
with  the  Lutheran  Church,  as  before  observed,  ex- 
empts him  from  all  suspicion  of  strong  prejudice  in 
favour  of  either  Prelacy  or  Presbyterianism.  His 
statement  on  the  subject  is  so  extended  and  circuitous, 
that  it  is  necessary  to  present  an  abridgment  rather 
than  the  whole,  in  this  place.  He  expresses  a  de- 
cisive opinion,  then,  that  prelacy  was  not  esta- 
blished by  the  apostles-,  that  nothing  more  than  a 
moderator  of  each  parochial  presbytery  existed  for 
nearly  two  hundred  years  after  Christ ;  that  these  pa- 
rochial moderators  or  "  presiding  elders,"  had  no 
higher  office  than  their  colleagues  in  the  eldership, 
being  only  primi  inter  pares,  i.  e.  the  first  among 
equals;  and  that  as  the  first  Christian  spirit  declined, 
the  spirit  of  ambition  and  encroachment  gained  ground 
against  the  "  Presbyterian  system,"  as  he  emphati- 
cally styles  the  apostolical  model.  And,  accordingly, 
in  speaking  of  the  struggle  of  Cyprian  against  his  op- 
ponents, in  the  third  century,  he  styles  the  success  of 
the  former  against  the  latter,  as  the  triumph  of  the 
Episcopal  system  over  "  Presbyterianism."* 

The  fact  being  thus  established,  that  diocesan  Epis- 
copacy was  not  sanctioned  by  the  apostles;  that  it 

*  History  of  the  Christian  Church,  vol.  i.  p.  194,  238.  London  edi- 
tion.    Rose's  translation. 


EARLY    RISE    OF    PRELACY.  255 

was  the  offspring  of  human  ambition;  and  that  it 
was  gradually  introduced  into  the  Church;  I  shall  not 
dwell  long  on  the  precise  gradations  by  which  it  was 
introduced,  or  the  precise  date  to  be  assigned  to  each 
step  in  its  progress.  Such  an  inquiry  is  as  unneces- 
sary and  unimportant  as  it  is  difficult.  But  as  it  may- 
gratify  some  readers  to  know  how  those  who  have 
most  deeply  and  successfully  explored  antiquity,  have 
considered  the  subject,  I  shall  attempt  a  sketch  of  what 
appears  to  have  been  the  rise  and  progress  of  this  re- 
markable usurpation. 

The  Christian  religion  spread  itself  during  the  apos- 
tolic age,  over  a  large  part  of  the  Roman  empire.  It 
was  first  received  in  the  principal  cities,  Jerusalem, 
Antioch,  Ephesus,  Corinth,  and  Rome.  Here  con- 
gregations appear  to  have  been  first  formed,  and 
church  officers  first  appointed.  As  the  places  of  wor- 
ship were  usually  private  houses,  it  follows  of  course 
that  each  congregation  was  comparatively  small.  And 
as  we  read  of  great  multitudes  having  believed  in 
several  of  the  larger  cities,  we  may  infer  that  there 
were  a  number  of  these  congregations,  or  small  house- 
churches  in  each  of  those  cities;  without,  however, 
being  so  distinctly  divided  into  separate  societies  as  is 
common  at  the  present  day. 

Each  primitive  congregation  was  probably  fur- 
nished with  one  or  more  elders,  and  also  with  dea- 
cons. The  elders  were  of  two  kinds:  the  first  class 
were  ministers  of  the  gospel,  and  therefore  taught  and 
led  the  devotions  of  the  people,  as  well  as  ruled  in 
the  church.  The  other  class  assisted  as  rulers  only. 
It  is  not  certain  that  both  these  classes  of  elders  were 
found  in  every  church.  We  only  know  that  they  both 
existed  in  the  apostolic  age;  and  that  all  the  elders  of 


256  EARLY   RISE    OF    PRELACY. 

each  congregation,  when  convened,  formed  a  kind  of 
parochial  presbytery,  or  church  session.  The  teaching 
elders  were  also  called  bishops.  Of  these  each  con- 
gregation was  always  furnished  with  one,  and  some- 
times with  several,  according  to  the  number  of  its 
members,  and  other  circumstances.  We  are  expressly 
told  in  the  sacred  history,  that  in  the  days  of  the  apos- 
tles there  were  a  number  of  bishops  in  each  of  the 
cities  of  Ephesus  and  Philippi;  and  it  is  most  proba- 
ble that  these  were  the  pastors  of  different  congrega- 
tions in  those  cities  respectively. 

In  those  cases  in  which  there  were  several  pastors 
or  bishops  in  the  same  church,  they  were  at  first  per- 
fectly and  in  all  respects  equal.  "They  ruled  the 
church,"  as  Jerome  expresses  it,  "  in  common ;"  and 
the  alternate  titles  of  bishop  and  elder  belonged  and 
were  equally  applied  to  all.  It  does  not  appear,  that 
in  the  beginning,  even  a  temporary  chairman  was 
found  necessary.  There  was  probably  little  formality 
in  their  mode  of  transacting  business.  A  large  por- 
tion of  the  spirit  of  their  Master  supplied  the  place 
of  specific  rules,  and  of  energetic  government.  But 
towards  the  close  of  the  first  century,  when  both 
churches  and  ministers  had  greatly  multiplied;  when 
it  was  common  to  have  a  number  of  teaching  as  well 
as  ruling  elders  in  the  same  congregation;  when,  with 
the  increasing  number,  it  is  most  probable  that  some 
unworthy  characters  had  crept  into  the  ministry;  and 
when,  of  course,  the  preservation  of  order  in  their  pa- 
rochial presbyteries  was  more  difficult,  the  expedient 
of  appointing  a  president  or  moderator  would  natu- 
rally and  almost  unavoidably  be  adopted.  This  pre- 
siding presbyter  was  generally,  at  first,  the  oldest  and 
gravest  of  the  number;  but  soon  afterwards,  as  we 


EARLY    RISE    OF    PRELACY.  257 

are  told,  the  rule  of  seniority  was  laid  aside,  and  the 
most  able,  enterprising,  and  decisive  presbyter,  was 
chosen  to  fill  the  chair.  After  a  while,  the  choice  of 
a  president  was  not  made  at  every  meeting  of  the 
parochial  presbytery,  or  church  session,  but  was  made 
for  an  indefinite  time,  and  sometimes  for  life ;  in 
which  case  the  choice  usually  fell  upon  the  person 
who  had  the  most  influence,  and  was  supposed  to  pos- 
sess the  greatest  weight  of  character.  This  chairman 
or  moderator,  who  presided  during  the  debates,  col- 
lected the  voices,  and  pronounced  the  sentences  of  the 
bench  of  presbyters,  was,  of  course,  the  most  con- 
spicuous and  dignified  of  the  number.  He  had  no 
pre-eminence  of  order  over  his  brethren ;  but  (to  em- 
ploy the  illustration  of  a  respectable  Episcopal  divine, 
before  quoted,)  as  the  chairman  of  a  committee  has  a 
more  honourable  place  than  the  rest  of  the  members, 
while  the  committee  is  sitting;  so  a  chairman  for  life, 
in  a  dignified  ecclesiastical,  court,  was  generally  re- 
garded with  peculiar  respect  and  veneration.  In  con- 
ducting public  worship,  this  chairman  always  took 
the  lead;  as  the  organ  of  the  body,  he  called  the  other 
presbyters  to  the  performance  of  the  several  parts 
assigned  to  them;  and  usually  himself  prayed  and 
preached.  When  the  bench  of  presbyters  was  called 
to  perform  an  ordination,  the  chairman,  of  course, 
presided  in  this  transaction;  and  in  general,  in  all  acts 
of  the  church  session  or  consistory,  he  took  the  lead, 
and  was  the  principal  medium  of  communication. 

This  practice  of  choosing  a  president  in  the  con- 
sistorial  courts  appears  to  have  begun  in  a  short  time 
after  the  death  of  the  apostles,  and  to  have  been  the 
only  kind  of  pre-eminence  that  was  enjoyed  by  any 
of  the  bishops,  over  their  brethren,  until  the  close  of 

22* 


258  EARLY    RISE    OF    PRELACY. 

the  second  century.  Indeed  Jerome  declares,  that  this 
was  the  only  kind  of  Episcopal  pre-eminence  that  ex- 
isted in  the  church  of  Alexandria,  one  of  the  most 
conspicuous  then  in  the  world,  until  the  middle  of  the 
third  century.  That  such  was  the  only  superiority 
which  the  principal  pastor  of  each  church  enjoyed  in 
primitive  times,  and  that  such  was  the  origin  of  this 
superiority,  is  evident,  not  only  from  the  direct  testi- 
mony of  antiquity,  but  also,  indirectly,  from  the 
names  by  which  this  officer  is  generally  distinguished 
by  the  early  writers.  He  is  not  only  called  emphati- 
cally the  bishop  of  the  church,  but,  as  all  his  col- 
leagues also  had  the  title  of  bishop,  he  is,  perhaps, 
more  frequently  styled,  by  way  of  distinction,  the 
president,  (n^osat^s,)  the  chairman,  (nposbpo^,)  and  the 
person  who  filled  the  first  seat,  (npw*o%a0£Spia,)  in  the 
presbytery.  Had  we  no  other  evidence  in  the  case, 
these  titles  alone  would  go  far  towards  establishing 
the  origin  and  nature  of  his  pre-eminence. 

The  powers  of  this  chairman  were  gradually  in- 
creased. In  some  cases  his  own  ambition,  and,  in 
others,  the  exigencies  of  particular  times  and  places, 
at  once  multipled  his  duties,  enlarged  his  authority, 
and  augmented  his  honours.  Not  only  the  ruling 
elders,  but  also  his  colleagues  in  the  ministry  were  led 
insensibly  to  look  upon  him  with  peculiar  reverence. 
His  presence  began  to  be  deemed  necessary,  at  first 
to  the  regularity,  and  afterwards  to  the  validity  of  all 
the  proceedings  of  the  bencli  of  presbyters.  And  as 
his  office,  in  those  times,  was  a  post  of  danger  as  well 
as  of  honour,  the  rest  of  the  presbyters  would  more 
readily  submit  to  the  claims  of  a  man  who  put  his 
life  in  his  hand  to  serve  the  Church.  This  may  be 
called  the  first  step  in  the  rise  of  prelacy.     The  ex- 


EARLY    RISE    OP    PRELACY.  259 

ample  once  set  in  some  of  the  principal  cities,  was 
probably  soon  adopted  in  the  less  populous  towns, 
and  in  the  country  churches. 

This  measure  led  to  another  equally  natural.  The 
pastors  or  bishops  who  resided  in  the  same  city,  or 
neighbourhood,  were  led  on  different  occasions  to 
meet  together,  to  consult  and  to  transact  various  kinds 
of  business.  Their  meetings  were  probably  at  first 
attended  with  very  little  formality.  In  a  short  time, 
however,  as  Christianity  gained  ground,  they  came 
together  more  frequently;  had  more  business  to  trans- 
act; and  found  it  expedient  to  be  more  formal  in  their 
proceedings.  A  president  or  chairman  became  ne- 
cessary, as  in  the  smaller  presbytery  or  church  session. 
Such  an  officer  was  accordingly  chosen,  sometimes  at 
each  meeting,  but  more  frequently  for  an  indefinite 
period,  or  for  life.  Whatever  number  of  congregations 
and  of  ministers  were  thus  united  under  a  presbytery, 
they  were  styled,  (upon  a  principle  of  ecclesiastical 
unity  which  was  then  common,)  one  church.  The 
standing  moderator  or  president  of  this  larger  presby- 
tery, was  styled  the  bishop  of  the  city  in  which  he 
presided.  This  was  a  second  step  towards  prelacy. 
At  what  precise  time  it  was  taken,  is  difficult  to  be 
ascertained.  But  before  the  middle  of  the  third  cen- 
tury, so  greatly  increased  were  the  affluence  and  pride 
of  ecclesiastics,  that  the  claims  of  this  presiding  pres- 
byter began  to  be  large  and  confident.  As  he  offi- 
cially superintended  the  execution  of  the  decrees  of 
the  assembly,  his  power  gradually  increased ;  and  it 
was  a  short  transition  from  the  exercise  of  power  in 
the  name  of  others,  to  the  exercise  of  it  without  con- 
sulting them. 

In  the  towns  where  there  was  but  one  congregation, 


260  EARLY    RISE    OF    PRELACY. 

and  that  a  small  one,  there  was  generally  but  one 
teaching  presbyter  associated  with  a  number  of  ruling 
presbyters.  This  was  the  pastor  or  bishop.  When 
the  congregation  increased,  and  the  introduction  of 
other  teachers  was  found  necessary,  the  first  retained 
his  place  as  sole  pastor,  and  the  others  came  in  as  his 
assistants;  and  although  of  the  same  order  with  him- 
self, yet  he  alone  was  the  responsible  pastor.  In  short, 
the  rest  of  the  teaching  presbyters  in  this  case,  bore 
precisely  the  same  relation  to  the  bishop,  on  the  score 
of  rank,  as  curates  bear  to  the  rector  in  a  large  Epis- 
copal congregation.  They  bore  the  same  office.  They 
were  clothed  with  the  same  official  power  of  preach- 
ing and  administering  ordinances  with  the  pastor,  and 
were  capable,  without  any  further  ordination,  of  be- 
coming pastors  in  their  turn;  but  while  they  remained 
in  this  situation,  their  labours  were  chiefly  directed  by 
him.  As  a  congregation  under  these  circumstances 
increased  still  more,  and  included  a  number  of  mem- 
bers from  the  neighbouring  villages,  some  of  these 
members,  finding  it  inconvenient  to  attend  the  church 
in  which  the  bishop  officiated  every  Lord's  day,  be- 
gan to  lay  plans  for  forming  separate  congregations 
nearer  home.  To  this  the  bishop  consented,  on  con- 
dition that  the  little  worshipping  societies  thus  formed, 
should  consider  themselves  as  still  under  his  pastoral 
care,  as  amenable  to  the  parent  church,  and  as  bound 
to  obey  him  as  their  spiritual  guide.  When  the  pas- 
tor agreed  to  this  arrangement,  it  was  generally  un- 
derstood, that  there  should  be  but  one  communion 
table,  and  one  baptistery  in  the  parish;  and,  of  course, 
that  when  the  members  of  these  neighbouring  socie- 
ties wished  to  enjoy  either  of  the  sealing  ordinances, 
they  were  to  attend  at  the  parent  church,  and  receive 


EARLY    RISE    OF    PRELACY.  261 

them  from  the  hands  of  the  pastor  or  bishop  himself. 
At  ordinary  seasons  they  were  supplied  by  his  curates 
or  assistants,  who,  in  labouring  in  these  little  orato- 
ries or  chapels  of  ease,  were  subject  to  his  control. 
There  was,  however,  but  "  one  altar" — one  commu- 
nion table — one  baptistery  allowed  in  his  parish. 
This  was  laying  a  foundation  for  the  authority  of  one 
bishop  or  pastor  over  several  congregations,  which 
was  not  long  afterwards  claimed  and  generally  yield- 
ed. This  proved  a  third  step  in  the  rise  of  prelacy. 

The  progress  of  the  Church  towards  prelacy  was 
further  aided  by  the  practice  of  convening  synods 
and  councils.  This  practice  began  at  an  early  period, 
and  soon  became  general.  The  Latins  styled  these 
larger  meetings  of  the  clergy  Councils,  the  Greeks 
Synods;  and  the  laws  which  were  enacted  by  these 
bodies,  were  denominated  Canons,  i.  e.  Rules.  "  These 
councils,"  says  Dr.  Mosheim,  "changed  the  whole 
face  of  the  Church,  and  gave  it  a  new  form."  The 
order  and  decorum  of  their  business  required  that  a 
president  should  be  appointed.  The  power  lodged  in 
this  officer  scarcely  ever  failed  to  be  extended  and 
abused.  These  synods  were  accustomed  to  meet  in 
the  capital  cities  of  the  district  or  province  to  which 
the  members  belonged,  and  to  confer  the  presidency 
upon  the  most  conspicuous  pastor,  for  the  time  being, 
of  the  city  in  which  they  met.  And  thus,  by  the 
gradual  operation  of  habit,  it  came  to  be  considered 
as  the  right  of  those  persons,  and  of  their  successors 
in  office.  "  Hence,"  says  the  learned  historian  just 
quoted,  "the  rights  of  metropolitans  derive  their  ori- 
gin." The  order  of  the  Church  required,  at  first,  the 
presence  of  the  presiding  bishops,  to  give  regularity 
to  the  acts  of  synods  and  councils.     In  a  little  while 


262  EARLY    RISE    OF    PRELACY. 

their  presence  was  deemed  necessary  to  the  validity 
of  these  acts ;  and,  in  the  third  century,  it  began  to  be 
believed  that  without  them  nothing  could  be  done. 
Such  is  the  ordinary  progress  of  human  affairs.  The 
increase  of  wealth,  the  decay  of  piety,  the  corruption 
of  morals,  and  the  prevalence  of  heresy  and  conten- 
tion, were  all  circumstances  highly  favourable  to  the 
progress  of  this  change,  and  concurring  with  Jewish 
prejudices,  pagan  habits,  and  clerical  ambition,  hur- 
ried on  the  growing  usurpation. 

That  the  synods  and  councils  which  early  began  to 
be  convened,  were,  in  fact,  thus  employed  by  the  am- 
bitious clergy,  to  extend  and  confirm  their  power, 
might  be  proved  by  witnesses  almost  numberless.  The 
testimony  of  one  shall  suffice.  It  is  that  of  the  emi- 
nent Bishop  Gregory  Nazianzen,  who  lived  in  the 
fourth  century,  and  who,  on  being  summoned  by  the 
Emperor  to  the  general  Council  of  Constantinople, 
which  met  in  381,  addressed  a  letter  to  Procopius,  to 
excuse  himself  from  attending.  In  this  letter  he  de- 
clares, "that  he  was  desirous  of  avoiding  all  synods, 
because  he  had  never  seen  a  good  effect,  or  happy 
conclusion  of  any  one  of  them;  that  they  rather  in- 
creased than  lessened  the  evils  they  were  designed  to 
prevent;  and  that  the  love  of  contention,  and  the  lust 
of  power,  were  there  manifested  in  instances  innu- 
merable."— Greg.  Naz.  Oper.  Tom.  I.  p.  S14.  Epis- 
tle 55. 

Toward  the  close  of  the  third  century,  the  title  of 
bishop  was  seldom  applied  to  any  other  of  the  pres- 
byters, than  the  different  classes  of  presidents  before 
mentioned.  The  only  shadow  which  now  remained 
of  its  former  use  was  in  the  case  of  the  pastors  of 
country  parishes,  who  still  maintained  the  parochial 


EARLY    RISE    OF    PRELACY.  263 

Episcopacy,  under  the  name  of  Chorepiscopi.  The 
ordaining  power,  originally  vested  in  all  presbyters 
alike,  was  in  the  third  century  seldom  exercised  by 
presbyters,  unless  the  presiding  presbyter,  or  bishop, 
was  present.  About  this  time,  the  name  of  presbyter 
was  changed  into  that  of  priest,  in  consequence  of  the 
unscriptural  and  irrational  doctrine  coming  into  vogue, 
that  the  Christian  ministry  was  modelled  after  the 
Jewish  priesthood.  About  this  time  also  the  office  of 
ruling  elder  appears  to  have  been  chiefly  laid  aside, 
because  discipline  became  unfashionable,  and  was  put 
down,  and  a  part  of  the  ministry  of  the  word  bestowed 
upon  deacons,  contrary  to  the  original  design  of  their 
office,  which  was  to  superintend  the  maintenance  of 
the  poor.  The  presbytery  sunk  into  the  bishop's 
council.  The  synod  subserved  the  pretensions  of  the 
metropolitan;  and  there  was  only  wanting  a  general 
council,  and  a  chief  bishop,  to  complete  the  hierarchy: 
both  of  which  were  not  long  afterwards  compliantly 
furnished.  In  the  mean  time,  the  few  humble  ad- 
mirers of  primitive  parity  and  simplicity,  who  dared 
to  remonstrate  against  these  usurpations,  were  reviled 
as  promoters  of  faction  and  schism,  and  either  thrust 
out  of  the  Church,  or  awed  into  silence. 

When  Constantine  came  to  the  imperial  throne,  in 
the  fourth  century,  he  confirmed  the  usurpation  of  the 
bishops  by  his  authority,  and  bestowed  upon  them  a 
degree  of  wealth  and  power  to  which  they  had  before 
been  strangers.  He  conferred  new  splendour  on 
every  part  of  the  ecclesiastical  system.  He  fostered 
every  thing  which  had  a  tendency  to  convert  religion 
from  a  spiritual  service  into  a  gaudy,  ostentatious, 
dazzling  ritual;  and  its  ministers  into  lords  over  God's 
heritage,  instead  of  examples  to  the  flock.     Old  Tes- 


264  EARLY    RISE    OF    PRELACY. 

tament  rites,  heathen  ceremonies,  and  institutions  of 
worldly  policy,  which  had  long  before  begun  to  enter 
the  Church,  now  rushed  in  like  a  flood.  And,  what 
was  worse,  the  great  mass  of  the  people,  as  well  as  of 
the  clergy,  were  gratified  with  the  change.  The  Jew- 
ish proselyte  was  pleased  to  see  the  resemblance 
which  the  economy  of  the  Christian  Church  began  to 
bear  to  the  ancient  temple-service.  The  Pagan  con- 
vert was  daily  more  reconciled  to  a  system,  which  he 
saw  approximating  to  that  which  he  had  been  long 
accustomed  to  behold  in  the  house  of  his  idols.  And 
the  artful  politician  could  not  but  admire  a  hie- 
rarchy, so  far  subservient  to  the  interests,  and  con- 
formed to  the  model  of  the  empire.  Constantine 
assumed  to  himself  the  right  of  calling  general  coun- 
cils, of  presiding  in  them,  of  determining  controver- 
sies, and  of  fixing  the  bounds  of  ecclesiastical  pro- 
vinces. He  formed  the  prelatical  government  after 
the  imperial  model,  into  great  prefectures;  in  which 
arrangement,  a  certain  pre-eminence  was  conferred 
on  the  bishops  of  Rome,  Antioch,  Alexandria,  and 
Constantinople;  the  first  rank  being  always  reserved 
for  the  Bishop  of  Rome,  who  succeeded  in  gradually 
extending  his  usurpation,  until  he  was  finally  con- 
firmed in  it  by  an  imperial  decree. 

Though  an  attempt  has  been  made  to  trace  some 
of  the  gradations  by  which  ministerial  imparity  arose 
from  small  beginnings  to  a  settled  diocesan  Episco- 
pacy; yet,  from  the  very  nature  of  the  case,  the  dates 
of  the  several  steps  cannot  be  precisely  ascertained. 
To  definite  transactions  which  take  place  in  a  single 
day,  or  year,  or  which  are  accomplished  in  a  few 
years,  it  is  commonly  an  easy  task  to  assign  dates. 
But,  in  this  gradual  change,  which  was  more  than 


EARLY    RISE    OF    PRELACY.  265 

three  centuries  in  accomplishing,  no  reasonable  man 
could  expect  to  find  the  limits  of  the  several  steps  pre- 
cisely defined;  because  each  step  was  slowly,  and 
almost  insensibly,  taken;  and  more  especially, because 
the  practice  of  all   the  churches  was  not  uniform. 
There  was  no  particular  time  when  the  transition  from 
a  state  of  perfect  parity,  to  a  fixed  and  acknowledged 
superiority  of  order  took  place  at  once,  and  therefore 
no  such  time  can  be  assigned.    It  is  evident  from  the 
records  of  antiquity  that  the  titles  of  bishop  and  pres- 
byter were,  as  in  the  beginning,  indiscriminately  ap- 
plied to  the  same  order  in  some  churches,  long  after 
a   distinction  had  begun  to   arise  in  others.     It  is 
equally  evident,  that  the  ordaining  power  of  presby- 
ters was  longer  retained  in  the  more  pure  and  primi- 
tive districts  of  the  Church,  than  where  wealth,  am- 
bition, and  a  worldly  spirit,  bore  greater  sway.     In 
some  churches  there  were  several  bishops  at  the  same 
time;  in  others,  but  one.     In  some  parts  of  the  Chris- 
tian world,  it  was  the  practice  to  consider  and  treat 
all  the  preaching  presbyters  in  each  church  as  col- 
leagues and  equals;  in  others,  one  of  the  presbyters 
was  regarded  as  the  pastor  or  bishop,  and  the  rest  his 
assistants.    Further,  when  the  practice  of  choosing  one 
of  the  presbyters  to  be  president  or  moderator  com- 
menced, it  appeared  in  different  forms  in  different 
churches.  In  one  church,  at  least,  according  to  Jerome, 
the  presiding  presbyter  was  elected,  as  well  as  set 
apart,  by  his  colleagues;  in  other  churches,  according 
to  Hilary,  the  president  came  to  the  chair  agreeably 
to  a  settled  principle  of  rotation.     In  some  cases  the 
presiding  presbyter  was  vested  with  greater  dignity 
and  authority;  in  others  with  less.    In  short,  it  is  evi- 
dent, that,  in  some  portions  of  the  Church,  a  differ- 

23 


266  EARLY    RISE    OF    PRELACY. 

ence  of  order  between  bishops  and  presbyters  was  re- 
cognized in  the  third  century;  in  others,  and  perhaps 
generally,  in  the  fourth;  but  in  some  others,  not  until 
the  fifth  century.  No  wonder,  then,  that  we  find  a 
different  language  used  by  different  fathers  on  this 
subject,  for  the  practice  was  different;  and  this  fact 
directs  us  to  the  only  rational  and  adequate  method 
of  interpreting  their  different  representations. 

Such  being  the  case,  what  reasonable  man  would 
expect  to  find  in  the  records  of  antiquity,  any  definite 
or  satisfactory  account  of  the  rise  and  progress  of  pre- 
lacy? If  changes  equally  early  and  important  are 
covered  with  still  greater  darkness;  if  the  history  of 
the  first  general  council  that  ever  met,  and  which  agi- 
tated to  its  centre  the  whole  Christian  Church,  is  so 
obscure  that  many  of  the  circumstances  of  its  meeting 
are  disputed,  and  no  distinct  record  of  its  acts  has 
ever  reached  our  times;  what  might  be  expected  con- 
cerning an  ecclesiastical  innovation,  so  remote  in  its 
origin,  so  gradual  in  its  progress,  so  indefinitely  diver- 
sified in  the  shapes  in  which  it  appeared  in  different 
places  at  the  same  time,  and  so  unsusceptible  of  pre- 
cise and  lucid  exhibition  ?  To  this  question,  no  dis- 
cerning and  candid  mind  will  be  at  a  loss  for  an  an- 
swer. No ;  the  whole  of  that  reasoning,  which  con- 
fidently deduces  the  apostolical  origin  of  prelacy,  from 
its  acknowledged  and  general  prevalence  in  the  fourth 
century,  is  mere  empty  declamation,  as  contradictory 
to  every  principle  of  human  nature,  as  it  is  to  the 
whole  current  of  early  history. 


TESTIMONY    OF    THE    REFORMERS.  267 


CHAPTER  VII. 

TESTIMONY  OF  THE  REFORMERS,  AND  OTHER  WIT- 
NESSES FOR  THE  TRUTH,  IN  DIFFERENT  AGES  AND 
NATIONS. 

The  reader  has  been  already  reminded,  that  neither 
the  question  before  us,  nor  any  other  which  relates  to 
the  faith  or  the  order  of  the  Church,  is  to  be  decided 
by  human  authority.  We  have  a  higher  and  more 
unerring  standard.  But  still,  when  there  is  a  remark- 
able concurrence  of  opinion  among  learned  and  holy 
men,  in  favour  of  any  doctrine  or  practice,  it  affords 
a  strong  presumptive  argument  that  such  doctrine  or 
practice  is  conformable  to  Scripture.  Thus  the  fact, 
that  the  great  body  of  the  reformers  concurred  in  em- 
bracing and  supporting  that  system  of  evangelical 
truth,  which  has  been  since  very  improperly  styled 
Calvinism,*  is  justly  viewed  by  the  friends  of  that 
system  as  a  powerful  argument  in  its  favour.  Let  us 
apply  this  principle  to  the  case  under  consideration. 

It  has  been  common  for  the  zealous  friends  of  pre- 
lacy to  insinuate,  that  the  Presbyterian  doctrine  of 
parity  was  unknown  till  the  time  of  Calvin;  that  he 
was  the  first  distinguished  and  successful  advocate  for 
this  doctrine ;  and  that  the  great  body  of  the  reformers 
totally  differed  from  him  on  this  subject,  and  em- 

*  I  say  improperly  styled  Calvinism,  because,  to  say  nothing  of  its 
much  greater  antiquity,  the  same  system  had  been  distinctly  taught 
by  several  eminent  reformers,  and  among  others,  by  Luther  himself, 
before  Calvin  appeared. 


268  TESTIMONY    OF    THE    REFORMERS. 

braced  Episcopacy.  How  persons  even  tolerably 
versed  in  the  history  of  the  reformed  churches,  could 
ever  allow  themselves  to  make  such  a  representation, 
I  am  altogether  at  a  loss  to  conceive.  Nothing  cer- 
tainly can  be  more  remote  from  fact.  The  smallest 
attention  to  the  subject  will  convince  every  impartial 
inquirer,  that  the  most  distinguished  witnesses  for 
evangelical  truth,  through  the  dark  ages,  long  before 
Calvin  lived,  maintained  the  doctrine  of  ministerial 
parity;  that  the  earliest  reformers,  both  in  Great  Bri- 
tain and  on  the  continent  of  Europe,  admitted  the 
same  principle;  that  all  the  reformed  churches,  ex- 
cepting that  of  England,  were  organized  on  this  prin- 
ciple ;  that  the  Church  of  England  stands  alone  in  the 
whole  Protestant  world,  in  making  diocesan  bishops 
an  order  of  clergy,  superior  to  presbyters;  and  that 
even  those  venerable  men  who  finally  settled  her 
government  and  worship,  did  not  consider  this  supe- 
riority as  resting  on  the  ground  of  divine  appointment, 
but  of  ecclesiastical  usage  and  human  expediency. 

If  I  mistake  not,  it  will  be  easy  to  satisfy  you,  by 
a  very  brief  induction  of  facts,  that  these  assertions 
are  not  lightly  made. 

In  the  honourable  catalogue  of  witnesses  for  the 
truth,  amidst  the  corruption  and  darkness  of  papal 
error,  the  Waldenses  hold  the  first  place.  They  began 
to  appear  as  soon  as  the  "  man  of  sin"  arose,  when 
they  resided  chiefly  in  the  valleys  of  Piedmont.  But 
they  afterwards  greatly  multiplied,  spread  themselves 
extensively  in  France,  Switzerland,  and  Italy,  and, 
under  different  names  in  different  districts,  continued 
their  testimony  in  favour  of  evangelical  truth,  for  a 
number  of  centuries.  All  Protestant  historians  con- 
cur in  representing  them  as  constituting  the  purest 


TESTIMONY    OF    THE    REFORMERS.  269 

part  of  the  Christian  Church  for  several  ages:  and 
Reinerius,  who  had  once  lived  among  them,  and  who 
was  their  bitter  persecutor,  says,  "  They  are  more 
pernicious  to  the  Church  of  Rome  than  any  other  sect 
of  heretics,  for  three  reasons:  1.  Because  they  are 
older  than  any  other  sect;  for  some  say  that  they 
have  been  ever  since  the  time  of  Sylvester;  and  others 
say,  from  the  time  of  the  Apostles.  2.  Because  they 
are  more  extensively  spread  than  any  other  sect;  there 
being  scarcely  a  country  into  which  they  have  not 
crept.  3.  Because  other  sects  are  abominable  to  God 
for  their  blasphemies;  but  the  Waldenses  are  more 
pious  than  any  other  heretics;  they  believe  truly  of 
God,  live  justly  before  men,  and  receive  all  the  articles 
of  the  creed;  only  they  hate  the  Church  of  Rome." 

Among  the  numerous  points  in  which  these  wit- 
nesses for  the  truth  rejected  the  errors  of  the  Romish 
Church,  and  contended  for  the  doctrine  of  Scripture, 
and  of  the  apostolic  age,  one  was  that  there  ought  to 
be  no  diversity  of  rank  among  ministers  of  the  gospel; 
that  bishops  and  presbyters,  according  to  the  word  of 
God,  and  primitive  practice,  were  the  same  order. 
Nor  did  they  merely  embrace  this  doctrine  in  theory. 
Their  ecclesiastical  organization  was  Presbyterian  in 
its  form.  I  know  that  this  fact  concerning  the  Wal- 
denses has  been  denied;  but  it  is  established  beyond 
all  reasonable  question  by  authentic  historians. 

JEneas  Sylvius  declares  concerning  the  Waldenses, 
"They  deny  the  hierarchy;  maintaining  that  there  is 
no  difference  among  priests  by  reason  of  dignity  of 
office." — Hist.  Bohem.  Cap.  35. 

In  one  of  their  public  documents,  dated  in  1395, 
those  pious  witnesses  of  the  truth  declared,  "that  the 
Romish  priests  were  grossly  immoral;  while  theirs 
23* 


270  TESTIMONY    OF    THE    REFORMERS. 

were  humble,  generous,  chaste,  sober,  full  of  love, 
peaceable,  &c,  and  therefore  gave  greater  evidence 
than  the  Papists  of  being  ministers  of  Christ,  though 
not  ordained  by  ecclesiastical  bishops." — Blair'' s  His- 
tory of  the  Waldenses,  Vol.  I.  435. 

John  Paul  Perrin,  who  was  himself  a  pastor  among 
them,  in  his  history  of  that  people,  delivers  at  length, 
H  the  discipline  under  which  the  Waldenses  and  Albi- 
genses  lived;  extracted  out  of  divers  authentic  manu- 
scripts, written  in  their  own  language,  several  hun- 
dreds of  years  before  Luther  or  Calvin"  From  this 
work  the  following  extracts  are  made.  Art.  2.  "  Of 
Pastors."  "All  they  that  are  to  be  received  as  pas- 
tors amongst  us,  whilst  they  are  yet  with  their  own 
people,  are  to  entreat  ours,  that  they  would  be  pleased 
to  receive  them  to  the  ministry;  and  to  pray  to  God  that 
they  may  be  made  worthy  of  so  great  an  office.  We 
also  appoint  them  their  lectures,  and  set  them  their 
task,  causing  them  to  learn  by  memory  all  the  chap- 
ters of  St.  Matthew  and  St.  John,  and  all  the  Epistles 
that  are  canonical,  and  a  good  part  of  the  writings  of 
Solomon,  David,  and  the  prophets.  Afterwards,  hav- 
ing produced  good  testimonials,  and  being  well  ap- 
proved for  their  sufficiency,  they  are  received  with 
imposition  of  hands  into  the  office  of  teachers.  He 
that  is  admitted  in  the  last  place,  shall  not  do  any 
thing  without  the  leave  or  allowance  of  him  that  was 
admitted  before  him.  As  also  he  that  was  admitted 
first,  shall  do  nothing  without  the  leave  of  his  asso- 
ciates, to  the  end  that  all  things,  with  us,  may  be  done 
in  order.  Diet  and  apparel  are  given  unto  us  freely, 
and  by  way  of  alms,  and  that  with  sufficiency,  by 
those  good  people  whom  we  teach.  Amongst  other 
powers  and  abilities  which  God  hath  given  to  his 


TESTIMONY    OF    THE    REFORMERS.  271 

servants,  he  hath  given  authority  to  choose  leaders,  to 
rule  the  people,  and  to  ordain  elders  in  their  charges. 
When  any  of  us,  the  aforesaid  pastors,  falls  into  any 
gross  sins,  he  is  both  excommunicated,  and  prohibited 
to  preach."  Art.  4.  "  Our  pastors  do  call  assemblies 
once  every  year,  to  determine  of  all  affairs  in  a  gene- 
ral synod."* 

In  another  Confession  of  Faith,  drawn  up  about 
the  year  1220,  they  declare  that  the  functions  of  mi- 
nisters consist  in  "  preaching  the  word  and  adminis- 
tering sacraments,"  and  that  "  all  other  ministerial 
things  may  be  reduced  to  the  aforesaid."  Speak- 
ing of  the  rite  of  confirmation,  and  of  the  Popish 
claims  that  it  must  be  administered  by  a  bishop,  they 
assert,  that  "it  has  no  ground  at  all  in  Scripture;  that 
it  was  introduced  by  the  devil's  instigation,  to  seduce 
the  people;  that  by  such  means  they  might  be  induced 
the  more  to  believe  the  ceremonies,  and  the  necessity 
of  the  bishops."! 

In  the  same  work,  (chap.  4,)  it  is  expressly  and  re- 
peatedly asserted,  that  the  synods  of  the  Waldenses 
were  composed  of  ministers  and  elders.  This  mode 
of  speaking  is  surely  not  Episcopal. 

In  perfect  coincidence  with  all  this,  is  the  testimony 
of  Gillis,  in  his  History  of  the  Waldenses.  This  writer, 
like  Perrin,  was  one  of  the  pastors  of  that  people,  and 
therefore  perfectly  qualified  to  give  an  account  of 
their  peculiar  doctrines  and  practices.  He  speaks 
familiarly  of  the  pastors  of  their  churches,  in  the  Pres- 
byterian style.  He  says,  u  These  pastors,  in  their  ordi- 
nary assemblies,  came  together  and  held  a  synod  once 
a  year,  and  most  generally  in  the  month  of  Septem- 

*  Perrin's  History  of  the  Old  Waldenses,  Part  II.  Book  v.  Chap.  7. 
t  Ibid.  Chap.  8. 


272  TESTIMONY    OF    THE    REFORMERS. 

ber,  at  which  they  examined  the  students,  and  admit- 
ted them  to  the  ministry."  Chap.  ii.  p.  12. 

In  their  Confession  of  Faith,  which  Gillis  inserts  at 
length,  in  the  "  Addition"  to  his  work,  p.  490,  and 
which  he  expressly  informs  us  was  the  confession  of 
the  ancient  as  well  as  the  modern  Waldenses;  in  Art. 
31,  they  declare,  "  It  is  necessary  for  the  Church  to 
have  pastors  esteemed  sufficiently  learned,  and  exem- 
plary in  their  conduct,  as  well  to  preach  God's  word, 
as  to  administer  the  sacraments,  and  watch  over  the 
sheep  of  Jesus  Christ,  together  with  the  elders  and 
deacons,  according  to  the  rules  of  good  and  holy 
church  discipline,  and  the  practice  of  the  primitive 
Church." 

Here  are  the  declarations  of  the  Waldenses  them- 
selves. And  I  will  venture  to  say  that  there  is  not  a 
syllable  in  the  above  extracts  which  has  the  most  dis- 
tant appearance  of  prelacy.  On  the  contrary,  they 
all  bear  the  most  decisive  indications  of  Presbyterian 
parity.  But  besides  this,  Bellarmine  acknowledges 
that  the  Waldenses  denied  the  divine  right  of  prelacy. 
Medina,  in  the  Council  of  Trent,  declared  that  the 
Waldenses  were  of  the  same  mind  with  Aerius  on 
this  subject.  And  the  learned  Episcopalian,  Professor 
Raignolds,  in  his  famous  Letter  to  Sir  Francis  Knollys, 
asserts,  that  the  Waldenses,  and  all  others  who  had 
distinguished  themselves  as  opposers  of  Popery,  and 
as  reformers  of  the  Church,  for  five  hundred  years, 
prior  to  the  seventeenth  century,  had  uniformly  taught 
that  "  all  pastors,  whether  styled  bishops  or  priests, 
have  one  and  the  same  authority  by  the  word  of 
God." 

But  what  places  this  matter  beyond  all  doubt,  is, 
that  in  the  year  1530,  these  pious  witnesses  of  the 


TESTIMONY    OF    THE    REFORMERS.  273 

truth  addressed  a  long  letter  to  Oecolampadius,  the 
famous  German  reformer,  giving  a  particular  account 
of  their  situation,  their  trials,  and  their  opinions.  In 
this  letter  they  state  in  the  most  explicit  manner,  that 
they  had  not  the  different  orders  of  ministers  such  as 
bishops,  presbyters,  and  deacons,  in  their  churches. 
Those  who  wish  to  see  this  interesting  letter,  will  find, 
it  preserved  in  full  by  Gerdes  in  his  Historia  JRefor- 
mationis  II.  See  also  a  reference  to  it  in  Scott's 
continuation  of  Milner's  Ecclesiastical  History,  Vol. 
I.  p.  134—139. 

In  confirmation  of  these  views,  it  is  a  notorious 
fact,  that  after  the  commencement,  and  in  the  progress 
of  the  Reformation,  these  pious  witnesses  for  the  truth 
freely  held  communion  with  the  Presbyterian  churches 
of  France  and  Geneva;  received  ministers  from  them; 
and,  of  course,  recognised  them  as  sister  churches, 
and  acknowledged  their  ordinations  to  be  valid.  This, 
it  is  manifest,  could  never  have  been  done  had  the 
Waldenses  maintained  the  divine  right  of  prelacy. 

Accordingly,  the  Rev.  Mr.  Gilly,  a  clergyman  of 
the  Church  of  England,  one  of  the  latest  and  most 
intelligent  visitants  of  that  interesting  people,  tells  us 
that,  at  present,  they  most  resemble  Presbyterians; 
each  church  being  governed  by  its  own  consistory,  or 
church  session,  consisting  of  the  minister,  elders,  and 
deacons.  (See  his  Researches,  p.  383.)  He  expresses 
an  opinion,  indeed,  that  they  were  once  Episcopal  in 
their  form  of  government;  and  that  as  late  as  the  lat- 
ter end  of  the  sixteenth,  or  the  beginning  of  the  seven- 
teenth century.  But  this  supposition  is  completely 
disproved  by  their  own  recorded  testimony,  addressed 
to  Oecolampadius,  in  1530,  in  which,  as  before  stated, 
they  declare  that,  at  that  time,  they  had  no  bishops, 


274  TESTIMONY    OF    THE    REFORMERS. 

and  evidently  had  no  recollection  of  ever  having  had 
any;  for  the  express  design  of  their  communication 
to  that  venerated  reformer  was  to  consult  him,  among 
other  things,  as  to  the  propriety  or  necessity  of  having 
such  a  class  of  officers. 

The  Bohemian  Brethren,  who  were  but  a  branch 
of  the  Waldenses,  also  maintained  the  doctrine  of  mi- 
nisterial parity  by  divine  right.  In  their  Confession 
there  is  not  only  a  profound  silence  as  to  any  distinc- 
tion or  difference  of  degrees  among  pastors;  but,  what 
is  more  decisive,  they  place  ordination,  and  excom- 
munication, as  well  as  preaching  the  gospel,  not  in 
the  power  of  one,  but  in  the  hands  of  presbyters  and 
brethren  of  the  ministry.  And  in  their  Book  of  Order, 
or  Discipline,  p.  20,  we  have  the  following  express 
words.  "  It  is  true,  the  Bohemians  have  certain 
bishops,  or  superintendents,  who  are  conspicuous  for 
age  and  gifts;  and  chosen  by  the  suffrages  of  all  the 
ministers,  for  the  keeping  of  order,  and  to  see  that  all 
the  rest  do  their  office.  Four,  or  five,  or  six  such  have 
they,  as  need  requires;  and  each  of  these  has  his  dio- 
cese. But  the  dignity  of  these  above  other  ministers, 
is  not  founded  in  the  prerogative  of  honours  or  reve- 
nues, but  of  labours  and  cares  for  others.  And,  ac- 
cording to  the  apostles'  rules,  a  presbyter  and  bishop 
are  one  and  the  same  thing."  This  statement  is  am- 
ply confirmed  by  Dr.  Heylin,  the  zealous  high  church 
Episcopal  historian.  He  explicitly  grants  that  the 
Bohemian  churches  were  not  Episcopal,  either  in 
principle  or  practice.  In  his  History  of  the  Presby- 
terians, p.  409,  410,  there  is  the  following  decisive 
passage.  "  About  the  year  1400,  we  find  a  strong 
party  to  be  raised  amongst  the  Bohemians,  against 
some  superstitions  and  corruptions  in  the  Church  of 


TESTIMONY    OP    THE    REFORMERS.  275 

Rome;  occasioned,  as  some  say,  by  reading  the  works 
of  Wickliffe,  and  by  the  diligence  of  Picardus,  a 
Fleming,  as  is  affirmed  by  some  others,  from  whom 
they  had  the  name  of  Picards.  Cruelly  persecuted  by 
their  own  kings,  and  publicly  condemned  in  the  Coun- 
cil of  Constance,  they  continued  constant,  notwith- 
standing, to  their  own  persuasions.  In  this  condition 
they  remained  till  the  preaching  of  Luther,  and  the 
receiving  of  the  Augsburgh  Confession  in  most  parts  of 
the  empire,  which  gave  them  so  much  confidence  as 
to  purge  themselves  from  all  former  calumnies,  by 
publishing  a  declaration  of  their  faith  and  doctrine; 
which  they  presented  at  Vienna  to  the  Archduke  Fer- 
dinand, about  ten  years  before  chosen  king  of  Bohe- 
mia; together  with  a  large  apology  prefixed  before  it. 
By  which  Confession  it  appears  that  they  ascribe  no 
power  to  the  civil  magistrate  in  the  concernments  of 
the  Church ;  that  they  had  fallen  upon  a  way  of  or- 
daining ministers  amongst  themselves,  without  re- 
course unto  the  bishop,  or  any  such  superior  officer 
as  a  superintendent;  and  finally  that  they  retained 
the  use  of  excommunication,  and  other  ecclesiastical 
censures,  for  the  chastising  of  irregular  and  scandalous 
persons." 

The  noble  stand  in  defence  of  evangelical  truth, 
made  by  the  celebrated  Dr.  John  Wickliffe,*  is  well 
known.  This  illustrious  English  divine  was  professor 
of  divinity  in  the  university  of  Oxford,  and  has  been 
frequently  called  "  the  morning  star  of  the  Reforma- 
tion."    He  protested  with  great  boldness  and  zeal 

*  "  Wickliffe,"  says  Bishop  New  come,  "  was  not  only  a  good  di- 
vine, and  scripturist,  but  well  skilled  in  the  civil,  canon,  and  English 
law.  To  great  learning  and  abilities,  he  added  the  ornament  of  a 
grave,  unblemished,  and  pious  conduct." 


276  TESTIMONY    OF    THE    REFORMERS. 

against  the  superstitions  of  the  Church  of  Rome,  and 
taught  a  system,  both  of  doctrine  and  order/remarka- 
bly similar  to  that  which  Luther,  Calvin,  and  the 
great  body  of  the  reformers,  two  hundred  years  after- 
wards, united  in  recommending  to  the  Christian 
world.*  "  He  was  for  rejecting  all  mere  human  rites, 
and  new  shadows  or  traditions  in  religion;  and  with 
regard  to  the  identity  of  the  order  of  bishops  and 
priests  in  the  apostolic  age,  he  is  very  positive:  Unam 
audacter  assero,  &c.  One  thing  I  boldly  assert,  that 
in  the  primitive  Church,  or  in  the  time  of  the  apos- 
tle Paul,  two  orders  of  clergy  were  thought  suffi- 
cient, viz.  priest  and  deacon;  and  I  do  also  say,  that 
in  the  time  of  Paul,  fuit  idem  presbyter  atque  epis- 
copus,  i.  e.  a  priest  and  a  bishop  were  one  and  the 
same;  for,  in  those  times,  the  distinct  orders  of  Pope, 
Cardinals,  Patriarchs,  Archbishops,  Bishops,  arch-dea- 
cons, officials,  and  deans,  were  not  invented.!  The 
followers  of  Wickliffe  imbibed  this  as  well  as  the 
other  opinions  of  their  master;  and,  accordingly,  it  is 
well  known  that  they  held  and  practised  ordination 
by  presbyters,  not  for  want  of  diocesan  bishops,  but 
on  the  avowed  principle,  that  they  considered  all 
ministers  who  "  laboured  in  the  word  and  doctrine," 
and  administered  sacraments,  as  having  equal  power.J 

*  He  renounced  the  supremacy  of  the  Pope ;  rejected  the  heresy 
of  transubstantiation  ;  and  taught,  that  the  Bible  is  a  perfect  rule  of 
life  and  manners,  and  ought  to  be  read  by  the  people ;  that  human 
traditions  are  superfluous  and  sinful;  that  we  must  practise  and 
teach  only  the  laws  of  Christ ;  that  mystical  and  significant  ceremo- 
nies in  religious  worship  are  unlawful ;  and  that  to  restrain  men  to  a 
prescribed  form  of  prayer,  is  contrary  to  the  liberty  granted  them  by 
God. 

t  See  Lewis's  Life  of  Wickliffe,  8vo.  1720. 

t  See  Walsingham's  Hist.  Brevis  A.  D.  1389,  339—340. 


TESTIMONY    OF    THE    REFORMERS.  277 

The  renowned  martyrs,  John  Huss  and  Jerome,  of 
Prague,  who  laid  down  their  lives  for  the  truth,  a 
little  after  the  time  of  Wickliffe,  embraced  the  greater 
part,  if  not  all  the  opinions  of  the  English  reformer, 
and  especially  his  doctrine  concerning  the  parity  of 
Christian  ministers.  Their  disciples  acted  in  con- 
formity with  this  doctrine.  JEneas  Sylvius,  (after- 
wards Pius  II.)  speaking  of  the  Hussites,  says,  "  One 
of  the  dogmas  of  this  pestiferous  sect,  is,  that  there  is 
no  difference  of  order  among  those  who  bear  the 
priestly  office. "  This  account  is  confirmed  by  the 
historian  Thuanus,  who  expressly  speaks  of  their  opi- 
nions as  resembling  those  of  the  English  dissenters. 
These  churches  distinctly  held  and  taught,  as  their 
book  of  discipline  proves,  that  there  is  but  one  order 
of  ministers  of  divine  right,  and,  of  course,  that  all 
difference  of  grades  in  the  ministry,  is  a  matter  of 
human  prudence.  They  had,  indeed,  among  them 
persons  who  were  styled  bishops;  but  thejr  expressly 
disavowed  the  divine  institution  of  this  order;  and 
what  is  more,  they  derived  their  ministerial  succession 
from  the  Waldenses,  who  had  no  other,  strictly  speak- 
ing, than  Presbyterian  bishops.  Even  Comenius,  their 
celebrated  historian,  who  says  most  about  their 
bishops,  distinctly  acknowledges  that  bishop  and 
presbyter  are  the  same  by  divine  right.  It  is  also  an 
undoubted  and  remarkable  fact,  that  the  Bohemian 
brethren  retained  the  office  of  ruling  elder  in  their 
churches;  an  office  which,  toward  the  latter  part  of 
the  fourth  century,  had  been,  in  the  greater  part  of 
the  Christian  world,  discontinued.  The  following  re- 
presentation by  the  learned  Bucer,  will  be  deemed, 
by  those  who  are  acquainted  with  his  character,  con- 
clusive as  to  this  fact.  "  The  Bohemian  brethren,  who 
24 


278  TESTIMONY    OP    THE    REFORMERS. 

almost  alone  preserved  in  the  world  the  purity  of  the 
doctrine,  and  the  vigour  of  the  discipline  of  Christ,  ob- 
served an  excellent  rule,  for  which  we  are  compelled 
to  give  them  credit,  and  especially  to  praise  that  God 
who  thus  wrought  by  them;  notwithstanding  those 
brethren  are  preposterously  despised  by  some  learned 
men.  The  rule  which  they  observed  was  this:  be- 
sides ministers  of  the  word  and  sacraments,  they  had, 
in  each  church,  a  bench  or  college  of  men  excelling 
in  gravity  and  prudence,  who  performed  the  duties 
of  admonishing  and  correcting  offenders,  composing 
differences,  and  judicially  deciding  in  cases  of  dispute. 
Of  this  kind  of  elders,  Hilary  wrote,  when  he  said, 
Unde  et  Synagoga"  &c. — Script.  Jldvers.  Latom. 
p.  77. 

The  celebrated  Mr.  Tindal,  a  canon  of  Oxford,  who 
gave  the  first  translation  of  the  Bible  into  English, 
and  who  suffered  martyrdom  in  the  reign  of  Henry 
VIII.  for  his  zeal  and  his  distinguished  labours  in  the 
cause  of  truth,  has  the  following  explicit  declaration, 
in  his  "  Practice  of  Popish  Prelates."  "  The  apostles 
following  and  obeying  the  rule,  doctrine,  and  com- 
mandment of  our  Saviour,  ordained  in  his  kingdom 
and  congregation,  two  officers,  one  called  after  the 
Greek  word  bishop,  in  English  an  overseer;  which 
same  was  called  priest,  after  the  Greek.  Another 
officer  they  chose,  and  called  him  deacon,  after  the 
Greek;  a  minister,  in  English,  to  minister  alms  to  the 
poor.  All  that  were  called  elders  (or  priests,  if  they 
so  will)  were  called  bishops  also,  though  they  have 
now  divided  the  names." 

The  famous  John  Lambert,  another  martyr  in  the 
same  reign,  who  is  represented  even  by  Episcopal 
historians,  as  a  man  of  great  learning,  as  well  as 


TESTIMONY    OF    THE    REFORMERS.  279 

meekness  and  piety,  expressed  himself  on  the  subject 
under  consideration  in  the  following  manner:  "As 
touching  priesthood  in  the  primitive  Church,  when 
virtue  bare  the  most  room,  there  were  no  more  officers 
in  the  Church  than  bishops  and  deacons,  as  witness- 
eth,  besides  Scripture,  full  apertly  Jerome,  in  his  Com- 
mentary upon  St.  Paul's  Epistles,  where  he  saith,  that 
those  we  call  priests,  were  all  one,  and  no  other  but 
bishops,  and  the  bishops  none  but  priests."* 

The  fathers  of  the  reformation  in  England  were 
Presbyterians  in  principle;  that  is,  a  majority  of  the 
most  pious  and  learned  among  them  considered  bishop 
and  presbyter  as  the  same,  by  divine  right.  But  as 
the  influence  of  the  crown  was  exerted  in  favour  of 
prelacy;  as  many  of  the  bishops  were  opposed  to  the 
reformation  altogether;  and  as  the  right  of  the  civil 
magistrate  to  direct  the  outward  organization  of  the 
Church  at  pleasure,  was  acknowledged  by  most  oi 
the  reformers,  they  yielded  to  the  establishment  ot 
diocesan  Episcopacy,  as  the  most  suitable  form  ot 
government  in  the  circumstances  then  existing.  But 
it  does  not  appear  that  any  one  of  them  thought  of 
placing  Episcopacy  on  the  footing  of  Divine  right,  and 
far  less  of  representing  it  as  of  such  indispensable  and 
unalterable  necessity,  as  many  of  their  less  learned 
sons  have  thought  proper  to  maintain  since  that  time. 
I  know  that  this  fact,  concerning  those  venerable  re- 
formers, has  been  denied.  But  I  know,  at  the  same 
time,  that  it  rests  on  proof  the  most  complete  and  satis- 
factory, and  which  will  ever  resist  all  the  ingenious 
arts  which  have  been  used  to  set  it  aside. 

*  It  is  truly  remarkable  that  we  find  such  a  striking  concurrence 
among  all  learned  men,  at  and  shortly  after  the  time  of  the  reforma- 
tion, in  interpreting  Jerome  precisely  as  I  have  done  in  a  preceding 
chapter. 


280  TESTIMONY    OF    THE    REFORMERS. 

In  the  year  1537,  in  the  reign  of  Henry  VIII.  there 
was  a  book  published  for  the  purpose  of  promoting 
the  reformation,  entitled,  "The  Institution  of  a  Chris- 
tian Man."  It  was  called  the  Bishop's  Book,  because 
it  was  composed  by  Archbishop  Cranmer,  and  several 
other  prelates.  It  was  recommended  and  subscribed 
by  the  two  archbishops,  by  nineteen  bishops,  and  by 
the  lower  house  of  convocation;  published  under  the 
authority  of  the  king,  and  its  contents  ordered  to  be 
preached  to  the  whole  kingdom.  In  this  book  it  is 
expressly  said,  that,  "  although  the  fathers  of  the  suc- 
ceeding Church,  after  the  apostles,  instituted  certain 
inferior  degrees  of  ministry;  yet  the  truth  is,  that  in 
the  New  Testament  there  is  no  mention  made  of  any 
other  degree  or  distinction  in  orders,  but  only  of  dea- 
cons or  ministers,  and  of  presbyters  or  bishops."  * 

About  six  years  after  the  publication  of  this  book, 
another  appeared,  which  was  designed  to  promote  the 
same  laudable  purpose.  This  was  entitled,  "  The 
Necessary  Erudition  of  a  Christian  Man."  It  was 
drawn  up  by  a  committee  of  bishops  and  other  divines; 
was  afterwards  read  and  approved  by  the  lords  spi- 
ritual and  temporal,  and  the  lower  house  of  parlia- 
ment; was  prefaced  by  the  king  and  published  by  his 
command.  This  book  certainly  proves  that  those 
who  drew  it  up,  had  obtained  much  more  just  and 
clear  views  of  several  important  doctrines,  than  they 
possessed  at  the  date  of  the  former  publication.  But 
with  regard  to  ministerial  parity,  their  sentiments  re- 
mained unchanged.  They  still  asserted  the  same  doc- 
trine.  They  say,  "  St.  Paul  consecrated  and  ordained 

*  "  In  Novo  Tcstamento,  nulla  mcntio  facta  est  aliorum  Graduum, 
aut  distinctionum  in  Ordinibus,  scd  Diaconorum  (vel  ministrorum)  ct 
Prcsbyterorum  (vel  Episcoporum.") 


TESTIMONY    OF    THE    REFORMERS.  281 

bishops  by  the  imposition  of  hands;  but  that  there  is 
no  certain  rule  prescribed  in  Scripture  for  the  nomi- 
nation, election,  or  presentation  of  them;  that  this  is 
left  to  the  positive  laws  of  every  community.  The 
office  of  the  said  ministers  is,  to  preach  the  word,  to 
minister  the  sacraments,  to  bind  and  loose,  to  excom- 
municate those  that  will  not  be  reformed,  and  to  pray 
for  the  universal  Church."  Having-  afterwards  men- 
tioned the  order  of  deacons,  they  go  on  to  say,  "  Of 
these  two  orders  only,  that  is  to  say,  priests  and  dea- 
cons, Scripture  maketh  express  mention;  and  how 
they  were  conferred  of  the  apostles  by  prayer  and  im- 
position of  hands." 

About  five  years  after  the  last  named  publication, 
viz.  about  the  year  1548,  Edward  VI.  called  a  "  select 
assembly  of  divines,  for  the  resolution  of  several  ques- 
tions, relative  to  the  settlement  of  religion."  Of  this 
assembly  Archbishop  Cranmer  was  a  leading  member, 
and  to  the  tenth  question,  which  respected  the  office 
of  bishops  and  presbyters,  that  venerable  prelate  re- 
plied, "  bishops  and  priests  were  at  one  time,  and  were 
not  two  things,  but  one  office,  in  the  beginning  of 
Christ's  religion."  *     Sl  Thus  we  see,"  says  Dr.  Still 

*  Time  was  when  the  dignitaries  and  other  leading  clergy  of  the 
Church  of  England,  and  of  the  Protestant  Episcopal  Church  in  the 
United  States,  thought  and  spoke  with  profound  reverence  of  Arch 
bishop  Cranmer,  and  his  brother  reformers,  as  men  entitled  to  the 
grateful  respect  of  every  Protestant  Episcopalian,  from  whom  it  was 
unsafe  and  presumptuous  to  differ.  See  Bishop  White's  Memoirs  of 
the  Protestant  Episcopal  Church  in  the  United  States  of  America,  p. 
319.  But  now  the  authors  and  friends  of  the  Oxford  Tracts  can, 
without  ceremony,  speak  of  those  venerable  men  and  martyrs  with 
disrespect  and  severity;  as  chargeable  with  carrying  the  reformation 
by  much  too  far ;  as  having  lopped  off  from  Popery  many  things 
which  ought  to  have  been  retained ;  and  as  deserving  the  reprobation 
rather  than  the  gratitude  of  the  Church  of  England  and  all  her  chil- 
24* 


282  TESTIMONY    OF    THE    REFORMERS. 

lingfleet,  "  by  the  testimony  of  him  who  was  chiefly 
instrumental  in  our  reformation,  that  he  owned  not 
Episcopacy  as  a  distinct  order  from  Presbytery  by 
divine  right,  but  only  as  a  prudent  constitution  of  the 
civil  magistrate  for  the  better  government  of  the 
Church." — Ireniciim,  part  I.  chapter  VIII.  Two 
other  bishops,  together  with  Dr.  Redmayn  and  Dr. 
Cox  delivered  a  similar  opinion,  in  still  stronger  terms ; 
and  several  of  them,  adduced  Jerome  as  a  decided 
authority  in  support  of  their  opinion.  An  attempt  has 
been  made  to  place  this  transaction  a  number  of  years 
further  back  than  it  really  stood,  in  order  to  show  that 
it  was  at  a  period  when  the  views  of  the  reformers, 
with  respect  to  the  order  of  the  Church,  were  crude 
and  immature.  But  if  Bishop  Stillingfleet  and  Bishop 
Burnet  are  to  be  believed,  such  were  the  language 
and  the  views  of  Cranmer  and  other  prelates,  in  the 
reign  of  Edward  VI.  and  a  very  short  time  before 
the  forms  of  ordination  and  other  public  service  in 
the  Church  of  England  were  published;  in  compiling 
which,  it  is  acknowledged,  on  all  hands,  that  the 
archbishop  had  a  principal  share;  and  which  were 
given  to  the  public  in  the  third  year  of  the  reign  of 
that  prince. 

Accordingly,  Mr.  Le  Bas,  the  recent  high-church 
biographer  of  Cranmer,  acknowledges  that  in  answer- 
ing the  interrogatories  referred  to,  "  He  maintains  that 
the  appointment  to  spiritual  offices  belongs  indiffer- 
ently to  bishops,  to  princes,  or  to  the  people,  accord- 
ing to  the  pressure  of  existing  circumstances.     He 

dren.  In  short  the  spirit  of  their  doctrine  seems  to  lead  to  the  con- 
clusion, that  there  ought  never  to  have  been  a  separation  from  the 
Church  of  Rome;  but  a  reformation  of  some  abuses  within  her 
bosom  ! 


TESTIMONY    OF    THE    REFORMERS.  283 

affirms  the  original  identity  of  bishops  and  presbyters; 
and  contends  that  nothing  more  than  mere  election, 
or  appointment,  is  essential  to  the  sacerdotal  office, 
without  consecration  or  any  other  solemnity."  See 
Life  of  Cranmer ,  Vol.  I.  p.  197.  And  although  Mr. 
Le  Bas  seems  to  think  that  Cranmer  afterwards 
altered  his  mind  in  regard  to  these  points;  yet  I  have 
seen  no  evidence  of  this,  and  must  beg  to  be  excused 
for  disbelieving  it  until  such  evidence  appears. 

Another  circumstance,  which  serves  to  show  that 
Archbishop  Cranmer  considered  the  Episcopal  system 
in  which  he  shared,  as  founded  rather  in  human  pru- 
dence and  the  will  of  the  magistrates  than  the  word  of 
God,  is,  that  he  viewed  the  exercise  of  all  Episcopal 
jurisdiction  as  depending  on  the  pleasure  of  the  king; 
and  that  as  he  gave  it,  so  he  might  take  it  away  at 
pleasure.  Agreeably  to  this,  when  Henry  VIII.  died, 
the  worthy  primate  regarded  his  own  Episcopal  power 
as  expiring  with  him;  and  therefore  would  not  act  as 
archbishop  till  he  had  received  a  new  commission  from 
King  Edward. 

Accordingly,  when  these  great  reformers  went  fur- 
ther than  to  compile  temporary  and  fugitive  manuals; 
when  they  undertook  to  frame  the  fundamental  and 
permanent  articles  of  their  church,  we  find  them  care- 
fully guarding  against  any  exclusive  claim  in  behalf 
of  diocesan  Episcopacy.  If  they  had  deemed  an  order 
of  bishops  superior  to  presbyters  indispensably  ne- 
cessary to  the  regular  organization  of  the  church,  and 
the  validity  of  Christian  ordinances,  can  we  suppose 
that  men,  who  showed  themselves  so  faithful  and 
zealous  in  the  cause  of  Christ,  would  have  been 
wholly  silent  on  the  subject?  And,  above  all,  if  they 
entertained  such  an  opinion,  would  they  have  forborne 


284  TESTIMONY    OF    THE    REFORMERS. 

to  express  it  in  that  article  in  which  they  undertook 
formally  to  state  the  doctrine  of  their  church  with  re- 
spect to  the  Christian  ministry?  That  article  (the 
23d)  is  couched  in  the  following  terms.  "  It  is  not 
lawful  for  any  man  to  take  upon  him  the  office  of 
public  preaching,  or  ministering  the  sacraments  in  the 
congregation,  before  he  be  lawfully  called  and  sent  to 
execute  the  same.  And  those  we  ought  to  judge  law- 
fully called  and  sent,  which  be  chosen  and  called  to 
this  work  by  men,  who  have  public  authority  given 
unto  them  in  the  congregation,  to  call  and  send  minis- 
ters into  the  Lord's  vineyard."  Here  is  not  a  syllable 
said  of  diocesan  bishops,  or  of  the  necessity  of  Epis- 
copal ordination;  on  the  contrary  there  is  most  evi- 
dently displayed  a  studious  care  to  employ  such  lan- 
guage as  would  embrace  the  other  reformed  churches; 
and  recognise  as  valid  their  ministry  and  ordinances. 
Is  it  conceivable  that  modern  high-churchmen  would 
have  expressed  themselves  in  this  manner  ? 

And  that  such  was  really  the  design  of  those  who 
drew  up  the  articles  of  the  Church  of  England,  is  ex- 
pressly asserted  by  Bishop  Burnet,  who  will  be  pro- 
nounced by  all  a  competent  judge,  both  of  the  import 
and  history  of  these  articles.  This  article,  he  observes, 
"  is  put  in  very  general  words,  far  from  that  magiste- 
rial stiffness  in  which  some  have  taken  upon  them  to 
dictate  in  this  matter.  They  who  drew  it  up,  had  the 
state  of  the  several  churches  before  their  eyes,  that 
had  been  differently  reformed;  and  although  their 
own  had  been  less  forced  to  go  out  of  the  beaten  path 
than  any  other,  yet  they  knew  that  all  things  among 
themselves  had  not  gone  according  to  those  rules,  that 
ought  to  be  sacred  in  regular  times."  And,  in  a  sub- 
sequent passage,  he  explicitly  declares,  that  neither 


TESTIMONY    OF    THE    REFORMERS.  285 

the  reformers  of  the  Church  of  England,  nor  their 
successors,  for  nearly  eighty  years  after  the  articles 
were  published,  did  ever  call  in  question  the  validity 
of  the  ordination  practised  in  the  foreign  reformed 
churches,  by  presbyters  alone.  And  again,  he  de- 
clares— "Whatever  some  hotter  spirits  have  thought 
of  this,  since  that  time,  yet  we  are  very  sure,  that  not 
only  those  who  penned  the  articles,  but  the  body  of 
this  church  for  above  half  an  age  after,  did,  notwith- 
standing these  irregularities,  acknowledge  the  foreign 
churches,  so  constituted,  to  be  true  churches,  as  to  all 
the  essentials  of  a  church."  * 

The  fact  is,  the  leading  reformers  who  survived  the 
sanguinary  reign  of  Mary,  and  were  called  to  act  un- 
der the  despotic  sway  of  Queen  Elizabeth,  and  who, 
under  her  dictation,  organized  the  reformed  Church 
of  England,  did  not  profess  to  take  the  Scriptures  for 
their  guide  in  framing  the  government  of  the  church. 
It  is  notorious  that,  in  their  contest  with  the  Puritans, 
soon  after  Elizabeth  acceded  to  the  crown,  they 
openly  assumed,  in  relation  to  that  subject,  a  different 
standard.  While  the  puritans  contended  that  the 
Scriptures  ought  to  be  regarded  as  the  only- test  of 
ecclesiastical  government  and  discipline,  as  well  as  of 
doctrine;  the  court  bishops  and  clergy  zealously  main- 
tained, that  the  Saviour  and  his  apostles  left  it  to  the 
discretion  of  the  civil  magistrate,  in  those  places  in 
which  Christianity  should  obtain,  to  accommodate  the 
government  of  the  Church  to  the  polity  of  the  state. 
Nay,  they  went  so  far  as  to  maintain,  that  the  primi- 
tive and  apostolical  order  of  the  Church,  was  accom- 
modated only  to  its  infant  state,  while  under  persecu- 
tion; whereas  the  model  of  the  third,  and  especially  of 

*  Exposition  of  the  XXIII.  Article. 


286  TESTIMONY    OF    THE    REFORMERS. 

the  fourth  century,  when  Christianity  became  the 
established  religion  of  the  empire,  was  a  much  better 
standard  for  a  mature  ecclesiastical  establishment, 
than  the  age  of  the  apostles.  And  this,  by  the  way, 
evinces  a  kind  of  consistency  between  the  language 
and  conduct  of  Archbishop  Cranmer,  to  whom  we 
have  before  referred,  as  well  as  his  immediate  succes- 
sor. Cranmer,  as  we  have  seen,  said  that  "  bishop 
and  priest  were  not  two  offices,  but  one  thing  in  the 
beginning  of  Christ's  religion."  And  yet  he  consented 
to  take  the  office  of  archbishop  in  the  established 
church  of  his  country,  because  he  entertained  the 
opinion  that  prelacy  was  a  convenient  and  wise 
human  institution,  and  that  the  Church  had  a  right, 
in  all  ages,  to  order  her  government  according  to  her 
own  discretion,  and  in  conformity  with  the  govern- 
ment of  the  state.  And,  therefore,  he  and  his  brethren 
did  not  hesitate  to  assume  and  avow  as  their  model 
the  Church  as  it  stood  in  the  days  of  Constantine, 
rather  than  as  it  was  left  by  the  inspired  apostles. 
These  venerable  men,  then,  did  not  so  much  as  pro- 
fess to  make  the  truly  primitive  and  apostolic  Church 
the  pattern  of  their  organization,  but  openly  preferred 
a  much  later  one.  They  virtually  acknowledged  that 
the  primitive  model  rather  made  in  favour  of  Presby- 
terians.* And,  therefore,  when  they  undertook  to 
frame  the  office  for  conferring  orders,  they  selected 
those  Scriptures  as  proper  to  be  read  which  they  con- 
sidered as  best  adapted  in  their  general  diction  and 

*  The  fact  here  stated  is  an  unquestionable  one.  It  is  stated  at 
large  in  Neal's  History  of  the  Puritans ;  and  the  author  of  the  "  Na- 
tural History  of  Enthusiasm,"  in  his  late  able  work,  entitled  "  Ancient 
Christianity,"  in  opposition  to  the  "  Oxford  Tracts,"  recognises  the 
fact,  as  confirmed  by  the  highest  Episcopal  authority. 


TESTIMONY    OP    THE    REFORMERS.  287 

scope  to  make  the  intended  popular  impression.  It  is 
evident  that  they  considered  the  term  bishop,  in  the 
New  Testament,  as  the  highest  title  intended  to  be 
applied  to  any  permanent  officer. 

Those  who  wish  to  persuade  us  that  the  venerable 
reformers  of  the  Church  of  England  held  the  divine 
right  of  diocesan  Episcopacy,  refer  us  to  the  preface 
of  the  Ordination  Service  drawn  up  by  them,  the  lan- 
guage of  which,  it  is  contended,  cannot  be  interpreted, 
and  far  less  justified  on  any  other  principle.  The 
language  referred  to  is  this — "  It  is  evident  unto  all 
men  diligently  reading  Holy  Scripture  and  ancient 
authors,  that  from  the  apostles'  time  there  have  been 
three  orders  of  ministers  in  Christ's  Church,  bishops, 
priests,  and  deacons,"  &c.  There  is  not  a  syllable 
here  inconsistent  with  the  foregoing  statement.  There 
is  not  a  Presbyterian  in  the  land  who  would  not  most 
readily  say,  that  there  have  been  in  every  scripturally 
organized  church,  since  the  apostles'  days,  three  orders 
of  officers  (or  ministers — the  word  minister  having 
been  often  used,  in  earlier  as  well  as  later  times,  for 
all  classes  of  church  officers)  bishops,  presbyters,  (or 
elders,)  and  deacons.  Cranmer  and  his  associates 
avowed  their  belief  that  bishop  and  presbyter  were 
titles  applied  interchangeably  to  the  same  men — the 
bishop  being  a  presbyter  invested  with  a  pastoral 
charge.  If,  as  Presbyterians  believe,  there  were  in 
every  single  church  in  the  apostolic  age,  a  bishop,  or 
pastor,  a  bench  of  ruling  elders  and  deacons,  it  is 
manifest  that  they  might  adopt  the  language  of  the 
preface  to  the  Ordinal  without  scruple.  And  if  Cran- 
mer believed  in  the  divine  origin  of  ruling  elders,  as 
he  probably  did,"*  all  difficulty  in  reconciling  the  lan- 

*  For  proof  of  this,  see,  among  other  testimonies,  Reformatio  Le- 


288  TESTIMONY    OF    THE    REFORMERS. 

guage  in  question  with  his  belief,  vanishes.  Episco- 
palians either  do  not  inform  themselves,  or  perpetually 
forget,  that  Presbyterians  are  as  firm  contenders  for 
three  orders  of  church  officers  as  themselves;  that  they 
apply  to  them  the  same  titles  as  themselves;  and  that 
they  only  differ  as  to  the  respective  powers  and  func- 
tions of  each.  As  to  the  latter  part  of  the  preface  in 
question,  it  only  implies,  that  none  but  those  who 
were  ordained  according  to  the  ecclesiastical  rule  of 
England,  could  be  considered  as  regularly  introduced 
into  the  ministry  in  the  established  church. 

In  conformity  with  this  principle,  an  act  of  Parlia- 
ment was  passed,  in  the  thirteenth  year  of  the  reign 
of  Queen  Elizabeth,  to  reform  certain  disorders  touch- 
ing ministers  of  the  church.  This  act,  as  Dr.  Strype, 
an  Episcopal  historian,  informs  us,  was  framed  with 
an  express  view  to  admitting  into  the  Church  of  Eng- 
land, those  who  had  received  Presbyterian  ordination 
in  the  foreign  reformed  churches,  on  their  subscribing 
the  articles  of  faith.  But  can  we  suppose  that  both 
houses  of  parliament,  one  of  them  including  the  bench 
of  bishops,  would  have  consented  to  pass  such  an  act, 
unless  the  principle  of  it  had  been  approved  by  the 
most  influential  divines  of  that  church  ? 

Nor  was  this  all.  The  conduct  of  the  English  re- 
formers corresponded  with  their  laws  and  public 
standards.  They  invited  several  eminent  divines 
from  the  foreign  reformed  churches,  who  had  received 
no  other  than  Presbyterian  ordination,  to  come  over 
to  England;  and  on  their  arrival,  in  consequence  of 
this  formal  invitation,  actually  bestowed  upon  them 
important  benefices  in  the  church  and  in  the  univer- 

gum  Ecclcsiasticarum,  ex  authoritate  Regis  Hen.  VIII.  et  Edv.  VI. 
4  to.  1640. 


TESTIMONY    OF    THE    REFORMERS.  289 

sities.  A  more  decisive  testimony  could  scarcely  be 
given,  that  those  great  and  venerable  divines  had  no 
scruple  respecting  the  validity  of  ordination  by  pres- 
byters. Had  they  held  the  opinion  of  some  modem 
Episcopalians,  and  at  the  same  time  acted  thus,  they 
would  have  been  chargeable  with  high  treason  against 
the  Redeemer's  kingdom,  and  have  merited  the  repro- 
bation of  all  honest  men. 

But  further;  besides  inviting  these  distinguished 
divines  into  England,  and  giving  them  a  place  in  the 
bosom  of  their  church,  without  requiring  them  to  be 
re-ordained,  Archbishop  Cranmer  and  his  associates 
corresponded  with  Calvin;  solicited  his  opinion  re- 
specting many  points  in  the  reformation  of  the  church; 
transmitted  to  him  a  draft  of  the  proposed  liturgy; 
requested  his  remarks  and  corrections  thereon;  adopt- 
ed several  of  his  corrections;  and  not  only  acknow- 
ledged him  in  the  most  explicit  manner  to  be  a  minis- 
ter of  Christ,  and  the  Church  of  Geneva,  to  be  a  sister 
church;  but  also  addressed  him  in  terms  of  the  most 
exalted  reverence,  and  heaped  upon  him  every  epithet 
of  honour.  Could  they  have  done  all  this,  if  they 
had  considered  him  as  subverting  the  very  foundation 
of  the  Church,  by  setting  aside  prelacy.  The  simplest 
narrative  of  the  extent  to  which  Cranmer  and  the 
other  English  reformers  consulted  and  honoured  Cal- 
vin, is  sufficient  to  demonstrate  that  they  did  not  by 
any  means  agree  in  opinion  with  modern  high-church- 
men. When  I  look  at  the  language  of  those  reformers 
to  this  venerable  servant  of  Christ;  when  I  hear  them, 
not  only  celebrating  his  learning  and  his  piety  in  the 
strongest  terms,  but  also  acknowledging,  in  terms 
equally  strong,  his  noble  services  in  the  cause  of  evan- 
gelical truth,  and  of  the  reformation;  and  when  I  find 

25 


290  TESTIMONY    OF    THE    REFORMERS. 

the  greatest  divines  that  England  ever  bred,  for  nearly 
a  century  afterwards,  adopting  and  repeating  the  same 
language,  I  am  tempted  to  ask — are  some  modern  ca- 
lumniators of  Calvin  really  ignorant  of  what  these 
great  divines  of  their  own  church  have  thought  and 
said  respecting  him;  or  have  they  apostatised  as  much 
from  the  principles  of  their  own  reformers,  as  they  dif- 
fer from  Calvin? 

Another  testimony  as  to  the  light  in  which  ordina- 
tion by  presbyters  was  viewed  by  the  most  distin- 
guished reformers  of  the  Church  of  England,  is  found 
in  a  license  granted  by  Archbishop  Grindal  to  the 
Rev.  John  Morison,  a  Presbyterian  minister,  dated 
April  6,  15S2:  "Since  you,  the  said  John  Morison, 
were  admitted  and  ordained  to  sacred  orders,  and  the 
holy  ministry  by  the  imposition  of  hands,  according  to 
the  laudable  form  and  rite  of  the  reformed  Church  of 
Scotland: — We,  therefore,  as  much  as  lies  in  us,  and 
as  by  right  we  may,  approving  and  ratifying  the  form 
of  your  ordination  and  preferment,  done  in  such  man- 
ner aforesaid,  grant  unto  you  a  license  and  faculty, 
that  in  such  orders,  by  you  taken,  you  may,  and  have 
power,  in  any  convenient  places,  in  and  throughout 
the  whole  province  of  Canterbury,  to  celebrate  divine 
offices,  and  to  minister  the  sacraments,"  &c.  Here 
is  not  only  an  explicit  acknowledgment  that  ordina- 
tion by  presbyters  is  valid,  but  an  eulogium  on  it  as 
laudable,  and  this  not  by  an  obscure  character,  but  by 
the  primate  of  the  Church  of  England. 

An  acknowledgment,  still  more  solemn  and  deci- 
sive, is  made  in  one  of  the  canons  of  the  Church  of 
England,  in  which  all  her  clergy  are  commanded  "  to 
pray  for  the  churches  of  England,  Scotland,  and  Ire- 
land, as  parts  of  Christ's  holy  catholic  Church,  which 


TESTIMONY    OF    THE    REFORMERS.  291 

is  dispersed  throughout  the  world."  This  canon,  (the 
fifty-fifth)  among  others,  was  enacted  in  1604,  when 
the  Church  of  Scotland  was,  as  it  now  is,  Presbyte- 
rian; and  although  the  persons  who  were  chiefly  in- 
strumental in  forming  and  adopting  these  canons,  had 
high  Episcopal  notions;  yet  the  idea  that  those 
churches  which  were  not  Episcopal  in  their  form, 
were  not  to  be  considered  as  true  churches  of  Christ, 
seems  at  this  time  to  have  been  entertained  by  no 
person  of  any  influence  in  the  Church  of  England. 
This  extravagance  was  reserved  for  after  times,  and 
the  invention  of  it  for  persons  of  a  very  different  spi- 
rit from  that  of  the  Cranmers,  the  Grindals,  and  the 
Abbots  of  the  preceding  age. 

Dr.  Warner,  a  learned  Episcopal  historian,  declares, 
that  "  Archbishop  Bancroft  was  the  first  man  in  the 
Church  of  England  who  preached  up  the  divine  right 
of  Episcopacy."  The  same  is  asserted  by  many 
other  Episcopal  writers;  and  this  passage  from  War- 
ner is  quoted  with  approbation  by  Bishop  White  of 
Pennsylvania,  in  his  Case  of  the  Episcopal  Churches, 
in  showing  that  the  doctrine  which  founds  Episcopacy 
on  divine  right,  has  never  been  embraced  by  the  great 
body  of  the  most  esteemed  divines  in  the  Church  of 
England. 

Another  fact  which  corroborates  the  foregoing  state- 
ment is,  that  Dr.  Laud,  afterwards  Archbishop,  in  a 
public  disputation  before  the  University  of  Oxford, 
venturing  to  assert  the  superiority  of  bishops,  by  di- 
vine right,  was  publicly  checked  by  Dr.  Holland,  pro- 
fessor of  divinity  in  that  university,  who  told  him  that 
"  he  was  a  schismatic,  and  went  about  to  make  a 
division  between  the  English  and  other  reformed 
churches." 


292  TESTIMONY    OF    THE    REFORMERS. 

In  short,  for  a  number  of  years  after  the  commence- 
ment of  the  reformation,  the  ecclesiastical  intercourse 
between  the  Church  of  England  and  the  reformed 
churches  on  the  continent  was  so  constant,  respectful, 
and  affectionate,  as  to  show  plainly  that  the  high- 
church  notions  so  prevalent  among  many  modern 
Episcopalians,  were  not  thought  of,  and  far  less  en- 
forced by  the  reformers  of  England.  The  examples 
which  illustrate  this  fact  are  so  many  and  striking, 
that  no  one  even  tolerably  versed  in  the  ecclesiastical 
history  of  England  can  deny  or  doubt  the  truth  of 
my  statement. 

With  respect  to  John  Knox,  the  great  reformer  of 
Scotland,  no  one  is  ignorant  that  he  was  a  warm  ad- 
vocate of  Presbyterianism,  and  that  he  took  a  leading 
part  in  establishing  that  form  of  church  government 
in  his  native  country.  It  has  been  sometimes  indeed 
rashly  asserted  that  the  Church  of  Scotland  was  not 
originally  reformed  upon  principles  strictly  Presbyte- 
rian. This,  however,  is  a  groundless  assertion.  The 
model  of  the  reformed  Church  of  Scotland,  as  esta- 
blished in  1560,  appears  in  the  First  Book  of  Discip- 
line, drawn  up  by  Knox  and  others.  In  that  book,  in 
chapter  fourth,  the  ministry  is  spoken  of,  as  consisting 
of  a  single  order,  in  the  same  language  which  has 
been  common  among  Presbyterians  ever  since;  nor  is 
there  the  least  hint  given  of  different  ranks  or  grades 
of  ministers,  much  less  of  such  an  hierarchy  as  was 
then  established  in  England.  In  the  seventh  chapter 
ruling  elders  and  deacons  are  described,  and  their  du- 
ties pointed  out;  the  former  to  assist  the  minister  in 
the  government  of  his  flock,  and  the  latter  to  take  care 
of  the  poor.  And  in  other  parts  of  the  work,  the 
government  of  the  church  by  kirk  sessions,  presbyte- 


TESTIMONY    OF    THE    REFORMERS.  293 

lies,  and  synods,  is  expressly  laid  down.  This  is  the 
essence  of  Presbyterianism.  It  is  true,  in  that  book, 
the  appointment  of  ten  or  twelve  ministers,  under  the 
name  of  superintendents,  is  recognised  and  directed. 
But  it  is  as  true,  that  the  same  book  declares,  that  this 
appointment  was  made,  not  because  superintendents 
were  considered  as  of  divine  institution,  or  an  order 
to  be  observed  perpetually  in  the  kirk;  but  because 
they  were  compelled  to  resort  to  some  such  expedient, 
at  that  time,  when  the  deficiency  of  well  qualified 
Protestant  ministers  was  so  great,  that  if  some  of  the 
more  able  and  pious  had  not  been  entrusted  with 
much  larger  districts  than  single  parishes,  in  which  to 
preach  the  gospel,  to  plant  churches,  and  to  superin- 
tend the  general  interests  of  religion,  the  greater  part 
of  the  country  must  have  been  given  up,  either  to 
Popish  teachers,  or  to  total  ignorance.  And  it  is  as 
true,  that  the  powers  with  which  those  superintend- 
ents were  invested,  were,  in  all  respects,  essentially 
different  from  those  of  prelates.  They  did  not  con- 
firm; they  did  not  exclusively  ordain;  they  had  no 
Episcopal  consecration;  they  had  none  of  the  pre- 
rogatives of  prelates;  they  were  entirely  subject  to 
the  synodical  assemblies,  consisting  of  ministers  and 
elders;  they  were  appointed  by  men  who  were  known 
to  be  Presbyterians  in  principle;  who,  in  the  very  act 
of  appointing  them,  disclaimed  prelacy  as  an  institu- 
tion of  Christ;  and  who  gave  the  strongest  evidence 
that  they  viewed  the  subject  in  this  light,  by  refusing 
to  make  the  former  bishops,  superintendents,  lest  their 
office  should  be  abused,  and  afterwards  degenerate 
into  the  "  old  power  of  the  prelates."  In  short,  the 
superintendents  were  only  the  agents  of  the  synods, 
for  managing  the  affairs  of  the  Church,  in  times  of 
25* 


294  TESTIMONY    OF    THE    REFORMERS. 

peculiar  difficulty  and  peril;  and  whenever  these 
times  ceased,  or  rather  before,  their  office  was  abo- 
lished. 

It  may  be  supposed  by  some,  however,  that  Knox 
opposed  prelacy  because  a  participation  in  its  honour 
was  not  within  his  reach.  But,  the  truth  is,  a  bishop- 
ric was  offered  him,  which  he  refused,  because  he  con- 
sidered prelacy  as  unlawful.  Accordingly  when  John 
Douglass  was  made  tulchan  (or  nominal)  bishop  of  St. 
Andrews,  Knox  utterly  refused  to  induct  or  instal  him. 
And  when  this  refusal  was  imputed  to  unworthy  mo- 
tives, he  publicly  declared  from  the  pulpit,  on  the 
next  sabbath,  "  I  have  refused  a  greater  bishopric 
than  ever  it  was;  and  might  have  had  it  with  the 
favour  of  greater  men  than  he  hath  this:  but  I  did 
and  do  repine  for  the  discharge  of  my  conscience,  that 
the  Church  of  Scotland  be  not  subject  to  that  order."* 

It  were  easy  to  fill  a  volume  with  testimony  to  the 
same  amount.  But  it  is  not  necessary.  If  there  be 
any  fact  in  the  history  of  the  British  churches  capable 
of  being  demonstrated,  it  is,  that  their  venerable  re- 
formers uniformly  acknowledged  the  other  Protestant 
churches  formed  on  the  Presbyterian  plan,  to  be  sound 
members  of  the  Universal  Church,  and  maintained  a 
constant  and  affectionate  intercourse  with'  them  as 
such.  This  is  so  evident,  from  their  writings  and 
their  conduct,  and  has  been  so  fully  conceded  by  the 
ablest  and  most  impartial  judges  among  Episcopalians 
themselves,  that  it  would  be  a  waste  of  time  further 
to  pursue  the  proof. 

From  the  British  reformers  let  us  pass  on  to  those 
distinguished  worthies  who  were  made  the  instru- 
ments of  reformation  on  the  continent   of  Europe. 

*  Bezae  Iconcs.    Mclchior  Adam,  p.  137.   M'Crie.  Calderwood. 


TESTIMONY    OF    THE    REFORMERS.  295 

Luther  began  this  glorious  work  in  Germany,  in  the 
year  1517.  About  the  same  time  the  standard  of 
truth  was  raised  by  Zuingle,  in  Switzerland;  and  soon 
afterwards  these  great  men  were  joined  by  Carlostadt, 
Melancthon,  Oecolampadius,  Calvin,  Beza,  and  others. 
The  pious  exertions  of  these  witnesses  for  the  truth 
were  as  eminently  blessed  as  they  were  active  and 
unwearied.  Princes,  and  a  multitude  of  less  cele- 
brated divines,  came  to  their  help.  Insomuch  that 
before  the  close  of  that  century,  numerous  and  flou- 
rishing Protestant  churches  were  planted  throughout 
Germany,  France,  Switzerland,  the  Low  Countries, 
Sweden,  Denmark,  and  various  other  parts  of  Europe, 
from  the  Mediterranean  to  the  confines  of  Russia. 

Now  it  is  well  known  that  all  these  Protestants  on 
the  continent  of  Europe,  when  they  threw  off  the  fet- 
ters of  papal  authority,  and  were  left  free  to  follow 
the  word  of  God,  without  any  exception,  recognised 
the  doctrine  of  ministerial  parity,  and  embraced  it, 
not  only  in  theory,  but  also  in  practice.  They  esta- 
blished all  their  churches  on  the  basis  of  that  princi- 
ple; and  to  the  present  hour  bear  testimony  in  its 
favour.  This  may  be  abundantly  proved,  by  recur- 
ring to  their  original  confessions  of  faith;  to  their  best 
writers;  and  to  their  uniform  proceedings. 

When  the  churches  began  to  assume  a  systematic 
and  organized  form,  they  were  all  arranged  by  eccle- 
siastical writers  under  two  grand  divisions — the  Re- 
formed and  the  Lutheran.  The  reformed  churches, 
which  were  established  in  France,  Holland,  Switzer- 
land, Geneva,  and  in  some  parts  of  Germany,  from 
the  beginning,  as  is  universally  known,  laid  aside 
diocesan  bishops;  and  have  never,  at  any  period,  had 
an  Episcopal  government,  eithrr  in  name  or  in  fact. 


296  TESTIMONY    OF    THE    REFORMERS. 

That  these  churches  might  have  had  Episcopal  ordi- 
nation, and  the  whole  system  of  prelacy  continued 
among  them,  if  they  had  chosen  to  retain  them,  no 
one  can  doubt  who  is  acquainted  with  their  history. 
Several  Roman  Catholic  bishops  joined  the  reformers 
on  the  continent,  by  whom  Episcopal  ordination 
might  have  been  had,  if  it  had  been  desired.  But 
they  early  embraced  the  doctrine  of  ministerial  parity, 
which  had  been  so  generally  adopted  by  preceding 
witnesses  for  the  truth;  and  erected  an  ecclesiastical 
organization  in  conformity  with  this  doctrine.  Ac- 
cordingly, the  venerable  founders  of  those  churches, 
having  been  themselves  ordained  presbyters  by  Ro- 
mish bishops;  believing  that  the  difference  between 
these  two  classes  of  ministers  was  not  appointed  by 
Jesus  Christ  or  his  apostles,  but  invented  by  the 
church;  and  persuaded  that,  according  to  the  practice 
of  the  primitive  Church,  presbyters  were  fully  invested 
with  the  ordaining  power,  they  proceeded  to  ordain 
others,  and  thus  transmitted  the  ministerial  succession 
to  those  who  came  after  them. 

But  it  is  said,  that,  although  the  reformers  of  France, 
Holland,  Geneva,  Scotland,  &c.  thought  proper  to  or- 
ganize their  churches  on  the  Presbyterian  principle  of 
parity;  yet  that  Calvin,  Beza,  and  other  eminent  di- 
vines of  great  authority  in  those  churches,  frequently 
expressed  sentiments  very  favourable  to  diocesan 
Episcopacy,  and  spoke  with  great  respect  of  the 
English  hierarchy.  It  is  not  denied  that  those  illus- 
trious reformers,  on  a  variety  of  occasions,  expressed 
themselves  in  very  respectful  terms  of  the  Church  of 
England,  as  it  stood  in  their  day.  But  whether  we 
consider  the  sentiments  which  they  expressed,  or  the 
circumstances  under  which  they  delivered  them,  no 


TESTIMONY    OF    THE    REFORMERS.  297 

use  can  be  made  of  this  fact  favourable  to  the  cause 
of  our  opponents.  The  truth  is,  the  English  reform- 
ers, prevented,  on  the  one  hand,  by  the  crown  and  the 
papists,  from  carrying  the  reformation  so  far  as  they 
wished;  and  on  the  other,  urged  by  the  Puritans,  to 
remove  at  once,  all  abuses  out  of  the  church,  wrote 
to  the  reformers  at  Geneva,  whom  they  knew  to  have 
much  influence  in  England,  soliciting  their  aid,  in 
quieting  the  minds  of  the  Puritans,  and  in  persuading 
them  to  remain  in  the  bosom  of  the  church,  in  the 
hope  of  a  more  complete  reformation  afterwards.  Is 
it  wonderful,  that,  at  a  crisis  of  this  kind,  Calvin  and 
Beza,  considering  the  Church  of  England  as  strug- 
gling with  difficulties;  viewing  Cranmerand  his  asso- 
ciates as  eminently  pious  men,  who  were  doing  the 
best  they  could  in  existing  circumstances;  hoping  for 
more  favourable  times;  and  not  regarding  the  form 
of  church  government  as  an  essential,  should  write  to 
the  English  reformers  in  a  manner  calculated  to  quiet 
the  minds  of  the  Puritans,  and  induce  them  to  remain 
in  connexion  with  the  national  church?  This  they 
did.  But  in  all  their  communications  they  never  went 
further  than  to  say,  that  they  considered  the  hierarchy 
of  England  as  a  judicious  and  respectable  human  in- 
stitution; and  that  they  could  without  any  violation 
of  the  dictates  of  conscience,  remain  in  communion 
with  such  a  church,  if  their  lot  had  been  cast  within 
her  bosom.  And  what  is  the  inference  from  this  ? 
Could  not  thousands  of  the  firmest  Presbyterians  on 
earth,  under  similar  circumstances,  say  the  same? 
But  did  Calvin  or  Beza  ever  say,  even  in  their  most 
unguarded  moments,  that  they  considered  prelacy  as 
an  institution  of  Christ,  or  his  apostles?  Did  they  ever 
express  a  preference  of  this  form  of  government  to  the 


298  TESTIMONY    OF    THE    REFORMERS. 

Presbyterian  form?  Did  they,  in  short,  ever  do  more 
than  acknowledge  that  Episcopacy  might,  in  some 
cases,  be  useful  and  lawful?  But,  on  the  other  hand, 
how  much  these  same  reformers  have  said  against 
prelacy,  and  in  favour  of  ministerial  parity;  how 
strongly  they  have  asserted,  and  how  clearly  they 
have  proved,  the  former  to  be  a  human  invention,  and 
the  latter  to  have  the  sanction  of  apostolic  example; 
and  how  decidedly  they  speak  in  favour  of  Presby- 
terian principles,  even  in  some  of  their  most  com- 
plaisant letters  to  the  English  reformers,  our  oppo- 
nents take  care  not  to  state.*  Their  caution  is  politic. 
For  no  human  ingenuity  will  ever  be  able  to  refute 
the  reasonings  which  those  excellent  men  have  left  on 
record  against  the  Episcopal  cause. 

The  doctrine  held  by  Luther  on  this  subject  will  be 
made  evident  by  the  following  quotations  from  his 
works. 

In  his  treatise,  Be  Mroganda  Missa  Privata,  con- 
tained in  the  second  volume  of  his  works,t  remarking 
on  Titus  i.  5.  he  makes  the  following  explicit  decla- 
ration. "  Here,  if  we  believe  that  the  Spirit  of  Christ 
spake  and  directed  by  Paul,  we  must  acknowledge 
that  it  is  a  divine  appointment,  that  in  every  city  there 
be  a  plurality  of  bishops,  or  at  least  one.  It  is  mani- 
fest also,  that,  by  the  same  divine  authority,  he  makes 

*  It  is  almost  incredible  how  far  the  declarations  of  Calvin  on  this 
subject  have  been  misunderstood  and  misrepresented.  Who  would 
imagine,  when  that  venerable  reformer,  in  his  Institutes,  represents 
the  Scriptures  as  affording  a  warrant  for  three  classes  of  church  offi- 
cers, viz.  teaching  elders,  ruling  elders,  and  deacons,  that  any  could 
interpret  the  passage  as  favouring  the  doctrine  of  three  orders  of 
clergy  ? 

t  My  edition  of  Luther's  works  is  in  seven  volumes,  folio,  printed 
at  Wittemberg,  1546-1552. 


TESTIMONY    OF    THE    REFORMERS.  299 

presbyters  and  bishops  to  be  one  and  the  same  thing; 
for  he  says  that  presbyters  are  to  be  ordained  in  every 
city,  if  any  can  be  found  who  are  blameless,  because 
a  bishop  ought  to  be  blameless." 

In  his  treatise  Adversns  Falso  Nominatum  Ordi- 
ncm  Episcoporum*  Oper.  Tom.  Ibid.  p.  342.  re- 
marking on  the  same  passage  of  Scripture,  he  speaks 
as  follows — "  Paul  writes  to  Titus  that  he  should  or- 
dain elders  in  every  city.  Here,  I  think,  no  one  can 
deny  that  the  apostle  represents  bishop  and  elder  as 
signifying  the  same  thing.  Since  he  commands  Titus 
to  ordain  elders  in  every  city;  and  because  a  bishop 
ought  to  be  blameless,  he  calls  an  elder  by  the  same 
title.  It  is,  therefore,  plain  what  Paul  means  by  the 
term  bishop,  viz.  a  man  eminently  good  and  upright, 
of  proper  age,  who  hath  a  virtuous  wife,  and  children 
in  subjection  in  the  fear  of  God.  He  wills  such  an 
one  to  preside  over  the  congregation,  in  the  ministry 
of  the  word,  and  the  administration  of  the  sacraments. 
Is  there  any  one  who  attends  to  these  words  of  the 
apostle,  together  with  those  which  precede  and  follow, 
so  hardened  as  to  deny  this  sense  of  them,  or  to  per- 
vert them  to  another  meaning?" 

In  the  same  work,  page  344,  345,  he  thus  speaks — 
"  But  let  us  hear  Paul  concerning  this  divine  ordina- 
tion. For  Luke,  in  the  twentieth  chapter  of  the  Acts 
of  the  Apostles,  writes  concerning  him  in  this  manner. 
'From  Miletus,  having  sent  messengers  to  Ephesus, 
he  collected  the  elders  of  the  church,  to  whom,  when 

*  Whoever  will  take  the  trouble  to  look  into  this  treatise,  which 
is  expressly  written  against  bishops,  as  a  separate  and  pre-eminent 
order,  will  find  Luther  decidedly  maintaining-  that  a  scriptural 
bishop  was  nothing  more  than  a  pastor  of  a  single  congregation ;  and 
strongly  inveighing  against  the  doctrine  that  bishops  are  an  order 
above  pastors,  as  a  Popish  error. 


300  TESTIMONY    OF    THE    REFORMERS. 

they  had  come  to  him,  he  thus  said — Take  heed  to 
yourselves  and  to  ail  the  flock  over  which  the  Holy 
Ghost  hath  made  you  overseers/  &c.  But  what  new 
thing  is  this?  Is  Paul  insane?  Ephesus  was  but  a 
single  city,  and  yet  Paul  openly  calls  all  the  presby- 
ters or  elders,  by  the  common  style  of  bishops.  .  But 
perhaps  Paul  had  never  read  the  legends,  the  misera- 
bly patched  up  fables,  and  the  sacred  decretals  of  the 
Papists;  for  how  otherwise  would  he  have  dared  to 
place  a  plurality  of  bishops  over  one  city,  and  to  de- 
nominate all  the  presbyters  of  that  one  city,  bishops; 
when  they  were  not  all  prelates,  nor  supported  a  train 
of  dependents,  and  pack  horses,  but  were  poor  and 
humble  men.  But,  to  be  serious,  you  see  plainly  that 
the  Apostle  Paul  calls  those  alone  bishops  who  preach 
the  gospel  to  the  people,  and  administer  the  sacra- 
ments, as,  in  our  times,  parish  ministers  and  preachers 
are  wont  to  do.  These,  therefore,  though  they  preach 
the  gospel  in  small  villages  and  hamlets,  yet,  as  faith- 
ful ministers  of  the  word,  I  believe,  beyond  all  doubt, 
possess,  of  right,  the  title  and  name  of  bishop." 

A  little  after,  commenting  on  Philip  i.  1.  he  says — 
"  Behold  Paul,  speaking  of  Philippi,  which  was  a 
single  city,  salutes  all  the  believers,  together  with  the 
bishops.  These  were,  beyond  all  doubt,  the  presby- 
ters, whom  he  had  been  wont  to  appoint  in  every  city. 
This  now  is  the  third  instance  in  the  writings  of  Paul, 
in  which  we  see  what  God  and  the  Holy  Spirit  hath 
appointed,  viz.  that  those  alone,  truly  and  of  right, 
are  to  be  called  bishops  who  have  the  care  of  a  flock 
in  the  ministry  of  the  word,  the  care  of  the  poor,  and 
the  administration  of  the  sacraments,  as  is  the  case 
with  parish  ministers  in  our  age." 

In  the  same  work,  p.  346.  commenting  on  1  Peter 


TESTIMONY    OP    THE    REFORMERS.  301 

v.  1.  he  says — "  Here  you  see  that  Peter,  in  the  same 
manner  as  Paul  had  done,  uses  the  terms  presbyter 
and  bishop  to  signify  the  same  thing.  He  represents 
those  as  bishops  who  teach  the  people,  and  preach 
the  word  of  God;  and  he  makes  them  all  of  equal 
power,  and  forbids  them  to  conduct  themselves  as  if 
they  were  lords,  or  to  indulge  a  spirit  of  domination 
over  their  flocks.  He  calls  himself  a  fellow  presbyter, 
plainly  teaching,  by  this  expression,  that  all  parish 
ministers,  and  bishops  of  cities,  were  of  equal  autho- 
rity among  themselves;  that  in  what  pertained  to  the 
office  of  bishop,  no  one  could  claim  any  superiority 
over  another;  and  that  he  was  their  fellow  presbyter, 
having  no  more  power  in  his  own  city  than  others 
had  in  theirs,  or  than  every  one  of  them  had  in  his 
own  congregation." 

In  his  Commentary  on  1  Peter  v.  1.  Oper.  Tom.  v. 
p.  481,  he  thus  speaks — "The  word  presbyter  signi- 
fies an  elder.  It  has  the  same  meaning  as  the  term 
senators,  that  is,  men,  who  on  account  of  their  age, 
prudence,  and  experience,  bear  sway  in  society.  In 
the  same  manner  Christ  calls  his  ministers,  and  his 
senate,  whose  duty  it  is  to  administer  spiritual  gov- 
ernment, to  preach  the  word,  and  to  watch  over 
the  Church,  elders.  Wherefore  let  it  not  surprise 
you,  if  this  name  is  now  very  differently  appli- 
ed; for  of  those  who  are  at  present  called  by  this 
name,  the  Scriptures  say  nothing.  Therefore  banish 
the  present  order  of  things  from  your  eyes,  and  you 
will  be  able  to  conceive  of  the  fact  as  it  was.  When 
Peter,  or  either  of  the  other  apostles,  came  to  any  city 
where  there  were  Christians,  out  of  the  number  he 
chose  one  or  more  aged  men,  of  blameless  lives,  who 
had  wives  and  children,  and  were  well  acquainted 
26 


302  TESTIMONY    OF    THE    REFORMERS. 

with  the  Scriptures,  to  be  set  over  the  rest.  These 
were  called  presbyters,  that  is  elders,  whom  both  Pe- 
ter and  Paul  also  style  bishops,  that  we  may  know 
that  bishops  and  presbyters  were  the  same." 

But  this  is  not  all.  Luther  declared  his  principles 
on  this  subject  by  his  practice,  as  well  as  by  his 
writings.  He  was  ordained  a  presbyter  in  the  Romish 
church,  in  the  year  1507,  in  the  twenty-fourth  year  of 
his  age.*  As  a  presbyter,  he  considered  himself  as 
authorized  to  ordain  others  to  the  gospel  ministry; 
and  accordingly,  soon  after  assuming  the  character  of 
a  reformer,  he  actually  did  ordain. t  Nay,  he  went  a 
step  further.  Though  a  firm  believer  in  the  doctrine 
of  the  primitive  parity  of  ministers,  he  seems  to  have 
considered  it  as  not  unlawful  to  have  diocesan  bishops 
or  superintendents  in  the  Church,  when  either  the 
form  of  the  civil  government,  or  the  habits  or  wishes 
of  the  people  rendered  it  desirable;  always,  however, 
placing  their  appointment  on  the  ground  of  human 
expediency  alone.  Accordingly,  in  the  year  1542, 
when  an  Episcopal  seat  within  the  electorate  of  Sax- 
ony became  vacant,  Luther,  at  the  request  of  the 
Elector,  though  himself  nothing  more  than  a  presby- 
ter, consecrated  Amsdorrf  bishop  of  that  diocese.^ 
But  if  Luther  had  believed  in  "  the  apostolic  institu- 
tion of  diocesan  Episcopacy,"  as  Dr.  Bowden  tells  us 
he  did,  could  he  have  acted  thus  ?  It  is  not  possible. 
It  would  have  been  a  grossness  of  inconsistency  and 
dishonesty  with  which  that  pious  reformer  was  never 
charged. 

*  Vid.  Gerhard,  De  Ministerio,  p.  147,  148.  The  same  fact  is  also 
attested  by  Zanchius.  In  iv.  Praecep.  p.  774.  Gerhard,  who  lived 
not  long  after  Luther,  expressly  asserts  that  he  was  ordained  a  pres- 
byter, with  the  imposition  of  hands,  in  the  year  above  mentioned. 

t  Melchior  Adam,  129.  t  Ibid.  150. 


TESTIMONY    OF    THE    REFORMERS.  303 

Nor  did  Luther  abandon  either  his  principles  or  his 
practice,  on  this  subject,  to  his  last  hour.  This  ap- 
pears from  the  following  testimony  of  his  biographer, 
concerning  what  occurred  a  few  days  before  his  death. 
"From  the  29th  day  of  January  till  the  17th  day  of 
February,  he  was  continually  occupied  about  the 
matters  of  concord  and  agreement  of  the  aforesaid 
noble  princes,  bringing  it  unto  a  most  godly  conclu- 
sion. And  besides  his  great  labour  in  so  necessary  a 
cause,  he  preached  in  the  mean  time,  four  worthy 
sermons,  and  two  times  communicated  with  the  Chris- 
tian church  there,  in  the  holy  Supper  of  the  Lord;  and 
in  the  latter  communion,  which  was  on  Sunday,  he 
ordained  two  ministers  of  the  word  of  God,  after  the 
apostles'  manner."  *  This  great  reformer,  then,  in 
the  solemn  anticipation  of  death,  and  when  he  ex- 
pected, in  a  few  days,  to  appear  before  his  eternal 
Judge,  still  claimed  and  exercised  the  right  of  ordain- 
ing ministers,  as  he  had  done  for  nearly  thirty  years; 
and  what  is  more,  his  biographers,  who  were  eminent 
divines  of  the  Lutheran  denomination,  and  Luther's 
most  intimate  friends,  declare,  that,  in  their  judgment, 
as  well  as  that  of  their  illustrious  chief,  ordination  by 
a  presbyter  was  in  conformity  with  "  the  apostles- 
manner." 

It  is  true,  Luther  and  the  leading  divines  of  his  de- 
nomination, differed  from  Calvin  and  his  associates, 
with  respect  to  one  point  in  church  government.  The 
latter  totally  rejected  all  ministerial  imparity.  The 
former  supposed  that  a  system  embracing  some  de- 
gree of  imparity,  was,  in  general  expedient;  and  ac- 

*  «  The  True  History  of  the  Christian  Departing  of  the  Rev.  Dr. 
Martin  Luther ;  collected  by  Justus  Jonas,  Michael  Celius,and  Joan- 
nes Aurifaber,  which  were  present  thereat." 


304  TESTIMONY    OF    THE    REFORMERS. 

cordingly,  in  proceeding  to  organize  their  churches, 
appointed  superintendents,  who  enjoyed  a  kind  of 
pre-eminence,  and  were  vested  with  peculiar  powers. 
But  they  explicitly  acknowledged  this  office  to  be  a 
human,  and  not  a  divine  institution.  The  superintend- 
ents in  question  were  mere  presbyters,  and  received 
no  new  ordination  in  consequence  of  their  appoint- 
ment to  this  office.  The  opinion  of  their  being  a  dis- 
tinct and  superior  order  of  clergy  was  formally  re- 
jected. And  all  regular  Presbyterian  ordinations 
were  recognised  by  the  church  in  which  they  presided 
as  valid.  Nor  have  modern  Lutherans  apostatized 
in  any  of  these  points  from  the  principles  of  their 
fathers.  In  all  the  Lutheran  churches  in  America, 
and  in  Europe,  to  the  south  of  Sweden,  there  are  no 
bishops.  Their  superintendents,  or  seniors,  have  no 
other  ordination  than  that  of  presbyters.  When  they 
are  not  present,  other  presbyters  ordain  without  a 
scruple.  And  the  ordinations  practised  in  Presbyte- 
rian churches  they  acknowledge  to  be  as  valid  as  their 
own;  and  accordingly  receive  into  full  ministerial 
standing  those  who  have  been  ordained  in  this 
manner. 

The  testimony  of  Dr.  Mosheim,  the  celebrated  ec- 
clesiastical historian,  who  was  himself  a  zealous  and 
distinguished  Lutheran,  will  doubtless  be  considered 
as  conclusive  on  this  subject.  He  remarks,  (Vol.  IV. 
p.  287,)  that  "  the  internal  goverment  of  the  Lutheran 
church  is  equally  removed  from  Episcopacy  on  the 
one  hand,  and  from  Presbyterianisrn  on  the  other;  if 
we  except  the  kingdoms  of  Sweden  and  Denmark, 
who  retain  the  form  of  ecclesiastical  government  that 
preceded  the  reformation,  purged,  indeed,  from  the 
superstition  and  abuses  that  rendered  it  so  odious. 


TESTIMONY    OF    THE    REFORMERS.  305 

This  constitution  of  the  Lutheran  hierarchy  will  not 
seem  surprising,  when  the  sentiments  of  that  people 
with  regard  to  ecclesiastical  polity  are  duly  considered. 
On  the  one  hand,  they  are  persuaded  that  there  is  no 
law  of  divine  authority,  which  points  out  a  distinction 
between  the  ministers  of  the  gospel,  with  respect  to 
rank,  dignity,  or  prerogatives;  and  therefore  they  re- 
cede from  Episcopacy.  But,  on  the  other  hand,  they 
are  of  opinion,  that  a  certain  subordination,  a  diver- 
sity in  point  of  rank  and  privileges  among  the  clergy, 
are  not  only  highly  useful,  but  also  necessary  to  the 
perfection  of  church  communion,  by  connecting,  in 
consequence  of  a  mutual  dependence,  more  closely 
together  the  members  of  the  same  body;  and  thus 
they  avoid  the  uniformity  of  the  Presbyterian  govern- 
ment. They  are  not,  however,  agreed  with  respect 
to  the  extent  of  this  subordination  and  the  degrees  of 
superiority  and  precedence  that  ought  to  distinguish 
their  doctors;  for  in  some  places  this  is  regulated  with 
much  more  regard  to  the  ancient  rules  of  church 
government,  than  is  discovered  in  others.  As  the 
divine  law  is  silent  on  this  head,  different  opinions 
may  be  entertained,  and  different  forms  of  ecclesiasti- 
cal polity  adopted,  without  a  breach  of  Christian  cha- 
rity and  fraternal  union." 

But  although  the  Lutherans  in  America,  and  in  the 
south  of  Europe,  are  not  Episcopal;  perhaps  it  will 
be  contended,  that  this  form  obtains  among  the  Lu- 
therans of  Sweden  and  Denmark.  This  plea,  how- 
ever, like  the  former,  is  altogether  destitute  of  solidity. 
It  is  readily  granted  that  the  Lutheran  churches  in 
those  kingdoms  have  officers  whom  they  style  bishops; 
but  when  we  examine  the  history  and  the  principles 
of  those  churches  with  respect  to  their  clergy,  these 
26* 


306  TESTIMONY    OF    THE    REFORMERS. 

bishops  will  be  found  to  have  no  other  character,  ac- 
cording to  the  doctrine  of  the  Church  of  England, 
than  that  of  mere  presbyters.  For,  in  the  first  place, 
all  ecclesiastical  historians  agree,  that  when  the  refor- 
mation was  introduced  into  Sweden,  the  first  minis- 
ters who  undertook  to  ordain  were  only  presbyters. 
Their  ministerial  succession, of  course, flowing  through 
such  a  channel,  cannot  include  any  ecclesiastical  dig- 
nity higher  than  that  of  presbyter.  Further;  in  Swe- 
dish churches  it  is  not  only  certain  that  presbyters,  in 
the  absence  of  those  who  are  styled  bishops,  ordain 
common  ministers,  without  a  scruple;  but  it  is  equally 
certain,  that  in  the  ordination  of  a  bishop,  if  the  other 
bishops  happen  to  be  absent,  the  more  grave  and  aged 
of  the  ordinary  pastors  supply  their  place,  and  are  con- 
sidered as  fully  invested  with  the  ordaining  power. 
Finally;  the  Swedish  churches  explicitly  renounce  all 
claim  of  divine  right  for  their  ecclesiastical  govern- 
ment. They  acknowledge  that  the  Scriptures  contain 
no  warrant  for  more  than  one  order  of  gospel  minis- 
ters;* that  their  system  rests  on  no  other  ground  than 
human  expediency;  and  that  an  adherence  to  it  is  by 
no  means  necessary  either  to  the  validity  or  regularity 
of  Christian  ordinances. 

If  I  mistake  not,  I  have  now  demonstrated  that  the 
whole  body  of  the  reformers,  with  scarcely  any  ex- 
ceptions, agreed  in  maintaining  that  ministerial  parity 
was  the  doctrine  of  Scripture,  and  of  the  primitive 
Church:  That  all  the  reformed  churches,  excepting 
that  of  England,  were  organized  on  this  principle;  and 
that  even  those  great  men  who  finally  settled  her 
government  and  worship,  did  not  consider  prelacy  as 

*  The  Swedish  churches  wholly  discard  deacons  as  an  order  of 
clergy. 


TESTIMONY    OF    THE    REFORMERS.  307 

founded  on  divine  appointment,  but  only  as  resting  on 
the  basis  of  expediency.  In  short,  there  is  complete 
evidence,  that  the  Church  of  England  stands  alone  in 
making  bishops  an  order  of  clergy  superior  to  presby- 
ters; nay,  that  every  other  Protestant  church  on  earth, 
has  formally  disclaimed  the  divine  right  of  diocesan 
Episcopacy,  and  pronounced  it  to  be  a  mere  human 
invention. 

Now  is  it  credible,  I  ask,  that  a  body  of  such  men 
as  the  early  reformers;  men  who  to  great  learning 
added  the  most  exalted  piety,  zeal,  and  devotedness 
to  the  truth;  men  who  counted  not  their  lives  dear  to 
them  that  they  might  maintain  what  appeared  to  them 
the  purity  of  faith  and  order  in  the  Church;  is  it  credi- 
ble that  such  men,  living  in  different  countries,  influ- 
enced by  different  prejudices,  all  educated  under  the 
system  of  diocesan  bishops,  and  all  surrounded  with 
ministers  and  people  still  warmly  attached  to  this 
system:  Is  it  credible,  I  say,  that  such  men,  thus  situ- 
ated, should,  when  left  free  to  examine  the  Scriptures 
and  the  early  fathers  on  this  subject,  with  almost  per- 
fect unanimity,  agree  in  pronouncing  prelacy  to  be  a 
human  invention,  and  ministerial  parity  to  be  the  doc- 
trine of  Scripture,  if  the  testimony  in  favour  of  this 
opinion  had  not  been  perfectly  clear  and  conclusive  ? 
It  is  not  credible.  We  may  suppose  Calvin  and  Beza 
to  have  embraced  their  opinions  on  this  subject  from 
prejudice,  arising  out  of  their  situation;  but  that  Lu- 
ther, Melancthon,  Oecolampadius,  Bullinger,  Bucer, 
Peter  Martyr,  and  all  the  leading  reformers  on  the 
continent  of  Europe,  differently  situated,  and  with  dif- 
ferent views  on  other  points,  should  embrace  the 
same  opinion;  that  Cranmer,  Grindal,  and  other  pre- 
lates  in  Britain,  though   partaking  in  the   highest 


308  TESTIMONY    OF    THE    REFORMERS. 

honours  of  an  Episcopal  system,  should  entirely  eon- 
cur  in  that  opinion;  that  all  this  illustrious  body  of 
men,  scattered  through  the  whole  Protestant  world, 
should  agree  in  declaring  ministerial  parity  to  be  the 
doctrine  of  Scripture  and  of  the  primitive  Church; 
and  all  this  from  mere  prejudice,  in  direct  opposition 
to  Scripture  and  early  history,  is  one  of  the  most  in- 
credible suppositions  that  can  be  formed  by  the  human 
mind. 

I  repeat  again,  the  question  before  us  is  not  to  be 
decided  by  human  opinion,  or  by  the  number  or  re- 
spectability of  the  advocates  which  appear  on  either 
side.  We  are  not  to  be  governed  by  the  judgment  of 
reformers,  or  by  the  practice  of  the  churches  which 
they  planted.  But  so  far  as  these  considerations  have 
any  weight,  they  are  unquestionably  and  strongly  on 
the  side  of  Presbyterian  parity. 


CONCESSIONS    OF    EPISCOPALIANS.  309 


CHAPTER  VIII. 

CONCESSIONS    OF    EMINENT    EPISCOPALIANS. 

The  concessions  of  opponents  always  carry  with  them 
peculiar  weight.  The  opinions  of  Presbyterians,  in 
this  controversy,  like  the  testimony  of  all  men  in  their 
own  favour,  will  of  course  be  received  with  suspicion 
and  allowance.  But  when  decided  and  zealous  Epis- 
copalians; men  who  stand  high  as  the  defenders  and 
the  ornaments  of  Episcopacy;  men  whose  prejudice 
and  interest  were  all  enlisted  in  the  support  of  the 
Episcopal  system;  when  these  are  found  to  have  con- 
ceded the  main  points  in  this  controversy,  they  give 
us  advantages  of  the  most  decisive  kind.  Some  in- 
stances of  this  sort,  I  shall  now  proceed  to  state. 

When  I  exhibit  Episcopal  divines  as  making  con- 
cessions in  favour  of  our  doctrine,  none  certainly  will 
understand  me  as  meaning  to  assert,  that  they  were 
Presbyterians  in  principle.  So  far  from  this,  the  chief 
value  of  their  concessions  consists  in  being  made  by 
decided  friends  of  Episcopacy.  Neither  will  you 
understand  me  to  assert,  that  none  of  these  writers 
say  any  thing,  in  other  parts  of  their  works,  incon- 
sistent with  these  concessions.  Few  men  who  write 
and  publish  much  are  at  all  times  so  guarded  as  never 
to  be  inconsistent  with  themselves.  It  is  enough  for 
me  to  know  what  language  they  employed,  when  they 
undertook  professedly  to  state  their  opinions  on  the 
subject  before  us,  and  when  they  were  called  upon 


310  CONCESSIONS    OF    EPISCOPALIANS. 

by  every  motive  to  write  with  caution  and  precision. 
The  reader  will  find  most  of  these  writers,  differing 
among  themselves;  some  taking  higher  ground,  and 
others  lower.  For  this  he  is  doubtless  prepared,  after 
being  informed  that  there  are  three  classes  of  Episco- 
palians, as  stated  in  a  former  chapter. 

Some  of  the  concessions  which  might  with  propri- 
ety be  here  introduced,  have  been  already  exhibited 
in  various  parts  of  the  foregoing  chapters.  It  has  been 
stated,  that  Mr.  Dodwell  frankly  acknowledges  that 
bishops,  as  an  order  superior  to  presbyters,  are  not  to 
be  found  in  the  New  Testament;  that  such  an  order 
had  no  existence  till  the  beginning  of  the  second  cen- 
tury; that  presbyters  were  the  highest  ecclesiastical 
officers  left  in  commission  by  the  apostles.  On  the 
other  hand,  Dr.  Hammond,  perhaps  the  ablest  advo- 
cate of  prelacy  that  ever  lived,  warmly  contends,  that 
in  the  days  of  the  apostles  there  were  none  but  bishops ; 
the  second  grade  of  ministers,  now  styled  presbyters, 
not  having  been  appointed  till  after  the  close  of  the 
canon  of  Scripture.  Now, if  neither  of  these  great  men 
could  find  both  bishops  and  presbyters,  as  different  or- 
ders, in  the  New  Testament;  however  ingeniously  they 
endeavour  to  extricate  themselves  from  the  difficulty, 
it  will  amount,  in  the  opinion  of  all  the  impartial,  to  a 
fundamental  concession.  In  like  manner  you  have 
seen,  that  the  arguments  drawn  from  the  Episcopal 
character  of  Timothy  and  Titus;  from  the  model  of  the 
Jewish  priesthood;  and  from  the  angels  of  the  Asiatic 
churches,  have  been  formally  abandoned,  and  pro- 
nounced to  be  of  no  value,  by  some  of  the  ablest 
champions  of  Episcopacy.  The  same  might  be  proved 
with  respect  to  all  the  arguments  which  are  derived 
from  Scripture   in  support  of  the  Episcopal  cause. 


CONCESSIONS    OF    EPISCOPALIANS.  311 

They  have  almost  all  of  them  been  given  up  in  turn 
by  distinguished  prelatists.  But  let  us  pass  on  to  some 
more  general  concessions. 

The  Papists,  before  as  well  as  since  the  reforma- 
tion, have  been  the  warmest  advocates  for  prelacy 
that  the  church  ever  knew.  Yet  it  would  be  easy  to 
show,  by  a  series  of  quotations,  that  many  of  the  most 
learned  men  of  that  denomination,  of  different  periods 
and  nations,  have  held,  and  explicitly  taught,  that 
bishops  and  presbyters  were  the  same  in  the  primitive 
Church;  and  that  the  difference  between  them, though 
deemed  both  useful  and  necessary,  is  only  a  human 
institution.  But  instead  of  a  long  list  of  authorities  to 
establish  this  point,  1  shall  content  myself  with  pro- 
ducing four,  the  first  two  from  Great  Britain,  and  the 
others  from  the  continent  of  Europe. 

The  judgment  of  the  Church  of  England  on  this 
subject,  in  the  times  of  popery,  we  have  in  the  canons 
of  Elfrick,  in  the  year  990,  to  Bishop  Wolii n,  in  which 
bishops  and  presbyters  are  declared  to  be  of  the  same 
order.  To  the  same  amount  is  the  judgment  of  An- 
selme,  archbishop  of  Canterbury,  who  died  about  the 
year  1109,  and  who  was  perhaps  the  most  learned 
man  of  the  age  in  which  he  lived.  He  explicitly  tells 
us,  that,  "  by  the  apostolic  institution,  all  presbyters 
are  bishops."  See  his  Commentary  on  Titus  and 
Philippians. 

In  the  canon  law  we  find  the  following  decisive  de- 
claration: "Bishop  and  presbyter  were  the  same  in 
the  primitive  Church;  presbyter  being  the  name  of  the 
person's  age,  and  bishop  of  his  office.  But  there  be- 
ing many  of  these  in  every  church,  they  determined 
among  themselves,  for  the  preventing  of  schism,  that 
me  should  be  elected  by  themselves  to  be  set  over 


312  CONCESSIONS    OF    EPISCOPALIANS. 

the  rest;  and  the  person  so  elected  was  called  bishop, 
for  distinction  sake.  The  rest  were  called  presbyters; 
and  in  process  of  time,  their  reverence  for  these  titu- 
lar bishops  so  increased,  that  they  began  to  obey  them 
as  children  do  a  father." — Just.  Leg.  Can.  I.  21. 

Cassander.a  learned  Catholic  divine,  who  flourished 
in  the  sixteenth  century,  in  his  book  of  Consultations, 
Art.  14,  has  the  following  passage:  "  Whether  Epis- 
copacy is  to  be  accounted  an  ecclesiastical  order,  dis- 
tinct from  presbytery,  is  a  question  much  debated  be- 
tween theologues  and  canonists.  But  in  this  one  par- 
ticular all  parties  agree.  That  in  the  apostles'  days 
there  was  no  difference  between  a  bishop  and  a  pres- 
byter; but  afterwards,  for  the  avoiding  of  schism,  the 
bishop  was  placed  before  the  presbyter,  to  whom  the 
power  of  ordination  was  granted,  that  so  peace  might 
be  continued  in  the  Church." 

It  has  been  observed,  that  all  the  first  reformers  of 
the  Church  of  England,  freely  acknowledged  bishops 
and  presbyters  to  have  been  the  same  in  the  apostolic 
age;  and  only  defended  diocesan  Episcopacy  as  a 
wise  human  appointment.  It  was  asserted  on  high 
Episcopal  authority,  in  the  preceding  chapter,  that 
Dr.  Bancroft,  then  chaplain  to  Archbishop  Whitgift, 
was  the  first  Protestant  divine  in  England,  who  at- 
tempted to  place  Episcopacy  on  the  foundation  of  di- 
vine right.  In  1588,  in  a  sermon  delivered  on  a  pub- 
lic occasion,  he  undertook  to  maintain,  "  that  the 
bishops  of  England  were  a  distinct  order  from  priests, 
and  had  superiority  over  them  by  divine  right,  and 
directly  from  God;  and  that  the  denial  of  it  was  here- 
sy." This  sermon  gave  great  offence  to  many  of  the 
clergy  and  laity.  Among  others,  Sir  Francis  Knollys, 
much  dissatisfied  with  the  doctrine  which  it  contained, 


CONCESSIONS    OF    EPISCOPALIANS.  313 

wrote  to  Dr.  Raignolds,  Regius  professor  of  divinity 
in  the  University  of  Oxford,  for  his  opinion  on  the 
subject.  That  learned  professor,  who  is  said  to  have 
been  the  "  oracle  of  the  university  in  his  day,"  *  re- 
turned an  answer,  which,  among  other  things  con- 
tains the  following  passages. 

"  Of  the  two  opinions  which  your  honour  mentions 
in  the  sermon  of  Dr.  Bancroft,  the  first  is  that  which 
asserts  the  superiority  which  the  prelates  among  us 
have  over  the  clergy,  to  be  a  divine  institution.  He 
does  not,  indeed,  assert  this  in  express  terms,  but  he 
does  it  by  necessary  consequence,  in  which  he  aftirms 
the  opinion  of  those  that  oppose  that  superiority  to  be 
an  heresy;  in  which,  in  my  judgment,  he  has  com- 
mitted an  oversight;  and  I  believe  he  himself  will 
acknowledge  it,  if  duly  admonished  concerning  it.  All 
that  have  laboured  in  reforming  the  Church,  for  five 
hundred  years  past,  have  taught  that  all  pastors,  be 
they  entitled  bishops  or  priests,  have  equal  authority 
and  power  by  God's  word;  as  first  the  Waldenses, 
next  Marsilius  Petavinus,  then  Wickliffe  and  his  dis- 
ciples; afterwards  Huss  and  the  Hussites;  and  last  of 
all  Luther,  Calvin,  Brentius,  Bullinger,  and  Musculus. 
Among  ourselves  we  have  bishops,  the  Queen's  pro- 
fessors of  divinity  in  our  universities;  and  other 
learned  men,  as  Bradford,  Lambert,  Jewel,  Pilking- 
ton,  Humphreys,  Fulke,  who  all  agree  in  this  matter; 
and  so  do  all  divines  beyond  sea  that  I  ever  read,  and 

*  Professor  Raignolds  was  acknowledged  by  all  his  contemporaries 
to  be  a  prodigy  of  learning.  Bishop  Hall  used  to  say,  that  his  me- 
mory and  reading  were  near  a  miracle.  He  was  particularly  con- 
versant  with  the  fathers  and  early  historians;  was  a  critic  in  the  lan- 
guages ;  was  celebrated  for  his  wit ;  and  so  eminent  for  piety  and 
sanctity  of  life,  that  Crakenthorp  said  of  him,  that  •  to  name  Raig- 
nolds was  to  commend  virtue  itself." 
•27 


314  CONCESSIONS    OF    EPISCOPALIANS. 

doubtless  many  more  whom  I  never  read.  But  what 
do  I  speak  of  particular  persons?  It  is  the  common 
judgment  of  the  Reformed  Churches  of  Helvetia,  Sa- 
voy, France,  Scotland,  Germany,  Hungary,  Poland, 
the  Low  Countries,  and  our  own,  (the  Church  of 
England.)  Wherefore,  since  Dr.  Bancroft  will  cer- 
tainly never  pretend  that  an  heresy,  condemned  by 
the  consent  of  the  whole  Church  in  its  most  flourish- 
ing times,  was  yet  accounted  sound  and  Christian  doc- 
trine by  all  these  I  have  mentioned,  I  hope  he  will 
acknowledge  that  he  was  mistaken  when  he  asserted 
the  superiority  which  bishops  have  among  us  over 
the  clergy,  to  be  God's  own  ordinance."*  Archbishop 
Whitgift,  referring  to  the  great  attention  which  Ban- 
croft's sermon  had  excited,  observed,  that  it  "had 
done  good;"  but  added,  that  with  respect  to  the  offen- 
sive doctrine  which  it  contained,  he  "  rather  wished, 
than  believed  it  to  be  true." 

The  same  Archbishop  Whitgift,  in  his  book  against 
Cartwright,  has  the  following  full  and  explicit  decla- 
rations: Having  distinguished  between  those  things 
which  are  so  necessary,  that  without  them  we  cannot 
be  saved;  and  such  as  are  so  necessary,  that  without 
them  we  cannot  so  well  and  conveniently  be  saved, 
he  adds,  "  I  confess,  that  in  a  church  collected  together 
in  one  place,  and  at  liberty,  government  is  necessary 
with  the  second  kind  of  necessity;  but  that  any  kind 
of  government  is  so  necessary  that  without  it  the 
Church  cannot  be  saved,  or  that  it  may  not  be  altered 
into  some  other  kind,  thought  to  be  more  expedient, 
I  utterly  deny,  and  the  reasons  that  move  me  so  to 
do,  be  these:  the  first  is,  because  I  find  no  one  certain 
and  perfect  kind  of  government  prescribed  or  com- 

*  See  the  letter  at  large  in  Boyse  on  Episcopacy,  p.  13—19. 


CONCESSIONS    OF    EPISCOPALIANS.  315 

manded  in  the  Scriptures,  to  the  Church  of  Christ; 
which,  no  doubt,  should  have  been  done,  if  it  had 
been  a  matter  necessary  to  the  salvation  of  the  Church. 
There  is  no  certain  kind  of  government  or  discipline 
prescribed  to  the  Church;  but  the  same  may  be  altered, 
as  the  profit  of  the  churches  requires.  I  do  deny  that 
the  Scriptures  do  set  down  any  one  certain  kind  of 
government  in  the  Church  to  be  perpetual  for  all 
times,  places,  and  persons,  without  alteration.  It  is 
well  known  that  the  manner  and  form  of  government 
used  in  the  apostles'  time,  and  expressed  in  the  Scrip- 
tures, neither  is  now,  nor  can,  nor  ought  to  be  ob- 
served, either  touching  the  persons  or  the  functions.* 
We  see  manifestly,  that,  in  sundry  points,  the  govern- 
ment of  the  Church  used  in  the  apostles'  time,  is,  and 
hath  been  of  necessity,  altered;  and  that  it  neither 
may  nor  can  be  revoked.  Whereby  it  is  plain,  that 
any  one  kind  of  external  government  perpetually  to 
be  observed,  is  no  where  in  the  Scripture  prescribed 
to  the  Church,  but  the  charge  thereof  is  left  to  the 
magistrate,  so  that  nothing  be  done  contrary  to  the 
word  of  God.  This  is  the  opinion  of  the  best  writers; 
neither  do  I  know  any  learned  man  of  a  contrary 
judgment." 

Dr.  Willet,  a  distinguished  divine  of  the  Church  of 
England,  in  the  reign  of  Elizabeth,  in  his  Synopsis 
Papismi,  a  large  and  learned  work,  dedicated  to  that 

*  It  has  been  said  that  Archbishop  Whitgift,  in  this  passage, 
merely  meant  to  say  that  all  the  details  of  ecclesiastical  discipline  are 
not  laid  down  in>'  Scripture,  nor  to  be  considered  as  of  divine  right. 
But  he  utterly  precludes  this  construction,  by  declaring  that  he  con- 
siders  no  form  of  government  as  of  unalterable  divine  appointment, 
either  with  respect  to  persons  or  functions!  He  could  scarcely  have 
employed  language  to  express  the  opinion  which  we  ascribe  to  himi 
more  perspicuously  or  decisively. 


316  CONCESSIONS    OP    EPISCOPALIANS. 

Queen,  undertakes  professedly  to  deliver  the  opinion 
of  his  church  on  the  subject  before  us.  Out  of  much 
which  might  be  quoted,  the  following  passages  are 
sufficient  for  our  purpose:  "  Every  godly  and  faithful 
bishop  is  a  successor  of  the  apostles.  We  deny  it  not; 
and  so  are  all  faithful  and  godly  pastors  and  minis- 
ters. For  in  respect  of  their  extraordinary  calling, 
miraculous  gifts,  and  apostleship,  the  apostles  have 
properly  no  successors;  as  Mr.  Bembridge,  the  mar- 
tyr saith,  that  he  believed  not  bishops  to  be  the  suc- 
cessors of  the  apostles,  for  that  they  be  not  called  as 
they  were,  nor  have  that  grace.  That,  therefore, 
which  the  apostles  were  especially  appointed  unto,  is 
the  thing  wherein  the  apostles  were  properly  succeed- 
ed; but  that  was  the  preaching  of  the  gospel:  as  St. 
Paul  saith,  he  was  sent  to  preach,  not  to  baptize. 
The  promise  of  succession,  we  see,  is  in  the  preach- 
ing of  the  word,  which  appertained  as  well  to  other 
pastors  and  ministers  as  to  bishops."  Again;  "  See- 
ing in  the  apostles'  time  episcopus  and  presbyter,  a 
bishop  and  a  priest,  were  neither  in  name  nor  office 
distinguished;  it  folio weth,  then,  that  either  the  apos- 
tles assigned  no  succession  while  they  lived,  neither 
appointed  their  successors;  or  that  indifferently,  all 
faithful  pastors  and  preachers  of  the  apostolic  faith 
are  the  apostles'  successors." — Controv.  v.  Quest.  3. 
p.  232.  "Of  the  difference  between  bishops  and 
priests,  there  are  three  opinions:  the  first,  of  Aerius, 
who  did  hold  that  all  ministers  should  be  equal;  and 
that  a  bishop  was  not,  neither  ought  to  be  superior  to 
a  priest.  The  second  opinion  is  the  other  extreme  of 
the  Papists,  who  would  have  not  only  a  difference, 
but  a  princely  pre-eminence  of  their  bishops  over  the 
clergy,  and  that  by  the  word  of  God.    And  they  urge 


CONCESSIONS    OP    EPISCOPALIANS.  317 

it  to  be  so  necessary,  that  they  are  no  true  churches 
which  receive  not  their  pontifical  hierarchy.  The 
third  opinion  is  between  both,  that  although  this  dis- 
tinction of  bishops  and  priests,  as  it  is  now  received, 
cannot  be  proved  out  of  Scripture,  yet  it  is  very  ne- 
cessary, for  the  policy  of  the  Church,  to  avoid  schisms, 
and  to  preserve  it  in  unity..  Of  this  judgment,  Bishop 
Jewel  against  Harding,  showeth  both  Chrysostom, 
Ambrose,  and  Jerome,  to  have  been.  Jerome  thus 
writeth,  (  The  apostle  teaches  evidently  that  bishops 
and  priests  were  the  same;  but  that  one  was  after- 
wards chosen  to  be  set  over  the  rest  as  a  remedy 
against  schism.'  To  this  opinion  of  St.  Jerome,  sub- 
scribeth  Bishop  Jewel,  and  another  most  reverend 
prelate  of  our  church,  Archbishop  Whitgift,"  p.  273. 
Dr.  Willet  also  expressly  renounces  the  argument 
drawn  by  many  Episcopalians  from  the  Jewish  priest- 
hood. In  answer  to  a  celebrated  popish  writer,  who 
had,  with  great  confidence,  adduced  this  argument,  to 
support  the  authority  of  bishops,  as  an  order  superior 
to  presbyters,  he  observes:  First,  "  the  high  priest  un- 
der the  law  was  a  figure  of  Christ,  who  is  the  High 
Priest  and  chief  Shepherd  of  the  New  Testament:  and 
therefore  this  type,  being  fulfilled  in  Christ,  cannot 
properly  be  applied  to  the  external  hierarchy  of  the 
Church.  Secondly,  if  every  bishop  be  this  high  priest, 
then  have  you  lost  one  of  your  best  arguments  for 
the  Pope,  whom  you  would  have  to  be  the  high  priest 
in  the  Church."  *  This  champion  of  the  Church  of 
England  further  concedes:  "  That  it  may  be  doubted 

*  It  will  be  observed,  that  this  zealous  Episcopalian  not  only  re- 
jects the  argument  in  favour  of  prelacy,  drawn  from  the  model  of  the 
Jewish  priesthood,  but  also  declares  it  to  be  a  popish  argument,  and 
of  no  value  excepting  on  popish  principles. 

27* 


318  CONCESSIONS    OF    EPISCOPALIANS. 

whether  Timothy  were  so  ordained  by  the  apostle 
bishop  of  Ephesus,  as  a  bishop  is  now  set  over  his 
diocese;  for  then  the  apostle  would  never  have  called 
him  so  often  from  his  charge,  sending  him  to  the  Co- 
rinthians, to  the  Thessalonians,  and  to  other  churches 
beside.     It  is  most  likely  that  Timothy  had  the  place 
and  calling  of  an  evangelist."     Again;  "  Seeing  that 
Timothy  was  ordained  by  the  authority  of  the  elder- 
ship, how  could  he  be  a  bishop  strictly  and  precisely 
taken,  being  ordained  by  presbyters?"  p.  273.     Dr. 
Willet  also  formally  gives  up  the  claim  that  diocesan 
bishops  are  ^peculiarly  the  successors  of  the  apostles; 
explicitly  conceding  that  all  who  preach  the  gospel, 
and  administer  sacraments,  are  equally  entitled   to 
this  honour.     And,  to  place  his  opinion  beyond  all 
doubt,  he  observes,  "  Although  it  cannot  be  denied 
but  that  the  government  of  bishops  is  very  profitable 
for  the  preserving  of  unity;  yet  we  dare  not  condemn 
the  churches  of  Geneva,  Helvetia,  Germany,  Scot- 
land, that  have  received  another  form  of  ecclesiastical 
government;  as  the  Papists  proudly  affirm  all  churches 
which  have  not  such  bishops  as  theirs  are,  to  be  no 
true  churches.     But  so  do  not  our  bishops  and  arch- 
bishops, which  is  a  notable  difference  between  the 
bishops  of  the  popish  church,  and  of  the '-reformed 
churches.     Wherefore,  as  we  condemn  not  those  re- 
formed churches  which  have  retained  another  form  of 
ecclesiastical  government;  so  neither  are  they  to  cen- 
sure our  church  for  holding  still  the  ancient  regimen 
of  bishops,  purged  from  the  ambitious  and  supersti- 
tious inventions  of  the  popish  prelacy,"  p.  276. 

Bishop  Bilson,  in  his  work  against  Seminaries,  lib. 
I.  p.  318,  delivers  it  as  his  opinion,  and  confirms  it  by 
quotations  from  Jerome,  that  "the  Church  was  at 


CONCESSIONS    OF    EPISCOPALIANS.  319 

first  governed  by  the  common  council  of  presbyters; 
that  therefore  bishops  must  understand  that  they  are 
greater  than  presbyters,  rather  by  custom  than  the 
Lord's  appointment ;  and  that  bishop's  came  in  after 
the  apostles'  time." 

Dr.  Holland,  the  King's  professor  of  divinity  in  the 
University  of  Oxford,  at  a  public  academical  exercise, 
in  the  year  1608,  in  answer  to  a  question  formally 
and  solemnly  proposed — An  episcopatus  sit  ordo  dis- 
tinctus  a  presbyter 'cttu,  eoque  superior  jure  divino? 
i.  e.  Whether  the  office  of  bishop  be  different  from 
that  of  presbyter,  and  superior  to  it,  by  divine  right, 
declared  that  "  to  affirm  that  there  is  such  a  difference 
and  superiority,  by  divine  right,  is  most  false,  contrary 
to  Scripture,  to  the  fathers,  to  the  doctrine  of  the 
Church  of  England,  yea  to  the  very  schoolmen  them- 
selves." 

Bishop  Morton,  in  his  Catholic  Apology,  addressed 
to  the  Papists,  lib.  I.  tells  them  "  that  the  powers  of 
order  and  jurisdiction,  which  they  ascribe  to  bishops, 
doth  by  divine  right  belong  to  all  other  presbyters; 
and  that  to  ordain  is  their  ancient  right."  He  further 
asserts,  that  Jerome  does  not  represent  the  difference 
between  bishop  and  presbyter  as  of  divine  institution. 
He  assents  to  the  opinion  of  Medina,  the  Jesuit,  and 
declares  that  there  was  no  substantial  difference  on 
the  subject  of  Episcopacy  between  Jerome  and  Aerius. 
He  avers,  further,  that  not  only  all  the  Protestants, 
but  also  all  the  primitive  doctors  were  of  Jerome's 
mind.  And,  finally,  he  concludes,  that  according  to 
the  harmonious  consent  of  all  men  in  the  apostolic 
age,  there  was  no  difference  between  bishop  and 
presbyter;  but  that  this  difference  was  aftewards  in- 
troduced for  the  removal  of  schism. 


320  CONCESSIONS    OF    EPISCOPALIANS. 

Bishop  Jewel,  one  of  the  most  illustrious  advocates 
for  diocesan  Episcopacy,  in  the  Defence  of  his  Apo- 
logy for  the  Church  of  England  against  Harding,  p. 
248,  has  the  following  remarkable  passage.  "  But 
what  meant  M.  Harding  to  come  in  here  with  the 
difference  between  priests  and  bishops?  Thinketh 
he  that  priests  and  bishops  hold  only  by  tradition? 
Or  is  it  so  horrible  an  heresy  as  he  maketh  it,  to  say, 
that,  by  the  Scriptures  of  God,  a  bishop  and  a  priest 
are  all  one  ?  Or  knoweth  he  how  far,  and  to  whom 
he  reacheth  the  name  of  an  heretic?  Verily  Chrysos- 
tom  saith,  Inter  episcopum,  et  presbyterum  interest 
fere  nihil:  i.  e.  '  between  a  bishop  and  a  priest  there 
is,  in  a  manner,  no  difference. '  St.  Jerome  saith, 
somewhat  in  rougher  sort,  Audio,  quendam  in  tan- 
tarn  eripuisse  vecordiam,  ut  diaconos  presbyteris,  id 
est  episcopis,  ante  ferret:  cum  Apostolus  perspicue 
doceat,  eosdem  esse  presbyteros,  quos  episcopos,  i.  e. 
<I  hear  say,  there  is  one  become  so  peevish,  that  he 
setteth  deacons  before  priests,  that  is  to  say,  bishops: 
whereas  the  apostle  plainly  teacheth  us,  that  priests 
and  bishops  be  all  one/  St.  Augustine  also  saith, 
Quid  est  episcopus  nisi  primus  presbyter,  hoc  est 
summus  sacerdos?  i.  e.  '  What  is  a  bishop,  but  the 
first  priest,  that  is  to  say,  the  highest  priest  V  So  saith 
St.  Ambrose,  episcopi  et  presbyteri  una  ordinatio 
est;  uterque,  enim,  sacerdos  est,  sed  episcopus  primus 
est,  i.  e.  There  is  but  one  consecration  of  priest  and 
bishop;  for  both  of  them  are  priests,  but  the  bishop 
is  the  first.  All  these,  and  other  more  holy  fathers, 
together  with  St.  Paul,  the  apostle,  for  thus  saying, 
by  M.  Harding's  advice,  must  be  holden  for  heretics."* 

*  It  ought  to  be  kept  in  mind,  that  Bishop  Jewel's  Apology  for  the 
Church  of  England  was  laid  before  the  public  on  the  avowed  princi- 


CONCESSIONS    OF    EPISCOPALIANS.  321 

Dr.  Whitaker,  a  learned  divine  of  the  Church  of 
England,  and  professor  of  divinity  in  the  University 
of  Cambridge,  in  his  treatise  against  Campion,  the 
Jesuit,  affirms  that  bishop  and  presbyter  are,  by  divine 
right,  all  one.  And,  in  answer  to  Dury,  a  zealous 
hierarchist  of  Scotland,  he  tells  him  "  that,  whereas  he 
asserts,  with  many  words,  that  bishop  and  presbyter 
are  divers,  if  he  will  retain  the  character  of  a  modest 
divine,  he  must  not  so  confidently  affirm,  that  which 
all  men  see  to  be  so  evidently  false.  For  what  is  so 
well  known,  says  he,  as  this  which  you  acknowledge 
not?  Jerome  plainly  writeth  that  elders  and  bishops 
are  the  same,  and  connrmeth  it  by  many  places  of 
Scripture."  The  same  celebrated  Episcopalian,  in 
writing  against  Bellarmine,  says,  "  From  2  Tim.  i.  6, 
we  understand  that  Timothy  had  hands  laid  on  him 
by  presbyters,  who,  at  that  time  governed  the  church 
in  common  council;"  and  then  proceeds  to  speak 
severely  of  Bellarmine  and  the  Romish  church  for 
confining  the  power  of  ordination  to  bishops  exclu- 
sively of  presbyters. 

The  authority  of  few  men  stands  higher  among  the 
friends  of  prelacy  than  that  of  Bishop  Hall,  who  wrote, 
and  otherwise  exerted  himself,  in  favour  of  the  divine 
right  of  diocesan  Episcopacy,  with  as  much  zeal  and 
ability  as  any  man  of  his  day.  Yet  this  eminently 
learned  and  pious  divine,  acknowledged  the  reformed 
church  of  Holland,  where  there  never  had  been  any 
diocesan  bishops,  to  be  a  true  church  of  Christ;  ac- 
cepted of  a  seat  in  the  Synod  of  Dort,  in  which  the 

pie,  that  it  contained  the  doctrine  of  that  church :  and  that  the  work 
from  which  the  above  quotation  is  made,  was  ordered  to  be  suspend- 
ed by  a  chain,  in  all  the  churches  in  the  kingdom,  and  to  be  publicly 
read  as  a  standard  of  theological  instruction.— Strype's  Annals,  II.  100. 


322  CONCESSIONS    OF    EPISCOPALIANS. 

articles  of  faith,  and  form  of  government  of  that  church 
were  settled;  recognised  the  deputies  from  all  the 
reformed  churches  on  the  continent,  none  of  whom 
had  received  Episcopal  ordination,  as  regular  minis- 
ters of  Christ;  and,  when  he  took  leave  of  the  Synod, 
declared  that  "  there  was  no  place  upon  earth  so  like 
heaven  as  the  Synod  of  Dort,  and  where  he  should 
be  more  willing  to  dwell." — Brandt's  Hist.  Sess.  62. 
The  following  extract  of  a  sermon  which  he  delivered 
in  Latin  before  that  venerable  Synod,  contains  a  di- 
rect and  unequivocal  acknowledgment  of  the  Church 
of  Holland  as  a  true  church  of  Christ.  It  was  de- 
livered November  29,  16 IS;  and  founded  on  Eccles. 
vii.  16.  "  His  serene  majesty,  our  King  James,  in  his 
excellent  letter,  admonishes  the  States  General,  and 
in  his  instructions  to  us  hath  expressly  commanded 
us  to  urge  this  with  our  whole  might,  to  inculcate  this 
one  thing,  that  you  all  continue  to  adhere  to  the  com- 
mon faith,  and  the  confession  of  your  own  and  the 
other  churches:  which  if  you  do,  0  happy  Holland! 
0  chaste  Spouse  of  Christ!  0  prosperous  republic! 
this  your  afflicted  church  tossed  with  the  billows  of 
differing  opinions,  will  yet  reach  the  harbour,  and 
safely  smile  at  all  the  storms  excited  by  her  cruel  ad- 
versaries. That  this  may  at  length  be  obtained,  let 
us  seek  for  the  things  which  make  for  peace.  We  are 
brethren;  let  us  also  be  colleagues!  What  have  we 
to  do  with  the  infamous  titles  of  party  names?  We 
are  Christians;  let  us  also  be  of  the  same  mind.  We 
are  one  body;  let  us  also  be  unanimous.  By  the  tre- 
mendous name  of  the  omnipotent  God;  by  the  pious 
and  loving  bosom  of  our  common  Mother;  by  your 
own  souls;  by  the  holy  bowels  of  Jesus  Christ  our 
Saviour,  my  brethren,  seek  peace;   pursue  peace." 


CONCESSIONS    OP    EPISCOPALIANS.  323 

See  the  whole  in  the  Acta  Synodi  Nat.  Dord.  38.  But 
this  excellent  prelate  went  further.  A  little  more  than 
twenty  years  after  his  mission  to  Holland,  and  when 
he  had  been  advanced  to  the  bishoprick  of  Norwich, 
he  published  his  Irenicurn,  (or  Peacemaker,)  in  which 
we  find  the  following  passage,  Sect.  VI.  "  Blessed  be 
God,  there  is  no  difference,  in  any  essential  point,  be- 
tween the  Church  of  England  and  her  sister  reformed 
churches.  We  unite  in  every  article  of  Christian  doc- 
trine, without  the  least  variation,  as  the  full  and  abso- 
lute agreement  between  their  public  confessions  and 
ours  testifies.*  The  only  difference  between  us  con- 
sists in  our  mode  of  constituting  the  external  ministry; 
and  even  with  respect  to  this  point  we  are  of  one 
mind,  because  we  all  profess  to  believe  that  it  is  not 
an  essential  of  the  Church,  (though  in  the  opinion  of 
many  it  is  a  matter  of  importance  to  her  well  being;) 
and  we  all  retain  a  respectful  and  friendly  opinion  of 
each  other,  not  seeing  any  reason  why  so  small  a  dis- 
agreement should  produce  any  alienation  of  affection 
among  us. "  And  after  proposing  some  common  prin- 
ciples on  which  they  might  draw  more  closely  to- 
gether, he  adds,  "  But  if  a  difference  of  opinion  with 
regard  to  these  points  of  external  order  must  continue, 
why  may  we  not  be  of  one  heart  and  of  one  mind? 
or  why  should  this  disagreement  break  the  bonds  of 
good  brotherhood?"  How  different  the  language  and 

*  It  has  long  been  maintained  by  well  informed  persons,  that  the 
fathers,  or  the  most  distinguished  reformers  of  the  Church  of  England 
were  doctrinal  Calvinists ;  and  that  the  thirty-nine  articles  of  that 
church  drawn  up  by  them  are  Calvinistic.  If  there  were  any  re- 
maining doubt  with  respect  to  the  accuracy  of  this  representation, 
the  opinion  of  Bishop  Hall,  here  so  strongly  expressed,  would  be  de- 
cisive in  its  support. 


324  CONCESSIONS    OF    EPISCOPALIANS. 

the  spirit  of  some  modern  advocates  for  the  divine 
right  of  diocesan  Episcopacy. 

The  same  practical  concession  was  made  by  the 
eminently  learned  and  pious  Bishop  Davenant,  while 
professor  of  divinity  in  the  University  of  Cambridge. 
He  accepted  of  a  seat  in  the  Synod  of  Dort,  and  gave 
the  sanction  of  his  presence  and  aid  in  organizing  the 
Presbyterian  Church  of  Holland.  We  are  informed, 
indeed,  that  Bishop  Carleton,  and  the  other  English 
delegates,  expressed  their  opinions  very  fully  in  the 
Synod,  in  favour  of  the  Episcopal  form  of  govern- 
ment; but  their  sitting  in  that  body  and  assisting  in 
its  deliberations;  their  preaching  in  the  pulpits  of  the 
Presbyterian  ministers  of  Dort,  and  attending  on  all 
the  public  religious  services  of  the  Synod,  were  among 
the  strongest  acknowledgments  they  could  make,  that 
they  considered  the  ministrations  of  non-episcopal 
ministers  as  valid.  But  Bishop  Davenant  went  fur- 
ther. After  his  advancement  to  the  bishoprick  of 
Salisbury,  he  published  a  work  in  which  he  urged 
with  much  earnestness  and  force,  a  fraternal  union 
among  all  the  reformed  churches.*  A  plan  which,  it 
is  obvious,  involved  in  it  an  explicit  acknowledgment 
that  the  foreign  reformed  churches,  most  of  which 
were  Presbyterian,  were  true  churches  of  Christ;  and 
which,  indeed,  contained  in  its  very  title,  a  declara- 
tion that  those  churches  "  did  not  differ  from  the 
Church  of  England  in  any  fundamental  article  of 
Christian  faith." 

Bishop  Croft's  concessions  on  this  subject  are 
equally  candid  and  decisive.    I  had  occasion  in  a  for- 

*  Ad  Fraternam  Communionem  inter  Evangelicas  Ecclesias  r,es- 
taurandam  Adhortatio;  in  eo  fundata,  Quod  non  dissentiant  in  ullo 
Fundamentali  Catholicae  Fidei  Articulo. — Cantab.  1640. 


CONCESSIONS    OF    EPISCOPALIANS.  325 

mer  chapter  to  take  notice  of  an  acknowledgment  of 
the  most  pointed  sort,  in  his  work  entitled  Naked 
Truth,  a  work  written  and  published  while  the  author 
was  bishop  of  Hereford,  and  powerfully  defended  by- 
some  of  the  most  learned  men  of  his  day.  The  fol- 
lowing additional  passages  from  the  same  work  de- 
serve our  notice.  "  The  Scripture  no  where  expresses 
any  distinction  of  order  among  the  elders.  We  find 
there  but  two  orders  mentioned,  bishops  and  deacons. 
The  Scripture  distinguisheth  not  the  order  of  bishops 
and  priests;  for  there  we  find  but  one  kind  of  ordina- 
tion, then  certainly  but  one  order;  for  two  distinct 
orders  cannot  be  conferred  in  the  same  instant,  by  the 
same  words,  by  the  same  actions."  With  respect  to 
the  office  of  deacon,  this  bishop  entirely  coincides  with 
Scripture  and  the  Presbyterian  Church.  In  the  work 
above  mentioned,  p.  49,  he  remarks  that  he  will  not 
dispute,  "  Whether  this  of  deaconship  be  properly  to 
be  called  an  order  or  an  office,  but  certainly  no  spi- 
ritual order;  for  their  office  was  to  serve  tables,  as  the 
Scripture  phrases  it,  which,  in  plain  English,  is  no- 
thing else  but  overseers  of  the  poor,  to  distribute  justly 
and  discreetly  the  alms  of  the  faithful,  which  the  apos- 
tles would  not  trouble  themselves  withal  lest  it  should 
hinder  them  in  the  ministration  of  the  word  and 
prayer.  But  as  most  matters  of  this  world,  in  process 
of  time,  deflect  much  from  the  original  constitution, 
so  it  fell  out  in  this  business;  for  the  bishops  who  pre- 
tended to  be  successors  to  the  apostles,  by  little  and 
little,  took  to  themselves  the  dispensation  of  alms,  first 
by  way  of  inspection  over  the  deacons,  but  at  length 
the  total  management:  and  the  deacons,  who  were 
mere  lay-officers,  by  degrees  crept  into  the  church 
ministration,  and  became  a  reputed  spiritual  order, 

28 


326  CONCESSIONS    OF    EPISCOPALIANS. 

and  a  necessary  degree  and  step  to  the  priesthood,  of 
which  I  can  find  nothing  in  Scripture,  and  the  origi- 
nal institution,  nor  a  word  relating  to  any  thing  but 
the  ordering  of  alms  for  the  poor." 

Lord  George  Digby,  an  eminent  English  nobleman, 
who  flourished  in  the  reigns  of  Charles  I.  and  Charles 
II.  and  who  wrote  largely  on  the  questions  which 
agitated  the  Church  in  his  day,  in  a  letter  to   Sir 
Kenelme  Digby,  on  the  subject  before  us,  expresses 
himself  in  the  following  terms: — "  He  that  would  re- 
duce the  Church  now  to  the  form  of  government  in 
the   most  primitive  times,  would   not   take,  in  my 
opinion,  the  best  nor  wisest  course;  1  am  sure  not  the 
safest:  for  he  would  be  found  pecking  towards  the 
Presbytery  of  Scotland,  which,  for  my  part,  I  believe, 
in  point  of  government,  hath  a  greater  resemblance 
than  either  yours  or  ours  to  the  first  age,  and  yet  it 
is  never  a  whit  the  better  for  it ;  since  it  was  a  form 
not  chosen  for  the  best,  but  imposed  by  adversity  un- 
der oppression,  which,  in  the  beginning,  forced  the 
Church  from  what  it  wished,  to  what  it  might;  not 
suffering  that  dignity  and  state  ecclesiastical  which 
rightly  belonged   unto   it,  to    manifest   itself  to   the 
world:  and  which,  soon  afterwards,  upon  the  least 
lucid  intervals,  shone  forth  so  gloriously  in' the  hap- 
pier as  well  as  more  monarchical  condition  of  Epis- 
copacy: of  which  way  of  government  I  am  so  well 
persuaded  that  I  think  it  pity  it  was  not  made  be- 
times an  article  of  the  Scottish  Catechism,  that  bishops 
are  of  divine  right/'  * 

The  character  of  Archbishop  Usher  stands  high 
with  Episcopalians.  He  was  one  of  the  greatest  and 
best  of  men.     His  plan  for  the  reduction  of  Episco- 

*  Jus  Divinum  Minis.  Evang.  II.  p.  107. 


CONCESSIONS    OF    EPISCOPALIANS.  327 

pacy  into  the  form  of  synodical  government,  received 
in  the  ancient  Church,  is  well  known  to  every  one 
who  is  tolerably  versed  in  the  ecclesiastical  history  of 
England.  The  essential  principle  of  that  plan  is,  that 
bishop  and  presbyter  were  originally  the  same  order; 
and  that  in  the  primitive  Church,  the  bishop  was  only 
a  standing  president  or  moderator  among  his  fellow 
presbyters.  To  guard  against  the  possibility  of  mis- 
take, the  illustrious  prelate  declared  he  meant  to  re- 
store that  kind  of  Presbyterian  government,  which,  in 
the  Church  of  England,  had  long  been  disused."  The 
archbishop,  further,  "being  asked  by  Charles  I.  in 
the  Isle  of  Wight,  whether  he  found  in  antiquity  that 
presbyters  alone  ordained  any?"  answered  "  Yes,  and 
that  he  could  show  his  Majesty  more,  even  where 
presbyters  alone  successively  ordained  bishops,  and 
brought  as  an  instance  of  this,  the  presbyters  of  Alex- 
andria choosing  and  making  their  own  bishops,  from 
the  days  of  Mark  till  Heraclas  and  Dionysius."  The 
following  declaration  of  the  same  learned  dignitary, 
is  also  full  to  our  purpose.  It  having  been  reported 
of  him,  that  he  had  expressed  an  uncharitable  opinion 
concerning  the  Church  of  Holland,  as  no  true  church, 
because  she  was  without  diocesan  bishops,  when  they 
were  within  her  reach,  if  she  had  chosen  to  accept 
them,  he  thus  repels  the  calumny:  "  I  have  ever  de- 
clared my  opinion  to  be  that  bishop  and  presbyter 
differ  only  in  degree,  and  not  in  order;  and,  conse- 
quently, that  in  places  where  bishops  cannot  be  had, 
the  ordination  by  presbyters  standeth  valid.  Yet,  on 
the  other  side,  holding,  as  I  do,  that  a  bishop  hath 
superiority  in  degree  over  a  presbyter,  you  may  easily 
judge,  that  the  ordination  made  by  such  presbyters,  as 
have   severed  themselves  from  those  bishops  unto 


328  CONCESSIONS    OF    EPISCOPALIANS. 

whom  they  had  sworn  canonical  obedience,  cannot 
possibly  by  me  be  excused  from  being  schismatical. 
And  howsoever,  I  must  needs  think,  that  the  churches 
which  have  no  bishops  are  thereby  become  very  much 
defective  in  their  government,  and  that  the  churches 
in  France,  who,  living  under  a  popish  power,  cannot 
do  what  they  would,  are  more  excusable  in  this  de- 
fect than  the  Low  Countries,  who  live  under  a  free 
state ;  yet,  for  the  testifying  of  my  communion  with 
these  churches,  (which  I  do  love  and  honour  as  true 
members  of  the  Church  universal,)  I  do  profess,  that 
with  like  affection  I  should  receive  the  blessed  sacra- 
ment at  the  hands  of  the  Dutch  ministers,  if  I  were  in 
Holland,  as  I  should  do  at  the  hands  of  the  French 
ministers,  if  I  were  in  Charenton."* 

When  such  divines  as  Bishop  Hall,  Archbishop 
Usher,  &c,  men  of  colossal  weight  and  strength,  as 
pillars,  in  their  day,  of  the  church  to  which  they  be- 
longed, could  declare,  as  the  latter  at  least  did,  that 
he  could,  with  all  readiness  and  affection,  receive  the 
sacraments  from  the  hands  of  Presbyterian  ministers; 
and,  of  course,  considered  their  ministrations  as  en- 
tirely valid;  and  when  the  former  could  consent  to 
sit  for  several  months  as  a  member  of  the  Presbyterian 
Synod  of  Dort,  and  commune  with  that  body  in 
prayer,  preaching,  and  the  holy  Eucharist:  it  is  per- 
fectly impossible  that  they  should  have  maintained 
the  opinion  concerning  prelacy,  which  it  is  the  object 
of  this  volume  to  oppose.  But  on  this  point  I  shall 
not  dwell.  It  is  well  known  that  in  the  day  of  the 
great  and  good  men  whose  names  have  been  just 
mentioned,  their  monarch,  Charles  I.,  was  involved  in 
conflicts  with  the  parliament  which,  in  a  few  years 

*  See  the  judgment  of  the  late  Archbishop  of  Armagh,  110 — 123. 


CONCESSIONS    OF    EPISCOPALIANS.  329 

afterwards  terminated  in  his  decapitation.  In  the 
course  of  these  conflicts  the  king  was  urged  to  con- 
sent to  a  proposed  act  of  the  parliament  for  abolish- 
ing Episcopacy.  This  he  utterly  refused,  alleging 
among  other  things,  that  Episcopacy  was  more 
friendly  to  monarchy  than  Presbytery  was,  and  plead- 
ing "  conscience"  against  a  consent  to  the  proposed 
measure.  Writing  on  this  subject  to  his  devoted  Epis- 
copal friends  and  counsellors,  Lord  Jermyn,  Lord 
Culpepper,  and  Mr.  Ashburnham,  he  expresses  him- 
self thus: — 

"  Show  me  any  precedent  wherever  Presbyterial 
government  and  regal  was  together  without  perpetual 
rebellions;  which  was  the  cause  that  necessitated  the 
king,  my  father,  to  change  that  government  in  Scot- 
land. And  even  in  France,  where  they  are  but  upon 
tolerance,  (which  in  likelihood  should  cause  modera- 
tion,) did  they  ever  sit  still  so  long  as  they  had  power 
to  rebel?  And  it  cannot  be  otherwise,  for  the  ground 
of  their  doctrine  is  anti-monarchical.  Indeed  to  prove 
that  clearly,  would  require  more  time  and  a  better 
pen  than  I  have.  I  will  say,  without  hyperbole,  that 
there  was  not  a  wiser*  man  since  Solomon,  than  he 
who  said — no  bishop,  no  king."  To  this  the  enlight- 
ened and  cordial  friends  of  the  monarch,  and  of  the 
Church  of  England,  just  named,  made  the  following 
reply:  "If  by  conscience  your  meaning  is,  that  you 
are  obliged  to  do  all  that  is  in  your  power  to  support 
and  maintain  that  function  of  bishops,  as  that  which 
is  the  most  ancient,  reverend,  and  pious  government 
of  the  Church — we  fully  and  heartily  concur  with  you 
therein.  But  if  by  conscience  is  intended  to  assert, 
that  Episcopacy  is  jure  divino  exclusive,  whereby  no 
Protestant  (or  rather  Christian)  church  can  be  acknow. 
'  28*    • 


330  CONCESSIONS    OF    EPISCOPALIANS. 

ledged  for  such  without  a  bishop,  we  must  therein 
crave  leave  wholly  to  differ.  And  if  we  be  in  error 
we  are  in  good  company;  there  not  being  (as  we 
have  cause  to  believe)  six  persons  of  the  Protestant 
religion  of  the  other  opinion.  Thus  much  we  can 
add,  that,  at  the  treaty  of  Uxbridge,  none  of  your  di- 
vines then  present  (though  much  provoked  thereunto) 
would  maintain  that  (we  might  say  uncharitable) 
opinion;  no,  not  privately  among  your  commis- 
sioners." * 

The  men  who  wrote  thus,  were  intelligent,  well  in- 
formed men,  true  sons  of  the  Church,  and  intimately 
conversant  with  the  leading  ecclesiastics  as  well  as 
civilians,  in  the  kingdom.  And  yet  they  could  say, 
with  confidence,  that  they  did  not  believe  there  were 
"  six  persons  of  the  Protestant  religion"  who  enter- 
tained the  exclusive  opinion  which  they  reprobate. 

Bishop  Forbes,  a  zealous  Episcopalian,  in  his  Ireni- 
cum,  Lib.  II.  cap.  xi.  Prop.  13,  expresses  himself 
thus :  "  Presbyters  have,  by  divine  right,  the  power 
of  ordaining,  as  well  as  of  preaching  and  baptizing. 
They  ought,  indeed,  to  exercise  this  function  under 
the  inspection  and  government  of  a  bishop,  in  places 
where  there  are  bishops.  But  in  other  places,  where 
the  government  of  the  Church  is  administered  by  the 
common  council  of  presbyters  alone,  that  ordination 
is  valid  and  effectual  which  is  performed  by  the  impo- 
sition of  the  hands  of  presbyters  alone."  In  confir- 
mation of  this  doctrine,  Bishop  Forbes  quotes  two 
passages  from  the  fathers.  The  first  is  from  Hilary, 
(Ambrose,)  who,  he  says,  tells  us,  in  his  Commentary 
on  the  Ephesians,  that  in  Egypt,  presbyters  ordain  if 
a  bishop  be  not  present;  which  passage  in  Hilary  he 

*  Clarendon's  State  Papers,  Vol.  II.  p,  202.  260.  274. 


CONCESSIONS    OF    EPISCOPALIANS.  331 

interprets  precisely  as  I  have  done,  in  a  preceding 
chapter.  The  second  is  from  Augustine,  who,  he  in- 
forms us,  declares  that  in  Alexandria,  and  through 
the  whole  of  Egypt,  if  a  bishop  be  not  present,  pres- 
byters ordain.  Again,  he  says,  "  From  all  these 
things,  it  is  manifest  that,  in  the  ancient  Church,  it 
was  lawful  for  presbyters  alone,  if  bishops  were  not 
present,  to  ordain  presbyters  and  deacons;  and  such 
ordinations  were  held  to  be  valid,  although  it  was 
prudently  appointed,  for  the  preservation  of  discipline, 
that  this  should  not  be  done  without  the  consent  of  a 
bishop.  That  is  to  say,  in  those  places  in  which  there 
were  bishops,  it  was  held  to  be  criminal  to  despise 
their  authority.  But  in  those  places  in  which  pres- 
byters only  governed  the  Church,  it  was  sufficient  to 
stamp  validity  upon  an  ordination  that  it  be  performed 
under  the  authority  of  an  assembly,  or  bench  of  pres- 
byters.7' 

The  concessions  of  Dr.  Stillingfleet,  (afterwards 
bishop  of  Worcester,)  on  this  subject  are  well  known. 
The  avowed  object  of  his  Irenicum  ,  one  of  the  most 
learned  works  of  the  age  in  which  it  appeared,  was 
to  show,  that  no  form  of  church  government  is  pre- 
scribed in  the  word  of  God;  that  the  Church  is  at 
liberty  to  modify  the  details  of  her  external  order, 
both  with  respect  to  officers  and  functions,  as  well  as 
discipline,  at  pleasure ;  and  of  course,  that  ordinations 
and  government  by  presbyters  are  equally  valid  with 
those  administered  by  diocesan  bishops.  He  seems 
to  acknowledge,  indeed,  that  Presbyterian  parity  is, 
on  the  whole,  more  agreeable  to  Scripture,  and  to  the 
practice  of  the  primitive  Church,  than  prelacy;  but, 
at  the  same  time  denies  that  this  ought  to  be  con- 
sidered as  establishing  the  divine  right  of  Presbytery- 


332  CONCESSIONS    OF    EPISCOPALIANS. 

In  the  course  of  this  work,  the  learned  author  exhi- 
bits a  mass  of  evidence  from  Scripture  and  primitive 
antiquity  against  the  Episcopal  claims,  and  quotes 
declarations  made  by  some  of  the  most  distinguished 
divines  of  different  ages  and  denominations,  which 
will  doubtless  be  read  with  surprise  by  those  who 
have  been  accustomed  to  believe  that  the  whole 
Christian  world,  with  very  little  exception,  has  always 
been  Episcopal. 

To  destroy  the  force  of  Dr.  Stillingfleet's  conces- 
sions, it  is  urged,  that  he  afterwards  became  dissatis- 
fied with  this  work,  and  retracted  the  leading  opinion 
which  it  maintains.*  To  this  suggestion  I  will  reply, 
by  a  quotation  from  Bishop  White,  of  Pennsylvania, 
who,  in  a  pamphlet  published  a  number  of  years 
since,  having  occasion  to  quote  the  Irenicum  as  an 

*  The  Irenicum  has  been  stigmatized  by  some  high-toned  Episco- 
palians, as  an  hasty  indigested  work,  written  at  an  early  period  of 
the  author's  life,  and  soon  repented  of.  The  following  facts  will  show 
how  far  this  representation  is  correct.  After  having  been  several 
years  engaged  in  the  composition  of  this  work,  the  author  published 
it  in  1659,  at  the  age  of  twenty-four.  Three  years  afterwards,  viz. 
in  1662,  he  published  a  second  edition;  and  the  same  year  he  gave 
to  the  world  his  Origines  Sacree.  Soon  after  these  publications,  he 
met  his  diocesanj  the  celebrated  Bishop  Saunderson,  at  a  visitation. 
The  bishop  seeing  so  young  a  man  could  hardly  believe  it  was  Stil- 
lingfleet,  whom  he  had  hitherto  only  known  by  his  writings;  and, 
after  having  embraced  him,  said,  he  much  rather  expected  to  have 
seen  one  as  considerable  for  his  age  as  he  had  already  shown  himself 
for  his  learning.  See  the  Life  of  Bishop  Stillingfleet,  p.  12—16. 
When  a  divine  of  acknowledged  talents  and  learning,  (whatever  may 
be  his  age,)  after  spending  several  years  in  a  composition  of  moderate 
length,  deliberately  commits  it  to  the  press ;  when,  after  reflecting  on 
the  subject,  and  hearing  the  remarks  of  his  friends  for  three  years 
longer,  he  publishes  it  a  second  time;  and  when,  after  this  second 
publication,  he  is  complimented  for  his  great  erudition,  by  one  of  the 
most  able  and  learned  dignitaries  of  the  age,  there  seems  little  room 
for  a  charge  of  haste  or  want  of  digestion. 


CONCESSIONS    OF    EPISCOPALIANS.  333 

authority  against  high-church  notions,  speaks  of  the 
performance  and  its  author  in  the  following  terms: 
"  As  that  learned  prelate  was  afterwards  dissatisfied 
with  his  work,  (though  most  probably  not  with  that 
part  of  it  which  would  have  been  to  our  purpose,)  it 
might  seem  uncandid  to  cite  the  authority  of  his  opi- 
nion. Bishop  Burnet,  his  cotemporary  and  friend, 
says,  (History  of  his  own  Times,  anno  1661,)  To 
avoid  the  imputation  that  book  brought  on  him,  he 
went  into  the  humours  of  an  high  sort  of  people,  be- 
yond what  became  him,  perhaps  beyond  his  own 
sense  of  things."  "The  book,  however,"  Bishop 
White  adds,  "  was,  it  seems,  easier  retracted  than  re- 
futed; for,  though  offensive  to  many  of  both  parties, 
it  was  managed,  (says  the  same  author,)  with  so 
much  learning  and  skill,  that  none  of  either  side  ever 
undertook  to  answer  it." 

The  truth  seems  to  be,  that  Dr.  Stillingfieet,  finding 
that  the  opinions  of  a  number  of  influential  men  in 
the  church  were  different  from  those  which  he  had  ad- 
vanced is  this  work;  and  finding  also  that  a  fixed 
adherence  to  them  might  be  adverse  to  the  interests 
of  the  established  church,  in  which  he  sought  prefer- 
ment, he  made  a  kind  of  vague  and  feeble  recanta- 
tion ;  and  wrote  in  favour  of  the  apostolic  origin  of 
Episcopacy.  It  is  remarkable,  however,  that  this 
prelate,  in  answer  to  an  accusation  of  inconsistency 
between  his  early  and  his  latter  writings  on  this  sub- 
ject, assigned  another  reason  besides  a  change  of 
opinion,  viz.  that  the  former  were  written  "  before  the 
laws  were  established."  But  in  whatever  degree  his 
opinion  may  have  been  altered,  his  reasonings  and 
authorities  have  undergone  no  change.   They  remain 


334  CONCESSIONS   or   EPISCOPALIANS. 

in  all  their  force,  and  have  never  been  refuted,  either 
by  himself,  or  by  others. 

The  concessions  of  Bishop  Burnet  on  this  subject 
are  numerous  and  unequivocal.  Several  have  been 
already  mentioned.  Out  of  many  more  which  might 
be  presented,  I  select  the  following  declaration:  "I 
acknowledge  bishop  and  presbyter  to  be  one  and  the 
same  office,  and  so  plead  for  no  new  office-bearer  in 
the  church.  The  first  branch  of  their  power  is  their 
authority  to  publish  the  gospel,  to  manage  the  wor- 
ship, and  dispense  the  sacraments;  and  this  is  all  that 
is  of  divine  right  in  the  ministry,  in  which  bishops 
and  presbyters  are  equal  sharers.  But  besides  this, 
the  church  claimetha  power  of  jurisdiction,  of  making 
rules  for  discipline,  and  applying  and  executing  the 
same;  all  which  is,  indeed,  suitable  to  the  common 
laws  of  society,  and  the  general  rules  of  Scripture, 
but  hath  no  positive  warrant  from  any  Scripture  pre- 
cept. And  all  these  constitutions  of  churches  into 
synods,  and  the  canons  of  discipline  taking  their  rise 
from  the  divisions  of  the  world  into  several  provinces, 
and  beginning  in  the  second  and  beginning  of  the 
third  century,  do  clearly  show,  that  they  can  be  de- 
rived from  no  divine  original,  and  so  were,  as  to  their 
particular  form,  but  of  human  institution."  **' 

The  opinions  held  by  Archbishop  Tillotson,  on  this 
subject,  substantially  agree  with  those  of  Bishop  Bur- 
net; or,  if  they  differ  from  them,  are  even  more 
favourable  to  Presbyterian  church  government.  He 
was  decidedly  in  favour  of  admitting  the  dissenting 
clergy  into  the  Church  of  England,  without  re-ordain- 
ing them;  and  did  not  scruple  to  avow  that  he  con- 

*  Vindication  of  the  Church  and  State  of  Scotland,  p.  331. 


CONCESSIONS    OF    EPISCOPALIANS.  335 

sidered  their  ordination  as  equally  valid  with  that 
which  was  received  from  Episcopal  bishops.  And, 
in  conformity  with  this  opinion,  he  advised  the  Epis- 
copal clergy  of  Scotland  to  unite  with  the  Presbyte- 
rian church  in  that  country,  and  submit  to  its  govern- 
ment.* 

Archbishop  Wake,  who  was  a  warm  friend  to  pre- 
lacy, and  whose  character  stands  high  with  its  advo- 
cates, it  is  well  known  kept  up  a  constant  friendly 
correspondence  with  the  most  eminent  pastors  and 
professors  in  Geneva  and  Holland;  manifested  a  fra- 
ternal regard  to  them ;  declared  their  churches,  not- 
withstanding their  difference  in  discipline  and  govern- 
ment from  his  own,  to  be  true  churches  of  Christ; 
and  expressed  a  warm  desire  for  their  union  with  the 
Church  of  England,  at  the  head  of  which  he  was  then 
placed.     In  a  letter  which  he  wrote  to  the  celebrated 
Le  Clerc,  of  the  Genevan  school,  then  residing   in 
Holland,  in  the  year  1719,  there  is  the  following  pas- 
sage.    "  I  freely  embrace  the  reformed  churches,  not- 
withstanding they  differ  in  some  respects  from  that  of 
England.     I  could  wish,  indeed,  they  had  retained 
that  moderate  Episcopacy,  freed  from  all  unjust  domi- 
nation, which  obtains  among  us,  and  which,  if  I  have 
any  skill  in  judging  on  this  subject,  was  received  in 
the  Church  from  the  apostolic  age.     Nor  do  I  despair 
of  its  being  restored.     If  I  should  not  see  it  myself 
posterity  will.     In  the  mean  time,  I  am  so  far  from 
being  so  uncharitable  as  to  believe  that  any  of  those 
churches,  on  account  of  this  defect,  (for  so  I  must  be 

*  See  Remarks  upon  the  Life  of  the  most  Reverend  Dr.  John  Til- 
lotson,  8vo.  1754;  in  which  the  author,  a  most  violent  Episcopalian, 
acknowledges  these  facts,  and  loads  him  with  much  abuse  on  account 
of  them. 


336  CONCESSIONS    OF   EPISCOPALIANS. 

allowed,  without  invidiousness,  to  call  it,)  ought  to  be 
cut  off  from  our  communion;  nor  can  I  by  any  means 
join  with  certain  mad  writers  among  us,  in  denying 
the  validity  of  their  sacraments,  and  in  calling  in  ques- 
tion their  right  to  the  name  of  Christian  churches.* 
I  could  wish  to  bring  about,  at  any  price,  a  more  close 
union  between  all  the  reformed  churches."  The  same 
prelate,  in  a  letter  to  Professor  Turretin,  of  Geneva, 
in  1718,  speaking  of  Bishop  Davenant's  conciliatory 
opinions,  declares  that  they  perfectly  coincide  with 
his  own,  and  that  he  could  earnestly  wish  that  all 
Christians  were  of  the  same  mind.  Another  letter, 
of  a  more  public  nature,  which  he  afterwards  ad- 
dressed to  the  pastors  and  professors  of  Geneva, 
abounds  with  similar  sentiments,  and  expresses  the 
most  fraternal  affection  for  those  Presbyterian  wor- 
thiest Nor  were  these  letters  written  by  him  merely 
as  a  private  man,  or  in  the  spirit  of  temporizing  po- 
liteness; but  manifestly  with  all  the  deliberation  and 
solemnity  of  a  man  who  felt  his  official  responsibility. 
The  learned  Joseph  Bingham,  who  has  written 
largely  and  ably  in  defence  of  the  Episcopacy  of  the 
Church  of  England,  frankly  acknowledges,  that  "  that 
church  does  by  no  means  damn  or  cut  off  from  her 
communion  those  who  believe  bishops  and  presbyters 
to  be  the  same  order.     Some  of  our  best  Episcopal 

*  The  language  employed  by  the  good  archbishop  to  express  his 
disapprobation  of  this  doctrine  is  remarkably  strong  and  pointed.  He 
calls  those  writers  who  attempt  to  maintain  it,  furiosi,  i.  e.  madmen. 
If  he  spoke  in  this  style  of  such  writers  in  England,  where  diocesan 
Episcopacy  was  established  by  law,  and  when  he  was  himself  at  the 
head  of  that  establishment,  what  would  he  have  said  concerning 
writers  of  a  similar  stamp,  at  the  present  day  in  America,  where  all 
denominations,  with  respect  to  the  state,  stand  on  a  level? 

t  See  Appendix  III.  to  Mosheim's  Ecclesiastical  History. 


CONCESSIONS    OF    EPISCOPALIANS.  337 

divines,  and  true  sons  of  the  Church  of  England,  have 
said  the  same,  distinguishing  between  order  and  juris- 
diction, and  made  use  of  this  doctrine  and  distinction 
to  justify  the  ordinations  of  the  reformed  churches, 
against  the  Romanists."* — French  Church? s  Jlpol. 
p.  262. 

Dr.  John  Edwards,  a  learned  and  respectable  divine 
of  the  Church  of  England,  in  a  treatise  on  this  sub- 
ject, after  having  considered  the  testimonies  of  Cle- 
ment, Ignatius,  Cyprian,  Chrysostom,  Theodoret,  Je- 
rome, and  others,  makes  the  following  declaration. 
"  From  all  these  we  may  gather  that  the  Scripture 
bishop  was  the  chief  of  the  presbyters ;  but  he  was 
not  of  a  distinct  order  from  them.  And  as  for  the 
times  after  the  apostles,  none  of  these  writers,  nor  any 
ecclesiastical  historian,  tells  us,  that  a  person  of  an 
order  superior  to  presbyters  was  set  over  the  presby- 
ters. It  is  true,  one  single  person  is  recorded  to  have 
presided  over  the  college  of  presbyters,  but  this  col- 
lege had  the  same  power  with  the  single  person, 
though  not  the  particular  dignity  of  presidentship. 
The  short  is,  the  bishops  in  these  times  were  presby- 
ters; only  he  that  presided  over  the  body  of  presbyters 
was  called  bishop,  while  the  rest  were  generally 
known  by  the  title  of  presbyters;  and  the  bishop  was 
still  but  a  presbyter,  as  to  order  and  function,  though, 
for  distinction  sake,  he  was  known  by  the  name  of 
bishop.  He  was  superior  to  the  other  presbyters  as 
long  as  he  executed  his  office,  as  a  chairman  in  a 
committee  is  above  the  rest  of  the  justices  whilst  he 
holds  that  place.     It  was  generally  the  most  ancient 

*  It  will  be  distinctly  remembered  that  all  the  reformed  churches, 
excepting  that  of  England,  admitted  and  practised  ordination  by 
presbyters. 

29 


338  CONCESSIONS    OF    EPISCOPALIANS. 

presbyter  that  was  chosen  to  preside  over  the  college 
of  presbyters,  but  he  had  no  superiority  of  power. 
All  the  priority  or  primacy  he  had  was  that  of  order. 
Here  is  the  ancient  pattern.  Why  is  it  not  followed?* 
To  single  fathers  we  may  add  councils,  who  deliver 
the  same  sense.  This,  then,  is  the  true  account  of  the 
matter.  Bishops  were  elders  or  presbyters,  and  there- 
fore of  the  same  order;  but  the  bishops  differed  from 
the  presbyters  in  this  only,  that  they  were  chosen  by 
the  elders  to  preside  over  them  at  their  ecclesiastical 
meetings  or  assemblies.t  But  in  after  ages,  the  pres- 
byters of  some  churches  parted  with  their  liberty  and 
right,  and  agreed  among  themselves  that  ecclesiastical 
matters  should  be  managed  by  the  bishop  only." — 
Edwards'  Remairis,  p.  253. 

The  celebrated  John  Locke,  it  is  well  known, 
always  professed  to  be  a  member  of  the  Church  of 
England.  Yet  on  the  subject  before  us  he  speaks  in 
the  following  decisive  manner :  "  A  church  I  take  to 
be  a  voluntary  society  of  men,  joining  themselves  to- 
gether, of  their  own  accord,  in  order  to  the  public 
worshipping  of  God,  in  such  a  manner  as  they  judge 
acceptable  to  him,  and  effectual  to  the  salvation  of 
their  souls.  Some,  perhaps,  may  object,  that  no  such 
society  can  be  said  to  be  a  true  church,  unless  it  have 
in  it  a  bishop,  or  presbyter,  with  ruling  authority,  de- 
rived from  the  very  apostles,  and  continued  down  to 

*  Here  is  an  explicit  acknowledgment,  that  the  Episcopacy  of  the 
Church  of  England,  and  primitive  Episcopacy,  are  very  different 
things. 

t  The  primitive  bishop,  in  Dr.  Edwards'  judgment,  therefore,  cor- 
responds  exactly  with  the  moderator  or  president  of  our  presbyteries, 
who  is  a  standing  officer,  elected  at  stated  periods,  who  always  pre- 
sides  at  the  meetings  of  the  body  to  which  he  belongs,  and  until  a 
successor  is  chosen. 


CONCESSIONS    OP    EPISCOPALIANS.  339 

the  present  time  by  an  uninterrupted  succession.  To 
these  I  answer;  Let  them  show  me  the  edict  by  which 
Christ  has  imposed  that  law  upon  his  Church.  And 
let  not  any  man  think  me  impertinent,  if,  in  a  thing 
of  this  consequence,  I  require  that  the  terms  of  that 
edict  be  very  express  and  positive.  I  would  ask,  if 
it  be  not  more  agreeable  to  the  Church  of  Christ  to 
make  the  conditions  of  her  communion  consist  in 
such  things,  and  such  things  only,  as  the  Holy  Spirit 
has  in  the  holy  Scriptures  declared,  in  express  words, 
to  be  necessary  to  salvation?  1  ask,  I  say,  whether 
this  be  not  more  agreeable  to  the  Church  of  Christ, 
than  for  men  to  impose  their  own  inventions  and  in- 
terpretations upon  others,  as  if  they  were  of  divine 
authority;  and  to  establish  by  ecclesiastical  laws,  as 
absolutely  necessary  to  the  profession  of  Christianity, 
such  things  as  the  Scriptures  do  either  not  mention, 
or  at  least  not  expressly  command?" — First  Letter 
on  Toleration. 

Sir  Peter  King,  lord  chancellor  of  England,  about 
the  beginning  of  the  eighteenth  century,  published  a 
very  learned  work,  entitled,  a  An  Inquiry  into  the 
Constitution,  Discipline,  Unity,  and  Worship,  of  the 
Primitive  Church,  that  flourished  within  the  first  three 
hundred  years  after  Christ."  In  this  work  his  lord- 
ship undertakes  to  show,  "  That  a  presbyter,  in  the 
primitive  Church,  meant  a  person  in  holy  orders, 
having  thereby  an  inherent  right  to  perform  the  whole 
office  of  a  bishop,  and  differing  from  a  bishop  in  no- 
thing but  in  having  no  parish,  or  pastoral  charge." 
He  further  shows,  "  That  presbyters,  in  those  times  of 
primitive  purity,  were  called  by  the  same  titles,  and 
were  of  the  same  specific  order  with  bishops;  that 
they  ruled  in  those  churches  to  which  they  belonged; 


340  CONCESSIONS    OF    EPISCOPALIANS. 

that  they  presided  in  church  consistories  with  the 
bishop  ;  that  they  had  the  power  of  excommunication, 
and  of  restoring  penitents;  that  they  confirmed;  and 
that  there  are  clearer  proofs  of  presbyters  ordaining, 
than  of  their  administering  the  Lord's  Supper."  The 
same  learned  author  maintains  that  there  were  but 
two  orders  of  church  officers,  instituted  by  the  autho- 
rity of  Christ,  viz.  bishops  and  deacons:  "and  if  they 
ordained  but  two,"  adds  he,  "  I  think  no  one  had 
ever  a  commission  to  add  a  third,  or  to  split  one  into 
two,  as  must  be  done,  if  we  separate  the  order  of 
presbyters  from  the  order  of  bishops." 

Dr.  Haweis,  an  eminent  clergyman  of  the  Church 
of  England,  in  the  Introduction  to  his  Ecclesiastical 
History,  makes  the  following  decided  avowal:  "  Hav- 
ing, through  divine  mercy,  obtained  grace  to  be  faith- 
ful— having  in  providence  received  my  education,  and 
been  called  to  minister  in  the  Church  of  England,  I 
have  embraced  and  subscribed  her  articles,  ex  animo, 
and  have  continued  to  prefer  an  Episcopal  mode  of 
government.  But  disclaiming  all  exclusive  preten- 
sions, and  joined  to  the  Lord  in  one  spirit,  with  all 
the  faithful  of  every  denomination,  I  candidly  avow 
my  conviction,  that  the  true  church  is  catholic,  or  uni- 
versal; not  monopolized  by  any  one  body  of  profess- 
ing Christians,  but  essentially  a  spiritual  church;  and 
consisting  only  and  equally  of  those  who,  in  every 
denomination,  love  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ  in  sincerity. 
Respecting  the  administration  of  this  church,  I  am 
not  convinced  that  the  Lord  of  life  and  glory  left  any 
precise  regulations.  His  kingdom  could  alike  subsist 
under  any  species  of  government;  and  having  nothing 
to  do  with  this  world,  was,  in  externals,  to  be  regu- 
lated by  existing  circumstances.     Whether  Episco- 


CONCESSIONS    OF    EPISCOPALIANS.  341 

pacy,  Presbytery,  or  the  Congregational  order  be 
established  as  the  dominant  profession,  it  affects  not 
the  body  of  Christ.  The  living  members,  under  each 
of  these  modes  of  administration,  are  alike  bound  to 
love  one  another  out  of  a  pure  heart  fervently;  to 
indulge  their  brethren  in  the  same  liberty  of  private 
judgment  which  they  exercise  themselves;  and  ought 
never  to  suffer  these  regulations  of  outward  order  to 
destroy  the  unity  of  the  spirit,  or  to  break  the  bonds 
of  peace." 

The  Rev.  Mr.  Gisborne,  a  distinguished  and  popu- 
lar writer  of  the  Church  of  England,  avows  opinions 
nearly  similar  to  those  contained  in  the  preceding 
quotation.  In  his  Survey  of  the  Christian  Religion, 
(chapter  xii.)  he  has  the  following  passage.  "If 
Christ,  or  his  apostles,  enjoined  the  uniform  adoption 
of  Episcopacy,  the  question  is  decided.  Did  Christ 
then,  or  his  disciples,  deliver,  or  indirectly  convey, 
such  an  injunction?  This  topic  has  been  greatly  con- 
troverted. The  fact  appears  to  be  this:  that  the  Sa- 
viour did  not  pronounce  upon  the  subject;  that  the 
apostles  uniformly  established  a  bishop  in  every  dis- 
trict, as  soon  as  the  church  in  that  district  became 
numerous;  and  thus  clearly  evinced  their  judgment, 
as  to  the  form  of  ecclesiastical  government  most  ad- 
vantageous, at  least  in  those  days,  to  Christianity; 
but  that  they  left  no  command  which  rendered  Epis- 
copacy universally  indispensable  in  future  times,  if 
other  forms  should  evidently  promise,  through  local 
opinions  and  circumstances  greater  benefit  to  religion. 
Such  is  the  general  sentiment  of  the  present  Church 
of  England  on  the  subject." 

The  opinions  and  the  declarations  of  the  venerable 
Dr.  White,  the  late  bishop  of  the  Episcopal  churches 
29* 


342  CONCESSIONS    OF    EPISCOPALIANS. 

in  Pennsylvania,  will  have  weight  with  all  Episcopa- 
lians. In  a  pamphlet  published  by  him,  some  years 
ago,  entitled,  "  The  Case  of  the  Episcopal  Churches 
in  the  United  States  considered,"  the  principal  object 
of  which  was  to  recommend  a  temporary  departure 
from  the  line  of  Episcopal  succession,  on  the  ground 
that  bishops  could  not  then  be  had,  we  find  the  fol- 
lowing passage,  p.  28.  "Now  if  even  those  who  hold 
Episcopacy  to  be  of  divine  right,  conceive  the  obliga- 
tion to  it  not  to  be  binding  when  that  idea  would  be 
destructive  of  public  worship;  much  more  must  they 
think  so,  who  indeed  venerate  and  prefer  that  form 
as  the  most  ancient  and  eligible,  but  without  any  idea 
of  divine  right  in  the  case.  This  the  author  believes 
to  be  the  sentiment  of  the  great  body  of  Episcopalians 
in  America ;  in  which  respect  they  have  in  their  fa- 
vour, unquestionably,  the  sense  of  the  Church  of 
England;  and,  as  he  believes,  the  opinions  of  her 
most  distinguished  prelates  for  piety,  virtue,  and 
abilities." 

Another  instance  of  concession  froman  eminent  Epis- 
copalian, is  that  of  the  late  Bishop  of  Lincoln,  who,  in 
his  Elements  of  Christian  Theology,  a  work  of  great 
authority  and  popularity  in  the  Church  of  England 
at  this  time,  expresses  himself  in  the  following  terms. 
"  Though  I  flatter  myself  that  I  have  proved  Episco- 
pacy to  be  an  apostolical  institution;  yet  I  readily  ac- 
knowledge, that  there  is  no  precept  in  the  New  Tes- 
tament, which  commands  that  every  church  should 
be  governed  by  bishops.  No  church  can  exist  with- 
out some  government.  But  though  there  must  be 
rules  and  orders  for  the  proper  discharge  of  the  offices 
of  public  worship;  though  there  must  be  fixed  regu- 
lations concerning  the  appointment  of  ministers;  and 


CONCESSIONS    OF    EPISCOPALIANS.  343 

though  a  subordination  among  them  is  expedient  in 
the  highest  degree;  yet  it  does  not  follow  that  all 
these  things  must  be  precisely  the  same  in  every 
Christian  country.  They  may  vary  with  the  other 
varying  circumstances  of  human  society;  with  the 
extent  of  a  country,  the  manners  of  its  inhabitants, 
the  nature  of  its  civil  government,  and  many  other 
peculiarities  which  might  be  specified.  As  it  hath 
not  pleased  our  Almighty  Father  to  prescribe  any 
particular  form  of  civil  government,  for  the  security 
of  temporal  comforts  to  his  rational  creatures;  so 
neither  has  he  prescribed  any  particular  form  of  eccle- 
siastical polity,  as  absolutely  necessary  to  the  attain- 
ment of  eternal  happiness.  The  Scriptures  do  not 
prescribe  any  particular  form  of  church  government." 
Vol.  II.  p.  383,  &c. 

Archdeacon  Paley  is  universally  known  as  a  dis- 
tinguished writer,  and  as  an  eminent  dignitary  of  the 
Church  of  England.  His  concessions  on  the  subject 
before  us  are  quite  as  explicit  and  decisive  as  any  of 
the  foregoing.  In  his  discourse  on  the  Distinction  of 
Orders  in  the  Church,  in  the  second  volume  of  his 
works,  he  maintains  that  neither  the  usages  nor  direc- 
tions of  the  apostles  warrant  any  exclusive  form  of 
church  government.  He  remarks  as  follows :  "  Whilst 
the  precepts  of  Christian  morality,  and  the  funda- 
mental articles  of  its  faith,  are,  for  the  most  part,  pre- 
cise and  absolute,  of  perpetual,  universal,  and  unal- 
terable obligation;  the  laws  which  respect  the  discip- 
line, instruction,  and  government  of  the  community 
are  delivered  in  terms  so  general  and  indefinite  as 
to  admit  of  an  application  adapted  to  the  mutable 
condition,  and  varying  exigencies  of  the  Christian 
Church." 


344  CONCESSIONS      OP    EPISCOPALIANS. 

To  the  foregoing  quotations  I  shall  only  add,  that 
a  number  of  the  most  learned  divines  of  the  Church 
of  England,  when  writing  on  other  subjects,  have  in- 
directly made  concessions  quite  as  decisive  as  any 
that  have  been  mentioned.  Almost  every  divine  of 
that  church  who  has  undertaken  to  explain  the  pro- 
phetic parts  of  the  sacred  writings,  has  represented 
the  reformed  churches  as  "the  Lord's  sealed  ones;" 
as  his  "  anointed  ones;"  as  the  "  witnesses  against  the 
man  of  sin;"  as  the  "  saints  of  the  Most  High;"  as 
having  "  the  temple  of  God,"  and  his  "  altar."  Among 
many  that  might  be  named  in  confirmation  of  this 
remark,  the  ingenious  and  excellent  Mr.  Faber,  in  a 
work  published  a  few  years  ago,  and  which  has  re- 
ceived the  decided  approbation  of  his  diocesan,  ex- 
pressly applies  to  the  German  Protestants,  those  pro- 
phecies which  represent  the  purest  part  of  the  Chris- 
tian Church.  He  dates  the  death  of  the  witnesses  at 
the  battle  of  Mulburg,  in  April,  1547,  and  their  re- 
surrection at  Magdeburgh,  in  the  year  1550.  He  does 
not  claim  for  the  Church  of  England  even  the  first 
rank  among  the  witnesses,  and  much  less  the  exclu- 
sive title  to  that  honour. 

The  preceding  quotations  are  only  a  small  specimen 
of  what  might  have  been  produced,  if  our  limits  ad- 
mitted of  their  being  further  multiplied.  Nothing 
would  be  more  easy  than  to  fill  a  volume  with  con- 
cessions of  similar  import;  concessions  made,  not  by 
men  of  obscure  name  and  small  learning;  but  by  di- 
vines of  the  most  exalted  character  for  talents,  erudi- 
tion, and  piety,  that  ever  adorned  the  Church  of  Eng- 
land; divines  who  shared  her  highest  dignities,  and 
who  gave  the  most  unquestionable  evidence  of  attach- 
ment to  her  constitution.     Those  which  we  have  de- 


CONCESSIONS    OF    EPISCOPALIANS.  345 

tailed,  however,  are  abundantly  sufficient.  They 
prove  that  Presbyterians  are  not  alone  in  considering 
the  fathers  as  favourable  to  the  doctrine  of  ministerial 
parity;  that  the  great  body  of  the  reformers,  and  other 
witnesses  for  the  truth,  in  different  ages  and  nations, 
were,  in  the  opinion  of  enlightened  Episcopalians, 
friends  and  advocates  of  the  same  doctrine  ;  that  the 
notion  of  the  exclusive  and  unalterable  divine  right 
of  diocesan  Episcopacy,  has  been  not  only  rejected, 
but  even  reprobated,  by  some  of  the  greatest  divines 
of  the  Church  of  England,  in  more  indignant  and  se- 
vere language  than  I  have  permitted  myself  to  use  in 
the  preceding  pages;  and  that  the  most'  competent 
judges  have  considered  a  large  majority  of  t*he  English 
clergy,  at  all  periods  since  the  reformation,  as  advo- 
cates of  the  constitution  of  their  national  church, 
not  on  the  principle  of  divine  right,  but  of  human  ex- 
pediency. 


346  UNINTERRUPTED    SUCCESSION. 


CHAPTER  IX. 

UNINTERRUPTED    SUCCESSION. 

The  perpetuity  of  the  Church  is,  undoubtedly,  a  doe- 
trine  taught  in  Scripture,  and  received  by  the  great 
mass  of  serious  Christians.  By  this  is  meant,  that 
there  always  has  been  a  visible  Church  (that  is,  a  body 
of  people  professing  the  true  religion)  ever  since  its 
first  institution  in  the  family  of  Adam,  and  that  there 
always  will  be  one  to  the  end  of  the  world.  This 
Church  has  not  been  always  equally  visible.  For 
more  than  two  thousand  years  it  existed  in  the  simple 
patriarchal  form,  without  what  we  are  'accustomed  to 
call  a  regular  ministry,  and  without  those  external 
signs  and  seals  by  which  its  character  has  since  been 
marked.  For  nearly  two  thousand  more  the  Church 
was  constituted  under  a  new  form,  and  confined  to  a 
single  family,  without,  however,  destroying  the  con- 
tinuity of  the  body.  Since  the  coming  of  the  Saviour 
in  the  flesh,  the  Church,  for  more  than  eighteen  cen- 
turies, has  existed  under  a  form  still  different  from 
that  of  either  of  the  former  periods;  and  it  is  the  com- 
mon belief  of  Christians  that  she  shall  continue  to  ex- 
ist under  this  form,  without  interruption,  until  her 
great  Head  shall  come  "  to  be  glorified  in  his  saints, 
and  admired  in  all  them  that  believe." 

A  large  majority  of  Protestants,  however,  while 
they  receive  the  doctrine,  thus  stated,  of  the  uninter- 
rupted continuance  of  the  Church,  both  past  and  fu- 


UNINTERRUPTED    SUCCESSION.  347 

lure,  do  not  pretend  to  be  able  historically  to  deduce 
the  succession  of  its  officers  from  the  ministry  of  the 
apostles  to  this  time.  They  think  it  enough  to  believe 
that,  agreeably  to  the  Saviour's  promise,  there  never 
has  been  a  time  when  there  was  not  a  Church,  and 
that  there  never  will  be,  to  the  end  of  the  world,  a 
time  when  there  will  not  be  a  Church,  maintaining, 
essentially,  all  the  truth,  ordinances,  and  officers  ne- 
cessary to  constitute  a  Church  such  as  the  divine  pro- 
mise demands.  They  think  it,  however,  wisest  and 
best  to  rest  their  confidence  in  regard  to  this  matter 
on  the  truth  of  an  almighty  and  faithful  God,  who 
cannot  lie,  rather  than  on  the  deductions  of  human 
history,  which  are,  in  this  case,  so  confessedly  ob- 
scure, and  in  all  cases  so  proverbially  fallible. 

Those  who  take  this  view  of  the  subject  are  far 
from  slighting  ecclesiastical  order.  On  the  contrary, 
they  maintain  with  exemplary  zeal  the  duty  and  im- 
portance of  a  strict  regard  to  regularity  in  all  investi- 
tures with  office  in  the  Church.  They  would  dread 
the  disorders  of  a  spurious  and  unauthorized  ministry, 
as  sincerely,  and  avoid  them  as  carefully,  as  the  most 
clamorous  advocates  of  what  is  called  apostolical 
succession.  Presbyterians  abhor  the  thought  of 
knowingly  breaking  any  link  in  the  chain  which  con- 
nects the  true  Church  of  the  present  time  with  that  of 
former  days.  But  still  they  cannot  see  the  wisdom  of 
laying  so  much  stress,  as  some  others  do,  on  being 
able  to  make  out  historically  every  link  in  the  chain 
which  stretches  back  from  our  day  to  the  time  of  the 
apostles.  They  do  not  think  that  it  is  either  possible 
to  establish  the  several  parts  in  detail  of  such  an  ec- 
clesiastical genealogy,  or  that  any  substantial  advan- 


348  UNINTERRUPTED    SUCCESSION* 

tage  would  result  from  such  an  establishment,  even  if 
it  were  possible. 

Roman  Catholics,  however,  and  high-church  Epis- 
copalians are  not  satisfied  with  this  view  of  the  sub- 
ject. They  contend  for  much  more.  They  each  tell 
us,  that,  their  ministry  has  been  handed  down  in  an 
uninterrupted  succession  from  the  apostles ;  that  they 
can  trace  their  ordinations  back  from  man  to  man, 
without  the  absence  or  the  rupture  of  a  single  link  in 
the  whole  chain;  that  the  validity  of  their  ministry 
and  their  sacraments  absolutely  depends  on  this  un- 
broken succession ;  and  that  none  but  those  who  can 
make  it  appear  that  they  have  a  ministry  transmitted 
from  age  to  age,  by  a  divinely  protected  succession  of 
bishops  from  the  time  of  the  apostles,  can  be  said  to 
have  a  church  or  a  ministry  at  all.  To  the  doctrine 
of  the  uninterrupted  succession,  thus  stated,  Presby- 
terians can  by  no  means  accede,  for  the  following 
reasons. 

I.  Because  we  find  no  authority  in  the  Bible  for 
such  a  doctrine.  "  The  Bible  is  the  religion  of  Pro- 
testants." It  is  the  only  infallible  rule  of  faith  and 
practice.  This  was  regarded  as  a  fundamental  prin- 
ciple of  the  reformation.  Whatever  is  not  found  in 
holy  Scripture,  or  cannot  by  good  and  sufficient  evi- 
dence be  deduced  from  it,  cannot  be  regarded  as  ne- 
cessary either  to  the  faith  or  the  practice  of  Christians. 
The  great  question,  then,  in  regard  to  the  uninter- 
rupted succession  is,  does  the  Bible  teach  it?  Does 
the  New  Testament  allege  that  the  validity  of  the 
ministry  and  the  ordinances  of  the  Church  of  Christ 
depends  upon  being  able  to  make  out  a  regular  eccle- 
siastical genealogy  from  the  apostles,  or  from  any  par- 


UNINTERRUPTED    SUCCESSION.  34$ 

ticular  point  of  time  ?  Is  there  a  syllable  or  hint  in 
all  the  instructions  of  our  Lord,  or  his  inspired  apos- 
tles, which  so  much  as  looks  like  this?  Such  an  inti- 
mation has  never  yet  been  pointed  out.  The  Apostle 
Paul  does,  indeed,  say  to  Timothy,  "  The  things  which 
thou  hast  heard  of  me,  among  many  witnesses,  the 
same  commit  thou  to  faithful  men,  who  shall  be  able 
to  teach  others  also."  But  in  this  injunction  he  evi- 
dently had  a  primary  reference  to  the  character  of  the 
persons  who  were  to  be  successively  set  apart  to  the 
work  of  the  gospel  ministry,  rather  than  to  inquiries 
or  scruples  about  ecclesiastical  descent.  We  do  not 
find  him,  in  all  his  instructions  respecting  the  Church, 
its  officers,  its  order,  and  its  rites,  making  the  least 
reference  to  that  unbroken  succession  which  is  now 
so  much  insisted  on  by  some,  as  a  matter  requiring 
the  attention  of  Christians.  We  should  certainly 
never  gather  from  the  New  Testament  that  such  a 
thought  had  ever  entered  the  minds  of  any  of  the  in- 
spired writers. 

Now,  can  it  be  imagined,  if  the  Saviour  and  his 
apostles  had  viewed  this  subject  in  the  same  light 
with  modern  high-churchmen,  that  they  could  thus 
have  passed  it  over  in  entire  silence?  Would  fidelity 
to  the  great  interests  of  the  Church,  and  of  the  souls 
of  men,  have  allowed  them  absolutely  to  say  nothing 
on  a  matter  deemed  fundamental,  nay  essential  to  the 
very  existence  of  the  Church  and  her  ordinances? 
This  can  never  be  admitted  by  those  who  believe  that 
the  writers  of  the  sacred  Scriptures  were  honest  men, 
and  that  they  wrote  "  as  they  were  moved  by  the 
Holy  Ghost." 

It  is  to  no  purpose  here  to  say,  that  no  difficulty 
having  arisen  on  this  subject  in  the  apostolic  age, 

30 


350  UNINTERRUPTED    SUCCESSION. 

there  was  no  occasion  to  speak  of  it;  and  that  in  this 
way  we  may  account  for  the  entire  silence  of  Scrip- 
ture in  regard  to  the  whole  subject.  This  is  no  valid 
answer.  The  principle  in  question,  if  our  high-church 
neighbours  are  to  be  believed,  is  a  great  practical  and 
fundamental  one,  essential  to  the  very  existence  of 
the  Church,  and  stretching  to  the  end  of  time.  Could 
inspired  men,  in  regard  to  such  a  principle,  have  been 
either  forgetful  or  reserved?  Is  it  credible,  that  when 
they  had  so  much  occasion  to  speak  often  and  much 
of  the  Church,  its  officers,  its  order,  and  all  its  radical 
interests,  this  point,  notwithstanding  its  vital  impor- 
tance, should  never  have  been  touched  or  alluded  to? 
Did  not  the  Holy  Ghost,  who  taught  and  guided  them, 
foresee  how  indispensable  its  maintenance  would  be 
in  all  subsequent  times?  Why,  then,  was  it  never 
hinted  at?  Why  is  it  that  when  the  advocates  of  this 
pretended  regulation  are  called  upon  to  sustain  it  by 
the  word  of  God,  they  are  wholly  unable  to  adduce 
in  its  behalf  the  semblance  of  a  warrant?  There  is 
no  presumption  in  asserting  that  such  could  never 
have  been  the  case,  if  our  blessed  Lord  and  his  apos- 
tles had  been  of  the  same  opinion  on  this  subject  with 
our  modern  high-church  neighbours.  Had  their  prin- 
ciples been  entertained  at  the  time  in  which"  the  New 
Testament  was  written,  and  regarded  by  the  inspired 
writers  in  the  same  light  in  which  they  are  regarded 
by  some  ecclesiastical  men  at  the  present  day,  they 
could  not  have  been  silent  respecting  them,  without 
forfeiting  all  claim  to  Christian  benevolence,  nay  to 
Christian  honesty.    But 

II.  Although  the  doctrine  of  uninterrupted  suc- 
cession in  the  ministry,  as  held  by  our  high-church 
neighbours,  is  manifestly  not  found  in  Scripture,  yet, 


UNINTERRUPTED    SUCCESSION.  351 

as  an  alleged  fact,  it  might  deserve  some  regard,  if  it 
could  be  fairly  made  out  by  the  documents  of  history. 
Antiquity  itself  is  venerable ;  and  that  which  can  be 
surely  traced  through  a  long  line  of  recorded  ancestry, 
has  at  least  one  mark  of  honour.  But  this  is  per- 
fectly impossible;  and  to  assert  that  it  may  be  thus 
made  out,  is  an  attempt  to  practise  the  grossest  impo- 
sition on  the  public  mind. 

The  following  statement  respecting  the  historical 
deduction  of  the  pretended  ecclesiastical  succession, 
will  commend  itself  to  every  sober  and  candid  mind 
as  at  once  unexaggerated  and  rational.  And  it  is  the 
rather,  in  this  connexion,  adopted  in  place  of  any 
thing  which  the  writer  himself  might  frame  to  a  simi- 
lar amount,  because  it  is  understood  to  be  from  the 
pen  of  a  member  of  the  established  Church  of  Eng- 
land, and,  of  course,  with  one  of  the  parties  in  this 
controversy,  will  have  the  more  weight. 

"  If  our  author  means  that  we  ought  to  believe 
that  the  Church  of  England  speaks  the  truth,  because 
she  has  the  apostolical  succession,  we  greatly  doubt 
whether  such  a  doctrine  can  be  maintained.  In  the 
first  place,  what  proof  have  we  of  the  fact?  We  have, 
indeed,  heard  it  said  that  Providence  would  certainly 
have  interfered  to  preserve  the  apostolical  succession 
in  the  true  Church.  But  this  is  an  argument  fitted 
for  understandings  of  a  different  kind  from  our  au- 
thor's. He  will  hardly  tell  us  that  the  Church  of 
England  is  the  true  Church,  because  she  has  the  suc- 
cession ;  and  that  she  has  the  succession  because  she 
is  the  true  Church. " 

"  What  evidence,  then,  have  we  for  the  fact  of  the 
apostolical  succession?  And  here  we  may  easily  de- 
fend the  truth  against  Oxford  with  the  same  argu- 


352  UNINTERRUPTED    SUCCESSION. 

ments  with  which,  in  old  times,  the  truth  was  de- 
fended by  Oxford  against  Rome.  In  this  stage  of  our 
combat  with  our  author,  we  need  few  reasons  except 
those  which  we  find  in  the  well-furnished  and  well- 
ordered  armory  of  Chillingworth." 

u  The  transmission  of  orders  from  the  apostles  to 
an  English  clergyman  of  the  present  day,  must  have 
been  through  a  very  great  number  of  intermediate 
persons.  Now  it  is  probable  that  no  clergyman  in 
the  Church  of  England  can'  trace  up  his  spiritual 
genealogy,  from  bishop  to  bishop,  even  so  far  back  as 
the  time  of  the  reformation.  There  remain  fifteen 
or  sixteen  hundred  years  during  which  the  history  of 
the  transmission  of  his  orders  is  buried  in  utter  dark- 
ness. And  whether  he  be  a  priest  by  succession  from 
the  apostles  depends  on  the  question  whether,  during 
that  long  period,  some  thousands  of  events  took  place, 
any  one  of  which  may,  without  any  gross  improba- 
bility, be  supposed  not  to  have  taken  place.  We 
have  not  a  tittle  of  evidence  to  any  one  of  these  events. 
We  do  not  even  know  the  names  or  countries  of  the 
men  to  whom  it  is  taken  for  granted  that  these  events 
happened.  We  do  not  know  whether  the  spiritual 
ancestors  of  any  one  of  our  contemporaries  were  Spa- 
nish, or  Armenian,  Arian,  or  Orthodox.  In  the  utter 
absence  of  all  particular  evidence,  we  are  surely  enti- 
tled to  require  that  there  should  be  very  strong  evi- 
dence indeed  that  the  strictest  regularity  was  observed 
in  every  generation;  and  that  Episcopal  functions 
were  exercised  by  none  who  were  not  bishops  by 
succession  from  the  apostles.  But  we  have  no  such 
evidence.  In  the  first  place,  we  have  not  full  and 
accurate  information  touching  the  polity  of  the  Church 
during  the  century  which  followed  the  persecution  of 


UNINTERRUPTED    SUCCESSION.  353 

Nero.  That,  during  this  period,  the  overseers  of  all 
the  little  Christian  societies  scattered  through  the  Ro- 
man empire  held  their  spiritual  authority  by  virtue  of 
Jioly  orders  derived  from  the  apostles,  cannot  be 
proved  by  contemporary  testimony,  or  by  any  testi- 
'  mony  which  can  be  regarded  as  decisive.  The  ques- 
tion whether  the  primitive  ecclesiastical  constitution 
bore  a. greater  resemblance  to  the  Anglican,  or  to  the 
•Calvinistic  model,  has  been  fiercely  disputed,  It  is  a 
question  on  which  men  of  eminent  parts,  learning,  and 
piety,  have  differed,  and  do,  to  this  day,  differ  very 
widely.  It  is.a  question  on  which  at  least  a  fuil  half  * 
of  the  ability  and  erudition  of  Protestant  Europe  has, 
ever  since  the  reformation,  been  opposed  to  the  Angli- 
can pretensions.  Our  author  himself,  we  are  per- 
suaded, would  have  the  candour  to  allow  that,  if  no 
evidence  were  admitted  but  that  which  is  furnished 
by  the  genuine  Christian  literature  of  the  first  two  cen- 
turies, judgment  would  not  go  in  favour  of  prelacy. 
And  if  he  looked  at  the  subject  as  calmly  as  he  would 
look  at  a  controversy  respecting  the  Roman  Comitia, 
or  the  Anglo-Saxon  Wlttenagemote,  he  would  proba- 
bly^think  that  the  absence  of  contemporary  evidence 
during  so  long  a  period  was  a  defect  which  later  at- 
testations, however  numerous,  could  but  very 'imper- 
fectly supply." 

"  It  is  surely  impolitic  to  rest  the  doctrines  of  the 
English  Church  on  an  historical  theory,  which,  to 
ninety -nine  Protestants  out  of  a  hundred;  would  seem 
much  more  questionable  than  any  doctrines.  Nor  is 
this  all.  Extreme  obscurity  overhangs  the  history  of 
the  middle  ages;  and  the  facts  which  are  discernible 

*  The  writer  might  with  great  safety  have  said  four-fifths,  instead 
of  one-half. 

30* 


354  UNINTERRUPTED    SUCCESSION. 

through  that  obscurity  prove  that  the  Church  was 
exceedingly  ill  regulated.  We  read  of  sees  of  the 
highest  dignity  openly  sold — transferred  backwards 
and  forwards  by  popular  tumult — bestowed  some- 
times by  a  profligate  woman  on  her  paramour — 
sometimes  by  "a  warlike  baron  on  a  kinsman,  still  a 
stripling.  We  read  of  bishops  of  ten  years  old — of 
bishops  five  years  old — of  many  popes  who  were 
mere  boys,  and  who  rivalled  the  frantic  dissoluteness 
of  Caligula — nay,  of  a  female  pope.  And  though 
this  last  story,  once  believed  throughout  all  Europe, 
has  been  disproved  by  the  strict  researches  of  modern 
criticism,  the  most  discerning  of  those  who  reject  it 
have  admitted  that  it  is  not  intrinsically  improbable. 
In  our  own  island,  it  was  the  complaint  of  Alfred  that 
not  a  single  priest,  south  of  the  Thames,  and  very  few 
on  the  north,  could  read  either  Latin  or  English.  And 
this  illiterate  clergy  exercised  their  ministry  amidst  a 
rude  and  half  heathen  population,  in  which  Danish 
pirates,  unchristened,  or  christened  by  the  hundred  on 
a  field  of  battle,  were  mingled  with  a  Saxon  peasan- 
try, scarcely  better  instructed  in  religion.  The  state 
of  Ireland  was  still  worse.  '  Tota  ilia  per  univer- 
sam  Hiberniam  dissolutio  ecclesiastics  discipline — 
ilia  ubiqae,  pro  consuetudine  Christiana  saeva  sub- 
introducta  barbariesj  are  the  expressions  of  St.  Ber- 
nard. We  are,  therefore,  at  a  loss  to  conceive  how 
any  clergyman  can  feel  confident  that  his  orders  have 
come  down  correctly.  Whether  he  be  really  a  suc- 
cessor of  the  apostles,  depends  on  an  immense  num- 
ber of  such  contingencies  as  these — whether  under 
King  Ethelwolf  a  stupid  priest  might  not,  while  bap- 
tizing several  scores  of  Danish  prisoners,  who  had  just 
made  their  option  between  the  font  and  the  gallows, 


UNINTERRUPTED    SUCCESSION.  355 

inadvertently  omit  to  perform  the  rite  on  one  of  these 
graceless  proselytes? — whether,  in  the  seventh  cen- 
tury, an  impostor,  who  had  never  received  consecra- 
tion, might  not  have  passed  himself  off  as  a  bishop 
on  a  rude  tribe  of  Scots? — whether  a  lad  of  twelve 
did  really,  by  a  ceremony  huddled  over  when  he  was 
too  drunk  to  know  what  he  was  about,  convey  the 
Episcopal  character  to  a  lad  of  ten?" 

"  Since  the  first  century,  not  less,  in  all  probability^ 
than  a  hundred  thousand  persons  have  exercised  the 
functions  of  bishops.  That  many  of  these  have  not 
been  bishops  by  apostolical  succession  is  quite  certain. 
Hooker  admits  that  deviations  from  the  general  rule 
have  been  frequent,  and,  with  a  boldness  worthy  of 
his  high  and  statesmanlike  intellect,  pronounces  them 
to  have  been  often  justifiable.  '  There  may  be/  says 
he, '  sometimes  very  just  and  sufficient  reason  to  allow 
ordination  made  without  a  bishop.  Where  the  Church 
must  needs  have  some  ordained,  and  neither  hath  nor 
can  have,  possibly,  a  bishop  to  ordain,  in  case  of  such 
necessity  the  ordinary  institution  of  God  hath  given 
oftentimes,  and  may  give  place.  And,  therefore,  we 
are  not  simply,  without  exception,  to  urge  a  lineal 
descent  of  power  from  the  apostles  by  continued  suc- 
cession of  bishops  in  every  effectual  ordination/ 
There  can  be  little  doubt,  we  think,  that  the  succes- 
sion, if  it  ever  existed,  has  often  been  interrupted  in 
ways  much  less  respectable.  For  example,  let  us  sup- 
pose— and  we  are  sure  that  no  person  will  think  the 
supposition  by  any  means  improbable — that,  in  the 
third  century,  a  man  of  no  principle  and  some  parts, 
who  has,  in  the  course  of  a  roving  and  discreditable 
life,  been  a  catechumen  at  Antioch,  and  has  there  be- 
come familiar  with  Christian  usages  and  doctrines. 


356  UNINTERRUPTED    SUCCESSION. 

afterwards  rambles  to  Marseilles,  where  he  finds  a 
Christian  society,  rich,  liberal,  and  simple  hearted. 
He  pretends  to  be  a  Christian,  attracts  notice  by  his 
abilities  and  affected  zeal,  and  is  raised  to  the  Epis- 
copal dignity  without  having  ever  been  baptized. 
That  such  an  event  might  happen,  nay,  was  very 
likely  to  happen,  cannot  well  be  disputed  by  any  one 
who  has  read  the  life  of  Peregrinus.  The -very  vir- 
tues, indeed,  which  distinguished  the  early  Christians 
seem  to  have  laid  them  open  to  those  arts  which  de- 
ceived 

1  Uriel,  though  regent  of  the  sun,  and  held 
The  sharpest-sighted  spirit  of  all  in  heaven.' 

"  Now  this  unbaptized  impostor  is  evidently  no 
successor  to  the  apostles.  He  is  not  even  a  Christian; 
and  all  orders  derived  through  such  a  pretended  bishop 
are  altogether  invalid.  Do  we  know  enough  of  the 
state  of  the  world  and  of  the  Church  in  the  third  cen- 
tury, to  be  able  to  say  with  confidence  that  there  were 
not  at  that  time  twenty  such  pretended  bishops?  Every 
such  case  makes  a  breakjn  the  apostolical  succession." 

"Now,  suppose  that  a  break,  such  as  Hooker  ad- 
mits to  have  been  both  common  and  justifiable,  or 
such  as  we  have  supposed  to  be  produced  by  hypo- 
crisy and  cupidity,  were  found  in  the  chain  which 
connected  the  apostles  with  any. of  the  missionaries 
who  first  spread  Christianity  in  the  wilder  parts  of 
Europe — who  can  say  how  extensive  the  effect  of  this 
single  break  may  be  ?  Suppose  that  St.  Patrick,  for 
example,  if  ever  there  was  such  a  man,  or  Theodore 
of  Tarsus,  who  is  said  to  have  consecrated,  in  the 
seventh  century,  the  first  bishops  of  many  English 
sees,  had  not  the  true  apostolical  orders,  is  it  not  con- 
ceivable that  such  a  circumstance  may  effect  the  or- 


UNINTERRUPTED    SUCCESSION.  60l 

ders  of  many  clergymen  now  living?  Even  if  it  were 
possible,  which  it  assuredly  is  not,  to  prove  that  the 
Church  had  the  apostolical  orders  in  the  third  century, 
it  would  be  impossible  to  prove  that  those  orders 
were  not  in  the  twelfth  century  so  far  lost  that  no 
ecclesiastic  could  be  certain  of  the  legitimate  descent 
of  his  own  spiritual  character.  And  if  this  were  so, 
no  subsequent  precautions  could  repair  the  evil." 

"Chillingworth  states  the  conclusion  at  which  he 
had  arrived  on  this  subject  in  these  very  remarkable 
words — ( That  of  ten  thousand  probables  no  one 
should  be  false;  that  of  ten  thousand  requisites, 
whereof  any  one  may  fail,  not  one  should  be  want- 
ing; this  to  me  is  extremely  improbable,  and  even 
cousin-germanlo  impossible.  So  that  the  assurance 
hereof  is  like  a  machine  composed  of  an  innumerable 
multitude  of  pieces,  of  which  it  is  strangely  unlikely 
but  some  will  be  out  of  order;  and  yet  if  any  one  be 
so,  the  whole  fabric  falls  of  necessity  to  the  ground: 
and  he  that  shall  put  them  together,  and  maturely 
consider  all  the  possible  ways  of  lapsing  and  nullify- 
ing a  priesthood  in  the  Church  of  Rome,  will  be  very 
inclinable  to  think  that  it  is  a  hundred  to  one  that 
among  a  hundred  seeming  priests  there  is  not  one  true 
one;  nay,  that  it  is  not  a  thing  very  improbable  that 
amongst  those  many  millions  which  make  up  the  Ro- 
mish hierarchy,  there  are  not  twenty  true.'  We  do 
not  pretend  to  know  to  what  precise  extent  the  canon- 
ists of  Oxford  agree  with  those  of  Rome  as  to  the  cir- 
cumstances which  nullify  orders.  We  will  not  there- 
fore go  so  far  as  Chillingworth.  We  only  say  that  we 
see  no  satisfactory  proof  of  the  fact,  that  the  Church 
of  England  possesses  the  apostolical  succession.  And, 
after  all,  if  our  author  could  prove  the  apostolical  sue- 


358  UNINTERRUPTED    SUCCESSION. 

cession,  what  would  the  apostolical  succession  prove? 
He  says  that, '  We  have  among  us  the  ordained  he- 
reditary witnesses  of  the  truth,  conveying  it  to  us- 
through  an  unbroken  series  from  our  Lord  Jesus 
Christ  and  his  apostles.'  Is  this  the  fact?  *Is  there 
any  doubt  that  the  orders  of  the  Church  of  England 
are  generally  derived  from  the  Church  of  Rome  ? 
Does  not  the  Church  of  England  declare,  does  not 
our  author  himself  admit,  that  the  Church  of  Rome 
teaches  much  error,  and  condemns  much  truth?  And 
is  it  not  quite  clear,  that  as  far  as  the  doctrines  of  the 
Church  of  England  differ  from  those  of  the  Church  of 
Rome,  so  far  the  Church  of  England  conveys  the 
truth  through  a  broken  series  ?" 

"  That  the  reformers,  lay  and  clerical,  of  the  Church 
of  England,  corrected  all  that  required  correction  in 
the  doctrines  of  the  Church  of  Rome,  and  nothing 
more,  may  be  quite  true.  But  we  never  can  admit 
the  circumstance,  that  the  Church  of  England  pos- 
sesses the  apostolical  succession  as  a  proof  that  she  is 
thus  perfect.  No  stream  can  rise  higher  than  its  foun- 
tain. The  succession  of  ministers  in  the  Church  of 
England,  derived  as  it  is  through  the  Church  of  Rome, 
can  never  prove  more  for  the  Church  of  England  than 
it  proves  for  the  Church  of  Rome.  But  this  is  not 
all.  The  Arian  churches  which  once  predominated 
in  the  kingdoms  of  the  Ostrogoths,  the  Visigoths,  the 
Burgundians,  the  Vandals,  and  the  Lombards,  were 
all  Episcopal  churches,  and  all  had  a  fairer  claim  than 
that  of  England  to  the  apostolical  succession,  as  being 
much  nearer  to  the  apostolical  times.  In  the  East, 
the  Greek  church,  which  is  at  variance  on  points  of 
faith  with  all  the  western  churches,  has  an  equal 
claim  to  this  succession.     The  Nestorian,  the  Euty- 


•        UNINTERRUPTED    SUCCESSION.  359 

-chian,  the  Jacobite  churches,  all  heretical,  all  con- 
demned by  counsels,  of  which  even  Protestant  divines 
iiave  generally  spoken  with  respect,  had  an  equal 
claim  to  the  apostolical  succession.  Now,  if  of  teach- 
ers having  apostolical  orders,  a  vast  majority  have 
taught  much  error — if  a  large  proportion  have  taught 
deadly  heresy — if,  on  the  other  hand,  as  our  author 
himself  admits,  churches  not  having  apostolical  or- 
ders— that  of  Scotland  for  example — have  been  nearer 
to  the  standard  of  orthodoxy  than  the  majority  of 
teachers  who  have  had  apostolical  orders — how  can 
he  possibly  call  upon  us  to  submit  our  private  judg- 
ment to  the  authority  of  a  church,  on  the  ground  that 
she  has  these  orders?"  * 

That  the  statements  contained  in  the  foregoing  ex- 
tracts are  founded  on  correct  historical  deduction,  can 
be  doubted  by  no  well  informed  and  candid  reader. 
Besides  the  testimony  of  Hooker  and  Chillingworth, 
referred  to  by  the  writer  just  cited,  the  judgments  of 
almost  countless  learned  men  might  be  adduced  in 
support  of  the  same  position. 

Bishop  Hoadly  speaks  on  the  subject  thus:  "I  am 
fully  satisfied  that,  till  a  consummate  stupidity  can  be 
happily  established,  and  universally  spread  over  the 
land,  there  is  nothing  that  tends  so  much  to  destroy 
all  due  respect  to  the  clergy,  as  the  demand  of  more 
than  can  be  due  to  them;  and  nothing  has  so  effectu- 
ally thrown  contempt  upon  a  regular  succession  in 
the  ministry,  as  the  calling  no  succession  regular  but 
what  was  uninterrupted;  and  the  making  the  eternal 
Salvation  of  Christians  to  depend  upon  that  uninter- 
rupted succession,  of  which  the  most  learned  must 

*  Edinburgh  Review  for  April,  1839. 


360  UNINTERRUPTED    SUCCESSION.       • 

have  the  least  assurance,  and  the  unlearned  can  have 
no  notion  but  through  ignorance  and  credulity." 

Bishop  Stillingfleet  candidly  acknowledges  that  the 
belief  in  such  a  succession  can  rest  only  on  the  ground 
of  mere  presumption.  "  Although/'  says  he,  "  by 
the  loss  of  records  of  the  British  churches,  we  cannot 
draw  down  the  succession  of  bishops  from  the  apos- 
tles (for  that  of  the  bishops  of  London  by  Jocelin  of 
Furnes  is  not  worth  mentioning)  yet  we  have  great 
reason  to  presume  such  a  succession."* 

The  learned  Dr.  Adam  Clarke,  the  author  of  the 
Commentary  on  the  Bible,  speaks  on  the  subject  in 
the  following  strong  language:  "By  the  kind  provi- 
dence of  God,  it  appears  that  he  has  not  permitted 
any  apostolical  succession  to  be  preserved;  lest  the 
members  of  his  church  should  seek  that  in  an  unin- 
terrupted succession,  which  must  be  found  in  the  Head 
alone.  The  Papists  or  Roman  Catholics,  who  boast 
of  an  uninterrupted  succession,  which  is  a  mere  fable, 
that  never  was,  and  never  can  be  proved,  have  raised 
up  another  head— -the  Pope." — Comment  on  Ezekiel 
xxxiv.  23.  Again,  he  says,  "  Some  make  Hebrews 
v.  4,  an  argument  for  the  uninterrupted  succession  of 
Popes  and  their  bishops  in  the  Church,  who  alone 
have  the  authority  to  ordain  for  the  sacerdotal  office; 
and  whosoever  is  not  thus  appointed,  is,  with  them, 
illegitimate.  It  is  idle  to  employ  time  in  proving  that 
there  is  no  such  thing  as  an  uninterrupted  succession 
of  this  kind.  It  does  not  exist;  it  never  did  exist.  It 
is  a  silly  fable,  invented  by  ecclesiastical  tyrants,  and 
supported  by  clerical  coxcombs.  But  were  it  even 
true,  it  has  nothing  to  do  with  the  text.     It  speaks 

*  Stillingfleet's  Antiq.  p.  77. 


UNINTERRUPTED    SUCCESSION.  361 

merely  of  the  appointment  of  a  high  priest,  the  suc- 
cession to  be  preserved  in  the  tribe  of  Levi,  and  in  the 
family  of  Aaron.  But  even  this  succession  was  in- 
terrupted and  broken;  and  the  office  itself  was  to 
cease  on  the  coming  of  Christ,  after  whom  there  could 
be  no  high  priest;  nor  can  Christ  have  any  successor, 
and  therefore  he  is  said  to  be  a  priest  for  ever;  for  he 
ever  liveth  the  Intercessor  and  Sacrifice  for  man- 
kind."— Comment  on  Heb.  v.  4. 

The  learned  and  pious  Dr.  Doddridge  gives  his  judg- 
ment on  this  subject  in  the  following  terms:  "  It  is  a 
very  precarious  and  uncomfortable  foundation  for 
Christian  hope,  which  is  laid  in  the  doctrine  of  an 
uninterrupted  succession  of  bishops,  and  which,  makes 
the  validity  of  the  administration  of  Christian  minis- 
ters to  depend  upon  such  a  succession ;  since  there  is 
so  great  a  darkness  upon  many  periods  of  ecclesiastical 
history;  insomuch  that  it  is  not  agreed  who  were  the 
seven  first  bishops  of  the  Church  of  Rome,  although 
that  church  was  so  celebrated;  and  Eusebius  himself, 
from  whom  the  greatest  patrons  of  this  doctrine  have 
made  their  catalogues,  expressly  owns  that  it  is  no 
easy  matter  to  tell  who  succeeded  the  apostles  in  the 
government  of  the  churches,  excepting  such  as  may 
be  collected  from  the  Apostle  Paul's  own  words. 
Contested  elections  in  almost  all  considerable  cities 
make  it  very  dubious  which  were  the  true  bishops; 
and  decrees  of  councils  rendering  all  those  ordinations 
null,  where  any  Simonaical  contract  was  the  founda- 
tion of  them,  makes  it  impossible  to  prove,  at  least  on 
the  principles  of  the  Romish  church,  that  there  is  now 
upon  earth  any  one  person  who  is  a  legal  successor  of 
the  apostles,  and  renders  hereditary  right  as  pre- 
31 


362  UNINTERRUPTED    SUCCESSION. 

carious  in  ecclesiastical,  as  it  certainly  is  in  civil 
affairs." — Lecture  197. 

The  truth  is,  it  is  just  as  impossible  to  trace  an  un- 
interrupted succession  in  the  ministry,  in  any  church 
whatever,  as  it  is  to  deduce  with  certainty  the  gene- 
alogy of  any  particular  family  from  the  apostolic  age 
to  the  nineteenth  century.  He  who  should  undertake 
this  task,  in  the  case  of  any  family  whatever,  would, 
no  doubt,  find  himself  completely  baffled  after  going 
back  a  few  generations ;  and  if  he  should  assert  his 
ability  to  accomplish  it,  he  would  be  considered  as  in- 
sulting the  understanding  of  every  one  in  the  least 
acquainted  with  the  subject. 

Some,  indeed,  in  vindicating  their  belief  of  this  doc- 
trine of  uninterrupted  succession,  have  told  us  that 
we  ought  not  to  indulge  in  regard  to  it  too  much  of 
an  investigating  spirit;  that,  although  we  may  not  be 
able  to  establish  it  by  complete  historical  deduction, 
yet  we  ought,  nevertheless,  to  believe  it.  That  as  we 
believe  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity,  without  professing 
to  understand  or  explain  it,  so  the  doctrine  in  question 
ought  to  be  received  without  presuming  to  scrutinize 
too  closely  its  historical  evidence;  indeed,  they  tell  us 
that  there  is  a  species  of  profaneness  in  demanding, 
before  we  receive  it,  that  every  link  in  the  chain  of 
evidence  be  made  out.  This  retreat  into  the  province 
of  mysticism  may  be  very  convenient,  but  surely  it  is 
neither  philosophical  nor  scriptural.  The  doctrine  of 
the  Trinity  is  plainly  revealed  in  Scripture  as  &fact 
to  be  believed,  just  as  the  doctrine  of  the  divine  om- 
nipresence or  omniscience,  though  we  be  not  able  to 
comprehend  the  nature  of  either.  When  we  attempt 
to  pry  into  the  philosophy  of  such  doctrines  with  too 


UNINTERRUPTED    SUCCESSION.       .  363 

curious  an  inquiry,  we  may  indeed  be  said  to  indulge 
a  profane  spirit.  Here  we  must  believe  what  God 
has  spoken,  though  we  be  not  able  to  explain  it. 

Now  if  the  doctrine  of  uninterrupted  succession  in 
the  ministry  were  revealed  in  Scripture,  as  a  fact  to 
be  believed,  the  same  reasoning  might  be  confidently 
applied  to  it.  But  as  it  is  manifestly  not  found  there, 
it  is  truly  presumption  of  the  most  extraordinary  kind 
to  attempt  to  place  it  on  the  same  footing  with  a  fun- 
damental truth  of  the  gospel.  The  moment  we  take 
this  ground,  we  adopt  a  principle  which  will  open 
the  door  for  receiving  the  doctrine  of  Transubstantia- 
tion,  or  any  of  the  worst  errors  of  the  Roman  Catho- 
lic system. 

In  short,  the  promise  of  the  Saviour  that  neither  the 
Church  nor  her  ministry  shall  ever  become  extinct,  is 
enough  to  satisfy  me.  That  the  succession  in  this 
ministry  will  be  kept  up  in  the  same  exact  manner  in 
every  age,  the  writer  of  these  pages  considers  neither 
Scripture  nor  common  sense  as  requiring  him  to  be- 
lieve. There  are  few,  if  any,  who  contend  more 
zealously  for  a  strict  adherence  to  ecclesiastical  rules 
than  he  is  disposed  to  do;  nor  one  who  deems  it  of 
more  importance  that  we  set  our  faces  against  every 
kind  of  spurious  investiture.  Yet  he  has  no  hesita- 
tion in  saying,  that,  if  it  could  be  made  probably  to 
appear,  that,  about  two  hundred  or  five  hundred 
years  ago,  the  regular  mode  of  investing  with  holy 
orders  in  our  church  had  been,  by  some  ecclesiastical 
oversight  or  catastrophe,  in  a  few  cases,  and  for  a 
short  time,  interrupted,  he  would  not  consider  it  as  in 
the  least  degree  affecting  either  the  legitimacy  of  our 
present  ministry,  or  the  validity  of  our  present  ordi- 
nances.    It  is  a  great  mistake  to  suppose  that  the  ex- 


364  UNINTERRUPTED    SUCCESSION. 

ternal  order  of  the  Church  is  ordained  by  her  sove- 
reign Head  as  an  end  instead  of  a  means.  It  is  error 
to  suppose  that  the  Church  is  not  vested  with  the 
power,  in  any  supposable  exigency,  to  revive  and 
maintain  her  own  ministry.  Our  blessed  Lord  seems 
to  have  laid  down  a  radical  principle,  which  applies 
to  all  similar  subjects,  when  he  said  concerning  an 
acknowledged  divine  ordinance,  "  The  sabbath  was 
made  for  man,  and  not  man  for  the  sabbath." — But, 

III.  Supposing  the  uninterrupted  succession  to  be 
ever  so  essential,  and  ever  so  well  established;  sup- 
posing it  to  be  the  only  channel  through  which  minis- 
ters of  the  present  day  can  have  the  apostolic  com- 
mission transmitted  to  them;  nothing  is  more  easy 
than  to  show,  on  Presbyterian  principles,  that  the 
succession  in  our  church,  is  as  distinct,  regular,  and 
unbroken,  as  that  of  the  Episcopal  Church. 

From  the  time  of  the  apostles  to  the  sera  of  the  re- 
formation, our  line  of  succession  is  certainly  as  good 
as  that  of  the  most  rigid  Episcopalians,  for  they  are 
one  and  the  same.  When  the  reformers  began  their 
work  they  found  all  the  churches,  both  of  North  and 
South  Britain,  under  Episcopal  government.  Until 
that  time,  therefore,  our  opponents  themselves  being 
judges,  a  regular  line  of  ordination  had  been  pre- 
served. If  there  be  any  doubt  of  this,  it  is  a  doubt 
which  as  much  affects  their  succession  as  our  own. 
In  short,  until  this  period,  the  lines  of  ecclesiastical 
genealogy  coincide,  share  the  same  fortunes,  and  are 
to  be  traced  by  the  same  means.  When  the  reforma- 
tion began,  and  the  doctrine  of  clerical  imparity  was 
discarded  by  a  considerable  portion  of  the  Christians 
of  Britain,  the  presbyters  who  had  been  ordained  by 
the  bishops,  undertook  themselves  to  ordain  in  their 


UNINTERRUPTED    SUCCESSION.  365 

turn;  and  from  them  it  is  as  easy  to  trace  the  succes- 
sion in  the  line  of  presbyters,  as  it  is  for  Episcopa- 
lians in  the  line  of  diocesan  bishops.  Now,  if,  as 
Presbyterians  believe,  and  think  they  can  prove,  and 
have  proved,  the  right  of  ordaining,  according  to 
Scripture  and  primitive  usage,  belongs  to  presbyters', 
it  is  evident  that  the  succession  through  them  is  as 
perfectly  regular  and  valid  as  any  other.  Accord- 
ingly we  find  one  of  the  pious  fathers  of  the  second 
century  speaking  familiarly  of  tracing  the  ministerial 
succession  through  the  line  of  presbyters.  Thus,  then, 
stands  our  claim  to  apostolical  succession  in  the  minis- 
try. Up  to  the  period  of  the  reformation  it  is  the 
very  same,  with  that  of  our  Episcopal  brethren.  From 
the  reformation  to  the  present  time  we  can,  undoubt- 
edly, present  as  regular,  unbroken,  and  unquestiona- 
ble a  line  of  succession  through  presbyters,  as  they 
can  through  prelates.  And  if,  as  has  been  shown  in 
the  preceding  pages,  the  former  is  just  as  legitimate 
and  valid  a  line  of  succession  as  the  latter,  the  case 
is  made  out  completely  in  our  favour.  If,  as  has  been 
proved,  the  right  to  ordain,  according  to  Scripture  and 
primitive  usage,  belongs  to  presbyters,  the  case  is 
clear  that  prelatists  have  not  the  smallest  advantage 
over  us  on  the  score  of  succession. 

It  has  been  objected,  however,  that,  even  on  Pres- 
byterian principles,  the  Episcopal  succession  is  better 
than  ours ;  or  rather  that  ours  is  utterly  invalid,  be- 
cause, at  the  sera  of  the  reformation,  the  presbyters,  in 
different  parts  of  Europe,  who  began  to  ordain,  had 
not  the  ordaining  power  specifically  or  professedly 
imparted  to  them  by  the  bishops  who  ordained  them; 
so  that  they  did  not  even  stand  on  equal  ground  with 
modern  Presbyterian  ministers,  on  whom,  in  their 
31* 


366  UNINTERRUPTED    SUCCESSION. 

ordination,  the  ordaining  power  is  recognised  as  for- 
mally bestowed.  But  this  objection  has  no  force. 
The  popish  doctrine,  "  That  it  is  the  intention  of  the 
administrator  which  constitutes  the  validity  of  an  ec- 
clesiastical ordinance,"  is  discarded  by  all  Protestants. 
And  as  the  first  presbyters  who  undertook  to  ordain, 
after  emerging  from  the  darkness  of  Popery,  were 
regularly  invested  with  the  power  of  preaching  the 
gospel  and  administering  sacraments,  all  Presbyte- 
rians consider  the  right  to  ordain  as  essentially  and 
necessarily  included  in  those  powers,  whether  the 
fact  be  expressly  mentioned,  or  even  thought  of  at 
the  time  of  ordination,  or  not. 

After  all,  is  it  credible  that  we  are  bound  to  ac- 
knowledge and  venerate  as  successors  of  the  apostles, 
men  who  followed  the  apostles  in  nothing?  men  who 
rejected  their  doctrine;  knew  nothing  of  their  spirit; 
and  refused  to  follow  their  example;  men  who  were 
strangers  to  the  humility,  the  purity,  the  benevolence, 
and  the  unreserved  consecration  to  their  Master  in 
heaven  which  so  eminently  characterized  the  apos- 
tles? Shall  these  men,  though  often  manifestly  des- 
titute of  Christian  knowledge,  uninfluenced  by  Chris- 
tian principles,  unholy  in  their  conversation,  and  noto- 
rious for  their  love  of  the  world,  and  the  neglect  of 
souls,  be  regarded  as  the  only  successors  of  the  apos- 
tles, and  their  ecclesiastical  acts  as  alone  valid,  sim- 
ply because  the  hands  of  a  prelate,  as  worldly  minded, 
as  unholy,  and  as  unlike  the  apostles  as  themselves, 
have  been  laid  upon  them; — and  shall  such  men  as 
Luther,  and  Calvin,  and  Knox,  among  the  reformers, 
and  Owen,  and  Baxter,  and  Charnock,  and  Bates, 
and  How,  and  Watts,  and  Doddridge  in  later  times  be 
considered  as  mere  impostors,  and  pretenders  to  the 


UNINTERRUPTED    SUCCESSION.  367 

Christian  ministry?  If  we  may  believe  the  advocates 
of  uninterrupted  succession,  the  monsters  of  impiety 
and  profligacy,  who,  at  different  times,  filled  the  papal 
chair,  and  the  seats  of  bishops,  of  which  characters 
the  pages  of  ecclesiastical  history  are  full — were  the 
true  and  genuine  successors  of  the  apostles;  while 
thousands  of  the  most  learned,  pious,  devoted,  and 
exemplary  divines  that  ever  lived — men  of  whom 
the  world  was  not  worthy — were  mere  impious  in- 
truders on  functions  to  which  they  had  no  legitimate 
introduction,  and  all  their  ecclesiastical  acts  so  many 
impious  nullities!  Can  these  claims  be  admitted 
without  rebellion  against  the  King  of  Zion?  This 
question  will  soon  be  decided  by  a  tribunal  more  im- 
partial and  unerring  than  any  that  this  divided  and 
selfish  world  can  furnish. 


368    PRACTICAL  INFLUENCE  OP  PRELACY. 


CHAPTER  X. 

PRACTICAL    INFLUENCE    OF    PRELACY CONCLUDING 

REMARKS. 

The  practical  influence  of  any  doctrine,  has  been 
generally  considered  as  a  good  test  of  its  truth.  "By 
their  fruits  ye  shall  know  them,"  is  a  rule  which 
applies  to  principles  as  well  as  to  men.  Let  us  apply 
this  rule  to  the  case  before  us.  If  prelacy  be  of  ex- 
clusive and  unalterable  divine  right:  If  it  be  so  essen- 
tial, that  there  is  no  true  church,  no  authorized  min- 
istry, no  valid  ordinances  without  it:  If  Episcopal 
churches  alone  are  in  covenant  with  Christ,  in  the 
appointed  road  to  heaven,  and  warranted  to  hope  in 
the  promises  of  God,  then  we  may  reasonably  expect 
and  demand,  that  all  churches  of  this  denomination, 
should  display  more  of  the  Spirit  of  Christ  than  any 
other  classes  of  professing  Christians.  The  blessing 
of  God,  is,  beyond  all  question,  most  likely  to  attend 
those  institutions  which  are  most  agreeable  to  his 
will.  But  we  may  go  further.  All  who  believe  the 
Bible  will  acknowledge  that  there  is  more  religion  in 
the  church,  than  out  of  it;  more  of  the  image  and  love 
of  the  Redeemer  among  his  covenanted  people,  than 
among  those  who  are  aliens  from  the  commonwealth 
of  Israel,  and  strangers  to  the  covenant  of  promise. 
To  deny  this,  would  be  to  call  in  question  every  pro- 
mise which  the  King  of  Zion  has  made  to  his  people, 
and  every  advantage  of  union  with  him  as  their  Head. 
Now  if  all  non-episcopal  societies  are  to  be  consi- 


PRACTICAL  INFLUENCE  OF  PRELACY.     369 

dered  as  mere  uncommanded  associations,  which 
have  nothing  to  do  with  the  church  of  Christ;  and, 
if  union  with  that  church  is  a  privilege  which  belongs 
to  Episcopalians  alone,  then  those  who  believe  this 
doctrine,  are  bound,  on  every  Christian  principle,  to 
show,  that  Episcopal  churches  contain  within  their 
bosom  more  pure  and  undefiled  religion,  more  har- 
mony, more  love  for  the  truth  as  it  is  in  Jesus,  more 
universal  holiness  of  heart  and  of  life,  than  any,  or 
than  all  other  religious  denominations.  But  is  this 
in  fact  the  case?  Will  the  friends  of  prelacy  under- 
take to  show,  that  they  alone  give  this  evidence  that 
they  belong  to  Christ?  Will  they  even  undertake  to 
show,  that  Episcopalians  exhibit  in  a  pre-eminent 
degree,  this  practical  testimony,  that  they  are  the 
chosen  generation,  the  peculiar  people,  who  are  puri- 
fied by  the  blood,  and  quickened  by  the  Spirit  of  the 
Redeemer? 

The  efficacy  of  Episcopal  government  in  securing 
the  unity  of  the  church,  in  guarding  against  schism, 
and  in  promoting  harmony  and  peace,  has  been  much 
celebrated.  But  is  there  such  a  peculiar  and  benign 
efficacy  in  that  form  of  ecclesiastical  order?  I  am 
willing  to  refer  the  decision  of  this  question  to  any 
man  who  is  acquainted  with  ecclesiastical  history. 
If  we  consult  Eusebius,  he  will  present  us  with  a 
picture  of  the  violence,  the  strife,  and  the  divisions 
among  bishops,  and  among  different  portions  of  the 
church,  through  their  means,  which  is  enough  to 
make  a  Christian  weep.  If  we  consult  Gregory  Na- 
zianzen,  he  will  'tell  us,  in  language  before  quoted, 
that  prelacy  "has  caused  many  fruitless  conflicts  and 
bruises,  has  cast  many  into  the  pit,  and  carried  away 
multitudes  to  the  place  of  the  goats."    If  we  examine 


370  PRACTICAL    INFLUENCE    OF    PRELACY. 

the  history  of  any  Episcopal  church  on  earth,  we 
shall  find  it  exhibiting,  to  say  the  least,  as  large  a 
share  of  heresy,  contention,  and  schism,  as  any  which 
bears  the  Presbyterian  form;  and,  what  is  more,  we 
shall  ever  find  the  prelates  themselves  quite  as  for- 
ward as  any  others,  in  scenes  of  violence  and  outrage. 
The  Episcopal  professor  Whitaker,  had  no  high  opi- 
nion of  the  benign  effects  of  prelacy,  when  he  declared 
that  if  this  form  of  government  were  introduced  as  a 
remedy  against  schism  "the  remedy  was  worse  than 
the  disease."  "The  first  express  attempt,"  says  the 
learned  Dr.  Owen,  "  to  corrupt  and  divide  a  church, 
made  from  within  itself,  was  that  in  the  church  of 
Jerusalem,  made  by  Thebulis,  because  Simon  Cleo- 
pas  was  chosen  bishop,  and  he  was  refused.  The 
same  rise  had  the  schisms  of  the  Novatians  and 
Donatists,  the  heresies  of  Arius  and  others."  In 
short,  the  animosities  and  divisions  in  the  church  of 
Christ,  which  have  taken  their  rise  from  the  contend- 
ing interests,  the  lawless  ambition,  and  the  indecent 
strife  of  diocesan  bishops,  are  so  numerous,  that  his- 
tory is  full  of  them;  and  so  disgusting  to  every  mind 
imbued  with  the  spirit  of  Christianity,  that  it  would 
give  pain  even  to  an  opponent  to  dwell  upon  the 
subject.  But  further;  do  we  not  all  know  Episcopal 
churches,  at  the  present  day,  in  which  all  varieties  of 
theological  creeds  are  received,  from  the  purest  ortho- 
doxy, down  to  the  most  blasphemous  heresies,  and 
that  by  all  ranks  of  their  clergy,  as  well  as  their  lay 
members?  Is  this  that  unity  of  the  spirit  of  which 
the  Scriptures  speak?  Is  this  that  unity  which  con- 
stitutes men  one  body  in  Christ,  and  which  will  pre- 
pare them  for  the  more  sublime  and  perfect  union  of 
the  church  triumphant  above  ? 


PRACTICAL  INFLUENCE  OF  PRELACY.     371 

Again;  if  the  Episcopal  Church  alone  is  in  com- 
munion with  Christ;  if  she  possesses  the  only  autho- 
rized  ministry,  and  the  only  valid  ordinances;  then 
we  have  a  right  to  expect  that  she  will  pre-eminently 
display  the  purifying  effects  of  these  peculiar  privi- 
leges.    For  if  the  Christian  ministry  and  ordinances 
were  given  to  edify  the  body  of  Christ,  and  are  the 
great  instruments  which  God  does,  in  fact,  employ 
for  this  purpose,  as  both  Presbyterians  and  Episco- 
palians concur  in  believing;  then  we  must  suppose 
that  more,  much  more,  of  their  sacred  influence  will 
appear  among  those  who  possess  these  precious  gifts, 
than  among  those  who  possess  them  not.     To  sup- 
pose that  an  invalid  ministry  and  ordinances  will  be, 
in  general,  as  useful  in  their  effects,  as  those  which  are 
valid,  is  to  surrender  one  of  the  most  important  dis- 
tinctions between  truth  and  error;  between  divinely 
appointed  observances,  and   the   commandments  of 
men.     To  suppose  that  those  who  are  in  a  state  of 
habitual  alienation  from  God,  and  rebellion  against 
him,  should  be  as  humble,  penitent,  believing,  and 
obedient;  as  much  distinguished  for  love  to  God  and 
love  to  man  as  those  who  are  "  fellow  citizens  with 
the  saints  and  of  the  household  of  God,"  is  to  sup- 
pose that  there  is  no  profit  in  being  in  the  Church 
rather  than  the  world. 

Do  we,  then,  actually  find  in  Episcopal  churches 
more  real  and  vital  religion,  than  in  other  churches? 
Do  we  actually  find  among  them  more  of  the  image 
of  Christ;  more  attachment  to  evangelical  truth; 
more  faithful  preaching  of  Jesus  Christ,  and  him  cru- 
cified; more  brotherly  love;  more  pure  and  holy 
living;  more  care  to  avoid  a  sinful  conformity  to  the 
world;  more  vigorous  and  scriptural  discipline;  more 


372     PRACTICAL  INFLUENCE  OF  PRELACY. 

zeal  for  the  divine  glory;  and  a  temper  and  conver- 
sation more  suited  to  adorn  the  doctrine  of  God  our 
Saviour,  than  in  the  mass  of  non-episcopal  churches? 
In  short,  are  Episcopalians,  as  a  denomination,  more 
serious,  devout,  self-denied,  benevolent,  meek,  for- 
giving, and  heavenly-minded,  than  Presbyterians,  as  a 
denomination  ?  Are  their  societies  found  in  a  higher 
degree  than  any  other  to  attract  humble,  spiritual 
zealous  believers,  and  to  repel  the  gay,  the,  worldly, 
and  the  openly  irreligious?  We  bring  no  charges 
against  our  Episcopal  neighbours;  we  arrogate  no 
superior  excellence  to  ourselves.  The  great  Searcher 
of  hearts  knows  that  the  Presbyterian  Church  has  no 
special  reason  for  self-complacency,  in  this  respect, 
far  less  for  boasting.  We  only  state  what  the  whole 
argument  necessarily  and  demonstrably  implies;  and 
having  made  the  statement,  we  only  ask,  what  is  the 
fact?  Let  those  who  have  the  best  opportunity  of 
comparing  the  mass  of  the  members  of  the  Episco- 
pal Church  in  our  own  land,  and  in  other  lands,  with 
the  mass  of  the  members  of  other  churches,  whom 
some  of  the  former  would  deliver  over  to  the  "  un- 
covenanted  mercies  of  God,"  bear  witness.  Perhaps 
it  will  be  said,  that  much  of  what  we  call  vital  reli- 
gion, is  rather  superstition;  and  that  with  respect  to 
true  and  rational  piety,  there  is  full  as  much,  if  not 
more,  in  Episcopal  than  in  other  churches.  On  this 
question  I  will  not  dwell  long.  By  real  religion,  I 
mean  a  conformity  of  temper  and  practice  with  that 
system  of  evangelical  truth  which  is  exhibited  in  the 
writings,  and  which  adorned  the  lives  of  Bishop 
Jewel,  Bishop  Hall,  Bishop  Davenant,  Archbishop 
Usher,  and  many  other  illustrious  prelates  of  the 
Church   of  England,  of  former   ages;    that  system 


PRACTICAL  INFLUENCE  OF  PRELACY.     373 

Which  has  been  since  defended  and  exemplified  by 
the  Herveys,  the  Romanies,  the  Newtons,  the  Scotts, 
and  a  multitude  more  of  unmitred  divines  of  the 
same  church,  in  later  times;  that  evangelical  system 
which  is  embodied  in  the  articles  of  that  church,  and 
which  breathes  in  the  greatest  part  of  her  liturgy  and 
offices;  that  system  which  exalts  the  divine  Redeemer 
to  the  throne,  which  places  the  penitent  sinner  in  the 
dust,  at  his  footstool,  which  teaches  men  to  rely  solely 
on  the  atoning  sacrifice  and  perfect  righteousness  of 
the  Saviour,  for  pardon  and  life,  and  which  at  the 
same  time,  prompts  them  to  follow  holiness,  and  to  be 
zealous  of  good  works.  Is  there  more  of  this  kind  of 
religion  in  Episcopal  churches  than  in  any  others?  I 
cannot  suppose  that  there  is  a  single  Episcopalian  in 
our  country,  either  so  ill  informed,  or  so  prejudiced, 
as  to  believe,  for  a  moment,  that  his  own  church  is 
in  the  least  degree  superior,  in  any  of  these  respects, 
to  her  Presbyterian  neighbours. 

It  has  been  said,  in  reply  to  this  argument,  that 
the  people  of  Israel,  a  short  time  before  the  coming  of 
the  Messiah,  had  become  exceedingly  corrupt,  al- 
though we  all  confess  that  the  only  visible  Church 
on  earth  was  then  found  in  the  bosom  of  that  nation. 
So  that  even  admitting  that  there  is  a  great  lack  of 
piety  in  the  Episcopal  Church,  (which  its  members 
do  not  admit,  and  we  by  no  means  assert)  still  it 
would  no  more  prove  that  that  Church  is  not  the  only 
true  one,  than  the  degeneracy  before  the  advent  proves 
that  the  Jewish  people  were  not  then  the  only  true 
one.  But  this  argument  is  a  failure.  There  was  in- 
deed, at  the  time  referred  to,  but  too  little  piety  in 
the  Jewish  Church.  But  the  New  Testament  proves 
that  there  was  some,  nay  a  considerable  amount. 
32 


374     PRACTICAL  INFLUENCE  OF  PRELACY. 

Many  persons  are  referred  to  as  bearing  this  character. 
There  ■  was  evidently  more  than  among  the  pagans. 
Besides,  it  is  unquestionably  evident  from  Scripture, 
that  the  Jews,  up  to  the  opening  of  the  New  Testa- 
ment economy  were  the  peculiar  people  of  God,  Let 
the  friends  of  prelacy  make  out  as  much,  from  the 
Bible,  in  favour  of  their  denomination,  and  we  will 
believe  them. 

But,  perhaps  this  reasoning  will  still  be  objected 
to  by  our  Episcopal  brethren.  They  will  tell  us  that 
there  is  often  a  wide  difference  between  entertaining 
correct  opinions,  and  pursuing  a  suitable  practice; 
that  men  may  and  do  hold  the  truth  in  unrighte- 
ousness; and,  thai,  the  same  reasoning,  if  admitted, 
would  prove  that  no  form  of  religion  is  true,  because 
in  every  church  we  may  find  many  lukewarm  and 
immoral  professors.  This  objection,  however,  is  no- 
thing to  the  purpose.  It  is  merely  an  evasion  of  the 
argument.  We  all  daily  make  and  allow  the  distinc- 
tion between  principles,  and  the  conduct  of  those  who 
profess  them.  The  former  are  often  excellent,  while 
the  latter  is  base.  We  protest,  and  with  the  strongest 
reason,  against  the  conclusion,  that  religion  is  false, 
because  some  men  who  profess  to  believe  it  are  im- 
moral; or  that  a  particular  church  is  net  a  true 
church  of  Christ,  because  many  of  her  members  act 
in  a  manner  unworthy  of  their  profession.  But  our 
reasoning  and  conclusion,  in  this  case,  are  wholly  of 
a  different  kind.  We  only  contend,  that  the  ministry 
and  the  ordinances  of  religion,  which  claim  to  be  ex- 
clusively valid,  ought  to  prove  themselves  more  effi- 
cacious than  those  which  are  destitute  of  validity 
We  contend  that  there  is,  and  must  ever  be,  more 
virtue  and  holiness  in  the  church  of  Christ,  than  out 


PRACTICAL    INFLUENCE    OF    PRELACY.  375 

of  it.  We  contend,  in  short,  that  in  that  household 
of  God,  to  which  his  gracious  promises,  and  his  life- 
giving  Spirit  are  vouchsafed,  while  we  shall  always 
find  much  corruption,  we  must  expect  to  find,  in 
general,  much  more  of  the  life  and  power  of  religion; 
more  fervent  piety,  more  zeal  for  the  interests  of  the 
Redeemer's  kingdom,  and  more  righteousness  of  life, 
than  among  those  who  have  no  connexion  with  that 
household.  If  not,  wherein  is  the  greater  advantage 
of  being  in  the  Church,  than  in  the  world?  Nor  do 
we,  by  taking  this  ground,  furnish  either  an  infidel 
or  an  heretic  with  a  handle  against  us.  An  enemy 
of  the  gospel  may  come  into  all  of  our  churches,  and 
point  to  some,  perhaps  to  many  of  our  members, 
who  do  not  by  any  means  walk  worthy  of  the  voca- 
tion wherewith  they  are  called.  Would  he  have  a 
right  from  this  fact,  to  infer  the  falsity  of  our  system 
of  faith?  No;  the  obvious  distinction  between  prin- 
ciples and  the  conduct  of  those  who  profess  them, 
would,  if  he  were  a  candid  man,  prevent  him  from 
drawing  this  inference.  But  if  an  infidel  could  come 
into  our  solemn  assemblies,  even  the  purest  of  them, 
and  not  only  assert,  but  prove,  that -there  is.no  more 
either  of  strict  morality  or  fervent  piety,  among  the 
professors  of  religion,  than  among  its  despisers;  if  he 
could  do  this,  then  indeed  he  might,  and  ought,  to 
triumph  over  us.  As  long  as  he  could  only  with 
truth  say,  "  Some  of  you  Christians  are  as  bad  as  in- 
fidels;" I  would  confidently  reply,  "They  are  not 
Christians,  but  hypocrites;  for,  if  they  had  any  por- 
tion of  the  spirit  of  their  Master,  they  would  not  act 
thus."  But  if  he  could  really  make  it  appear  that 
Christians  are,  in  general,  and  as  a  body,  in  no  re- 
spect better  than  infidels,  he  would  certainly  establish 


376     PRACTICAL  INFLUENCE  OF  PRELACY. 

his  argument.  This,  however,  blessed  be  God!  the 
infidel  cannot  do;  and  the  very  circumstance  of  the 
enemies  of  Christianity  marking  with  such  eager  tri- 
umph, every  case  of  unworthy  conduct  in  the  profes- 
sors of  religion,  shows  that,  in  their  opinion,  Christian 
principles  require  more  holiness  than  infidel  princi- 
ples require,  and  are  expected  to  produce  more.  The 
same  reasoning  we  adopt  with  our  Episcopal  breth- 
ren. We  do  not  ask  them  to  produce  perfection  in 
their  church;  we  do  not  ask  them  to  show,  that  all 
their  members  act  conformably  with  their  professed 
principles;  but  we  insist  upon  their  showing  that 
there  is,  in  general,  a  much  larger  portion  of  fervent 
piety,  and  of  strict  morality,  in  their  church,  than  in 
any  of  the  non-episcopal  churches;  and  until  they 
do  this,  every  unprejudiced  man  will  consider  their 
claim  of  being  alone  "  in  covenant  with  Christ,"  as 
unreasonable  as  it  is  unscriptural. 

This  has  been  pronounced  by  some  an  invidious 
and  uncandid  comparison.  But  it  is  neither  invidi- 
ous nor  uncandid — For,  be  it  remembered,  it  is  not  a 
comparison  between  one  church  and  another,  or  a 
number  of  others;  but  between  that  which  claims  to 
be  the  only  true  church,  and  the  "  world  which 
lieth  in  wickedness."  Surely  it  is  neither  invidious  nor 
unreasonable  to  demand  that  there  be  more  of  the 
'  spirit  of  Christ  in  the  former  than  in  the  latter. 

It  does  not  affect  the  solidity  of  this  argument,  that 
some  churches  which  Presbyterians  consider  as  not 
regularly  organized,  upon  scriptural  principles,  never- 
theless embrace  in  their  bosom  a  large  portion  of  un- 
affected piety.  If  we  undertook  to  maintain  that  the 
Presbyterian  church  is  the  only  real  church  on  earth, 
and  alone  in  covenant  with  Christ  the  Head,  such  a 


PRACTICAL  INFLUENCE  OF  PRELACY.  377 

fact  would,  indeed,  present  a  difficulty  of  no  easy  solu- 
tion. But  we  make  no  such  arrogantclaim.  Wher- 
ever the  unfeigned  love  of  our  divine  Saviour,  an 
humble  reliance  on  his  atoning  sacrifice,  and  a  corres- 
ponding holiness  of  life,  pervade  any  denomination  of 
Christians,  we  hail  them  as  brethren  in  Christ;  we  ac- 
knowledge them  to  be  a  true  church;  and  although 
we  may  observe  and  lament  imperfections  in  their 
outward  government,  we  consider  them  as  truly  in 
covenant  with  the  King  of  Zion,  as  ourselves.  All 
this  is  perfectly  consistent  with  believing,  as  we  do, 
that  Presbyterian  church  government  was  the  primi- 
tive model,  and  that  it  is  the  duty  of  every  church  to 
conform  to  this  model.  It  is  certainly  the  duty  of 
every  man  to  keep  the  whole  law  of  God;  yet  as  we 
do  not  deny  that  an  individual  professor  of  religion  is 
a  real  Christian,  because  we  perceive  some  imperfec- 
tions in  his  character;  so  neither  do  we  deny  a  church 
to  be  a  true  church  of  Christ,  because  she  is  not  in  all 
respects  conformed  to  our  ideas  of  scriptural  purity. 
We  consider  our-  Episcopal  brethren  as  having  wan- 
dered far  from  the  simplicity  of  Apostolic  order.  But 
what  then?  Must  we  arrogantly  unchurch  them  on 
that  account  ?  By  no  means.  No  Presbyterian  ever 
thought  of  adopting  such  an  inference.  We  lament 
their  deviation;  but  notwithstanding  this,  can  freely 
embrace  them  as  members  of  the  church  universal; 
and  were  there  no  church  nearer  to  the  apostolical 
model  with  which  we  could  commune,  should  feel  no 
scruple  in  holding  communion  with  them  as  brethren. 
Let  none,  then,  be  intimidated  by  the  sentence  often 
pronounced  by  certain  advocates  of  the  exclusive 
high  church  claim,  that  "  there  is  great  danger  to  the 
best  interests  of  the  soul  in  being  found  without  the 
32* 


378     PRACTICAL  INFLUENCE  OF  PRELACY. 

pale  of  the  Episcopal  Church.  My  deliberate  and 
confident  answer  to  all  such  denunciations  is,  that 
the  real  danger  is  all  the  other  way;  that  is,  there  is 
real  danger  in  being  found  within  the  pale  of  those 
who  make  this  unscriptural  claim.  I  am  far  from 
meaning  that  there  is  danger  in  being  found  in  an 
Episcopal  church,  as  such;  for  I  have  no  doubt  that 
there  may  be,  and  actually  have  been,  and  are  now  to 
be  found  among  Episcopalians  as  real,  ardent  piety,  as 
precious,  well  founded  gospel  hopes,  as  in  the  Pres- 
byterian or  any  other  Church.  When  I  read  the 
writings  of  John  Newton,  and  Cecil,  and  Scott,  and 
many  more  of  like  spirit,  who  were  ornaments  of  an 
Episcopal  church,  I  am  ready  cordially  to  say,  "  Let 
my  soul  be  with  their's  for  time  and  eternity!" 

But  my  meaning  is,  that  there  is  real  danger  in 
being  found  in  an  ecclesiastical  inclosure  in  which  the 
high-church  doctrine  above  referred  to,  with  its  usual 
spirit  and  accompanying  errors,  form  the  prevalent 
system-;  real  danger  in  being  cast,  and  in  believing 
with  those  who  consider  baptism  as  marking  and 
constituting  the  commencement  of  spiritual  life;  who 
rely  for  justification  before  God  on  the  sacramental 
seals  of  the  visible  church,  instead  of  the  perfect 
righteousness  of  the  Divine  Redeemer;  and  who  lay 
more  stress  on  ecclesiastical  genealogy,  on  the  official 
ministration  of  an  "  authorized  priesthood,"  than  on 
the  work  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  conforming  the  heart 
and  the  life  to  the  image  of  Jesus  Christ.  In  such  a 
pale  there  is  the  deepest  danger  of  eternal  perdition. 
And,  therefore,  there  is  no  point  concerning  which 
Presbyterian  ministers  are  more  careful  to  put  the 
members  of  their  own  communion  on  their  guard, 
than  a  reliance   on  external  ordinances,  instead   of 


PRACTICAL  INFLUENCE  OP  PRELACY.      379 

union  with  the  Redeemer  by  faith,  as  a  mistake  pre- 
eminently adapted  to  turn  away  the  mind  from  the 
only  scriptural  ground  of  hope,  and  to  destroy  the 
soul.  They  diligently  and  conscientiously  teach  the 
people  to  regard  with  sacred  care  the  scriptural  order 
of  the  Church;  but  they  are  always  much  more 
anxious  that  they  should  hold  fast  .that  precious  sys- 
tem of  evangelical  truth  which  is  "  the  life  of  the 
soul" — which  is  "the  power  of  God  unto  salvation 
to  every  one  that  believeth,"  and  without  which  the 
most  perfect  external  order  is  a  lifeless  form. 

Here  we  close  our  discussion  of  this  subject;  a  dis- 
cussion in  which  we  engaged  with  reluctance,  and 
which  nothing  but  the  unceasing  invasions  of  scrip- 
tural truth  on  this  subject,  on  the  part  of  our  opponents 
would  have  tempted  us  to  undertake.  Whether  our 
pastors  are  lawful  ministers,  and  the  ordinances  which 
they  dispense  legitimate  ordinances,  are  questions 
which,  happily,  it  is  not  for  partial  and  bigotted  sec- 
taries to  decide.  There  is  a  day  approaching  when 
they  will  be  decided  by  an  unerring  Judge,  and  with 
consequences  more  interesting  than  language  can  ex- 
press. Happy  will  it  be  for  us,  if,  in  that  day,  we 
shall  all  be  found  members  of  that  holy  church  which 
the  divine  Redeemer  hath  purchased  with  his  blood, 
and  adorned  with  his  Spirit!  Happy  will  it  be  for  us 
if  it  shall  then  appear  that  we  have  not  rested  in  rites 
and  forms,  and  that  we  have  never  "given  heed  to 
fables  and  endless  genealogies,  which  minister  ques- 
tions rather  than  godly  edifying!"  Happy  if  we  shall 
then  be  found  to  have  received,  not  a  mere  name,  or 
external  organization,  but  the  truth  as  it  is  in  Jesus 
in  the  love  of  it;  to  have  had  "  Christ  formed  in  us  the 


380     PRACTICAL  INFLUENCE  OF  PRELACY. 

hope  of  glory;"  and  to  belong  to  that  "chosen  gene- 
ration, that  royal  priesthood,  that  holy  nation,  that 
peculiar  people,  who  shall  for  ever  show  forth  the 
praises  of  Him  who  hath  called  them  out  of  darkness, 
into  his  marvellous  light!"  That  this  may  be  the  bles- 
sedness of  those  in  whose  favour  this  plea  is  offered, 
and  equally  of  those  also  whom  it  is  intended  to  op- 
pose, is  the  unceasing  prayer  of  him  who  has  thought 
it  his  duty  to  pen  the  foregoing  pages. 


ADDITIONAL    NOTES. 


TESTIMONY    OF    SCRIPTURE. 

In  the  chapter  on  this  subject  it  was  attempted  to  be  shown, 
that  the  power  of  preaching  the  gospel,  and  administering  the 
sacraments  of  the  Church,  evidently,  in  the  nature  of  things, 
included  the  highest  powers  that  could  be  committed  to  the 
ministers  of  our  holy  religion.  On  this  point,  John  Milton, 
the  immortal  author  of"  Paradise  Lost,"  makes  the  following 
remarks: 

"  Wherein,  or  in  what  work,  is  the  office  of  a  prelate  ex- 
cellent above  that  of  a  pastor?  In  ordination,  you  will  say  ; 
but  flatly  against  the  Scripture;  for  there  we  know  that 
Timothy  received  ordination  by  the  hands  of  the  presbytery — 
notwithstanding  all  the  vain  delusions  that  are  used  to  evade 
that  testimony,  and  maintain  an  unwarrantable  usurpation. 
But  wherefore  should  ordination  be  a  cause  of  setting  up  a 
superior  degree  in  the  Church  ?  Is  not  that  whereby  Christ 
became  our  Saviour,  a  higher  and  greater  work  than  that 
whereby  he  did  ordain  messengers  to  preach  and  publish  him 
as  our  Saviour  ?  Every  minister  sustains  the  person  of  Christ 
in  his  highest  work  of  communicating  to  us  the  mysteries  of 
our  salvation,  and  hath  the  power  of  binding  and  absolving; 
how  should  he  need  a  higher  dignity  to  represent  or  execute 
that  which  is  an  inferior  work  in  Christ?  Why  should  the 
performance  of  ordination,  which  is  a  lower  office,  exalt  a 
prelate,  and  not  the  seldom  discharge  of  a  higher  and  more 
noble  office,  which  is  preaching  and  administering,  much 
rather  depress  him  ?  Verily,  neither  the  nature  nor  the  ex- 
ample of  ordination  doth  any  way  require  an  imparity  between 
the  ordainer  and  the  ordained.  For  what  more  natural  than 
every  like  to  produce  his  like — man  to  beget  man;  fire  to 
propagate  fire  ?     And  in  examples  of  highest  opinion  the  or- 


382  ADDITIONAL    NOTES. 

dainer  is  inferior  to  the  ordained ;  for  the  Pope  is  not  made 
by  the  precedent  Pope,  but  by  cardinals,  who  ordain  and  con- 
secrate to  a  higher  and  greater  office  than  their  own." — The 
Reason  of  Church  Government  against  Prelaty.  Book  I. 
Chapter  IV. 


The  celebrated  Henry  Dodwell,  who  flourished  in  the 
reigns  of  King  William  and  Queen  Anne,  is  well,  known  as 
one  of  the  most  ultra  high-churchmen  of  the  day  in  which  he 
lived.  Notwithstanding,  however,  his  extravagant  claims  on 
the  subject  of  Episcopacy,  he  speaks  thus  in  regard  to  the 
testimony  of  Scripture. 

"Est  sane  admodum  precaria  omnis  ilia  argumentatio, 
qua  colligitur  disciplinae  ecclesiastics  in  posterum  recipiendse 
rationem  omneme  Scripturis  Novi  Foederis  esse  hauriendam. 
Nullusenim  est  qui  id  profiteatur  aperte  sacri  Scriptoris  locus. 
Et  ne  quidem  ullus  qui  ita  de  regimine  agat'ecclesiastieo  quasi 
id  voluisset  scriptor,  aut  scriptoris  Auctor,  Spiritus  Sanctus, 
ut  formam  aliquam  unam  regiminis  ubique  et  in  omne  eevum 
duraturi  describeret.  Nusquam  scriptores  sacri  satis  expresse 
tradiderunt,  quanta  secutajuerit  in  regimine  ecclesiarum  muta- 
tio  cum  primum  discederent  a  Synagogarum  communione  ec- 
clesise.  Nusquam  satis  aperte  quantum  donis  cohcessum  merit 
Spiritus  Sanctus  personalibus  quantum  vicissim  locis  et  officiis. 
Nusquam  officiarios  eXtraordinarios  qui  illo  ipso  seculo  finem 
habituri  essent  afcr  ordinariis  satis  accurate  secernunt  qui  nullo 
unquam  seculo  essent,  dum  iterum  veniret  Christus,  in  desue- 
tudinem  abituri.  Imo  sic  omnia  turn  passim  nota  ipsi  quoque 
nota  supponunt,  nee  ipsi  posterorum  causa  explicant,  quasi 
eum  duntaxat,  qui  turn  obtinuerit,  statum  in  animo  haberent. 
Officia  ipsa  nuspiam  qualia  fuerint,  aut  quam  late  patuerint, 
ex  professo  describunt,  quod  tamen  sane  faciendum  erat  si 
formam  prescripsissent  perpetuo  duraturum."  * 

In  English  as  follows: 

"  The  reasoning  is  entirely  precarious  from  which  men 
conclude  that  the  whole  model  of  ecclesiastical  discipline 
may  be  drawn  from  the  writings  of  the  New  Testament 
There  is  no  passage  of  any  inspired  writer  which  openly 
professes  this  design.  There  is  not  one  which  so  treats  of 
ecclesiastical  government  as  if  the  writer,  or  the  writer's  au- 
thor, the  Holy  Spirit,. had  intended  to  describe  any  one  form 
of  polity,  as  designed  to  remain  every  where  and  for  ever 
inviolate.  The  sacred  penmen  have  no  where  declared,  with 
*  Parcenesis,  N.  14. 


ADDITIONAL    NOTES.  383 

sufficient  clearness,  how  great  a  change  must  take  place  in 
church  government,  when  the  Church  should  first  withdraw 
from  the  communion  of  the  synagogues.  They  no  where 
clearly  enough  show  how  much  was  allowed  to  the  personal 
gifts  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  and  how  much  to  places  and  offices. 
They  no  where  with  sufficient  accuracy  distinguish  the  ex- 
traordinary officers  who  were  not  to  outlive  that  age,  from 
the  ordinary  who  were  not  to  cease  till  the  second  coming  of 
Christ.  Nay,  all  the  things  then  generally  known,  they  also 
suppose  to  be  known,  and  never,  for  the  sake  of  posterity 
explain,  minding  only  the  state  in  which  things  were  at  the 
time.  They  no  where  professedly  describe  the  ministries 
themselves,  so  as  to  explain  either  their  nature  or  their  ex- 
tent ;  which  was  surely  indispensable,  if  they  meant  to  settle 
a  model  in  perpetuity." 

After  such  an  acknowledgment,  the  claims  made  by  Dod- 
we'll  and  his  adherents  were  equally  unreasonable  and  revolt- 
ing. It  is  observable,  too,  that  this  eminent  prelatist  seems 
to  have  considered  the  primitive  Church  as  bearing  the  type 
of  the  Synagogue. 

It  is  worthy  of  notice  that  the  oldest.  Syriac  version  of 
the  New  Testament,  commonly  called  the  Peshito,  probably 
made  early  in  the  second  century,  and  bearing  a  very  high 
character  for  faithfulness  and  accuracy,  uniformly  renders  the 
iyrto-aoTTocy  as  it  occurs  in  Acts  xx.  17,  28;  in  1  Peter  v.  1,  2, 
"  elder;"  and  the  word  ctvo-kot™,  in  1  Tim.  iii.  1,  &c.  the 
"  office  of  an  elder."  On  this  fact,  the  learned  John  David 
Michaelis,  in  his  "  Introduction  to  the  New  Testament,"  thus 
remarks:  "  We  know  that  the  distinction  between  bishops 
and  elders  was  introduced  into  the  Christian  Church  in  a  very 
early  age ;  yet  the  distinction  was  unknown  to  the  Syrian 
translator."  In  reference  to  this  statement,  Dr.  Herbert 
Marsh,  afterwards  bishop  of  Peterborough,  and  a  zealous 
high-churchman,  in  his  "  Notes"  on  Michaelis'  work,  makes 
the  following  observation — "This  proves  that  the  Syriac 
translator  understood  his  original;  and  that  he  made  a  proper 
distinction  between  the  language  of  the  primitive  and  the 
hierarchal  Church."  See  Marsh's  Michaelis,  Vol.  ii.  p.  32. 
553. 

It  seems,  then,  by  the  acknowledgment  of  Bishop  Marsh, 
that  the  hierarchal  Church  had  departed  in  this  respect  from 
the  primitive  Church.  If  the  distinction  in  question  was  un- 
known at  the  date  of  the  Syriac  version,  it  surely  cannot 
claim  an  apostolic  origin. 


384  ADDITIONAL    NOTES. 


TESTIMONY    OF    THE    FATHERS. 

Among  the  almost  innumerable  proofs,  from  the  early  eccle- 
siastical writers,  that  the  primitive  bishop  was,  simply,  the 
overseer  or  pastor  of  a  single  congregation,  one  is,  that  the 
bishop's  charge  is  every  where,  in  the  first  three  centuries, 
called  a  parish.  This  remarkable  fact  deserves  more  pointed 
attention  than  was  given  it  in  the  appropriate  place  in  the 
preceding  volume. 

The  learned  principal,  Campbell,  of  Aberdeen,  speaking  of 
the  testimony  of  the  fathers  of  the  first  two  or  three  hundred 
years,  in  relation  to  this  subject,  expresses  himself  in  the  fol- 
lowing language: 

"  As  one  bishop  is  invariably  considered,  in  the  most  an- 
cient usage,  as  having  only  one  sxxxna-ta,  it  is  manifest  that 
his  inspection  was  at  first  only  over  one  parish.  Indeed,  the 
words  congregation  and  parish  are,  if  not  synonymous,  predi- 
cate of  each  other.  The  former  term  relates  more  properly 
to  the  people  as  actually  congregated ;  the  other  relates  to  the 
extent  of  ground  which  the  dwelling  houses  of  the  members 
of  one  congregation  occupy.  Accordingly,  the  territory  to 
which  the  bishop's  charge  extended,  was  always  named,  in 
the  period  1  am  speaking  of,  in  Greek  Trapixi*,  in  Latin  paro- 
chict,  or  rather  parcecia,  which  answers  to  the  English  word 
parish,  and  means,  properly,  a  neighbourhood." 

"  Let  it  not  be  imagined  that  I  lay  too  great  stress  on  the 
import  of  words,  whose  significations  in  time  come  insensibly 
to  alter.  It  merits  to  be  observed,  that  in  the  first  application 
of  a  name  to  a  particular  purpose,  there  is  commonly  a  strict 
regard  paid  to  etymology.  As  this  word,  together  with  the 
adjective  w*gM*sg,  i.  e.  victims,  or  neighbouring,  are  conju- 
gates of  the  verb  Traptxiu,  accolo,  juxta  habit  o,  it  can  be  ap- 
plied no  otherwise,  when  it  relates  to  place,  than  the  term 
parish  is  with  us  at  this  day.  And  this  exactly  agrees  with 
the  exposition  of  the  word  given  by  Stephanus,  that  learned 
and  accurate  lexicographer.  "  Ego  non  parochias  pri- 
mum,  sed  parcecias  appellatas  esse  censeo:  va.pix.oi  enim  sunt 
accolce,  quare  qui  fanum  aliquod  accolunt  paroeci  dicti  sunt, 
ejusdem  scilicet  fani  consortes,  et  parcecia  accolarum  con- 
ventus  et  accolatus,  sacraque  vicinia,  nam  vapixot  dicuntur  eti- 
am  ot  7rp<roixot,  id  est  vicini." 

Let  it  be  observed  further,  that,  in  those  early  ages,  the 


ADDITIONAL    NOTES.  385 

bishop's  charge  or  district  was  never  called  <T^*»s7?,  a  diocese, 
concerning  the  import  of  which  I  shall  add  the  following  pas- 
sage from  the  same  authority — "  Latini  quoque  utuntur  hoc 
vocabulo :  dioeceses  vocantes  quasdam  quasi  minores  provin- 
cias,  quas  aliquis,  qui  eis  praefectus  est,  administrat,  et  in  qui- 
bus  jus  elicit,  unde  et  pontificum  fiotwiK;  apud  recentiores." 
Thus  in  a  few  ages  afterwards,  when  the  bishop's  charge  be- 
came so  extensive  as  more  to  resemble  a  province  than  a  pa- 
rish, nay,  when,  in  fact,  it  comprised  many  churches  and 
parishes  within  it,  the  name  was  changed,  and  it  was  then 
very  properly  called  a  diocese.  The  other  term  (parish) 
without  deviating  in  the  least  from  its  original  and  proper  im- 
port, received  a  new  application  to  that  which  was  put  under 
the  care  of  a  presbyter  only." — Lectures  on  Ecclesiastical 
History,  I.  206,  &c. 

This  view  of  the  subject  is  confirmed  by  the  pious  and 
venerable  Richard  Baxter,  in  his  Treatise  of  Episcopacy, 
Part  II.  p.  74.  "  When  churches,"  says  he,  ••  first  became 
diocesan  (in  the  sense  opposed)  they  were  suited  to  the  form 
of  the  civil  government,  and  dioceses,  Sic.  came  in  at  the  same 
door.  The  very  term  huwns  was  long  unknown  in  a  sacred 
sense,  and  was  afterwards  borrowed  from  the  civil  divisions, 
when  the  Church  was  formed  according  to  them.  The  word 
parish  was  before  used  in  a  narrower  sense  for  a  vicinity  of 
Christians."  And  the  very  learned  Calderwood,  in  his 
Altare  Damascenum,  p.  290,  concurs  in  the  same  opinion. 
"  Vox  J.ouHTig,  ut  refertur  ad  Episcopum,  ignota  fuit  Eusebio 
et  superioribus  seculis." 


CONCESSIONS    OF    EMINENT    EPISCOPALIANS. 

The  celebrated  Bishop  Hall,  from  whom  an  extract  was  given 
in  p.  321,  in  some  other  of  his  works  expressed  himself  in 
still  more  decisive  terms.  The  following  specimens  will 
suffice  to  satisfy  every  candid  reader. 

"  1  fear  not  to  say,  thoss  men  are  but  superstitiously  curi- 
ous who  would  call  back  all  circumstances  to  their  first  pat- 
terns. The  spouse  of  Christ  hath  been  ever  clothed  with  her 
own  rites ;  and,  as  apparel,  so  religion  hath  her  fashions,  va- 
riable according  to  ages  and  places.  To  reduce  us  to  the 
same  observances  which  were  in  apostolical  use,  were  no 
better  than  to  tie  us  to  the  sandals  of  the  disciples,  or  to  the 
seamless  coat  of  the  Saviour.  In  these  cases  they  did  what 
we  need  not;  and  we  may  what  they  did  not.  God  meant 
33 


386  ADDITIONAL    NOTES. 

us  no  bondage  in  their  example.  Their  canons  bind  us, 
whether  for  manners  or  doctrines,  but  not  for  ceremonies. 
Neither  Christ  nor  his  apostles  did  all  things  for  imitation." — 
Letters  to  the  Bishop  of  Worcester.  Epist.  II.  Decade  V.  of 
his  Epistles. 

Again,  "  Where  God  hath  bidden,  God  forbid  that  we 
should  care  for  the  forbiddance  of  man.  I  reverence  from 
my  soul  (so  doth  our  church,  their  dear  sister,)  those  worthy 
foreign  churches,  which  have  chosen  and  followed  those  forms 
of  outward  government  that  are  every  way  fittest  for  their 
own  condition.  It  is  enough  for  your  sect  to  censure  them. 
I  touch  nothing  common  to  them  with  you." — HaWs  Jipology 
against  the  Brownists,  Section  19.  "  We  may  not  either 
have,  or  expect,  now  in  the  Church,  that  ministry  which 
Christ  set.  Where  are  our  '  apostles,'  'prophets,'  'evange- 
lists?' If  we  must  always  look  for  the  very  same  adminis- 
tration of  the  Church  which  our  Saviour  left,  why  do  we  not 
challenge  these  extraordinary  functions  ?  Do  we  not  rather 
think,  since  it  pleased  him  to  begin  with  those  offices  which 
should  not  continue,  that  herein  he  purposely  intended  to 
teach  us,  that  if  we  have  the  same  heavenly  business  done, 
we  should  not  be  curious  in  the  circumstances  of  the  persons. 
But  for  those  ordinary  callings  of  pastors  and  doctors  (in- 
tended to  perpetuity)  with  what  forehead  can  he  deny  them 
to  be  in  our  church  ?" — Ibid.  Section  27. 


UNINTERRUPTED    SUCCESSION. 

The  talents,  learning,  and  piety,  of  the  celebrated  Dr.  John 
Owen,  are  known  throughout  the  Protestant  world.  The 
following  pungent  remarks  from  his  pen,  in  reference  to  the 
doctrine  of  uninterrupted  succession,  will  show  the  light  in 
which  that  subject  was  viewed  by  one  of  the  most  competent 
judges  of  the  seventeenth  century. 

"  The  limiting  of  this  succession  by  the  successive  ordina- 
tion of  diocesan  prelates  or  bishops,  as  the  only  means  of 
communicating  church  power,  and  so  of  preserving  the 
church  state,  is  built  on  so  many  inevident  presumptions  and 
false  principles,  as  will  leave  it  altogether  uncertain  whether 
there  be  any  church  state  in  the  world  or  no.  As,  first,  that 
such  bishops  were  ordained  by  the  apostles,  which  can  never 
be  proved.  Secondly,  thai  they  received  power  from  the 
apostles  to  ordain  others,  and  communicate  their  whole  power 
unto  them  by  an  authority  inherent  in  themselves  alone,  yet 


ADDITIONAL    NOTES.  387 

still  reserving  their  whole  power  unto  themselves  also,  giving 
all,  and  retaining  all  at  the  same  time,  which  hath  no  more 
of  truth  than  the  former,  and  may  be  easily  disproved. 
Thirdly,  that  they  never  did,  nor  could,  any  of  them  forfeit 
this  power  by  any  crime  or  error.  Fourthly,  that  they  all 
ordained  others  in  such  manner  and  way  as  to  render  their 
ordination  valid.  Fifthly,  that  whatever  heresy,  idolatry, 
flagitiousness  of  life,  persecution  of  the  true  churches  of 
Christ,  these  prelatical  ordainers  might  fall  into,  yet  nothing 
could  deprive  them  of  their  right  of  communicating  all  church 
power  unto  others  by  ordination.  Sixthly,  that  it  is  not  law- 
ful for  believers,  or  the  disciples  of  Christ,  to  yield  obedience 
to  his  commands,  without  this  Episcopal  ordination,  which 
many  churches  cannot  have,  and  more  will  not,  as  judging  it 
against  the  mind  and  will  of  Christ.  Seventhly,  that  one 
worldly,  ignorant,  proud,  sensual  beast,  such  as  some  of  the 
heads  of  this  ordination,  as  the  Popes  of  Rome  have  been, 
should  have  more  power  and  authority  from  Christ  to  pre- 
serve and  continue  a  church  state  by  ordination,  than  any  the 
most  holy  church  in  the  world,  that  is,  or  can  be  gathered 
according  to  his  mind — with  other  unwarrantable  presump- 
tions innumerable." 

"  The  pernicious  consequences  that  may  ensue  on  this 
principle,  do  manifest  its  inconsistency  with  what  our  Lord 
Jesus  Christ  hath  ordained  unto  the  end  of  the  continuance  of 
his  Church.  If  we  consider  whither  this  doctrine  of  succes- 
sive ordination  hath  already  led  a  great  part  of  the  Church, 
we  may  easily  judge  what  it  is  meet  for.  It  hath  led  men, 
for  instance,  in  the  Church  of  Rome,  into  a  presumption  of 
a  good  church  state,  in  the  loss  of  holiness  and  truth ;  in  the 
practice  of  false  worship  and  idolatry ;  and  the  persecution 
and  slaughter  of  the  faithful  servants  of  Christ;  unto  a  state 
plainly  anti-christian.  To  think  that  there  should  be  a  flux 
and  communication  of  heavenly  and  spiritual  power,  from 
Jesus  Christ  and  his  apostles,  in  and  by  the  hands  and  act- 
ings of  persons  ignorant,  simonaical,  adulterous,  incestuous, 
proud,  ambitious,  sensual,  presiding  in  a  church  state  never 
appointed  by  him;  immersed  in  false  and  idolatrous  worship; 
persecuting  the  true  Church  of  Christ,  wherein  was  the  true 
succession  of  apostolical  doctrine  and  holiness,  is  an  imagina- 
tion for  men  who  embrace  the  shadows  and  appearances  of 
things,  never  once  seriously  thinking  of  the  true  nature  of 
them.  In  brief,  it  is  vain  to  derive  a  succession  whereon  the 
being  of  the  Church  should  depend,  through  the  presence  of 
Christ  with  the  bishops  of  Rome,  who,  for  an  hundred  years 


388  ADDITIONAL    NOTES. 

together,  from  the  year  900  to  1000,  were  monsters  for  igno- 
rance, lust,  pride,  and  luxury;  as  Baronius  acknowledgeth, 
A.  D.  912,  5,  8.  Or  by  the  Church  of  Antioch,  by  Samo- 
satenus,  Eudoxius,  Gnapheus,  Severus,  and  the  like  heretics. 
Or  in  Constantinople,  by  Macedonius,  Eusebius,  Demophilus, 
Authorinus,  and  their  companions.  Or  at  Alexandria,  by 
Lucius,  Dioscorus,  iElurus,  Sergius,  and  the  rest  of  the  same 
sort." — Answer  to  Stilling  fleet  on  the  Unreasonableness  of 
Separation,  &c.  p.  55.  &c. 


THE  END. 


DATE  DUE