An inquiry into the organization and government of the apostolic church : particularly with reference to the claims of episcopacy
- KH r •. K ' O- fc KH j ^ < LSWORT OQ <2 £ O &, <I c 0 ^ K r ^ ^u ^ O ffls°l K.I fj 3 ^ QU E •KJ, <S v| ^ o i - fi Xf^: S fe KH VJ en ON ^i w\ o^ ? K W CD • \ hH 1 I AN INQUIRY PARTICULARLY WITH REFERENCE TO THE CLAIMS 01: EPISCOPACY. BY ALBERT BAKNE PHILADELPHIA : PRESBYTERIAN PUBLICATION COMMITTEE, 386 CHESTNUT STREET. NEW YORK: 1VISON & PHINNEY, 321 BROADWAY. Entered according to Act of Congress, in the year 1855, liy ALBERT BARNES, in the Clerk's Office of the District Court of the United States for th«* Eastern District of Pennsylvania. ADVERTISEMENT TO THIS EDITION. THIS volume is designed to be a Manual that may be put into the hands of those who are led to inquire into the organization of the Christian church. It is not intended to be controversial, or of such a character as to provoke reply; and it is hoped that it will not be construed as an attack on the Episcopal Church. It is submitted to the public because it is believed that there is no book on this subject that is precisely what is needed, in regard to size and character, to put into the hands of those in the churches who are interested in this inquiry. There are many persons who are interested in the inquiry who have not the time or the means to examine it very extensively. Most of the works, also, which have been written on this subject, instead of confining the investigation to the Bible, are mainlv occurred with an examination 3 4 ADVERTISEMENT. of the antiquities of the church, and the customs and sentiments of the " Fathers." The claims of Episcopacy, also, are often urged with great zeal, and pressed, sometimes in such a manner as to create embarrassment, on those who have been trained in non-episcopal churches; and there is no convenient "manual" accessible to which they can at once be referred as showing precisely how this matter stands in the New Testament. The argument here 'presented is wholly scriptu- ral. The characteristic of the volume is, that it is an appeal to the Bible, as the only authority in the case, and as a sufficient authority to settle the ques- tion. It is presumed that in a revelation given to mankind, God has made it possible to ascertain what was the original organization of the church, and that the evidence thus furnished is such that it can be understood and appreciated by the mass of mankind. It is assumed in this argument that nothing but the testimony of the Bible on the subject can be binding on the conscience, and that the whole matter must be, and may safely be, left there. It is not intended to be conceded, however, that the argument from history and from the " Fathers" would be in favour of Episcopacy, but ADVERTISEMENT. 5 that point is not referred to ; for; whatever may be the truth in regard to that, it can have no author- ity in determining what was the constitution of the church as established by the Saviour. The foundation of the argument here presented was embodied in two reviews of the tract entitled " Episcopacy Tested by Scripture/' by the Right Rev. Dr. H. U. Onderdonk, Bishop of the Diocese of Pennsylvania. Those reviews were first pub- lished in the Quarterly Christian Spectator, of New Haven, in 1834 and 1835, and subsequently in a small volume, without material alteration. They were afterward mostly rewritten, and were cast into the form of a consecutive argument; and in this form they were again published in this country in 1843, and were soon after republished in London. The work has again been revised for the pre- sent edition, with the design, mainly, of removing from it its controversial aspect, and making it, as its title indicates, "An Inquiry into the Organi- zation and Government of the Apostolic Church." It has been necessary, of course, to examine with freedom the arguments in favour of Episcopacy, so far as they are derived from the Scriptures; 1* b ADVERTISEMENT. and for this purpose, the reference to the tract of Dr. Onderdonk is, in some places, retained. This has been done the more freely because the tract has been published by the " Protestant Episcopal Tract Society,"* and because it would be impossible to find, in the writings in defence of Episcopacy, a more full, candid, and able reference to the proof from Scripture texts relied on by Episcopalians, than is to be found in this tract of Dr. Onderdonk. An examination of the reasons there assigned for Episcopacy is, therefore, an ex- amination of the reasons on which the Episcopal argument rests ; and the tract has been referred to in the edition of this work now published, in the same manner as other Episcopal authorities. This work has but one claim to public atten- tion. It is that of being an examination of all that can be found in the New Testament that bears on the organization of the church. Much is gained in the inquiry into the organization and government of the church, if the investigation can be confined wholly to the Scriptures. There all who are not Episcopalians are willing to leave the * Printed at the Protestant Episcopal Press, 1835. ADVERTISEMENT. 7 inquiry; and by that authority alone the question must be ultimately determined. It is perilous for Episcopacy to make its appeal solely to the Bible, and much is gained in the argument when there is a willingness to leave the question there. This work, which is now again submitted to the public, contains nothing, it is believed, which can pain the feelings of any friend of Episcopacy, or which can be construed into a want of respect for the Episcopal Church. For the favourable regards of the public, few men have more occasion for gra- titude than I have ; and now, after so many years have passed away since the argument was first penned, whatever may be the value of my opinion, early or matured, on this subject, I desire that this work should go forth in this permanent form as expressing my conviction — the result of all rny study of the Bible — in regard to the organization and government of the apostolic church. ALBERT BARNES. PHILADELPHIA, Aug. 21, 1855. CONTENTS. CHAPTER I. REASONS WHY THE ARGUMENT ON THE CONSTITUTION OP THE CHURCH SHOULD BE CONFINED TO THE SCRIPTURES 13-32 (I.) The whole subject one of mere revelation, 13-15. (2.) No authority has been given to the Fathers to determine the question, 15, 16. (3.) Evidence in the New Testament that the appeal should be con- fined to the Scriptures, 16-18. (4.) The Fathers of the church were not in circumstances so favour- able to give the proper information as the Apostles, 18, 19. (5.) It is impossible to settle the question by an appeal to the Fathers, 19-30. (6.) The point conceded by Episcopalians themselves, 30-32. CHAPTER II. THE CLAIMS WHICH ARE ADVANCED BY EPISCOPACY... 33-37 CHAPTER III. EXAMINATION OF THE PARTICULAR CLAIMS OF EPIS- COPACY 39-189 SEC. 1. — The Exclusive Claim of the "Bishop" to the Right of Ordination. — The question whether ths 9 10 CONTENTS. PAGES apostles alone had this right, 38-40. The peculiarity of the apostolic office. — The apostles were originally appointed to be " witnesses" of the resurrection of Christ, 40-45. This confirmed by the election of Matthias, 45-47 ; by the statements of the apostles, 47, 48; by the case of Paul, 48-53. The inquiry whether there was any arrangement for continuing the et succession of the apostles/' 54. The burden of proof on Episcopalians, 54, 55. (].) There is no express statement that the "succession" was to be continued, 55-62 ; (2.) There is no ar- rangement which shows that it was designed that it should be continued. Examination of the alleged proofs : — the argument from the case of Matthias, G3-72; of Barnabas, 72-81; of James, 81; of An- dronicus and Junia, 81, 82 ; from the charge of Paul to the elders of Ephesus, 82, 83; from the case of Timothy, 84-107; of Titus, 107-110; of the "an- gel" of the churches in llev. ii. iii., 111-122. The point practically conceded by Episcopalians, 123- 126; the impossibility of establishing the "succes-. sion" — rcase of the ordination of English "bishops" by Scotch presbyters, 127-130 ; testimony of Hook- er, 130,131; concession and argument of Arch- bishop Whately, 131-137. Sr.c. 2.— The Rite of Confirmation... 138-164 What understood by it, 138-140; claimed to be of divine authority, 141-144. The use of the word "confirm" in the New Testament, 144-146. The laying on of hands urged in support of the claim shown to be connected with imparting the mira- culous gifts of the Holy Spirit, 146-151. Examina- tion of the passage in Heb. vi. 1, 2, 151-155. The Saviour appointed no such rite, 155, 156. Objec- tions to the rite, 156-164. CONTENTS. 11 PAGES SEC. 3.— The Claims of the "Bishop" to the Right of Supervision arid Discipline 164-189 The two cases of discipline appealed to by Epis- copalians examined : that in Corinth, 167-181; that in Ephesus, 181-189. CHAPTER IV. THE CONSTITUTION OF THE CHURCH AS ESTABLISHED BY THE SAVIOUR AND THE APOSTLES 189-252 SEC. 1.— The Officers of the Church 190-209 I. Those which were designed to be temporary : (1.) The Apostles, 190-193; (2.) The Seventy Dis- ciples, 193-195 ; (3.) Prophets, 195, 196 ; (4.) Dea- conesses, 196, 197. II. Permanent officers mentioned in the organi- zation of the church in the New Testament: (1.) Those appointed to the office of Ministers, 197-201, under the names of («) preachers, 198 — (b) bishops or overseers) 198, 199 — (c) pastors, 199, 200— (d) teachers, 201— (e) evangelists, 201; (2.) Rulers, 201-204; (3.) Deacons, 205, 206. (4.) Evidence that the permanent pastoral relation was intended, 206-209. SEC. 2. — The actual Organization and Government of the Church as described in the New Testament 209-230 (1.) Presbyters had the right of ordaining, 209, scq. Proof from 1 Tim. iv. 14, pp. 218-223. (2.) The churches were intrusted with the right of ad- ministering discipline. Proof from Acts xx. 17, 28, p. 224 ; from 1 Pet, v. 2, 3, p. 224 ; from Heb. xiii. 7; from 1 Thess. v. 12, pp. 225-230. SEC. 3. — The Primitive Churches were organized with- out a Prelate, and without three " Orders of Clergy" 230-238 SEC. 4.— Conclusion 238-252 INQUIRY, ETC. CHAPTER I. KEASONS WHY THE ARGUMENT ON THE CONSTI- TUTION OF THE CHURCH SHOULD BE CONFINED TO THE SCRIPTURES. IN the discussion pursued in this volume, the argument will be confined wholly to the Scriptures, for the following reasons : 1. The whole subject of the organization and government of the church is one of mere revela- tion. It is connected with a revealed religion, and there can, therefore, be no authority in the case, except that which is derived from the declared will of God. It is claimed for the church, by all the parties in the controversy, that it is a divine insti- tution ; and the advocates of Episcopacy, with one voice, maintain that their ministry is of divine ap- pointment. It never occurs to them to affirm that the arrangement of the clergy into " three orders" is a mere matter of expediency, or is adopted 2 13 14 ORGANIZATION AND GOVERNMENT because experience has shown that this is the best arrangement, or because other methods have failed in promoting the spirituality of the church, or even because it has unbroken tradition in its favour. It is urged that the arrangement is of divine authority, and it is adopted primarily because it is believed to be founded on the Bible. So uniform are the claims on this point, that, if this were abandoned, the whole fabric would fall, and the claim of being the only arrangement which God has made for the govern- ment of the church, which is now set up by the ad- vocates of prelacy, must then be given up ; for, if it were a mere matter of expediency, any other sys- tem founded on expediency would be equally proper and binding. Such being the case, it is clear that the whole argument should be confined to the Scriptures. If the religion with which the ministry is connected were a matter of mere human origin or human ap- pointment, then an appeal to the Bible as a supposed revelation would be impertinent and improper. If it were a religion of the state, then all that would be needful would be to appeal to the statutes of the land. If it were a question of expediency, then the appeal should be to what experience has shown to be the best methods of government, and to the dif- ferent degrees of probable advantage which could be urged in favour of different systems. If it were to be settled by mere custom, or by antiquity — as it OF THE APOSTOLIC CHURCH. 15 may occur that the claim to title to lands is to be settled, or as it may be necessary to determine some usage or right under a civil government — then it would be proper to appeal to antiquity, and to call in the aid of the Fathers. But none of these things exist. It is not a human institution ; nor is it a mere creature of the state ; nor is it a thing of expediency; nor is it a simple question about anti- quity : — it is a question whether God has appointed the Episcopal orders of the ministry to govern the churches; and this question can be settled only by an appeal to the Scriptures. 2. No authority has been given to the u Fathers" to determine this question. There is no evidence that they were authorized by the Head of the Church, either individually or by councils, to deter- mine what should be the arrangement in the govern- ment of the church ; nor is there eny evidence that they were to be regarded as the infallible expounders of what the will of the Author of the Christian sys- tem was. It was not promised that tlicy should have any special wisdom to arrange matters in the church; to appoint officers ; to settle controversies, or to ap- point orders in the ministry which should be re- garded as commissioned by God. If the importance which has been attached to their views in this mat- ter had been contemplated by the Saviour, it is remarkable that he left no intimation that their sentiments would be entitled to such deference, or 16 ORGANIZATION AND GOVERNMENT that their declarations should be authoritative in the churches. If it had been intended that coun- cils should be regarded as having authority to settle this, then there is every reason to suppose that some intimation of this would be furnished in the dis- courses of the Saviour. It is needless, however, to say that no such authority from the New Testament can be adduced. 3. There is evidence in the New Testament itself, that the appeal should be confined to the Scriptures, and that Christ meant that the inquiry should be limited to them. This evidence is found in such facts as these : The account of the manner in which he organized the church looks as if he designed to arrange the whole subject himself, so as to leave no ground for the necessity of an appeal to coming generations of men. He set apart an order of men with great solemnity, and invested them with great authority, for the purpose of preaching the gospel and organizing the church. He taught them per- sonally more than three years, and in such a way as to make them fully acquainted with his views and designs. He gave them full authority in the case to "bind and loose;" to establish and dissolve; with no intimation that this duty was to devolve on any of their successors. The instructions which he gave, were given to them, not to a fancied order of successors; to those whom he had trained under his own eye, not to those who were to be trained OF THE APOSTOLIC CHURCH. 17 under theirs. He never intimated that they would be unable to complete the arrangement, and to settle the church on a permanent basis ; or that it would be necessary for them to leave any part of the arrangement to be perfected in future times. Those men, thus appointed, actually undertook the work, fully believing that they Vere competent to it, and acting just as if they were empowered to complete the arrangement. They went forth and preached ; they founded churches ; they appointed officers ; they gave directions in regard to the rites and observances of worship • and they undeniably left the impression everywhere that they regarded themselves as invested with the fullest authority to organize the church. A record has been preserved, containing a full account of what was done by them in establishing churches; and to what can we so naturally look as to that, to know in what manner the Saviour designed that it should be done? There is no intimation in that record, or in any of the writings of these apostles, that they left any thing to be done by those who should succeed them. There is no hint that their successors were to com- plete or to perfect the plan • or that they were to give information about what the apostles had done. Any one who reads the Acts of the Apostles and the Epistles, cannot fail to be convinced that the writers supposed they were giving all the informa- tion which was needful for the guidance of man- 2* 18 ORGANIZATION AND GOVERNMENT kind about the organization of the Christian church. 4. The " Fathers" of the church were not in cir- cumstances so favourable to give the proper infor- mation as the apostles themselves. The "Fathers" comprise a succession of men who lived in the first centuries of the Christian era — usually supposed to include those who lived in the first four or five cen- turies. Subsequent to that period no one appeals to the "Fathers" in proof of what was the early con- stitution of the Christian church. Yet, within that time, what extraordinary advantage had they for knowing what was done by the apostles ? Why should we appeal to them, rather than to the record which the apostles themselves made of what they had done ? They were not inspired men • most of them lived in places remote from the fields where the apostles laboured ; and not a few of them, un- deniably, several generations after the apostles. Why should we go to them to know what order the apostles established in the church ? Why should we dip up water from the Ganges or the Mississippi where they pour their floods into the ocean, after they have worn the shores and mingled with the streams flowing into them for thousands of miles, to know what the water is at the fountains ? He who could stand near those fountains, and drink the water there, would never think of wandering by the course of the turbid river to examine it as it flows OF THE APOSTOLIC CHURCH. 19 along, or as it mingles with the ocean, to know what were its qualities. 5. It is impossible to settle the question by an appeal to the " Fathers." The attempt has been Biade in this controversy for centuries, and with no prospect of coming any nearer to a termination. To whatever cause it may be traced, it is a simple matter of history, that no witnesses of facts have ever been less satisfactory than the so-called Chris- tian Fathers. No set of writers has ever lived, from whom so contradictory statements are de- rived; who can be appealed to with so much plausi- bility on both sides of a question, and whom it is so easy to set in array against each other. As this will be conceded by all who have ever read them, or who have ever looked into the controversies on the subject of the organization of the church, it is unnecessary to adduce any proof of it. This re- mark can be made without, in the least, impeaching the piety of the "Fathers," or undervaluing the ser- vices which they rendered to the cause of truth, or displacing them from the position which they ought to hold in the affections and grateful remembrance of mankind. Whatever may be the fact about the actual contradictions, or want of consistency, of any of the " Fathers," it can be traced to other causes than to a want of piety or general excel- lence of character. Much may be said, on each of these points, with more plausibility and probability 20 ORGANIZATION AND GOVERNMENT than would be desirable when speaking of good men, but it is not necessary to say this in order to see their entire unfitness to decide the Episcopal contro- versy. In the management of this controversy hitherto, it is impossible for any one, who has any suitable regard for the authority of the Bible, not to feel pain at the manner in which the argument has been conducted. By common consent, almost, the writers on both sides have turned from the New Testament, where the controversy might have been brought to a speedy issue, to listen to the decisions of the " Fathers ;" and as might have been expected, have " Found no end, in wandering mazes lost." It was the policy of the friends of prelacy to do so ; and it was the folly of their opponents to suffer them to choose the field of debate, and to weary them- selves in an effort to fix the meaning, to secure the consistency, and obtain the suffrages of the " Fa- thers." Full well was it known by the friends of Episcopacy in other times, that the New Testament could furnish only the most slender support for their claims. In the times of the papacy, it had always been defended by an appeal to the "Fathers." The system had risen there, sustained not even profess- ed/t/ by the authority of the Bible, but by the tra- ditions of the elders. The ranks and orders of the papal priesthood could be defended only by the au- OF THE APOSTOLIC CHURCH. 21 thority of a church which claimed infallibility, and •which might dispense, therefore, with the New Tes- tament. The Reformers came forth from the bosom of the papacy with much of this feeling. They ap- proached this subject with high reverence for the opinions of past times ; with a deference for the Fa- thers, nourished by all the forms of their education, by all existing institutions, and by the reluctance of the human mind to break away from the established customs of ages. On the one hand, the advocates of Episcopacy found their proofs in the common law of the church — the institutions which had existed " time whereof the memory of man runneth not to the contrary;" and, on -the other hand, the opponents of prelacy were equally anxious to show that they had not departed from the customs of the Fathers, and that the defence of their institutions might be found in times far remote, and in records which re- ceived the veneration and commanded the confi- dence of the Christian world. Into this abyss both parties plunged. f See Tillemont's Ecclesiastical History, passim. + See the Letters of Dr. Miller, and Dr. Bowden on Episco- pacy, pasaim. OF THE APOSTOLIC CHURCH. 23 the contending parties; and thus, in this con- troversy, the weary searcher for truth finds no solid ground. Eminently here, " he which is first in his cause seemeth just; but his neighbour cometh and searcheth him/7 Prov. xviii. 17. To this wearisome and unsatisfactory toil he is doomed who will' read all the older controversies on Episco- pacy. There he, " O'er bog or steep, through strait, rough, dense, or rare, With head, hands, wings, or feet, pursues his way, And swims, or sinks, or wades, or creeps, or flies." The following very striking remark of Bishop Jeremy Taylor — himself one of the brightest orna- ments of Episcopacy — expresses undoubtedly the true view in regard to the value of the Christian Fathers as instructors and guides : — " It must be acknowledged/ ' says he, "that the writers of the an- cient dispensation were such as those should be who were looking onward toward the bright day of gospel splendour; while the early Christian doctors were just such as one might expect to find in those who were looking onward toward that deep night of super- stition which covered Europe during the Middle Ages. The dawn is seen to be gleaming upon the foreheads of the one class of writers, while a sullen gloom overshadows the brows of the other/'* * Quoted in the Biblical Repository for January, 1824, p. 105. 24 ORGANIZATION AND GOVERNMENT Were we to adduce the most striking instance of the plastic nature of the proof adduced from the Fathers, we should refer to the epistles of Ignatius. They seem to be a plain, straight-forward account of the existence of Presbyterianism in his time. They are substantially such a description as a man would give, writing in the inflated and exaggerated man- ner in which the Orientals wrote, of Presbyterianism as it exists in the United States. Yet it is well known that, with the utmost pertinacity, those let- ters have been adduced as proving the divine origin of Episcopacy. And so confident have been the assertions on this subject, that not a few non-Epis- copalians have given them up as unmanageable, and have stoutly contended, what may be very true, that no inconsiderable part of them are forgeries. Any man can see what a hopeless task is before him if he endeavours to settle this controversy by the authority of the Fathers. The waste of time, and talent, and learning, on this subject, is fitted deeply to humble the heart. And the passion has not ceased. Even now, men high in office and in rank, leave the New Testament and appeal to the Fathers. Episcopacy is discarded, not principally because the New Testament is a stranger to it, but because Jerome was not a prelatist; it is rejected, not because it cannot be made out from the Bible, but because it is a matter of debate whether the Fathers teach it or not. OP THE APOSTOLIC CHURCH. 25 But/ apart from all that might be said to impugn the authority of the Fathers on certain points, there are other circumstances which show, in the most ample manner, that such a controversy cannot be settled by an appeal to them. One is, the great number of the authorities to be examined, and the amount of writing with which a man must become familiar who relies on this testimony — putting it wholly out of the power of the great mass of Chris- tians, and even -of ministers of the gospel, to deter- mine what was the organization of the church, if the appeal is to be made to them. In the works of the Fathers to which I have access, embracing those of the first five centuries of the Christian era, there are no less than fifty-four folio volumes, besides a con- siderable number of smaller size. How could the mass of Christians hope to obtain sufficient famili- arity with those numerous and massive tomes, to be able to educe from them a correct view of the con- stitution of the primitive church ? How different is such an appeal, in regard to the facility of coming to any satisfactory conclusion, from that which all men may make to the small volume of the New Testament ! — A second circumstance is this : those volumes are all in languages now unspoken. There is of necessity, therefore, much difficulty in arriving with certainty at the exact meaning of the writers. There is much ambiguity; much to perplex the scholar ; much which may be plausibly interpreted 3 26 ORGANIZATION AND GOVERNMENT in different modes, and which may, by a new trans- lation, or by being presented in a different connec- tion, be adduced on both sides of a question. Be- sides, how are the mass of Christians all over the world to have access to those volumes ? Can it be presumed that they are sufficiently familiar with the Greek and Latin languages to be able to settle a controversy of this nature ? — A third circumstance is this : there is much that is vague in statement ; unsettled in definition j loose in narrative or decla- mation among those writers, as there must be always among so voluminous authors. It is unde- niable, too, that they not unfrequently contradict each other and themselves. — A fourth circumstance may be adverted to : it is the remarkable difference in regard to simplicity, clearness, directness, appa- rent honesty, and all that gives value to written tes- timony, between the character of the writings of the Apostles and the Fathers. This difference I cannot better express, than in the language of one emi- nently qualified to express it, and who has noticed the difference with no reference to the point now under discussion. It is the testimony of Neander.* " The first authors which succeeded the apostles are the so-called Christian Fathers, who began at the apostolic times, and should have been the scholars of the apostles. In this kind of writers, a particular * Geschichte d. Christlichen Religion und Kirehe, 1. c. 1009. OF THE APOSTOLIC CHURCH. 27 thing deserving attention is, the remarkable differ- ence between the writings of the apostles and the writings of the apostolic Fathers who lived even so near to their times. The transition from one class of writers to another, is usually gradual ; here it is sudden. There is here no gradual transition, but a spring, [or leap — ein Sprung ^\ which is sufficient to turn the attention to the recognition of the spe- cial efficiency of the Divine Spirit in the souls of the apostles." On this subject, also, the following remarks of Archbishop Whately will commend themselves to every candid mind; and they are of the more value as they come from one who has been ho- noured with the highest office in the gift of the Episcopal Church : " For when referred to the works of the orthodox ancient Fathers, they [men] find that a very large portion of these works are lost; or that some frag- ments or reports of them by other writers alone remain : they find again that what has come down to us is so vast in amount that a life is not sufficient for the attentive study of even the chief part of it : they find these authors by no means agreed, on all points, with each other, or with themselves, and that learned men again are not agreed in the inter- pretation of them; and still less agreed as to the orthodoxy of each, and the degree of weight due to his judgment on several points; nor even agreed 28 ORGANIZATION AND GOVERNMENT by some centuries as to the degree of antiquity that is to. make the authority of each decisive, or more or less approaching to decisive. " Every thing in short pertaining to this appeal is obscure — uncertain — disputable — and actually dis- puted— to such a degree, that even those who are not able to read the original authors may yet be perfectly competent to perceive how unstable a foundation they furnish. They can perceive that the mass of Christians are called on to believe and to do what is essential to Christianity, in implicit reliance on the reports of their respective pastors as to what certain deep theological antiquaries have reported to them, respecting the reports given by certain ancient Fathers, of the reports current in their times concerning apostolical usages and insti- tutions ! And yet, whoever departs in any degree from these, is to be regarded at best in an interme- diate state between Christianity and heathenism! Surely the tendency of this procedure must be to drive the doubting into confirmed (though, perhaps, secret) infidelity, and to fill with doubts the most sincerely pious, if they are anxiously desirous of attaining truth, and unhappily have sought it from . such instructors."* In settling an important question, how different is the argument derived from such writings, from an * Kingdom of Christ Delineated, Essay ii. § 21. OF THE APOSTOLIC CHURCH. 29 appeal to the New Testament ! That is one small volume; simple in its character and statements; easily perused; with no ambiguity, no pomp of rhetoric, no prejudice in favour of an existing cus- tom ; with no contradiction between one writer and another, and no inconsistency in the statements of the same writer at different times and in different circumstances. It contains not, moreover, the lan- guage of conjecture; it does not depend for its au- thority on human reasoning ; and it is undiluted in any of its statements by the reasonings of philosophy or by tradition. If it should be said here, that experience has shown that it is impossible to settle this controversy by an appeal to the Scriptures ; that men differ as much about the meaning of the sacred writers on the constitution of the church as they do about the testimony of the Fathers; and that, though the churches have had the Bible for eighteen hundred years, the Christian world is still wholly divided in opinion on the subject, — I reply, (1.) That whatever may be the reasons why men have varied so much in their interpretation of the New Testament in the case, it is still true that it is easier to come to a de- termination of the question by an appeal to that than by an appeal to the Fathers. To the eye of common sense it is clear, that the testimony of a small volume like the New Testament, written at the time when the church was organized, and by 30 ORGANIZATION AND GOVERNMENT the men who did it, can be more easily arrived at than those of a succession of voluminous writers such as the Fathers are, extending through a period of several hundred years. I reply, (2.) That one main reason, and perhaps the only reason, why the sentiments of men have been divided in the case, and why the whole controversy has not been long since settled is, that they are constantly leaving the New Testament and appealing to the Fathers. The argument has never been confined, on either side, to the Bible. Each party has felt itself bound, either in self-defence or to meet its opponent, to appeal to the Fathers. The war has raged there. The triumphs or defeats have been on that field ; and, in the whole range of the controversy, it is be- lieved there is not a single volume, on either side, that makes the appeal solely and exclusively to the Bible. And if this be so, then it should not be said that experience has shown that it is impossible to settle this inquiry by an appeal to the Scriptures. Were the volumes of the Fathers all burned and forgotten, and were all the influence which they have exerted over this controversy removed, it would require but a brief period to determine whether Episcopacy is founded on the Bible. 6. That the appeal should be made to the Scrip- tures alone is now conceded by Episcopalians them- selves. It was long, indeed, before the advocates for prelacy were willing to concede, in so many OF THE APOSTOLIC CHURCH. 81 words, that the controversy was to be determined by the Bible ; and that it is conceded in principle is a point gained of inestimable importance, and will bring the controversy to a termination whenever it is honestly and fully applied. That it is conceded is clear from the admissions of one who, as a prelate of the Episcopal Church, has a right to express the prevalent sentiment in that church, and whose words may be regarded as having the force of authority. The sentiment, also, should be allowed to have greater weight because the tract in which it occurs has been issued by the " Protestant Episcopal Tract Society/ ' and may be supposed, therefore, to express the present views of the whole Episcopal Church, at least in the United States. The language of Dr. Onderdonk, in the tract re- ferred to,* is the following : " The claim of Epis- copacy to be of divine institution, and, therefore, obligatory on the church, rests fundamentally on the one question : Has it the authority of Scripture ? If it has not, it is not necessarily binding. This one point should be kept in view in every discus- sion of the subject; no argument is worth taking into the account that has not a palpable bearing on * " Episcopacy tested by Scripture/' I quote now, and shall hereafter, from the tract published at the "Protestant Episcopal Press," in connection with other articles on the subject, and called "Episcopacy Examined and Re-examined." New York, 1836. 32 ORGANIZATION AND GOVERNMENT the clear and naked topic — the scriptural evidence of Episcopacy." P. 8. The simple and honest avowal of a sentiment like this from such a quarter, should be hailed by every friend of the truth as placing the whole of this discussion on a proper basis. It is a subject of sincere congratulation that it is now conceded that we may bring to this subject the great principle of the Reformation, that all religious opinions are to be tested by the Scriptures. It in- dicates a healthy state of things in the Episcopal Church in this country. It will save endless dis- putes about words, and much useless toil in endea- vouring to give consistency and sense to the Fathers. This mode of reasoning, too, will soon decide the controversy. Hereafter, let it be held up as a great principle from which, neither in spirit nor in form, we are ever to depart, that if the peculiar doctrines of Episcopacy are not found in the Scriptures, they are to be abandoned, or held, as Cranmer held them, as matters of mere expediency. Let this truth go forth, never to be recalled ; and let every man who attempts to defend the claims of prelates appeal to the Bible alone. On this appeal, with confidence, we rest the issue of this case. For reasons such as have now been stated, it is proposed to conduct the following investigation solely with reference to the testimony of the Scrip- tures. By the results of such an investigation the Protestant community must ultimately abide OF THE APOSTOLIC CHURCH. 38 CHAPTER II. THE CLAIMS WHICH AHE ADVANCED BY EPISCOPACY. EPISCOPACY is a religion of claims. It advances certain pretensions relating to important points in the government and organization of the church, which, if well founded, are binding on all churches, and which, in their tendency, go to unsettle the claims of all others. It is not an argument, on the part of the Episcopalian, drawn from expediency, or human prudence, or a conventional arrangement among men; nor is it an argument which can admit other churches to be on the same basis with them- selves, or other ministers to be the commissioned servants of God. If Episcopacy be of divine origin; if it be the form prescribed in the New Testament for the organization of the church • if it was insti- tuted by the Redeemer and the apostles, — then, whatever other consequences may flow from it, or however inconsistent the advocates of Episcopacy may be in carrying out these principles, the regular result of the claim is, that the Episcopal Church is the only true church, and that all other churches 34 ORGANIZATION AND GOVERNMENT are of human origin. This consequence follows inevitably. These remarks are not made with a view of exciting prejudice in any minds against the system, but merely to show the nature of the claims which are thus advanced. It is well known that these consequences are not allowed by many Episcopalians; and there is much gained on the score of charity in the fact that the advocates of a system are not always consistent with their own principles. Yet any one can see that the claims of any system to be exclusively scriptural or of divine authority in its origin leads, in fact, as a necessary consequence, to the conclusion that all others are mere human and unauthorized arrange- ments. In pursuance of this thought, I remark, then, that the burden of proof lies wholly on the friends of •Episcopacy. They set up a claim — a claim which they affirm to be binding on all the churches of every age. It is a claim which is specific, and which must be made out, or their whole pretensions fall. In what predicament it may leave other churches, is not the question. It would not prove Episcopacy to be of divine origin, could its friends show that Presbyterianism is unfounded in the Scrip- tures; or that Congregationalism has no claims to support; or that Independency is unauthorized; or that lay ordination is destitute of direct support. The question, after all, might be, whether it was OF THE APOSTOLIC CHURCH. 35 the design of the apostles to establish any par- ticular form of church government any more than to establish a fixed code of civil administration ? The specific point to be made out by Episcopalians is, That there is scriptural authority for that which is claimed for bishops. This is not a claim which can be defended by any doubtful passages of Scripture, or by any circuitous mode of argu- mentation. As it is expected to affect the whole constitution of the church; to constitute, in fact, the peculiarity of its organization; and to deter- mine, to a great extent at least, the validity of all its ordinances and its ministry, we have a right to demand that the proof should not be of a doubtful character, or of a nature which is not easily apprehended by the ordinary readers of the New Testament. It is a point of essential importance in this con- troversy, that the burden of proof lies on the friends of Episcopacy. It is theirs to make out this specific claim. To decide whether they can do so, is the object of the present inquiry. 