PRIMITIVE CHURCH OFFICES.








ESSAYS
ON THE
PRIMITIVE CHURCH OFFICES.
REPRINTED BY PERMISSION FROM THE PRINCETON REVIEW, WITH
CORRECTIONS AND ADDITIONS BY THE SAME WRITER.
NEW-YORK:
CHARLES SCRIBNER, 145 NASSAU-STREET.
1851.




ENTERED, according to Act of Congress, in the year 1851, by
CHARLES SCRIBNER,
In thn Clerk's Office of the District Court for the Southern District of
New-York.
JOHN F. TROW, 
trintt  ant %ttrmtiptr,,
_49 AimNN-STAST. 




ADVERTISEMENT.
THE essays here collected were originally published in different numbers of the Biblical Repertory and Princeton Review during a period of several years. A desire having been expressed for their
republication in a separate form, the author has not
only given his consent, but made a number of corrections, chiefly verbal, and two additions of considerable length, to wit, the whole of the fifth essay
and the conclusion of the fourth, comprising the
argument in reference to the apostleship of Titus.
Both these additions formed a part of the original
manuscript, from  which the essays were transferred
to the Review, and are necessary to complete the
argument. An occasional want of uniformity in the
use of the singular and plural pronoun has arisen
from a partial restoration of the original form, which
was afterwards abandoned, as a superfluous labour
in a mere republication.








CONTENTS.
ESSAY I.
ON THE ORIGIN OF THE CHRISTIAN ELDERSHIP,.. 
ESSAY II.
ON THE POWERS OF THE PRIMITIVE PRESBYTERS,...   29
ESSAY III.
ON THE PERPETUITY OF THE APOSTLESHIP,....   68
ESSAY IV.
ON THE OFFICIAL RANK OP TIMOTHY AND TITUS,..        101
ESSAY V.
ON THE ANGELS OF THE CHURCHES AND THE FALSE APOSTLES,  134
ESSAY VI.
ON THE APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION,...    144








ESSAY I.
ON THE ORIGIN OF THE CHRISTIAN ELDERSHIP.
IN various living languages there are titles of honour
and respect, the etymological origin of which is to
be sought in the idea of old age or seniority. Such
are Sire, as addressed to kings, and the cognate expression Sir, as used in common parlance, and also in
the title of an English knight or baronet. Such too
are the French Sieur, Seigneur, the Spanish Senor, the
Italian Signore, with their various compounds, Monsieur, Monseigneur, Monsignore, Messire, etc., all which
may be traced back to the Latin Senior, considered as
the comparative of Senex. We find, moreover, that
terms thus derived have been extensively employed,
not only as expressions of personal respect, but also as
designations of official dignity. This is the case with
most of the words already mentioned, to which may
be added Alderman (elder man), Senator, Patres Conscripti, the Arabic Sheikh, and many others.
This extensive use of words, which properly denote
1




2                    ESSAY T.
old age, to signify official rank, might possibly admit
of explanation on the hypothesis, that what was first
used to express a merely personal respect was afterwards employed to express the same feeling with respect to public or official dignity; that as any respected
person might be called a father or an old man, so a
ruler or a magistrate might be so called by way of
eminence.  But the usage now in question may be
still more satisfactorily accounted for, by the fact, that
as we trace the history of governments backwards, we
find them all to terminate in the patriarchal system.
It is this which exists in families among all nations.
It is founded on the natural relation between parents
and children.  It has no concern with artificial theories respecting social compacts and equality. Among
those races which have retained most of a primitive
simplicity in their mode of life, this organization of
society is still found. As the father governs his own
household, so the head of the family, i. e. of the
elder branch, governs the younger, and the head of
the whole tribe governs both. This system lingers
still among the Highland clans of Scotland, and continues in full force among the wandering Arabs.
Hence their strict regard to genealogy, which existed
also among the ancient Hebrews.
Under all the changes in the Hebrew form of government, this patriarchal system still remained as the
substratum of the whole theocracy; and its peculiar
phraseology is constantly recurring in the sacred history,  As the natural heads of houses, families, and
tribes, were the hereditary magistrates, the name o,,,
old men, elders, was the common appellation for the
rulers of the people.




ORIGIN OF THE ELDERSHIP.            3
The same usage of the term occurs in application to
domestic arrangements. Eliezer of Damascus, Abraham's steward, is called (Gen. 24: 2) rn3 ]  i., not
"his eldest servant of his house," as our translation has
it, but "his servant, the elder (i. e. ruler) of his house."
So in Gen. 50: 7, we read of " all the servants of Pharaoh, the elders of his house," as well as " all the elders
of the land of Egypt." These elders and the senators
of Ps. 105: 22 are identical in Hebrew.
During the residence of Israel in Egypt, the patriarchal system seems to have been maintained, as one
suited to every change of circumstances. Hence, when
the people were to be delivered, the communications
from Jehovah were made, not directly to the mass of
the nation, but to the Elders, as their national and
acknowledged representatives. When God commanded Moses (Ex. 3: 14), " Thus shalt thou say unto the
children of Israel, I AM hath sent me unto you," he
immediately explained the way in which the command
was to be executed, by adding, "Go and gather THE
ELDERS of Israel together, and say unto them," etc.
(v. 16), " and thou shalt come, thou and THE ELDERS of
Israel, unto the king of Egypt" (v. 18). Again we read
(Ex. 4: 30, 31), that Moses and Aaron "did the signs
in the sight of THE PEOPLE, and THE PEOPLE believed."
But immediately before it had been said (v. 29), that
they " went and gathered together all THE ELDERS of
the children of Israel," which would be a nugatory
statement, if it did not mean that the people, who saw
the signs and believed in consequence, were the elders
of the people.
In Ex. 12: 3, the Lord says unto Moses and Aaron,
"Speak ye unto all the congregation of Israel;" but in




4                     ESSAY I.
executing this command " Moses called for all the elders
of Israel," and gave them the necessary orders (v. 21).
When Moses smote the rock by divine direction, it
was "in the sight of the elders of Israel" (Ex. 17-: 5,
6), as the representatives of the people who were to be
relieved, and at the same time reproved for murmuring.  When Jethro offered sacrifices and made a feast,
"all the elders of Israel" came, as a matter of course,
"to eat bread with Moses' father-in-law before God"
(Ex. 18: 12).
A still more remarkable instance of the Elders being
taken for the people is in Ex. 19: 8, where it is said
that "ALL THE PEOPLE answered together and said,
all that the Lord hath spoken we will do; and Moses
told the words of THE PEOPLE unto the Lord;" whereas
in the verse immediately preceding it is said, that
" Moses came and called for THE ELDERS of the people,
and laid before their faces all these words which the
Lord commanded him."   Another example of the
same thing may be found in Deut. 5: 23, where Moses,
addressing the people, says, "Ye came near unto me,
(even) all the heads of your tribes and your elders."
In the Mosaic ritual, the Elders are recognized as
the representatives of the people, not only by being
joined with Aaron and his sons in the directions with
respect to certain sacrifices (Lev. 9:1), but in the solemn ceremony of imposing hands upon the victim, as a
symbol of the transfer of the sins of the whole people
to the substitute (Lev. 4: 15).
The "seventy elders" (Num. 11: 25), who acted as
assistants to Moses and Aaron in certain cases, were
not ordained to a new office, but merely selected for a
special purpose from a body of men already in exist



ORIGIN OF THE ELDERSHIP.              5
ence. They are expressly called " seventy of the elders" (Ex. 24: 1), "seventy men of the elders of Israel,
whom thou knowest to be the elders of the people and
officers set over them" (Num. 11: 16). Nothing could
more clearly intimate the previous existence and official standing of the elders. In this case it is plain that
the word " officers" is in apposition with " elders" and
explanatory of it, a remark which admits of a very extensive and important application.
The use of the same term in reference to other
nations, if it does not prove that the same natural and
simple organization obtained among them, proves what
is more important, that the Hebrew writers were so
perfectly familiar with this government by Elders, and
this representation of the people by their Elders, that
they naturally used expressions borrowed from it, to
describe the institutions of other countries. In Num.
22: 4, we read that "Moab said unto the Elders of
Midian," which might seem to imply a difference of
organization; but that Moab means the Elders of Moab,
appears from v. 7, where we find the full phrase, " and
the Elders of Moab and the Elders of Midian departed."  In Joshua 9: 11, the Gibeonites describe their
rulers by the name of Elders.
In the laws of Moses which have a prospective
reference to the settlement of the people in the promised land, he mentions not only the Elders of Israel
collectively (Lev. 4: 15, Num. 11: 16) and the Elders
of the several tribes (Deut. 31: 28. 29: 10), but the
Elders of cities and districts, who are represented as
the local magistrates or judges (Deut. 19: 12. 21: 2, 3,
4, 6, 19. 22: 15-18. 25: 7-9).
The Elders are joined with Aaron in the receiving




6                     ESSAY I.
of the law (Lev. 9: 1), and with Moses in the giving of
it (Deut. 27: 1). In like manner we find Joshua accompanied by the Elders in certain public acts (Josh.
7: 6. 8: 10). In those cases where the people en masse
were to bear a part, the Elders still appear as their
official leaders (Josh. 8: 33. 23: 2. 24: 1), though in
some of the cases here referred to, it is doubtful whether
any other assembling of the people was intended or
possible than that of a representative nature. In Josh.
23: 2, for example, we may either read " the people
and their elders," or "the people even (viz.) their
elders."
That the government by Elders still existed after
the conquest of Canaan, is evident from  history.
When Gideon dealt with the people of Succoth, it was
in the person of their Elders (Judg. 8: 16); Jephthah's
negotiations were with the Elders of Gilead (Judg. 11:
5-11); and at the very close of the book of Judges
we find the "Elders of the congregation," i. e. of
the whole church and nation, deliberating jointly on a
matter which concerned their relations to a single tribe
(Judg. 21: 16).
The local Elders seem to have been numerous.
Those of Succoth were in number seventy-seven, as
appears from Judges 8: 14, where Elders and Princes
(i. e. rulers, chiefs) are in apposition, and descriptive
of one office. The Elders of the people are again
mentioned, Ruth 4: 4. The influence of the Elders
in withstanding the progress of corruption, after the
death of Moses and Joshua, is twice expressly recorded (Josh. 24: 31. Judges 2: 7).
In the time of Samuel, we still meet with occasional




ORIGIN OF THE ELDERSHIP.              7
allusions to the Elders of cities (e. g. Jabesh, 1 Sam.
11: 3, and Bethlehem ch. 16: 4), the Elders of tribes
(e. g. Judah, 1 Sam. 30: 26), and the Elders of all Israel, as the collective rulers of the nation, who made
war and peace (1 Sam. 4: 3), changed the external
form of government (8: 4), to whom even Samuel listened with respect (ib.), and of whose contempt even
Saul was afraid (15: 30). The circumstances attending
the introduction of monarchy show clearly that the
change was a formal one, and that after as before it
the details of the government continued in the hands
of the hereditary Elders.
During the reigns of David and Solomon, we find
the most important questions of government (as, for
example, who should be king) repeatedly referred to,
and decided by, the Elders of Israel (2 Sam. 3: 17. 5: 3,
1 Chron. 11: 3) and Judah (2 Sam. 19: 11). When
Absalom usurped his father's throne, it was with the
connivance of the Elders of Israel (2 Sam. 17: 4, 15).
When Solomon was about to remove the ark, he assembled the Elders of Israel, i. e. "the heads of the
tribes, the chiefs of the fathers of the children of Israel;" for these words are to be regarded as explanatory of the title elders (1 Kings 8: 1, 3. 2 Chron. 5: 2,
4). The officers of David's palace are called the Elders
of his house (2 Sam. 12: 17). That the king was commonly attended by Elders as counsellors and aids, may
be gathered from such incidental statements as that in
1 Chr. 15: 25. 21: 16.
Solomon himself alludes to this organization when,
describing the husband of the virtuous woman, he
says, "her husband is known in the gate, when he
sitteth among the Elders of the land" (Prov. 31: 23).




8                     ESSAY I.
Isaiah mentions the Elder, in enumerating the
public persons who were to be removed from Judah
(Isa. 3: 2. 9: 14)   He describes Jehovah's controversy with his people as carried on against " the Elders, even the rulers' of the people," as their representatives. In predicting the future glory of the church,
or of Jehovah in the church, he says, " The Lord shall
reign in Mount Zion, and in Jerusalem, and before his
Elders, gloriously" (Isa, 24: 23).
After the revolt of the ten tribes, the government
by Elders still subsisted in both kingdoms.  When
Benhadad, king of Syria, sent an overbearing message
to Ahab, king of Israel, the latter "called all the
Elders of the land,"  and acted by their counsel
(1 Kings 20: 7, 8). When the same king wished to
obtain Naboth's vineyard, Jezebel procured the death
of Naboth by her influence over " the Elders and the
nobles" (or even the nobles) " that were in his city"
(1 Kings 21: 8).
The practice of regarding the elders as the people,
in all public acts, still appears in such expressions as
" the men of his city, even the elders and the nobles that
were in his city" (1 Kings 21: 11), and in the statement
that Josiah " went up into the house of the Lord, and
ALL THE MEN OF JUDAH, and the inhabitants of Jerusalem, and the priests and levites, and ALL THE PEOPLE,
great and small" (2 Kings 23: 2. 2 Chron. 34: 30).
Strictly understood, this was impossible. It is not,
however, a mere synecdoche or hyperbole. It does not
mean that some of the people went up, which would
not account for the strength of the expressions. The
whole people, great and small, were really present,
according to the principle of representation. They




ORIGIN OF THE ELDERSHIP.               9
were present iQ the person of their Elders, for we read
in  2 Kings 23: 1 (2 Chron. 34: 29), that " the
king sent, and they gathered unto him  ALL THE
ELDERS of Judah and Jerusalem."  The existence of
local Elders, during this same period, may be inferred,
not only from  the case of Naboth above mentioned,
but from the incidental statements, that " Elisha sat in
his house, and the Elders sat with him" (2 Kings 6:
32); and that " Jehu wrote letters, and sent to Samaria, unto the rulers of Jezreel, the Elders" (2 Kings 10:
1). In this last case, the identity of the rulers and
elders is unusually clear from the omission of the copulative, which shows that when the particle appears in
other cases of the same kind, it is not distinctive but
explanatory.  The official existence and activity of
Elders may be traced to the very end of the kingdom
of Judah, as we find " the elders of the land," in the
reign of Jehoiakim, interposing in behalf of Jeremiah
(Jer. 26: 17).
One advantage of this presbyterial constitution
was, that being founded upon natural relations, it
could exist wherever families existed; and we find
accordingly that, as it was maintained during the long
sojourn of Israel in Egypt, so the Elders were still
recognized, as a distinct order, in the Babylonish exile,
as appears from " the letter that Jeremiah the Prophet
sent from Jerusalem unto the residue of THE ELDERS
which were carried away captive," etc. (Jer. 29: 1).
So, likewise, when the exiles applied to Ezekiel for
information as to the will of God, it was through their
Elders (Ezek. 20: 1, 3). When he was transported in
vision to Jerusalem, he was made to see the abominations committed by "the Elders of the house of Israel"
1*




10                     ESSAY I.
(Ezek. 8: 12); and at the very time when the trance
fell upon him he was sitting, like Elisha, in his house,
and "the Elders of Judah" sat before him (ib. v. 1).
And as the official rank of the Elders was still
recognized during the captivity, so it re-appears after
the return from exile. The decrees made were "according to the counsel of the Princes and the Elders" (Ezra
10: 8), or, as we have seen that this construction probably means, "the Chiefs, to wit, the Elders." The combination is intended to show that the chiefs referred to
were not temporary or extraordinary ones, but such as
held power under the ancient theocratical constitution.
So in Ezra 10: 14, where the " Rulers (or Elders) of all
the congregation" are distinguished from  "the Elders of every city and the Judges thereof," the last
phrase seems to be exegetical of the former, and
intended to show that the Elders of each city were its
local magistrates, which, as we have seen already, was
the ancient Hebrew polity.
The " Elders of the Priests," who are occasionally
mentioned (Isa. 37: 2. 2 Kings 19: 2), appear to have
been the heads of the several branches of the family of
Aaron, the same who in the New Testament are called
apXtepetS or Chief Priests. In Jer. 19: 1, they are
distinguished from the "Elders of the people," i. e. of
the other tribes.
This organization was for religious as well as civil
purposes.  Hence the Psalmist says, "Praise him in
the assembly of the Elders" (Ps. 107:32). Indeed,
the whole organization of the Hebrew commonwealth
was for a religious purpose.  The nation was the
church.  The same chiefs who presided over secular
affairs, presided over sacred things, except that what




ORIGIN OF THE ELDERSHIP.            11
related to ceremonial matters was intrusted to the
chiefs of a single tribe exclusively. Sacrifice and all
that pertained to it was under the direction of the
Priests at the tabernacle or temple; but when the
people met elsewhere for spiritual worship, it was under the direction of their natural and ordinary chiefs,
the Elders.  These meetings were in later times called
ouvaywryat, a name which was sometimes extended to
the houses in which they were held.
This view of the matter relieves the question as to
the antiquity of synagogues from much of its difficulty.
The common opinion is, that they arose during the
captivity, when the people had no access to the temple.
But the temple-service and that of the synagogue were
totally distinct. The one could not be a succedaneum
for the other. If the want of a local spiritual worship
was felt during the exile, it must have been felt centuries before. It seems incredible that, during a course
of ages, those who could not attend the temple were
without any stated worship. The argument urged in
favour of this doctrine is, that synagogues are not mentioned before the captivity. But this proceeds upon
the supposition, that the ancient synagogue was a distinct organization within the body politic, an limperium
in imperio. The difficulty vanishes as soon as we
assume, that it was nothing but the stated meeting of
the people, under their national organization, for a
particular purpose, the worship of God.   It was
a civil organization used for a religious purpose; or
rather, it was one organization, used both for a religious
and a civil purpose; as in England the parishes are
both ecclesiastical and political divisions of the kingdom. The same state of things would exist among us,




12                    ESSAY I.
if the townships met statedly for public worship, under
the same moderators and committees who are charged
with the conduct of their secular affairs.  These officers would answer to the Jewish Elders.  Under such
a system, church and state would not only be united
but identified, as they were in the Hebrew commonwealth.  The Jewish church was the Jewish nation,
and the same persons were church-officers and magistrates. -The instruction of the people, and perhaps
the conduct of religious worship, were probably intrusted to the Levites, who, when not on actual duty
at Jerusalem, lived dispersed among the people. From
this tribe probably proceeded most of the Scribes,
Lawyers, or Doctors of the Law, which seem to have
been titles, not of an office, but of a profession, the business of which was to expound the Scriptures, and perhaps to take the lead in public worship. But the legal
authority, in these as well as other things, resided in
the Elders of the several communities, who, in relation
to their spiritual functions were called Elders or Rulers
of the Synagogue.
This state of things still continued when Christ
came.  The people were still governed by their Elders,
both in civil and religious matters. Collectively, the
Elders are called Elders of the People (Matthew 21: 23.
26: 3), and- Elders of the Jews (Luke 7: 3), and are continually joined with the Chief Priests (or Elders of the
Priests), in all the public acts with reference to the
arrest, trial, condemnation, and crucifixion of our
Lord (Matt. 16: 21. 26: 47, 59. 27: 1, 3, 12. 28: 12,
etc). Peter and John were arraigned before the Elders
of Israel (Acts 4: 8, 23); Stephen was condemned by
them  (Acts 6: 12); Paul was persecuted by them




ORIGIN OF THE ELDERSHIP.           13
(Acts 23: 14), and by.them accused before the Roman
governor (Acts 24: 1. 25:15).
There seems to be no doubt, then, that the government by Elders, which we have seen to be coeval with
the commonwealth, and to have survived all political
changes, continued until the destruction of the temple
and dispersion of the people.
Our Lord began his ministry by exhorting men to
repent because the kingdom of heaven was at hand.
In this he was preceded by John the Baptist, and followed by the twelve disciples whom he sent out for
the purpose, " whom also he named Apostles" (Luke 6:
13). That which they all preached or proclaimed was
the gospel of the kingdom (Matt. 4:23. 9: 35. 24:14.
Mark 1:14), i. e. the good news that a kingdom was
about to be established. That this new kingdom was
not to be merely inward and spiritual, is clear'from
what is said as to the personal distinctions and diversities of ranks which were to have place in it (Matt.
5: 19. 11: 11. 18: 4).  If the kingdom  of heaven
merely meant an inward state, in what sense could
one be greater than another as a subject of that kingdom?  Such expressions necessarily imply that it denotes an outward state of things, and that not merely
a condition of society, but a society itself. It was called a kingdom, not merely because the hearts and lives
of men were to be governed by new principles, but because they were to be brought, even externally, under
a new rezime, an organized. government. True, the
spiritual nature of this government is also asserted.
Christ himself declared, that his kingdom was not of
this world (John 18  36), and Paul tells the Romans
that "the kingdom of God is not meat and drink, but




14                   ESSAY I.
righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Ghost"
(Rom. 14: 17).  Our Lord himself, on being asked
when the kingdom  of God should come, answered,
"the kingdom  of God cometh not /ucra 7rapaT7prjoe-o," in a striking and sensible manner; "for," he
adds, "the kingdom of God is within you" (Luke 17:
21). All these expressions were intended to guard
against the opposite extreme of considering the kingdom of God as something merely external, and to direct attention to those spiritual changes which were
necessarily involved in the true doctrine of the kingdom. The very design of its establishment was spiritual. It was to exercise authority in the hearts of
men.  Hence, unless it did affect their hearts, it mattered not what outward signs of its approach were
visible. Unless it was within them, it could not possibly exist without them, or rather they could have no
part in its advantages. It did not follow from this,
however, that it existed only within them, any more
than it followed, from the necessity of faith to give efficacy to sacrifices, that there was no need of the outward rite at all. The kingdom  of God was an outward institution for a spiritual purpose. It was to be
as really a kingdom  as the kingdom  of David or of
Herod.  Was it then to take the place of the old system, as of something wholly different in kind?  Not
at all. It was merely to succeed it, as the end succeeds the beginning, as maturity succeeds infancy and
youth.  The Jews were already under a theocracy.
God was their king in a peculiar sense. He did not
merely rule them, as he does all nations, with a providential sway. He filled that place in their political
system which is filled in other states by human sove



ORIGIN OF THE ELDERSHIP.             15
reigns.  Jerusalem  was his capital, and the temple
there his palace. This was still the case during all
the outward changes in the form of government. But
this system was a temporary one. It had been predicted, that the time was coming when God should
reign, not only over the Jews, but in all parts of the
earth, not under the forms of any national organization, but independently of the kingdoms of the world.
The restrictions of the ancient theocracy were to be
done away. This was the kingdom which our Lord
announced, and for which he called upon the people
to prepare by reformation and repentance, an organized system of government distinct from all secular establishments, in other words a church.
The Jews who used the Greek language were perfectly familiar with the word eKK'7ocr-a from its frequent occurrence in the Septuagint as an equivalent
to 5m~, one of the Hebrew terms denoting the whole
congregation of Israel. It was not merely a collec;
tive name for many dispersed individuals having a
common character or faith or practice, but a defined
body, a distinct society, called out from the world at
large, called together for a special purpose, and possessing within itself an organization for the attainment of that purpose. Such was the church of the
Old Testament.  The Jewish nation was set apart
for a peculiar purpose, and received a peculiar organization with reference to that purpose. The identity of this church with the church of the New Testament may be argued from the identity of their design, which was, in either case, to preserve and perpetuate divine truth, to maintain public worship, and
promote spiritual edification by means of discipline,




16                   ESSAY I.
mutual communion, and a common participation in
the same advantages.  These ends were attained in
different ways under the two systems.  What was
prospective in the one was retrospective in the other.
Christ was the end of the law and the beginning of
the gospel.  Both pointed to him, though in different directions; but as to their main design and
fundamental principles, they were the same.  Our
Lord came not to destroy but to fulfil.  He came
not so much to institute a new church, as to give
a new organization to the old, or rather to prepare
the way for such a re-organization; which did not
take place, and was not meant to take place, during
his personal ministry.
This is evident, 1. From the absence of any intimation, expressed or implied, of such organization. There
is no account given in the gospels of the formation of
societies, or the creation of any officers, except the
twelve and the seventy, who were sent out with precisely the same powers. The only difference is this,
that we hear no more of the seventy, from which we
may infer, that they were appointed for a temporary
purpose, perhaps to spread the first annunciation of the
kingdom  more extensively than the twelve could do
it, although the latter body was sufficiently numerous
for all its ulterior functions.
2. The appointment of these ministers does not
imply an actual organization of the Christian church,
because they were originally appointed, and during
their Lord's presence upon earth employed, as the announcers of a state of things which was still in prospect. We have seen that our Lord and his forerunner
called men to repent, because the kingdom of heaven




ORIGIN OF THE ELDERSHIP.           17
was at hand. To provide assistants and successors in
this great work of announcing the new state of things,
he began to select persons who should attend him for
that purpose. Of the persons thus gradually gathered,
six are particularly mentioned in the course of the
narrative, namely, Andrew, Peter, James, John, Philip,
and Matthew, When the number amounted to twelve,
they were formed into a body and invested with official powers. The remaining six were Bartholomew,
Thomas, James the son of Alpheus, Lebbeus or Thaddeus, Simon the Canaanite, and Judas Iscariot. These
twelve are expressly said to have been appointed
" that they might be with him, and that he might send
them  forth" (Mark 3: 14). Their duties then were
twofold, to be with Christ that they might learn, and
to go from him that they might teach. In the one
case they were ta~srlra', in the other 7r'ToroXot. They
first remained with him as disciples, and then went
forth as apostles. Hence they are sometimes called
"the twelve disciples" (Matt. 10: 1. 11: 1. 20: 17,
Luke 9: 1), and even the indefinite expression
"'the disciples" sometimes means the twelve exclusively (Matt. 12: 1. 13; 10, 36. Mark  1: 14).  One
of these states was preparatory to the other. They
were disciples in order that they might become apostles. They remained with Christ to learn how they
must act when they should go forth from him. When
they did go forth, it was to announce the approach of
the new dispensation, the re-organization of the church,
or, as they expressed it, the coming of the kingdom of
God. This was their office, to which their other powers were subsidiary. Their preaching was not so much
doctrinal instruction as the announcement of approach



18                    ESSAY I.
ing changes. Their work was to excite attention and
direct it to the proper object. To aid them in so doing,
and to attest the authority by which they acted, they
were empowered to work miracles of healing.  They
were also inspired, at least for purposes of self-defence
when publicly accused. They were thus commissioned
as co-workers with their Lord in the work of introducing the new dispensation and preparing for the reorganization of the church. -But these very facts imply
that it was not yet re-organized.
3. The same thing is evident from the omission of
the name by which the body, after its re-organization,
is invariably called.  This word (IKKgakloa), which according to Greek usage signifies an aggregate assembly
of the people for municipal purposes, is the term applied, as we have seen, in the Septuagint version, to
the whole Jewish church or congregation. In the New
Testament it is applied (with some apparent reference
to the peculiar use of Ka\eso and Kt\.'oa in the sense of
calling so as to elect and qualify) to the original body
of believers at Jerusalem, and then to the whole body
of believers in the world, considered as forming an
organized society, and also by a natural synecdoche to
bodies of Christians in particular places, as component
parts or subdivisions of the whole church. In all these
senses the word is familiarly employed in the Acts
and Epistles, whereas in the Gospels it occurs but
twice, and then, as it should seem, in a prospective
application. The first is in the memorable address to
Peter: " Thou art Peter, and on this rock will I build
my church" (Matt. 16: 18). Without adverting here
to the vexed question whether Peter was the rock,
and if so, in what sense the church was to be built




ORIGIN OF THE ELDERSHIP.             19
upon him, it is plain, from the very form of the expression (olKoSol5o-w), that the founding of the church
is spoken of as an event still future. The other case
is in our Lord's directions as to the proper mode of
dealing with private offenders.  "If thy brother trespass against thee, tell it to the church" (Matt. 18: 17).
If this means a Christian body then in existence, why
is it nowhere else recognized or called by the same
name in the gospel history?  If not, it must either
mean the Jewish church then in existence, or the
Christian church yet to be organized.  From  this it
would seem to be at least highly probable, that there
was no re-organization of the church during the period
of the gospel history.
4. The same thing is evident from the many instances in which our Lord tells his disciples what shall
be in the kingdom of heaven, as a state of things still
future.
5. It is also evident, from the manifest ignorance of
the apostles as to the details of the re-organization, their
gross mistakes, and their frequent inquiries, often betraying an entire misconception of the nature of Christ's
kingdom.
6. Closely connected with the proof just stated is
the consideration, that the twelve, though qualified to
be the announcers of the kingdom, were as yet unqualified to be its rulers. Their notions, as to their Lord's
character and person, were confused and erroneous.
Their views were narrow; they were full of Jewish
prejudices; they were slow of heart to understand and
believe the Scriptures; they were selfish and ambitious; they were envious and jealous.  This is the
picture drawn by inspiration, and among the pens




20                   ESSAY I.
employed were two of their own number. The whole
account is that of persons in a state of pupilage, set
apart for a work, with which they were only partially
acquainted, and for which they were yet to be prepared. Witness their consternation and amazement
when their Lord was taken from them, and the various
instances in which it is recorded that the simplest
truths were understood by them after his resurrection
from the dead. Nor is this unfavourable view contradicted by the fact of their inspiration, which appears
to have been limited to a special purpose, as we know
that their power of working miracles was not a discretionary power. (See Matt. 17: 16.) When our Lord
rose from the dead, his first address to the eleven was
in the language of rebuke (Mark 16: 14). He then
reassured them and enlarged their powers. He gave
them indeed no new powers, but commissioned them
to exercise those which they possessed already on a
larger scale. At first they were commanded to go
neither to the Greeks nor the Samaritans, but only to
the Jews. Now they are commissioned to go into all
the earth and preach the gospel to every creature
(Mark 16: 15). At first they were sent out to announce the coming of God's kingdom to the Jews, now
to the Gentiles also. The removal of this restriction
marks the beginning of the new dispensation. As
long as the gospel of the kingdom was sent only to the
Jews, the old economy was still in force, and there was
no room for a new organization.
7. The commission to baptize (Matt. 28: 19) was
not a new one. This they had done before (John 3:
26. 4: 1, 2), as an expression of readiness, on the part
of the baptized, to take part in the kingdom  of God,




ORIGIN OF THE ELDERSHIP.           21
when it should be set up. But that this rite was not
considered as implying that the kingdom was set up
already, is clear from the anxious question, asked by
the eleven, at the very moment of their Lord's ascension, "Lord, wilt thou, at this time, restore again the
kingdom to Israel?" (Acts 1: 6). It is clear from this
inquiry, that they had not even formed a just conception of the nature of the kingdom, in which they were
to be rulers; how much more that they had not already
witnessed its erection.
8. In reply to the question just referred to, Christ
does not tell them that the kingdom was restored already, but tacitly admits that it was yet to come. "It
is not for you to know the times or the seasons which
the Father has put in his own power; but ye shall
receive power when the Holy Ghost is come upon you;
and ye shall be witnesses unto me, both in Jerusalem
and in all Judea, and in Samaria, and unto the uttermost parts of the earth" (Acts 1: 7, 8). Here we have
at once the removal of those restrictions which, as we
have seen, were inseparable from the old economy,
and the promise of that influence by which the twelve
were to be qualified to organize the new one. This
seems to fix prospectively the date of the actual coming of the kingdom of God, and the organization of
the Christian church. Until the.day of Pentecost, the
apostles and brethren were merely waiting for the
kingdom; and it ought to be observed, as a significant
coincidence, that the day appointed for the public entrance of the Holy Ghost into the Christian Church,
was the same that had been signalized by the formal
constitution of the Jewish Church in the promulgation
of the law from Sinai.




22                    ESSAY I.
9. The last proof to be alleged, in favour of the proposition that the church was not re-organized until the
day of Pentecost, is furnished by the subsequent change
in the character and conduct of the twelve apostles.
We are too much accustomed to transfer to an earlier
period associations which belong to a later one. If we
read the Gospels by themselves, without interpolating
facts drawn from the later books, we shall easily see
that the twelve are there described as wholly unfit to
be the supreme rulers of a church already organized;
whereas after the descent of the Holy Spirit on the day
of Pentecost, they appear as new men, clothed with
every intellectual, spiritual, and miraculous endowment that was needed for the right administration of
that kingdom which was now indeed set up externally,
as well as in the hearts of all believers.
It is now for the first time that we begin to read of
a "church," distinct from the old organization, and
consisting of the apostles "and other disciples," to the
number of one hundred and twenty, who had assembled together in an upper room until the day of Pentecost, when " there were added unto them about three
thousand souls," who "continued steadfastly in the
apostles' doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of
bread, and in prayers" (Acts 2: 42). Here we have
a society statedly assembling for prayer, praise, preaching, and communion, i. e. a church, and we accordingly find it stated in the same connection that " the Lord
added to THE CHURCH daily such as should be saved"
(Acts 2: 47), and afterwards that " great fear came
upon all THE CHURCH" (Acts 5: 11), evidently meaning all the members of the body which had thus been
gathered, and which is thenceforth usually called "the




ORIGIN OF THE ELDERSHIP.           23
church" (e. g. Acts 8: 1, 3), until the establishment of
other churches "throughout all Judea, Galilee, and Samaria" (Acts 9: 31), after which the original societyis
distinguished as "the church which was in Jerusalem"
(Acts 8: 1. 11: 22), the more indefinite expression being
thenceforth used to designate the whole Christian
body, of which "the churches" were component parts
or rather subdivisions (Acts 12: 1, 5), except in cases
where the context evidently limits the application of
the term to a local society or congregation. But with
these distinctions the word church is, in the latter
books, employed with a frequency which forms a
striking contrast with the total silence of the four
evangelists respecting any new organization.
We have seen that Christ came to establish a kingdom and re-organize the church. We may now add
that this organization was to be essentially the same
with that which had before existed. This is deducible
from several obvious considerations. 1. As the Christian church was to be essentially identical with the
Jewish, all that was permanent, even in the organization of the one, would of course be retained in the
other. The kingly, priestly, and prophetical offices
were thenceforth to be filled by Christ alone. The
union of Church and State was to be done away by
the extension of the church beyond the limits of a
single nation. But the government of the people by
elders, local and general, was wholly independent of
these temporary institutions, and survived them all.
It was therefore natural to expect, that it would be
continued in the Christian church. 2. It was intrinsically suited to every variety of outward circumstances,
in all ages, and all parts of the world. Being origi



24                   ESSAY I.
nally founded upon natural relations, and the family
constitution, which is universal, it was well suited, by
its simplicity, for general adoption, and by its efficiency, for the attainment of the ends proposed. 3. The
intention to retain it was implied in our Lord's conduct with respect to the Jewish organization. He frequented the synagogues, or meetings of the people for
public worship, in the towns or neighbourhoods where
he chanced to be, and especially in the region where
he was brought up. He complied with the usages of
public worship, and exercised the privilege of expounding the Scriptures to the people. This respectful
compliance with existing institutions he continued to
the last; and his example was followed by his disciples. When they went abroad to preach, they availed
themselves of the facilities afforded by existing institutions and arrangements. They always, if they could,
preached in the synagogues. The first preaching, even
to the heathen, was in synagogues. It was only where
they found no synagogues, or when they were shut
out from them, that they began to form separate societies. 4. When a separate organization did take place,
it was on the ancient model.  The first Christian
church, as we have seen, was at Jerusalem. Now the
organization of this "church that was in Jerusalem"
is entitled to particular attention upon two accounts;
first, because it was the mother church, from which
the other churches were derived by propagation;
then, because all the twelve apostles were, for a time,
members of it. So far then as apostolical practice and
example can be binding upon us, the history of this
church must be highly instructive, in relation to the




ORIGIN OF THE ELDERSHIP.          25
local constitution of the early Christian churches.
Now at an early period, when a communication was
made to the church at Jerusalem from one abroad, it
was made to THE ELDERS (Acts 11: 30), and on a subsequent occasion to "the Apostles and Elders" (Acts
15: 2, 4, 6, 22) who united in passing a decree on an
important question of faith and practice (Acts 16: 4).
It seems, then, that even while the Apostles were in
intimate connection with the'church at Jerusalem, that
church was governed by its Elders; and, what is particularly worthy of attention, we nowhere read of the
original creation of this office in that church. We can
trace the offices of Deacon and Apostle to their very
origin, whereas that of Elder runs back far beyond
the organization of the Christian church, and appears
in the history as an arrangement, not springing out
of a new state of things, but transferred from an old
one.
Nor was this adoption of the eldership a mere fortuitous occurrence, much less a local peculiarity of the
church in Jerusalem. It was extended, as a thing of
course, to all affiliated churches. When Paul and
Barnabas planted churches in Asia Minor, they ordained them Elders (Acts 14: 23). Paul sent from
Miletus for "'the Elders of the Church" at Ephesus
(Acts 20: 17). He directs Timothy how to treat Elders (1 Tim. 5: 1, 17, 19). He commands Titus to ordain Elders in every city of Crete (Titus 1: 5). James
speaks of "the Elders of the Church" as of a body of
men, which was not only well known to his readers,
but which would exist of course in every Christian
congregation (James 5: 14). Peter enjoins submission
to the Elders, and classes himself among them (1 Peter
2




26                   ESSAY I,
5: 1, 5). John calls himself an Elder in the title of
his second and third epistle.
All this seems to show that the office of Elder was
regarded as essential to the organization of a local or
particular church. As to the mode of introducing it,
we have no explicit information.  The most probable
hypothesis is one which I shall here state in the
words of an eminent living dignitary of the Anglican
Church.  "It appears highly probable —I might say
morally certain —that wherever a Jewish Synagogue
existed that was brought, the whole or the chief part
of it, to embrace the gospel, the Apostles did not there
so much form a Christian church (or congregation, ecclesia), as make an existing congregation Christian, by
introducing the Christian Sacraments and Worship,
and establishing whatever regulations were necessary for the newly-adopted Faith; leaving the machinery (if I may so speak) of government unchanged;
the rulers of synagogues, elders, and other officers
(whether spiritual or ecclesiastical, or both) being already provided in the existing institutions. And it is
likely that several of the earliest Christian churches
did originate in this way, that is, that they were converted synagogues, which became Christian churches,
as soon as the members, or the main part of the members, acknowledged Jesus as the Messiah. The attempt
to effect this conversion of a Jewish synagogue into a
Christian church, seems always to have been made, in
the first instance, in every place where there was an
opening for it. Even after the call of the idolatrous
Gentiles, it appears plainly to have been the practice
of the Apostles Paul and Barnabas, when they came
to any city in which there was a synagogue, to go




ORIGIN OF THE ELDERSHIP.             27
thither first and deliver their sacred message to the
Jews and' devout (or proselyte)Gentiles;' according to
their own expression (Acts 13: 16), to the'men of Israel and those that feared God,' adding that it was necessary that the word of God should be'first preached
to them.' And when they found a church in any of
those cities in which (and such was probably a very
large majority) there was no Jewish synagogue that
received the gospel, it is likely they would still conform, in a great measure, to the same model."*
In so doing, they would of course fix upon the
natural elders, i. e. heads of families, as answering
most nearly to the hereditary elders of the Jews. That
the genealogical or patriarchal constitution was at once
or by degrees disused, is not at all at variance with the
supposition, that the Jewish eldership was transferred
to the Christian Church, because one of the advantages of this organization is the ease with which it
can adapt itself to any state of manners or condition of
society, all that is really essential to it being the official
preference of those who have a natural priority derived from age and family relations. Under the present
constitution of society, as under that which was predominant in apostolic times throughout the Roman
empire, the same ends, which were answered in the old
theocracy by granting power to the chiefs of tribes
and houses, are accomplished by intrusting it to those
who sustain an analogous relation to society, that is, to
men of mature age, and especially to actual heads of
families. In either case the great end is accomplished
of bringing the church under the same influence that
* The Kingdom of Christ Delineated. By Richard Whately, D.D.,
Archbishop of Dublin. pp. 84-86 (American edition).




28                   ESSAY 1.
rules the families of which it is composed. Whether
all the heads of families were clothed with this authority, or only some selected for the purpose, is a question
of detail, not at all affecting principle, and one which
might perhaps admit of a solution varying with local
and other unessential circumstances. One thing, however, appears certain, as an inference from all the facts
which we have been considering, viz., that while some
features of the Jewish polity were laid aside as temporary, the government by Elders was retained as a
permanent principle of organization in the Christian
Church. And here we meet with the only explanation
of the fact already mentioned, that the creation of the
office of Elder is nowhere recorded in the New Testament, as in the case of Deacons and Apostles, because
the latter were created to meet new and special exigencies, while the former was transmitted from the earliest times.  In other words, THE OFFICE OF ELDER
WAS THE ONLY PERMANENT ESSENTIAL OFFICE OF THE
CHURCH UNDER EITHER DISPENSATION.




ESSAY II.
ON THE POWERS OF THE PRIMITIVE PRESBYTERS.
THE conclusion reached in the preceding essay may be
rendered still more certain by exhibiting direct proof
of the fact, that presbyters, as presbyters, possessed
and exercised the highest powers now belonging to
the ministry, even in apostolic times, from which we
may infer a fortiori, that the same authority is vested
in them now.
It will be recollected, that the presbyterial office is
coeval with the church, and that Paul and Barnabas,
during their missionary tour in Asia Minor, not only
planted churches, but " ordained them elders in every
city." If then we can discover with what powers these
early presbyters were clothed, we shall establish a sure
basis for our subsequent inquiries. And in this investigation we are greatly aided by the preservation, in
the Acts of the Apostles, of a valedictory address by
Paul to certain persons of this class, when he was leaving Greece and Asia Minor for Jerusalem; in which
address, we find not only strong expressions of his pri



30                   ESSAY II.
vate feelings, and allusions to his ministerial labours,
but advice to those whom he addressed, as to the right
discharge of their official duties. It affords us, therefore, evidence, as to the functions of the primitive
elders, which is none the less interesting or instructive,
because furnished incidentally.
The statement here referred to is recorded in the
twentieth chapter of Acts, where we read that "Paul
had determined to sail by Ephesus, because he would
not spend the time in Asia," "and from Miletus he
sent to Ephesus, and called the elders of the church."
When they were come, he appealed to them  as witnesses of his fidelity to the churches of that region, in
declaring unto them all the counsel of God. He then
announces to them that his personal connection with
them was dissolved for ever, and exhorts them to the
diligent performance of the duties which would thenceforth be peculiarly incumbent on them. And in so doing, it is worthy of remark, that he makes no allusion to
the intended substitution of another in his place, as their
official guide and counsellor, but speaks to them precisely as he might, or rather must, have spoken, on the
supposition, that from that time forth they were themselves to exercise the highest powers in the church of
Ephesus. If he had still expected them to act as mere
inferiors and assistants, he would naturally, not to say
necessarily, have comforted their grief at his departure,
by the promise of a competent successor, and in warning them of dangers by which their church was menaced, would of course have exhorted them to faithful
and diligent co-operation with their bishop. But the
passage contains nothing of all this; a circumstance
which, though it may prove little by itself, as to the




THE PRIMITIVE PRESBYTERS.            31
organization of the church at Ephesus, at least justifies
the inference, that the powers here ascribed to the
Ephesian presbyters were powers to be exercised in
virtue of their presbyterial character, and not by delegation from a higher class of permanent church-officers. For if the apostle could direct them to perform
these acts, not only without making his own presence
and concurrence a prerequisite, but in such terms as
really exclude it, how much less reason have we to believe, that their validity was meant to be dependent on
the sanction of a bishop, who is not so much as mentioned, and of whose existence we have no proof elsewhere?
Nor is this a mere negative deduction from Paul's
silence, as to any superior authority at Ephesus; for
the same thing is implied in the choice of his expressions.  "Take heed, therefore, unto yourselves,"therefore, since you are now to be deprived of the extraordinary temporary supervision which you have
enjoyed, and to be left with the whole burden of the
church upon you; under this change of circumstances
you must be watchful on your own account, not only
for your personal safety and advantage, but for that
of the church also-" take heed, therefore, unto yourselves, and to all the flock," not the flock of another
shepherd, but their own, for which they were directly responsible-" over the which the Holy Ghost
hath made you overseers,"  TrtKo'V7rovs   or bishops.
The bearing of this usage of the term upon the general
question of episcopal organization need not be discussed
in this place. All that it is necessary here to notice is,
that these Ephesian presbyters were shepherds of God's
flock, not described as under-shepherds, that is, as the
deputies of any human shepherd, but as constituted




32                  ESSAY II.
such by God himself, and that not merely by his providential dispensations, but by a special designation of
the Holy Ghost. This explicit mention of the jus divinum under which they acted, when viewed in connection with the absence of all reference to any higher
local power, either actual or prospective, makes it not
only improbable, but scarcely possible, that what they
are empowered or required to do, was to be done by
delegation, or in any other way than by direct authority from God himself, bestowed upon them as the
highest permanent and local rulers of the church of
Ephesus.
With these views of the character in which the
elders are addressed, and of the right by which their
functions were to be discharged, let us now endeavour
to determine, in the same way, what these functions
were. The answer to this question is afforded by the
words immediately succeeding those already quoted.
"Take heed, therefore, unto yourselves, and to all the
flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you
overseers, TO FEED THE CHURCH OF GOD, which he
hath purchased with his own blood." As the church
has been already represented as: a flock, the official
duty of these elders towards it is described by a
cognate metaphor. The exact correspondence of the
terms is less apparent in our version than in the original, where the word rendered flock, and that rendered
to feed, are collateral derivatives from a common root,
and stand in the same relation to the word which
means a shepherd. To the verb, both etymology and
usage give the sense, not of feeding merely, but of acting as a shepherd, doing a shepherd's duty, of which feeding is a most essential part, but not by any means the




THE PRIMITIVE PRESBYTERS.            33
whole, since it.would either be impossible or unavailing, without further care in guiding to the fold and
to the pasture, in collecting and reclaiming, in protecting from the weather and from beasts of prey, and in
other slight but indispensable attentions, all included
in the literal vocation of a shepherd, and in both the
literal and the figurative import of the Greek verb
which Paul uses. Unless then the English verb to feed
be taken with such latitude of meaning as to comprehend all this, it no more expresses the whole duty of a
shepherd (as the Greek word does), than the verb to
shoot describes the business of a soldier or a hunter, or
to plough that of a farmer. It is highly important that
our exposition of this passage should be wholly unaffected by a prejudice, connected only with the English
version, and arising from its failure to express the full
sense of Pauls phraseology. Even when figuratively
used, the verb Qrolalvw  is employed by the Greek
writers to denote not merely nourishment but care, in
the most extensive sense of the expression, such care
as faithful shepherds give to helpless and dependent
flocks. If then the church at Ephesus was a spiritual
flock, and these its elders were spiritual shepherds, the
duty here enjoined upon them is not merely that of
feeding them with knowledge, by public and private
teaching, but also that of governing, controlling, and
protecting them, as well from the effects of internal
corruption, as from  those of violence and fraud ab
extra. It is, in short, a metaphorical description of the
ministerial office, in its whole extent, as comprehending all that is essential to the continued existence of
the church, and the attainment of the ends for which
it was established, just as the business of a shepherd2*




34                   ESSAY It,
comprehends all that is necessary to the safety and
well-being of the flock. There is no more reason in
the text itself, for excluding any of the ministerial
functions from the figurative import of the verb 7roLpatveLv, than there is for excluding some things in
the nature and condition of the church from the figurative import of the substantive 7rOiL.VLOv; if the latter
is a general description of the church, the former is a
general description of the ministry, its duties and its
powers. And this, which is the natural and obvious
meaning of the figurative terms which the apostle uses,
agrees, in all points, with his subsequent expressions.
" For I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves"-a common figure for false teachers"enter in among you, not sparing the flock. Also of
your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse
things, to draw away disciples after them." These are
the two great evils, with which the church was threatened, error of doctrine, and schism as the consequence;
for this is the relative position of the two things, as
described in Scripture, not the converse, as maintained
by those who make purity of doctrine to depend upon
external regularity, as we shall see hereafter. To prevent these evils, whether threatened from within or
from without, and to prevent them, not by private
effort merely, but by authoritative action, is distinctly
made the duty of the presbyters of Ephesus.
That the apostle refers not to personal but official
influence, appears from the solemn mention of their
designation by the Holy Ghost, with which he prefaces
his exhortation. There would be something quite incongruous in making the divine right of these presbyters the ground of an injunction which was equally




THE PRIMITIVE PRESBYTERS.            35
binding upon all true Christians. This would be tantamount to saying, since the Holy Ghost has placed
you in high official station, be assiduous in personal
and private duties. If, on the other hand, the reference is clearly to the influence exerted by these presbyters, as such, and in the exercise of their distinctive
functions, then the question meets us, How could they
comply with this injunction, unless they were intrusted with the keys both of discipline and doctrine,
with the power, not of teaching merely, but of maintaining purity of doctrine, by deciding controversies,
trying heretics, silencing false teachers, and excluding
from the ministry all such as were esteemed by them
unfaithful or unfit? But these are acts supposing the
possession of the highest powers now belonging to the
ministry, not merely those of preaching and of ordinary pastoral control, but also those of ministerial discipline and ordination.
It may be objected, that the duty, to which the
elders, in the next verse, are specifically called, is not
that of judging or of acting with authority, but merely
that of watching and remembering his former admonitions, and that this implies the existence of a higher
power, which alone was competent to check the evil.
But if this be so, how is it that he does not even mention or allude to such superior power? It cannot be
imagined, that he merely meant to terrify the elders
by predicting future evils to the church, without suggesting a preventive or a remedy; and yet this is undoubtedly the case, if those whom he addresses could
do nothing more than watch and bear in mind his
warnings. If it be said, that the elders must have
been aware of the existence of these " higher powers,"




36                   ESSAY II.
and needed not to be informed of it by Paul, it then
becomes impossible to understand why he addressed
his exhortations to the presbyters, and not to their
superiors, -who alone had power to prevent or remedy
the threatened evil. Nor can this difficulty be removed
by taking it for granted, first, that there was a bishopric of Ephesus, above the eldership, and then that it
was vacant, so that Paul was under the necessity, at
this time, of addressing the " inferior clergy."  For in
that case he could hardly have omitted all allusion to
the fact assumed, and all injunction to obey the bishop,
when he should be sent, and co-operate with him for
the prevention of the evils to be feared; whereas, he
seems, as we have seen, to throw the whole responsibility upon the elders, and addresses them precisely as
he must have done, if he expected and intended the
entire care of the Ephesian church to be devolved on
them.  To take the contrary for granted, in despite of
the obvious tenor of Paul's language, is, in effect, to
destroy the value of all proof derived from language,
except in the case of an explicit, categorical assertion,
which is granted, upon all sides, to be wanting here.
A simple test of probability, in this case, is afforded
by the fact, that no one, reading the apostle's exhortation, either could or would derive from  it the notion
of an ecclesiastical authority at Ephesus, above that of
the presbyters, to whom the exhortation is addressed;
and on the other hand, that no one so reading it,
could fail to gather from it, in- itself considered, that
these elders were invested with official right and power
to prevent or to redress the evils here predicted.
The truth is, that the other supposition rests upon
the foregone conclusion, that a prelatical authority,




THE PRIMITIVE PRESBYTERS.            37
distinct from the presbyterate, did certainly exist at
Ephesus, and that the subjection of the elders to it is
implied or presupposed in the apostle's exhortation.
But, those who deny that any proof of such authority exists in any quarter, and interpret Paul's language by itself and by the context, without reference to any preconceived hypothesis whatever, will be
forced to the conclusion, that he here addresses the
Ephesian elders as the rulers of the church, and that:
when he exhorts them to be watchful and remember,
he refers not to private but official vigilance, and to
such a recollection of his warnings as would lead to
the due exercise of their authority in quenching the
insidious fires of heresy and schism, which they could
not do without possessing all the power which a bishop,
or derivative apostle, on the opposite hypothesis, could
possibly have exercised. The objection to the argument from this address of Paul, that it does not ascribe
to the Ephesian elders the specific powers of discipline
and ordination, proves too much; for it would prove
that they were not even authorized to preach or to
administer the sacraments, since these are not specifically mentioned, though included in the figurative
meaning of vrotalveLv, which, however, includes more,
and is descriptive of the ministerial work in general,
as we have seen already. The apostle speaks of them,
either as haviug all the ministerial powers, or as having none; because the terms which he employs are
those of general description, not minute specification,
and must either be descriptive of the office as a whole,
or not at all.
But even granting, for the sake of argument, that
7rot/Jaivetv merely means to feed, and that feeding is a




88                   ESSAY II.
metaphor for preaching and the sacraments, it does
not follow, that the powers of discipline and ordination, although not specifically mentioned, are excluded.
It is clear, not only that the whole includes its parts,
but also that the greater may include the less. As the
general ascription of the ministerial powers to these
elders would imply that they possessed each separately,
so too the ascription of a higher ministerial power
might imply that they possessed a lower. Now discipline and ordination, it will be admitted, derive their
value from the ends which they promote, and which
they were intended to secure. The end of discipline
is to preserve purity, and to exclude the unworthy
from the privileges of the church. The end of ordination is to secure a valid ministration of the word and
sacraments. But the word and the sacraments themselves have an independent and intrinsic value. If the
power of dispensing them had been conferred on any
who thought proper to make use of it, without any
special ordination to an office, whatever inconveniences
might have attended that arrangement, it could not
have impaired the intrinsic value of the word and
sacraments. But if, on the other hand, there were no
word or sacraments, ordination would be useless. And
the same may be said, mutatis mutandis, as to government or discipline.  These then, to wit, ordination
and discipline, are subsidiary functions, which derive
their value from the relation they sustain to others.
The possession of these powers, therefore, might have
been inferred from the possession of the higher powers
upon which they are dependent, even if the latter had
alone been mentioned. But the fact, as we have seen
already, is, that all the powers of the ministry collec



THE PRIMITIVE PRESBYTERS.             39
tively are comprehended in the metaphor of acting as
a shepherd to the flock of Christ.
If it should be alleged in this case, as it has been in
some others, that the powers, apparently ascribed to presbyters, were really intended to be exercised by bishops,
here included under the generic name of elders, it may
be replied, that such a mode of reasoning precludes the
possibility of proving any thing, except so far as the
opposing party may think proper to allow it. If the
ascription of a certain power to a certain class of officers, distinctly named, is not a proof of their possessing
it, the fact is not susceptible of proof at all. And this
extraordinary process, let it be observed, is equally
available on either side of a disputed question. If one
man may explain away the acts ascribed to presbyters
as the exclusive acts of bishops, then another may explain away the acts ascribed to deacons as the exclusive acts of presbyters.  It should also be observed, that if one of the official acts ascribed to presbyters may be explained away as the exclusive act of
a superior order, any other of the acts so ascribed may
be explained in the same manner. TIf when presbyters are spoken of as exercising all the ministerial
powers, one may argue that bishops are the only elders
who are thus empowered to ordain, another may, with
equal right, allege that bishops are the only elders
authorized to preach or to baptize, and that the primitive presbyters did neither, by themselves or in their
own right, but merely united, as assessors, in the
preaching and baptizing acts of their superiors in office,
To an argument which naturally leads to such results,
it is sufficient to oppose a simple negative, by saying
that as bishops or apostles are not mentioned in the




-40                   ESSAY It.
text, the official acts ascribed to presbyters were meant
to be considered as performed by them alone in that
capacity.  When therefore Paul describes the presbyters of Ephesus as having been divinely called to act
as shepherds of God's flock, we must regard it as a
proof that all the powers of the ministry, including
those of discipline and ordination, were possessed and
exercised by elders, even in the days of the apostles.
A large part of what has now been said applies,
with equal force, to 1 Tim. 5: 17, where the same apostle
speaks, on a different occasion, not only of the same office, but of the same men, not only of elders in general,
but of Ephesian elders in particular. Assuming that
7.pEo/7cvEpOL is here a name of office, it cannot be descriptive of the office of apostle or apostle-bishop,
partly for the reason above given in another case,
that the assumption is entirely gratuitous, partly because Timothy, according to the adverse theory, would
then be represented as a hyper-apostolical church-officer, not only equal but superior to Paul, who was
merely an apostle. If, on the other hand, the word
denotes presbyters or elders, in the proper sense, then
the apostle must be speaking of the powers which belonged to them in that capacity, and not as the mere
agents of a higher power.  That no superiority of
Timothy to these Ephesian elders is implied in the
apostle's words, will be proved in another place, and
may be here assumed.
Since then it is of elders that he speaks, and of
elders acting in their own right, we have only to
inquire what official functions are ascribed to them,
in order to determine what were the powers of a
presbyter or elder in apostolic times. "Let the EL



THE PRIMITIVE PRESBYTERS.              41
DERS THAT RULE well be counted worthy of double
honour." They are here distinctly recognized as rulers
in the church, and this must surely comprehend the
right of discipline, if not of ordination. It may be said7
however, that 7rpoeo-Tr efT  merely means presiding,
holding the first place in the society, and therefore
denotes relative position, but not office or official power.
It will scarcely be disputed, however, that T7pe6-fZv7TpoL
denotes official rank; and whether wrpoIe-TiTeS does not
signify the exercise of an official power, is a question
which can only be determined by a reference to usage.
In Rom. 12: 8, o 7rpoicrTar6vos cannot denote mere priority of rank or conspicuous position, for two reasons:
first, because a man could not be exhorted to hold
such a position with diligence; and secondly, because
all the other terms connected with it signify specific actions. The same thing is evident from the collocation
of 7rpoio'Ta/Levovs in 1 Thess. 5: 12, between Ko7rtT)vTa9
and vovseTovTa7-a, both denoting specific functions of
the ministry. In 1 Tim. 3: 4, the bishop is described
as one that ruleth well (KcaX&is TTrpoo-Tauevov) his own
house, which can hardly mean one who holds the first
place in it, without any original jurisdiction over it.
Let the sense which 7rpoi'-T7TL  evidently has in all
these cases, be applied to that before us, and it follows
of course, that presbyters or bishops are here spoken
of as ruling the church, just as really as they are elsewhere said to rule their families. That the government referred to is that of the church, appears from
what follows in the same verse, as to labouring in word
and doctrine. If, then, 7rpeo/36repot is here a name of
office, which will scarcely be denied by those, who
use this text to prove Timothy's superiority to presby



42                   ESSAY II.
ters, then the officers described by it are clearly recognized as rulers in the church, without any reference
whatever to a superior human power. Where shall we
find an equally distinct ascription of the ruling power
to apostles, not of the original thirteen?
Here then are two passages, in which the same
apostle speaks of the Ephesian elders, first metaphorically as the shepherds of Christ's flock, then literally
as the rulers of the church. Whatever doubt might
be supposed to rest upon the meaning of the terms
employed, in either case, may be disposed of by comparing them together.  That 7ro/aivetLv does not merely denotefeeding, whether literal or spiritual, but the
whole extent of the pastoral care, including government, may now be argued from the 7rpoeCoThreS of the
parallel passage.  And that rpoe-TwTes, on the other
hand, includes the powers of discipline and ordination,
is rendered still more probable by Paul's exhorting
these same elders, in the other case, to duties which
imply the possession of these powers. The two texts,
taken in conjunction, so as to explain each other, warrant us in stating as a general fact, that the Ephesian
elders are twice spoken of by Paul as rulers of the
church, without any intimation that the power of ordination is to be excepted, or that they acted in subjection to a bishop.
Now the terms of this description must be applicable, either to presbyters in general, or to the presbyters of Ephesus exclusively. The latter supposition
would imply, that there was no uniformity in primitive
church-government, the same class of officers possessing
different powers in different cases, an hypothesis destructive of all arguments against presbyterian orders,




THE PRIMITIVE PRESBYTERS.            43
founded on alleged deviations from the apostolic model.
We have moreover a direct proof that this organization was a general one in the first epistle of Peter,
where he addresses the elders, not of one church merely, but of Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia; calls himself their fellow-elder, and exhorts
them to "feed the flock of God "-the same expression
used by Paul to the Ephesian elders-"taking the
oversight thereof, not by constraint but willingly, not
for filthy lucre, but of a ready mind; neither as being
lords over God's heritage,"-implying that they were
under a temptation so to do, which could scarcely
be the case, if they were mere assessors to a bishop
-" and when the chief shepherd shall appear"-this
clearly implies that they were under-shepherds only
to the head of the church-" ye shall receive a crown
of glory that fadeth not away." If it can be supposed
that all the churches of Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia,
Asia, and Bithynia, were accidentally deprived of
bishops at this time, it would go far to prove that the
privation was a matter of but little moment. If, however, this description has respect to presbyters in general, we have proof that the primitive presbyters were
rulers of the church, and no proof that discipline and
ordination were excepted from their powers.
With  the general view, which  we have thus
obtained from Scripture, of the presbyterial office
as a whole, let us now compare the more specific language of the apostle Paul to Timothy: "Neglect
not the gift that is in thee, which was given thee
by prophecy, with the laying on of the hands of the
presbytery" (1 Tim. 4: 14). If this does not relate to
ordination, there can be no reason for supposing that




44                   ESSAY II.
the parallel passage in 2 Tim. 1: 6 relates to ordination; and as the transaction recorded in Acts 13: 1-3
was nothing more than a solemn designation to a special service, the result is, that we have in the New
Testament no proof that any rite of ordination was
considered necessary, nor any instance of its having
been performed, the word sometimes rendered by the
English verb "ordain" being a general expression for
the act of constituting or appointing. So far, then, from
the act of ordination, as distinct from that of designation or appointment, being formally reserved, as the
peculiar prerogative of a superior order in the ministry, it does not seem to have been used at all, and the
general terms in which the presbyters are spoken
of, as rulers of the church, are to be understood as
comprehending all the powers necessary to its maintenance and government.  But even granting that the
text relates to ordination in the proper sense, it has
been alleged that the ordaining act is not ascribed to
presbyters, as such, but to apostles. In support of
this assertion, very different positions have been taken.
In the first place it has been alleged, that the presbytery may have consisted wholly of apostles. Not to
reiterate the reasons which have been already given,
for resisting all gratuitous assumptions, tending to reverse the natural import of language, and to render
proof impossible, we answer this objection by a counter allegation, that the presbytery may have consisted
wholly of mere presbyters. The two possibilities will
balance one another, and in choosing between them,
the word 7rpe6OvfvrTepov must have.due weight.  It is
certainly more likely, in the absence of explicit proof,
that 7rpeo-t3vreptov, if it means a body of men at all,




THE PRIMITIVE PRESBYTERS.            45
means a body of mere presbyters, than that it means
a body of apostles. The apostles, being presbyters,
might be included in the name; but as they had a
distinctive title of their own, it is natural to suppose,
that if their distinctive functions were the subject of
discourse, their distinctive title would be used, and, on
the other hand, that when the generic title is employed, the functions spoken of are not the peculiar functions of apostles, as apostles, but those which are common to them and presbyters.  Or even if rrpeao-vTrepov
here denotes apostles, the use of the name in this connection shows that it was in the character of presbyters that they ordained. It seems incredible that if
they held two offices, a higher and a lower, those acts
which they performed by virtue of the former should
be connected with the title of the latter. The bishops
of the Protestant Episcopal Church are in some cases
rectors of particular parishes. When we read, therefore, of a man as rector of a certain church, we may
be reading of a bishop; but no one acquainted with
the true facts of the case would speak of a bishop by
the other title, when ascribing to him acts which, according to the customs of that church, could only be
performed by him as bishop.  On the other hand,
the official record of a baptism, as having been administered by the rector of a church, would be regarded as conclusive evidence that parochial clergymen have power to baptize; nor would it be invalidated by the allegation, that as the rector in question
was a bishop, it was in the latter character alone
that he baptized; much less by the suggestion that
he may have been a bishop, and that ordinary rectors therefore had no such authority.  If, then, the




46                   ESSAY II.
apostles are here mentioned as ordainers, and as forming a 7rpecrtv/TEpLov for the purpose, it must have been
in the character of presbyters that they ordained.
Supposing, then, that 7rpeo-a/VTEpLov means a body of
men, it matters not of whom it was composed; for,
whatever else they may have been, they must have
been presbyters, and as such they ordained.
To escape from this dilemma, it has been alleged,
that 7rpeao-/vTeplto  denotes, not the ordainers, but the
office of a presbyter. To this there are two very serious objections. In the first place, the construction
is unusual and unnatural, the laying on of the hands
of an office. According to all usage and analogy, the
genitive after XeLpWv must denote the persons to whom
the hands belonged, and by whom the imposition was
performed.  Can it be fortuitous that, out of more
than a hundred other cases, in which some form of
Xelp is followed in construction by the genitive, there
is not one in which it can be supposed to signify any
thing except the person whose h:alds are mentioned?
Or can it be supposed, that the relation of ro' 7rpco/,vTepiov to XeLpuv, in the case before us, is different from
that of,iov to the same word, in the precisely parallel
expression, 2 Tim. 1: 6? The other objection to this
interpretation of the word is, that in the only other
places where it occurs in the New Testament (Luke 22:
66. Acts 22: 5), it means, and can mean, nothing
but a body of 7rpeo-13vrepot. Before we can explain
it of the office, therefore, we must adopt, first, an
unnatural and unparalleled construction, and then, an
unauthorized meaning of the principal word.  That
is to say, it cannot be so explained without doing violence both to lexicography and grammar.




THE PRIMITIVE PRESBYTERS.             47
But there is still another method of evading the
conclusion, that presbyters are here represented as ordaining. This is by asserting, that even if wrpeo-I3vrepLov does ilean a body of elders, /-era' does not mean
by but with, denoting mere participation, not authoritative action, so that presbyters are not represented as
ordaining, but merely as joining in the ordination.
This view of the passage takes for granted, first, that
the preposition cannot mean by, but must mean with;
and then, that if it does mean with, it must connect the
action of the presbyters, as mere assessors, with the
authoritative act of the apostles, as ordainers. Both
these assumptions are entirely unauthorized.  The
Greek /Lera, like the English with, has sometimes the
secondary sense of by, by means of  The origin of this
secondary meaning seems to be, that the agent acts
with his instrument, in the strict sense, i. e. in company with it; and thus the preposition, which strictly
conveys this idea only, conveys by implication that of
instrumentality. The transition from the one sense to
the other may be seen in such expressions as the following: "Pursue him with the sword, and then destroy him with the sword." In the first phrase, with
denotes merely that the sword is to accompany the
pursuers; in the second it denotes, that the sword is
the instrument, by which they are to act. This etymological analysis is confirmed by the usage of the
New Testament.  "Thou shalt make me full of joy
with (kUera) thy countenance" (Acts 2: 28).  This
cannot mean'thou, together with thy countenance,
shalt make me full of joy'-nor,'thou shalt make me,
together with thy countenance, full ofjoy'-but'thou,
by means of thy countenance (or presence), shalt make




48                  ESSAY It.
me full ofjoy.  The same thing, in substance, may be
said of Acts 13: 17, "and with an high arm brought
he them out of it." In Acts 14: 27 we read, that when
Paul and Barnabas returned to Antioch,' they gathered the church together and rehearsed all that God
had done with them  (erT avriCv)," and again, Acts
15: 4, "they declared all things that God had done
with them."  This does not mean "to them," as it
might possibly in English, because even if zera' is
used elsewhere in that sense, the context here shows
that the historian means what God had done to the
Gentiles by them or through them, as his instruments.
These examples will suffice to show, that /eraT may
mean by, as well as with, and that it is not, therefore,
to be taken for granted, that it here expresses a different kind of action.
Granting, however, that it does mean with, in
the strict sense, what two things does it connect?
The imposition of hands with  what?  The adverse argument assumes, not only that it may, but
that it must, connect the imposition of hands by
the presbytery with the ordaining act of the apostle,
which is not mentioned at all. Now if any rule of
construction can be looked upon as fixed, it is, that
what is expressed, other things being equal, must be
preferred to what is not expressed but merely conjectured or supposed. According to this principle,,^er,
if it merely means together with, must connect the imposition of the hands of the presbytery with the prophecy
or revelation, mentioned just before. How was the
gift conferred on Timothy? By means of a divine
communication, Sta wrpoqfTe6La9. By that alone? No,
but by that, together with the laying on of hands, which




THE PRIMITIVE PRESBYTERS.           49
is essentially equivalent to saying,'by revelation and
the imposition of hands.' Whatever force the cLaE has
in relation to wrpofVTela9 it has in relation to e&rteores9, the TerTa serving merely to connect them.
We are then reduced to this alternative. If uera7
is a mere connective, it connects 7rpoqbvTelaq with C7te6eeo)9, and implies that the ordination was as much
effected by the one as by the other, or that both were
alike instruments or channels of communication, by
which the gift of God was conveyed to Timothy. But
if ierai is more than a connective, and itself denotes by
means of then the act of the presbytery is itself described as the medium or instrument of ordination.
On the whole, then, it appears, that unless we give to
7rpeafrvTepwov a meaning which it has not elsewhere,
and connect'it with the words before it in a manner
which is utterly at variance with the usage of the language, or assume, without necessity or right, that it
here denotes a body of apostles, or that the action of
apostles, although not expressed, is understood, and
that of the presbytery made dependent on it, we are
under the necessity of drawing the conclusion, that
presbyters, in apostolic times, ordained. And this,
which is the only exposition of the text that harmonizes fully with the usage of the words and with the
principles of grammar, that supposes nothing and imagines nothing, but allows the text to speak for itself,
is moreover recommended by its perfect agreement
with the natural and obvious meaning of the passages
before considered, in which presbyters are spoken of
as bearing the whole burden of church government,
and called to duties which imply the power not only
of discipline but of ordination.
c)




50                  ESSAY II.
But although these passages contain enough to
warrant the conclusion, that the primitive presbyters
possessed and exercised the highest powers now belonging to the ministry, it cannot be denied, that this
conclusion would be rendered more completely satisfying, if it were possible to cite a case, in which there
could be no dispute or doubt; in relation either to the
acts described, or to the persons represented as performing them, on both which points there is some room
for diversity of judgment in the cases just considered,
though the balance of probabilities appears to be decidedly in favour of the ground already stated. But
this preponderance would be rendered more decided
and conspicuous by the collateral  evidence even of a
single case, in which all parties could agree that certain persons are described as exercising certain powers.
Now there happens to be not only one case of the
kind supposed, but two, which require to be distinctly
stated.
It is granted, upon all sides, that Timothy in Ephesus, and Titus in Crete, possessed and exercised the
highest powers now belonging to the ministry. So fully
is this fact admitted by most Episcopal writers, that they
build upon it their most specious argument, to prove
that the apostolic office is perpetual. The objections
to that argument have been already stated; but the
fact upon which it is founded, we agree with our opponents in asserting.  We maintain, with them, that
there are no ministerial functions now existing in the
church, which were not exercised by Timothy and Titus, who are clearly recognized as having power, not
only to preach and administer the sacraments but to
dain and govern. It is, however, a matter of some




THE PRIMITIVE PRESBYTERS.            51
moment to observe the nature of the evidence, which
forms the ground of this unanimous conclusion. The
point at which we differ is the question whether the
possession of these powers necessarily supposes a superiority of permanent official rank in Timothy and Titus
above presbyters. The reasons for believing that it
does not, have already been detailed, and what is now
designed is merely to direct attention to the nature of
the evidence, by which the opposite opinion is sustained,
and which is certainly not destitute of plausibility.
The argument may be succinctly stated thus, that
since the right of ordination and of ministerial discipline is recognized by Paul, in his epistles to these
two men, as belonging to them, they must of necessity
have been superior to the presbyters whom they were
to ordain and discipline.
This conclusion is vitiated by the false assumption,
upon which it rests, that ordination to an office in the
church can only be derived from one who holds a higher office, and that ministers of equal rank cannot mutually discipline each other. But for this defect, the
reasoning would be conclusive. They are clearly commanded to ordain and exercise authority, and this, if
inconsistent with equality of rank and identity of office, would demonstrate their superiority to presbyters.
It will not, however, be contended, even by the warmest advocates of this opinion, that the evidence of this
superiority, contained in Paul's epistles, is the strongest that can be imagined. They will grant, not only
that a formal categorical assertion of the fact disputed
would be stronger proof than that which is derived by
inference from Paul's instructions, but that even in default of such assertion, the contested point might pos



52                  ESSAY II.
sibly have been much more indisputable than it is. If,
for example, it had been recorded, as a historical fact,
that Timothy and Titus acted towards the presbyters
of Ephesus and Crete as their official inferiors, directing their movements and controlling the discharge of
their official duties by minute instructions, the proof of
their superiority would no doubt be regarded by our
opponents as stronger than it now is. And the evidence would surely be considered as still more decisive,
if among the books of the New Testament there were
epistles written by Timothy and Titus to the presbyters
of Ephesus and Crete; containing no recognition of
equality, beyond what is habitually used by modern
bishops to their youngest clergy; directing the movements of the elders in a positive and peremptory manner, without any reference to their own inclination or
opinion; the superior rank of the two writers would
be looked upon as quite indisputable. But if, in addition to all this, the elders were required to exercise
their highest powers as the representatives or delegates
of Timothy and Titus, with directions to pursue a certain course, until the writers should be personally present, and with kind but authoritative hints as to the
personal improvement of the presbyters addressed; it
must be owned that the denial of superior official
rank in Timothy and Titus would be hopeless.
Now it happens, unfortunately for the adverse
argument, that no such evidence exists, in reference
to Timothy and Titus, whose superiority to presbyters
must stand or fall with the assumption, that the
power of ordination and of discipline implies a permanent diversity of rank. But what especially deserves attention is the interesting fact, that the very




THE PRIMITIVE PRESBYTERS.            53
evidence, which would be universally acknowledged
as sufficient to establish the superiority of Timothy
and Titus with respect to presbyters, does certainly
exist in the case of Paul with respect to Timothy
and Titus themselves.  The facts which constitute
this evidence have been already stated in detail, but
in different connections. That their bearing on the
question now before us may be seen, a brief recapitulation will be necessary,. under several particulars.
And first, let it be observed, that in the other
books of the New Testament, that is to say, excepting the three epistles to Timothy and Titus, they are
mentioned in a manner, which not only furnishes no
proof of their equality to Paul, but naturally leads to
the conclusion of their being his inferiors in rank and
office. In the Acts of the Apostles, it will not be
disputed, that Timothy appears as Paul's inferior, a
young man chosen to attend him  in his missionary
travels, as a helper and a confidential messenger. It
may be said, indeed, that it would not be fair to argue,
from the first stage of Timothy's career, that he was
always Paul's inferior; and this is true. But if we
find Paul subsequently speaking of and to him, in a
tone precisely suited to this original relation of the
parties, it will surely make it highly probable, to say
the least, that this relation still continued to subsist. And that this is really the case will be perceived upon comparing the place occupied by Timothy, as Paul's personal attendant, in the Acts of the
Apostles (16: 2. 17: 15. 18: 5. 19: 22. 20: 4), with
the way in which Paul speaks to the Corinthians of
having sent Timotheus to them, and requests that he
may be among them without fear, and that no man
may despise him, and that he may be sent back to the




54                  ESSAY IL.
Apostle in due time (1 Cor. 16: 10, 11). It is plain
from these words, not only that Timothy was acting
as Paul's messenger and under his direction, but also
that the service was a temporary one, and that when
it was accomplished, he was to return to his accustomed duties, as the apostle's personal attendant.  And
that this was not a solitary case of such employment,
is apparent from the first epistle to the Thessalonians,
where Paul speaks first of having sent Timotheus to
them (ch. 3: 2), and then of his return and of the news
which he brought back (v. 6); to which may be added
Phil. 2:19, where he intimates his purpose to send
Timotheus to them, not to remain there, but to bring
him an account of their condition. In this last case,
the execution of the purpose is left dependent upon
Paul's own movements and convenience (v. 23), with
an intimation that the sending of Timothy was merely
meant to be a substitute for theapostle's personal attendance (v. 24). The relation between Timothy and
Paul, apparent in these passages, may be compared
to that between an aid-de-camp and his commander,
the two main duties, in both cases, being those of personal attendance and of active service in communicating orders.
That the relative position of Titus was the same,
may be inferred from Paul's allusion to "the coming
of Titus," as of one who had been absent upon
special duty, to the report which he had made of the
state of things at Corinth, and to the effect produced
upon him by his visit to the church there (2 Cor. 7: 6,
7, 13, 15). It may also be observed that the Apostle
speaks of the obedience and respect with which the
Corinthians had treated Titus, as a mark of their submission to his own apostolical authority (vs. 15, 16).




THE PRIMITIVE PRESBYTERS.            55
Another incidental reference to Paul's employing Titus
in this manner may be found in 2 Tim. 4: 10, where
he is mentioned among Paul's immediate followers.
" Demas hath forsaken me, having loved this present
world, and is departed unto Thessalonica; Crescens to
Galatia; Titus to Dalmatia; only Luke is with me; take
Mark and bring him with thee; for he is profitable to
me el 8LaKlovlav," not "for the ministry " in general,
but as a 8&aKOVOS or personal assistant in my labours.
It seems plain that all the persons here named bore
the same relation to the apostle, and were equally under his authority. Although Titus, therefore, is not
mentioned in the Acts, there can be no doubt that his
course began, like Timothy's, in personal attendance
upon Paul in his journeys, to which indeed we find
express allusion in Gal. 2: 1, 3, where his Greek descent and circumcision are referred to, and the fact recorded of his having gone with Paul and Barnabas, on
a particular occasion, to Jerusalem.
Both from the history and the' epistles, therefore,
independently of those addressed to Timothy and Titus, it would naturally be inferred, that these men were
inferior to Paul, and acted under his direction. It may,
indeed, be said, that they are clearly recognized as
ministers; that Timothy is mentioned as Paul's workfellow (Rom. 16: 21), " one that worketh the work of
the Lord even as-I do" (1 Cor. 16: 10), as a "brother"
(2 Cor. 1: 1), who had "served" with Paul "in the
gospel" (Phil. 2: 22); that Titus likewise is described
as his "brother" (2 Cor. 2: 13), his "partner and fellow-labourer" with respect to the Corinthians (2 Cor.
8: 23). All this is very true, and proves conclusively
that Timothy and Titus were duly ordained ministers,




56                   ESSAY II.
and as such held the rank of presbyters or elders. But
this, so far from proving their equality to Paul, strengthens the proof of their inferiority, by bringing their acknowledged ministerial standing into contrast with the
manifest assumption of superiority on PEul's part. His
continuing to regulate their movements after their
admission to the ministry, shows clearly that he was
superior, not only as a minister to private Christians,
but as an apostle to mere presbyters or elders.
If it should be alleged, however, that Timothy and
Titus were themselves invested with this same superiority, and that it is in this capacity that Paul addresses
them, this is a question which can only be determined
by an examination of the three epistles. If it be true
that Paul's superiority to Timothy and Titus ceased before the date of his epistles to them, we may certainly
expect to find the tone of his address to them materially altered, and the habit of express command exchanged for that of brotherly suggestion. And we do
indeed find many strong expressions of fraternal or
rather of paternal loVe, but mingled with peremptory
and direct commands, hs well as incidental intimations
of superior authority upon the writer's part, some of
which might be considered dubious or of little moment,
if we did not know the mutual relation of the parties
at an earlier date. The hypothesis that Timothy had
now attained equality of rank with Paul, though not
contradicted, is certainly not favoured by those parts of
these epistles, in which Paul speaks of having left him
at Ephesus for a special purpose (1 Tim. 1: 3) and
renews the commission under which he acted (v. 18),
gives him particular directions for his conduct until he
shall come (ch. 3: 14, 15. 4: 13, 14), and summons Timo



THE PRIMITIVE PRESBYTERS.            57
thy to come within a certain time (2 Tim. 4: -21) and
take the place of those who had just left him  (ch.
4: 9-12), bringing Paul's cloak and parchments with
him (v. 13).
Titus also is described as being left in Crete by
Paul, to finish that which he had left undone (Tit.
1:5), and is required to rejoin him, when relieved by
Artemas or Tychicus (Tit. 3: 12). All this goes to
prove that no such change had taken place in the relations of these men to P.aul as would make them no
longer his inferiors in office. And the same thing,
though it could not be directly proved, is certainly
corroborated by the numerous advices which he gives
them with a view to their personal improvement; as
when he exhorts Timothy to hold faith and a good
conscience (1 Tim. 1:19), to refuse profane and old
wives' fables and exercise himself unto godliness
(1 Tim. 4: 7), to give attendance to reading, exhortation and doctrine (v. 13), to let his proficiency appear
to all (v. 15), to take heed to himself and to the doctrine that he may be saved (v. 16), to avoid covetousness and follow after righteousness, godliness, faith,
love, patience, meekness (ch. 6: 11), to fight the good
fight of faith and lay hold on eternal life (v. 12), to
keep Paul's commandment without spot, unrebukable, until the appearing of our Lord Jesus Christ (v.
14), to avoid profane and vain babblings and oppositions of science falsely so called (1 Tim. 6: 20. 2 Tim.
2: 16), to be strong in the grace that is in Christ Jesus
(2 Tim. 2: 1), to endure hardness as a good soldier of
Tesus Christ (v. 3), to avoid foolish and unlearned
questions (v. 23), to flee youthful lusts and follow
righteousness, faith, charity, and peace (v. 22), to con,
3*




58                   ESSAY II.
tinue in the things which he had learned of Paul
(2 Tim. 3: 14), and to endure afflictions (2 Tim. 4: 5).
It may be said, that all these are expressions,
which might naturally be used by a man of Paul's
celebrity and standing in the church, even to those
holding the same office, if much younger than himself,
and still more if they were his spiritual children. Admitting this to be a sufficient explanation of the general tone of Paul's epistles, and of his exhortations to
mere personal and private duties, will it answer the
same purpose, with respect to his authoritative directions for the exercise of their official functions?
Can it be supposed that such minute instructions,
as to public worship, ordination, discipline, and the
duties to be enjoined upon different classes of society, would have been given to any but inferiors
in rank and office?  Such a hypothesis might be
admissible, if every thing else in the epistles favoured
it; but not when their whole drift and tenor make it
scarcely possible to doubt that Timothy and Titus are
addressed as Paul's inferiors. There are several classes
of objections to the opposite opinion, every one of
which would seem decisive unless countervailed by
other circumstances. The general tone of the epistles
is almost enough to show that Paul was their superior
in office. It would fail to do so, if there were express
recognitions of equality; but there are none. His dictation to them, with respect to the discharge of their
official functions, would be almost enough to prove the
point. Above all, the distinct allusions to their acting
merely as Paul's messengers and delegates, without
renouncing their relation to him as his personal attendants, make it almost certain. Now as each of these




THE PRIMITIVE PRESBYTERS.            59
distinctive features of the three epistles is almost
sufficient of itself to prove what is alleged, and
as none of them  detracts from  any of the others,
it may be safely stated as the most probable conclusion from the data generally, that the men, to whom
these three epistles were addressed, were no less subject
to Paul's authority, and consequently no less inferior
in official rank, when labouring at Ephesus and Crete,
than when attending him in Greece or Asia Minor or
Judea.
If any should still think, however, that the supposition of their inferiority is not necessary to explain
the tone and contents of these epistles, let them look
at the question in another point of view. Let them
suppose, though merely for the sake of argument, that
these men were not only younger than Paul, and his
spiritual children, but inferior in office, and that Paul,
in writing to them, had this inferiority in view, and
was influenced by it, both in matter and in manner.
How could he, without saying totidem verbis, you are
my inferiors, have more distinctly conveyed that idea
than he has done here?  What form of address, what
selection of topics, what turn of expression, what peculiar tone, what allusions to his own superiority and
their subjection to him, could have made the matter
clearer than it is? If an air of paternal condescension,
if repeated exhortations to fidelity, if positive commands as to official acts, if peremptory orders as to
times and places, and express injunctions to return to
personal attendance on the writer, do not prove inferiority of rank in those who are addressed, it must be
because no proof of the fact is possible, except by formal categorical assertion. If, however, it be true that




60                   ESSAY II.
Paul addresses these two men precisely as he must
have done if they were his inferiors in office, most
readers will probably think this a decisive proof that
they were so. Nor can it be rejected, without flagrant
inconsistency, by those who plead for a perpetual
apostleship. The proof of that opinion rests, almost
exclusively, upon the fact, that Timothy and Titus
are directed to ordain and discipline presbyters, from
which it is inferred that they were something more
themselves. But if their being thus directed can prove
their superiority to elders, how much more does Paul's
directing them prove his superiority to them?  Those
very powers, the imputed exercise of which is made a
proof that they were more than presbyters, were exercised at Paul's command, and in conformity with his
minute instructions. The least that can be argued
from this fact is, that Paul's superiority to Timothy
and Titus is as clearly proved as theirs to presbyters.
But this is only a small part of the whole truth; for
while the proof of their superiority to presbyters is
wholly insufficient, that of Paul's superiority to them
is perfect. The former, as we have before seen, rests
upon the false assumption that a presbyter could neither be ordained nor disciplined by those of the same
order. But the fact of Paul's superiority to Timothy
and Titus does not rest upon his having ordained them
or acted as their judge; but upon his actual control of
their official functions, and their actual subjection to
his apostolical authority. The very fact of their ordaining and exercising discipline at all may be described
as doubtful, in comparison with that of'Paul's governing themselves. That they governed and ordained, is
a mere inference from Paul's advising them how they




THE PRIMITIVE PRESBYTERS.            61
should exercise these powers. But that they themselves were ruled by Paul, is no such inference. The
fact itself is upon record in these three epistles, which
are nothing more nor less than three solemn acts of
apostolical authority.
The fact, then, that Timothy and Titus were inferior to Paul in rank and office, is not only upon all
common principles of reasoning, but even upon those
which are peculiar to the adverse argument, fully established. But if they were inferior to Paul in office,
they must either have been presbyters, or something
intermediate between that and apostles. The assumption of an intermediate order sweeps away, of course,
all arguments to prove that certain persons were apostles, simply because they were superior to presbyters.
It also gives a license to assume as many intermediate
orders as may be required to demonstrate different
hypotheses.  In point of fact, however, it is never
now assumed. It is one of the conceded points, on
which the parties to this controversy meet, that there
was no office in the primitive church system, above
that of presbyter, exepting the apostleship. If, then,
Timothy and Titus were inferior to Paul, they could
not have been more than presbyters, and must in that
capacity have exercised the right of ordination and
of discipline. If, as a last resort, it be alleged, that
these powers were exercised by virtue of a special commission, and not as ordinary functions of the eldership,
it still remains true, even granting this assertion, that
presbyters were competent to exercise these powers,
without being elevated to a higher office. What they
were thus occasionally authorized to do by the original
apostles, they might still do, even if there were apos



62                   ESSAY II.
ties in the church; but if, as we shall see hereafter,
there are none, then what was occasionally done by
presbyters at first, must now be done habitually by
them, as the highest class of officers existing, by divine
right, in the church. Much more must they possess
this right as the successors of the primitive elders, if
the latter, as we have the strongest reason to believe,
possessed it, not occasionally merely, but as a necessary function of their office.
The result of our inquiry may be briefly stated
thus: that Paul addresses the presbyters of Ephesus,
as if the whole care of the church was to devolve on
them, representing them as shepherds of Christ's flock,
a metaphor implying the possession of the highest
powers and employed here in its widest sense, because connected with the prediction of dangers which
could only be averted by the exercise of great authority, and also because Peter, in addressing the presbyters of Asia Minor, speaks of them as shepherds, subject to no chief shepherd but the Lord Jesus Christ,
and possessing powers which might easily become
despotic in their exercise. We find too that Paul
elsewhere speaks of the presbyters of Ephesus as
" ruling," the word employed being one used to denote the government of families, and therefore, in
its application to the church, implying the possession
of the highest powers, not excepting those of discipline and ordination.  And accordingly we find the ordination of Timothy ascribed to a " presbytery," which,
on any natural interpretation of the term, can only
mean a body of presbyters acting in that character.
We find too that Timothy and Titus, while actually
exercising the highest powers now belonging to the




THE PRIMITIVE PRESBYTERS.           63
ministry, are distinctly recognized as Paul's inferiors
in rank and office, and therefore as something less
than apostles, and nothing more than presbyters, whether acting in the ordinary course of duty, or by virtue of a special commission.
From these special testimonies, singly and together,
it appears that presbyters, in apostolic times, possessed
and exercised the highest powers now belonging to
the ministry. This position having been established by
direct proof, it may not be improper to advert to certain
passages and detached expressions, which, although
they may prove nothing by themselves, and are susceptible of different explanations, and have therefore
not been used above in argument, may nevertheless
serve as incidental confirmations of the truth already
ascertained. One of these is the account of the council
at Jerusalem, to which the church of Antioch referred
an interesting and important question, sending Paul
and Barnabas and others, "unto the apostles AND
ELDERS, about this question" (Acts 15: 2).  "And
when they were come to Jerusalem, they were received of the apostles AND ELDERS" (V. 4).  "And
the apostles AND ELDERS came together, for to consider
of the matter" (v. 6), and after due deliberation and
discussion, " it pleased the apostles AND ELDERS (V. 22)
to send a letter to the church at Antioch, with this
inscription, "The apostles AND ELDERS and brethren
send greeting," etc. (v. 23); and we afterwards read
that Paul and Silas, in their missionary tour through
Asia Minor, "as they went through the cities, delivered them the decrees for to keep, that were ordained
of the apostles AND ELDERS which were at Jerusalem"
(Acts 16: 4). All that it is now meant to infer from




64                   ESSAY II.
this transaction is that,, even while most of the
apostles were still present at Jerusalem, the church
there had elders, and that these were not regarded as
mere teachers, or leaders in public worship, but as men
clothed with authority.
If any should object that the.same reasoning would
prove the other members of the church to have
possessed the same authority, because it was "the
church" that received the messengers from Antioch,
(Acts 15: 4), because it was " the apostles and elders
WITH THE WHOLE CHURCH" that decided the question
(v. 22), and because the epistle was written in the
name of "the apostles and elders AND BRETHREN,"
(v. 23), it may be answered, first, that though the
brethren, or church at large, are mentioned in these
cases, they are not in the others which have been already quoted, whereas the elders are invariably named
whenever the apostles are. In the next place, according to the principles of government laid down both in
the Old and the New Testament, the church would
of course act through the apostles and the elders,
and especially the latter, who were really the representatives of the church at Jerusalem, so that it does not
even certainly appear, that the church-members were
in any sense present except in the person of their
representatives; the word translated "multitude" in
v. 12 being indefinite andjelative in meaning. Lastly,
this case is cited only in corroboration of the fact, already proved from other quarters, that the presbyters
were rulers, whereas no such proof exists of the powers of government having been exercised by the people
generally.
That this constitution of the mother-church was




tHE PRIMITIVE PRESBYTERS.             65
copied into others, as they were organized, is plain
from the practice of Paul and Barnabas, who, as they
passed through Asia Minor, "ordained them elders in
every church" (Acts 14: 23), and from Paul's leaving
Titus in Crete to "ordain elders in every city" (Tit.
1: 5). The powers of these elders were no doubt the
same as in the mother-church, and though they are
not often mentioned, it is always in a manner to confirm the supposition that they were familiarly regarded
as the highest local rulers of the church; as when
James says, " Is any sick among you? let him call for
the elders of the church" (Jas. 5: 14); and John. calls
himself, in the inscriptions of two epistles, o 7rpeo-vTepo?; and Peter tells the presbyters of Asia Minor, that
he is their fellow-elder (o o-vu/rpea-3vTepoS 1 Pet. 5: 1).
That in John's case it denotes the senior apostle, and
that in the others it is a generic title for church-officers
in general, is no doubt possible; and all that is here
intended is to point out how completely even the incidental notices of presbyters agree with the presbyterian hypothesis.
It may be a matter of surprise and even of objection on the part of some, that so few positive testimonies to the truth of that hypothesis are found in Scripture. But let such remember that church-government
is very seldom spoken of at all, and ordination scarcely
ever, so that in proportion to the space allotted to the
general subject, the foregoing proofs may be considered
ample. One effect of the comparative neglect of all
such matters by the sacred writers is that something,
upon any supposition, is to be supplied by inference or
analogy.  The only question is, which hypothesis requires least to be conjectured or assumed? As this




66                  ESSAY II.
is no unfair criterion of truth, we are willing to
submit our doctrine to a rigorous comparison, in this
respect, with that of our opponents. They admit that
the presbyterial office was established in the primitive
church and was intended to be permanent; that it was
clothed with the important powers of preaching the
gospel and administering the sacraments; and that it is
repeatedly spoken of in terms which, taken by themselves, would imply the possession of the highest powers now belonging to the ministry. But this conclusion they avoid by assuming that although the office
was intended to continue, and intrusted with some functions of the greatest moment, it was not empowered to
ordain or exercise supreme authority, that these prerogatives were specially reserved to a superior order.
This, however, cannot be maintained without supposing, that on various occasions when the mention of
this higher class would seem to have been almost unavoidable, the sacred writers did nevertheless pass it
by in silence, and not'only pass it by, but apply the
very language that would best describe its powers to
the lower order which had no such powers. However
this extraordinary fact may be accounted for, it must
be assumed, or the adverse doctrine cannot be maintained. The presbyterian hypothesis, on the contrary,
takes words and phrases in their usual sense and their
most natural construction, and adds nothing to the
facts which are admitted by both parties, but setting
out from the conceded fact that presbyters were officers
of high rank and intrusted with important powers, it
concludes that, when they are referred to as the highest
local rulers of the churches, they were so in fact; that
when certain duties are enjoined upon them, it was




THE PRIMITIVE PRESBYTERS.           67
meant that they should do them; in a word, that the
obvious and natural meaning of the passages which
speak of elders is the true one, and that no other need
be sought by forced constructions or gratuitous assumptions. By the application of this safe and simple
method of interpretation, we have reached the conclusion that presbyters, as presbyters, possessed and exercised the highest ministerial powers, including those
of discipline and ordination, in the days of the apostles; that the same rights and powers belong to them
at present; and that no ministrations can be charged
with invalidity, because they are performed under
authority derived from presbyters.




ESSAY  III.
ON THE PERPETUITY OF THE APOSTLESHIP.
IN the foregoing essay an attempt was made to prove
that the highest permanent office in the church is that
of Presbyter, by showing that the primitive Presbyters
exercised the highest ministerial functions. In opposition to this doctrine, some allege the superiority and
perpetuity of the Apostolic office. If this office was
superior to that of Presbyter, and if it was designed
to be perpetual, it follows of course that no church
authority can rightfully be exercised, except by those
who have succeeded the Apostles in the powers which
belonged to them as such, and as distinguished from
the Elders of the Church. Let it be observed, however, that in order to justify this conclusion, two
things must be made out. If the Apostles were not
an- order of church-officers, distinct from and superior
to tWe Presbyters or Elders, the strongest proof that
the office was perpetual only proves that that of Elder
was designed to be perpetual, which all admit. If, on
the other hand, the Apostolic office was a temporary
one; it matters not how far it may have been superior




PERPETUITY OF THE APOSTLESHIP.         69
to that held by Presbyters, who still remain, in that
case, the highest permanent office-bearers in the Christian Church. In order then to the decision of the controversy, two distinct questions are to be determined.
1. Were the Apostles superior to Presbyters? 2. Was
their office, as distinct from that of Presbyter, designed
to be perpetual? By some Presbyterian writers both
these questions have been answered in the negative,
while all Episcopalians, who assert the jus divinum of
prelatical episcopacy, answer both affirmatively. In
the remainder of the present argument the first point
will be conceded; that is to say, it will be granted that
the Apostles were church-officers superior to Presbyters or Elders. At the same time an attempt will be
made to prove, exclusively from Scripture, that the
Apostolic office was a temporary one.
I. The first argument in favour of this proposition
is, that the continuance of the office is nowhere expressly stated.
To this it might be answered, that an office being
once created, its continuance must be presumed, without an explicit declaration to the contrary.
The general principle is not denied; but in this
case there are peculiar circumstances which afford
strong ground for a contrary presumption.
1. The original Apostles are uniformly spoken of
as constituting a distinct and well defined body of men,
not only in the gospel history, but in the latest books of
the New Testament  " But beloved, remember ye the
words which were spoken before by THE APOSTLES OF
OUR LORD JESUS CHRIST, how that they told you there
should be mockers in the last time who should walk
after their own ungodly lusts" (Jude, vs. 17, 18). This




70                  ESSAY III.
mode of expression seems to intimate, that  "the
apostles" belonged to a preceding period, and that
most of them were actually gone. Jude could hardly
have expressed himself in this way, if the title had already been extended to a multitude of others. " Rejoice over her, thou heaven, and ye holy APOSTLES
AND PROPHETS; for God hath revenged you on her"
(Rev. 18: 20). Can there be any doubt that this apostrophe is addressed to the original Apostles? And
would John have so described them if the name, in
his day, had been rightfully assumed by many others,
equal and equally "supreme" in power? That he was
not familiar with any such extension of the name, may
also be inferred from Rev. 21: 14, where he speaks of
"the twelve apostles."
It may be urged, however, that the case of Paul
destroys the force of the presumption drawn from the
mention of the Apostles as a limited number; for he
was a thirteenth, and if one might be added, why not
more?
This objection would be valid, but for one consideration, which converts the case of Paul into a strong
corroboration of the doctrine against which it is alleged. That case is every where referred to and described as an anomalous exception.  He speaks of
himself as the least of the Apostles (1 Cor. 15: 9),
and not only as morally unworthy to be called one,
but as almost too late to be an Apostle, as one born
out of due time (1 Cor. 15: 8), while at the same time
he asserts his equality with the rest as to official rank
and power. Now if the Apostolic office was intended
to be regularly continued, and if many others were to
be brought into it, and invested with its "supreme




PERPETUITY OF THE APOSTLESHIP.         71
powers," even during Paul's lifetime, and by his
agency, how was he like one born out of due time?
Or how could he call himself the least of the Apostles? Can any degree of humility make it consistent
with his truth and candour, to pronounce himself inferior, as an Apostle, to Timothy, Titus, Epaphroditus,
Silas, Junias, and Andronicus, who were all officially
his equals on the opposite hypothesis?  Since then
the case of Paul is represented by himself as an
anomaly, it serves, as a sole exception, to confirm
the general statement that the Apostles are referred to
as a limited body, not to be increased. This is the
first ground of presumption that the office of apostle,
as distinguished from all others, was intended to be
temporary.
2. A second is, that some of the apostolic powers
are acknowledged by both parties in this controversy
to have been temporary. The presumption, therefore,
is, that all the rest were temporary likewise, except so
far as the continuance of any can be clearly shown
from Scripture. Now it is not and cannot be denied,
that some of them were thus continued, and that for
this purpose the offices of Presbyter and Deacon
now exist.  But this very fact adds greatly to the
strength of the presumption, that the apostolic office
was a temporary one. For if the cessation of some
apostolic powers makes it a priori probable that all the
rest ceased likewise, how much more does the acknowledged transfer of some of the remaining powers to
distinct church-officers, continued in existence for that
very purpose, make it a priori probable, that all the
apostolic powers, which did not thus cease, were thus
transferred?




72                  ESSAY III.
3. The power exercised by the Apostles was a
general ambulatory power, not confined to particular
districts.  This was exactly suited to the infant condition of the church, but could not supersede the necessity of permanent and local officers, after the planting of particular churches.  Now  the elders and
deacons, of whom we read in the New Testament, are
the elders and deacons of particular churches, after
whose appointment the irregular supervision of the
Apostles might be expected to cease, as being no
longer needed. On the hypothesis, that the Apostles
were commissioned merely to plant the church in
various countries, and ordain permanent officers who
should exercise such of the apostolical powers as were
necessary for the continued existence of the church,
while all the others ceased, the course of things could
hardly have been different from that which is recorded.
This then affords a third ground of presumption that
the supposition is coincident with fact.
4. A fourth ground is, that the apostolic functions,
which all admit to have been subsequently exercised
by Presbyters, are precisely those which, in their own
nature, are the most important, namely, the preaching
of the gospel and the administration of the sacraments.
However important the powers of ordination and discipline may be, they derive their importance from the
others. The end of discipline is to preserve purity
and exclude the unworthy from the peculiar privileges
of the church. The end of ordination is to secure a
valid administration of the word and sacraments. If
the Head of the Church had left this ministration to
any one who chose to perform it, without special ordi



PERPETUITY OF THE APOSTLESHIP.         73
nation to an office, whatever inconveniences might
have attended that arrangement, it could not have impaired the intrinsic value of the word and sacraments.
But if, on the other hand, there were no word and
sacraments, ordination would be useless.  And the
same may be said, mutatis mutandis, of government or
discipline. These then (ordination and discipline) are
subsidiary functions which derive their value from
the relation they sustain to others.  Now  if the
office of a Christian Presbyter had been invested with
powers of a subordinate nature, i. e. such as derive
their value from their being necessary to the exercise
of others, it might have been alleged, with some degree
of plausibility, that the Apostolic office was designed
to be perpetual for the sake of those functions which
were not bestowed on Presbyters, and yet were essential to the being of the Church. But when we find
that the lower office was invested with those powers
which possess a necessary and intrinsic value, this, to
say the least, adds strength to the presumption that
the Apostolic office, which was thus succeeded by
another order in its most important functions, was intended to be temporary.
5. On the supposition, that some apostolic powers
were neither shared by Presbyters nor discontinued,
there is no means of determining what these reserved
powers were. For if it be said that all which were not
extended to Presbyters were thus reserved, this, in the
first place, presupposes the decision of the question
whether Presbyters ordained and governed; and, in
the next place, supposing that they did not, the successors of the apostles must, according to this rule,
possess the power of working miracles, which certainly
4




74                   ESSAY III.
belonged to the original apostles. If it be said that
this was a temporary gift of an extraordinary nature,
then the power of bestowing the Holy Ghost was
also temporary.  But this many are unwilling to
admit. There is, in fact, no unity among Episcopalians, as to the precise powers which have been continued in their Bishops as successors of the Apostles.
Some confine their claims to ordination.  Some add
discipline, as rightfully belonging only to the Bishop.
Others add the power of bestowing the Holy Ghost.
This last is inseparable from  the gift of miracles.
Whenever the effects of the gift of the Holy Ghost,
conferred by the Apostles, are described, they are of a
miraculous nature. The power of bestowing the more
inward and spiritual influences of the Holy Ghost,
is not only never claimed, but is expressly disclaimed.
The Church of IRome is therefore more consistent than
the advocates of High Church Episcopacy, in claiming
not only the power of conferring the Holy Ghost, but
also its inseparable adjunct, that of working miracles.
What is here designed, however, is not to disprove the
possession of this power, but to show the want of harmony among those who maintain that certain apostolic
powers are continued in the church, by means of ministers distinct from and superior to Presbyters. And
the design of showing this is to illustrate the impossibility of drawing any line between the powers which
ceased or were transferred to Presbyters, and those
which are alleged to have been continued in the
apostolic office. And the use to be made of this impossibility is simply to strengthen the presumption
which has been already raised in favour of the doc
trine that the Apostolic office, as distinct from that of
TElder and superior to it, was a temporary one.




PERPETUITY OF THE APOSTLESHIP.          75
The grounds of the presumption, then, are, that
the twelve apostles are referred to in the New Testament, as a well-known body of men, limited in number, and not to be increased, except in the extraordinary case of Paul, which he himself describes as a
remarkable exception; that some of the powers exercised by the original apostles are no longer in existence; that some which still exist are exercised
by Presbyters, and were so exercised in apostolic
times; that those which are thus exercised by Presbyters are in themselves the most essential to the
existence of the church; that the office of Presbyter
has been continued in the church for the very purpose
of succeeding the apostles in these functions, and with
a view to permanent action within fixed local bounds;
that the advocates for the perpetuity of the apostolic
office are not agreed among themselves as to the powers
which now belong to it, and that this want of agreement
arises from the silence of Scripture, and the impossibility of fixing any principle, by which a line may be drawn
between the powers which are thus continued and those
which have ceased or been transferred to Presbyters.
Without insisting on the positive conclusions which
might not unreasonably be deduced from these premises, they may be described as furnishing a strong presumption, that the apostolic office was intended to be
temporary, bearing the same relation to the permament
ministry that a constituent assembly or convention
bears to the legislative body which  succeeds it.
There is presumptive proof of this, so strong that
it can only be countervailed by positive evidence from
Scripture. The facts, which have been stated as the
grounds of this presumption, may be clearly proved




76                  ESSAY III.
from Scripture. It is not too much to ask, then, that
if another fact is to be added to the list, viz. that some
of the apostolic powers were neither discontinued nor
transferred to Presbyters, and that for the exercise of
these reserved powers the apostolic office was itself
continued, some explicit declaration of the fact may be
adduced to countervail the strong adverse presumption.
And this brings us back to our first position, that THE
CONTINUANCE OF THE APOSTOLIC OFFICE, IN ADDITION
TO THOSE WHICH RELIEVED IT OF ITS MOST IMPORTANT
FUNCTIONS, IS NOWHERE EXPLICITLY ASSERTED IN
THE SCRIPTURES. As the presumptions are so strong
against the supposition of a permanent apostleship,
the very silence of the Scriptures might be urged as a
decisive proof. It cannot be denied, however, that
the force of this negative argument would be destroyed
by proving that the Scriptures indirectly recognize the
Apostolic office as perpetual. This leads us to another
view of the subject.
II. A second argument in favour of the proposition,
that the Apostolic office was a temporary one, is that
the name Apostle, in its strict and proper sense, is not
applied, in the New Testament, to any persons who
were not of the original thirteen.
The passages, in which such an application of the
title is alleged, are the following. 1. "But the multitude of the city was divided: and part held with the
Jews, and part with THE APOSTLES [meaning Paul
and Barnabas]-" which when THE APOSTLES, Barnabas and Paul, heard of, they rent their clothes," etc.
(Acts 14:4, 14).
2. " Salute Andronicus and Junias my kinsmen
and my fellow-prisoners, who are of note among THE




PERPETUITY OF THE APOSTLESHIP.         77
APOSTLES, who also were in Christ before me" (Rom.
16: 7).
3. "Yet I supposed it necessary to send to you
Epaphroditus, my brother and companion in labour
and fellow-soldier, but your messenger (T7rr6o-oXov),
and one that ministers to my wants" (Phil. 2: 25).
4. " Whether any do inquire of Titus, he is my partner and fellow-helper concerning you; or our brethren
be inquired of, they are the messengers (a'7rocaToXoL) of
the churches, and the glory of Christ" (2 Cor. 8: 23).
5. "Paul and Silvanus and Timotheus unto the
church of the Thessalonians" (1 Thess. 1: 1), compared
with "Nor of men sought we glory, neither of you,
nor yet of others, when we might have been burdensome AS THE APOSTLES of Christ" (1 Thess. 2: 6).
From these texts it is inferred by some that Barnabas, Andronicus, Junias, Epaphroditus, Silas, Timothy,
and certain brethren who accompanied Titus to Corinth, were Apostles, in the same sense in which Paul
was an Apostle; and from this the obvious conclusion
has been drawn, that the Apostolic office was intended
to be permanent.
It might well be made a question whether the strong
antecedent probability, that the Apostolic office was a
temporary one, could be wholly set aside by the application of the title in five places, however clear the
application might be, and however obvious the sense
in which the word is used.  The advocates of this
interpretation themselves protest against all objections
to their system founded merely on the scriptural use
of the word Bishop, which they own to be convertible
with Presbyter.  They have no right, therefore, to
make that of the word Apostle the foundation of a per



78                   ESSAY III.
fectly exclusive system. If the lawfulness of a superior
order were the point in question, incidental proofs of
this kind ought to have due weight; but when attempts are made to prove, that the continuance of the
Apostolic order, as distinct from that of Presbyters, is
essential to the being of a church, and that in the face
of such presumptions to the contrary as have been
stated, a sober reasoner would have good cause to
hesitate before receiving, as conclusive evidence, the
application of the name in a few cases, even if the
proposed interpretation of the passages referred to were
undoubtedly correct.
But this is very far from being certain. Of the five
texts cited, there are two, in which the application
of the title is at least very doubtful. 1. In the first
epistle to the Thessalonians, the word arwo-oroXoo is not
in juxtaposition or apparent connection with the names
of Timothy and Silas, but separated from them  by
fourteen intervening verses. It is not even alleged,
that the joining of other names with Paul's, in the beginning of a letter, makes it necessary to refer the
whole of its contents to all the persons thus included
in the title; because, after such a joint address, he often
uses the first person singular. Nor is it, on the other
hand, alleged, that the use of the plural we requires
such a reference; because that mode of speech is so
habitual with Paul, that it may almost be regarded as
one of his characteristic idioms; and, as if to guard
against such a construction, he says, near the conclusion of this very passage, " Wherefore we would have
come unto you, EVEN I PAUL, once and again" (1
Thess. 2: 18). This explanation is, at least, sufficient
to outweigh the argument derived from the plural form




PERPETUITY OF THE APOSTLESHIP.           79
a7roo-oXot, which is, no doubt, strictly inapplicable to a
single person, but not when preceded, as in this case, by
a particle denoting resemblance or comparison. Though
Paul could not call himself "the APOSTLES of Christ,"
he could assert his right to do a thing " A (i. e. like) the
apostles of Christ."  He could disclaim having sought
glory of them or of others, when he might have been
burdensome, AS the apostles of Christ collectively had
a right to be. This construction of the sentence is, to
say the least, as natural as that which makes the plural form in chap. 2: 6 refer to Timothy and Silas, who
are mentioned only in the title (1: 1), and neither there
nor elsewhere called apostles.
But even granting that this is a more probable explanation of the plural form, which is a mere gratuitous
concession, it would not follow necessarily that Timothy and Titus were Apostles in the sense contended
for; because another supposition is still open to us,
namely, that arr6o'oroXo is here used in a different sense.
For which is it easier to believe, that Silas and Timothy were as much Apostles as Paul himself, but nowhere called so except here by implication and remote
allusion; or that when he calls them by that title, he
uses it in a wider sense than when it is employed to
designate our Lord's immediate followers?  We are
willing that this question should be answered without
any reference to the reasons, hereafter to be stated, for
believing that the word apostle is employed in a plurality of meanings. Even if there were no other reason for attaching to it a double sense, this case would
be just as good a reason for supposing one, as it is for
supposing  Silas to have been an Apostle, in the
absence of all proof from any other quarter. The one




80                   ESSAY III.
argument is this: Paul says, "we, the apostles of
Christ," and as Silas and Timothy are mentioned with
him in the title of the epistle, they must be included;
they were therefore Apostles, in the same sense in
which Paul was one. The other argument is this: The
Apostles were a limited number, and Paul elsewhere
speaks of his addition to it as an extraordinary thing;
but Silas and Timothy, though often mentioned, are
nowhere else called Apostles; therefore, when Paul so
calls them, he uses the title in a wider sense. If these
two arguments be only equal in conclusive force, they
balance one another, and the passage cannot be employed as proof, that Timothy and Silas were "supreme
Apostles." This is the case, be it observed, on the supposition that the awrodToXoL in ch. 2: 6 refers to all the
men named in ch. 1: 1. But we have already seen
that this reference is doubtful, and that a different construction is, at least, as plausible. The adverse argument, then, rests on two assumptions; that  TrroG-TOXoL in ch. 2: 6 refers to Timothy and Silas, as well
as Paul, and that it must be taken in its strict and
highest sense; whereas it is at least as probable that
it does not refer to them, and that if it does, it does not
denote Apostles in the strict sense. To say the least,
then, after every concession, this passage is too doubtful to be made the basis of an argument to prove, in
opposition to such strong presumptions, that the office
of Apostle was continued.
2. The other case, in which there is a doubt as to the
application of the name APOSTLE, is Rom. 16: 7. Here
the phrase T'laqot  Ev TOio aTroTroXov9 may mean either
eminent apostles or highly esteemed among (i. e. by) the
apostles. Admitting, for the sake of argument, that the




PERPETUITY OF THE APOSTLESHIP.         81
former is the better construction, we are not shut up
to the conclusion that Andronicus and Junias (or Junia,
as Bishop Onderdonk writes it, even while claiming
him or her as an apostle) were Apostles in the strict
sense. We have just as much reason to believe, that
they were Apostles in another sense. Even supposing,
for the present, that no such sense of the term can be
proved from usage, we have just as much reason to
infer it from this passage, as to infer that these two
persons were Apostles in the strict sense. For against
this inference lies, first, the whole weight of the strong
presumption that the apostolic office was a temporary
one; and, secondly, the extreme improbability that
two eminent apostles, in the strict sense of that title,
would be thus named among a crowd of private Christians, and never heard of elsewhere. Is it easier to
believe this than that the word apostle has a double
meaning, even supposing this to be incapable of proof
from any other quarter?  We are not now determining the true sense of the passage. We are only showing that a passage which admits, first of two grammatical constructions, and then (assuming that contended
for by our opponents) of two interpretations, cannot
be regarded as decisive of so difficult and grave a
question as the one respecting the perpetual or temporary nature of the apostolic office.
In these two cases, it is doubtful to whom the name
Apostle is applied; but in the other three there can be
no such doubt. It is admitted that Barnabas, Epaphroditus, and the brethren who accompanied Titus, are
expressly called ca'7oTro0XoL; and from this the inference is drawn by some that the Apostolic office,
strictly so called, was conferred upon these persons,
*4




82                    ESSAY III
and that it consequently did not cease with the original
incumbents. This inference involves the assumption
that the term air6'a-roXo9 has always the same meaning,
namely, that of Apostle in the strict sense, as denoting
one of the original thirteen, or a person equal to them
in official rank and power, as a ruler of the church
under Christ himself. In order to estimate the probability of this assumption, it is necessary to refer to the
analogy of other terms, used to denote office in the
Christian church.
The other terms admitted, upon both sides, to be
so employed are 7rpEof-rVTEpo, r'7lcrcKO7rro% 8acovos, TrotrAj, &8c8aocaXos-, vrpofTrjqr, a77eXoS.'*  Now let it be
observed that, of these seven words, not one was invented for the purpose, or derived from  the Hebrew.
They are all pure Greek words, used by profane writers, and already familiar to the Jews who spoke that
language, before they were appropriated to the use in
question.  From this state of the case it would be natural and reasonable a priori, to conclude that all the
words would have at least a double sense, as used in
the New Testament, viz. a wide or popular meaning,
according to their etymology and previous usage, and
a stricter technical meaning, as appropriated to the
designation of ecclesiastical office. How far this natural presumption is confirmed by the actual usage of
the New  Testament, may be forcibly stated, as to
some of these terms, in the words of a well-known
episcopal writer.
"Many words have both a loose and a specific
meaning.  The word'angel' is often applied loosely
* EBayyEeATLo- is omitted, because its precise meaning is a matter
of dispute. As to the rest, there is a general agreement.




PERPETUITY OF THE APOSTLESHIP.           83
(Acts 12: 15. Rev. 1: 20. 9: 14), but distinctively it
means certain created spirits. The word'God' is applied to angels (Deut. 10: 17. Ps. 97: 7. 136: 2), and
idols (Ex. 20: 3. 23: 24, &c.), and human personages
or magistrates (Exod. 7: 1. 22: 28. Ps. 82: 1, 6. 138:
1. John 10: 35); but distinctively it means the Supreme Being.  The word' deacon' means an ordinary
servant, a servant of God in secular affairs, and any
minister of Christ; but a Christian minister of the
lower grade is its specific meaning. So with the word'elder;' it is sometimes applied to the clergy of any
grade or grades; but its appropriate application is to
ministers of the second or middle order. The above
remarks, it is hoped, will enable those who feel an interest in consulting Scripture on the subject before us,
to do so without any embarrassment from the apparent
confusion of official names or titles."*
" We would also advert to the fact that, however
distinct may have been the three above Latin names
for the three grades of sacerdotal office, those names.
of office were, in the Greek, and at an earlier period,
applied but loosely. At least, they were so in the
New Testament.  Thus we read'this ministry [deaconsMhp] and apostleship (Acts 1: 25)' for the office to
which Matthias was admitted.'I am  the apostle of
the gentiles, I magnify mine office' [my deaconship],'the ministry [deaconship] which I have received,''approving ourselves as the ministers [deacons] of God'
(Rom. 11: 13. Acts 20: 24. 2 Cor. 6: 4), are passages
applied by St. Paul to himself. We also read,'who
then is Paul, and who is Apollos, but ministers [deacons] by whom  ye believed?' (1 Cor. 3: 5), and' do
* Episcopac Examined and Re-examined, p. 14.




84t1                   ESSAY III.
the work of an evangelist, make full proof of thy ministry [deaconship]-thou shalt be a good minister [deacon] of Jesus Christ,' are admonitions addressed to
Timothy  (2 Tim. 4: 5. 1 Tim. 4: 6)."      It may
not be improper to add some further illustrations
of the uncertainty of official names. Thus we say the
Jewish'priesthood,' including in that term, with the
priests, the superior order of high priests, and the inferior one of levites. Thus also we have the phrase'ministry [literally deaconship] of reconciliation;' and
the expressions,'that the ministry [deaconship] be not
blamed;''seeing we have this ministry [deaconship],''putting me into the ministry [deaconship],' and more
especially'apostles, prophets, evangelists,' &c., are all
said to have been given for the work of the ministry
[deaconship], (2 Cor. 5: 18. 6: 3. 4: 1. 1 Tim. 1: 12.
Eph. 4: 11, 12), in all which passages the word deaconship,;aKacovla, the appellation strictly of a sacred body
of men, or of their office, includes, nay, signifies chiefly,
those who are superior to deacons.  The word'presbytery,' therefore, being no more definite than'ministry' or' deaconship,' cannot explain itself in favour of
our opponents."   "The mere expression presbytery,
therefore, does not explain itself and cannot of itself
be adduced in favour of parity."*
These quotations from  an  argument against the
doctrine here defended, are not made for the sake
of the specific application  of an  important principle, but for the sake of the principle itself, which
is, that names of office  "do  not explain  themselves," and  "cannot of themselves be adduced in
favour" of either side of the question.   An  ob* Episcopacy Examined and Re-examined, pp. 20, 21.




PERPETUITY OF THE APOSTLESHIP.o             8
vious deduction from  this rule is, that the bare use
of the name 4 apostle" can prove nothing as to the
precise rank of the men to whom it is applied, which
can only be determined by a careful collation of the
general usage with the context in any given case. Let
us proceed to this comparison; but first let us consider
the analogous usage of the other titles which have been
enumerated, and which are employed to  designate
ecclesiastical office.  In order to secure a satisfactory
result, it will be best to survey them seriatim.
1. fipeo-a/3trepo  sometimes means older, as an adjective in the comparative degree (Luke 15: 25. John
8: 9); sometimes an old mnan in the proper sense
(1 Tim. 5: 1, where it is put in opposition to Wpac3/v8
zepa); sometimes an officer or magistrate under the
Jewish commonwealth  (Matt. 21: 23. Mark 15: 1.
Luke 7: 3. Acts 4-: 8); sometimes an officer of the
Christian Church (Acts 15: 2. 20: 17. 1 Tim. 5:  19.
Tit. 1: 5. Jas. 5: 14).
2.'EvrlrK/co7o3 (which occurs only five times in the
New  Testament) is in one case applied to the Lord
Jesus Christ as the HlTead of the Church, or the spiritual
guardian of the souls of all believers (1 Peter 2: 25).
Elsewhere it denotes the official overseer of a particular church or congregation (Acts 20: 28. Phil. 1: 1.
1 Tim. 3: 2. Tit. 1: 7).
3. ALaKovog sometimes means a menial servant, a
domestic (iMatt. 20: 26. 22: 13. 23: 11. John 2: 5, 9);
sometimes a minister or agent either of good or evil
(Gal. 2: 17. 2 Cor. 11: 15); sometimes a secular representative of God (tRom. 13: 4); sometimes a minister
of the old dispensation (orom. 15: 8); sometimes a min-,
ister of the Christian Church generally, without regard




86                     ESSAY III.
to rank (2 Cor, 3: 6. 11: 23. Eph. 3: 7. 6: 21, Col,
1:7, 23, 25. 4: 7  1 Thess. 3: 2. 1 Tim. 4: 6); sometimes a ceacon, the lowest order of clhrch-officers
(Phil. 1: 1. 1 Tim. 3: 8, 12).
4. THoLt)v sometimes means a literal shepherd
(Matt. 25: 32. Luke 2: 8, 15, 18, 20); sometimes a
spiritual pastor, both in reference to Christ himself
(Matt. 26: 31. John 10: 2, 11, 12, 14, 16. Heb. 13: 20.
1 Pet. 2: 25), and to his ministers (Epho 4: 11).
5,  tSlaoaKcaXo? sometimes means a teacher generally, as opposed to a learner or disciple (Matt. 10:25.
Rom, 2: 20); sometimes a public teacher of religion
(Luke 2: 46. John 3  2, 10. Heb. 5  12. James 3: 1),
especially the founder of a school or sect (Matt. 9:
11. 17: 24. Luke 18: 18); sometimes an official teacher
in the Christian Church (Acts 13: 1. 1 Cor. 12: 28, 29.
Eph. 4: 11  1 Tim. 2: 7. 2 Tim.  1: 11  4: 3).
6. IHpocbTrr' once means a poet, regarded by the
heathen as inspired (Tit. 1: 12).  Elsewhere it means,
sometimes a prophet of the old dispensation (Matt. 1:
22. 8: 17, etc.), sometimes an inspired teacher in the
Christian Church (Acts 13: 1. 1 Cor. 12:28, 289. 14:
29 32 37. Eph. 4: 11).
7. "Ay7eXog sometimes means a human messenger
(Luke 9: 52); sometimes a spirit, good or bad (Matt.: 20. 25: 41. Rev. 3: 5); sometimes an ecclesiastical
superior (Rev. 1:20. 2:1, 8 12,18. 3: 1, 7, 14).
Now if a7ro-TroXo' has one invariable meaning in
the New Testament, it is contrary, not only to what
might have been expected from  the origin and previous usage of the term, but also to the analogy of
the other terms used in the New Testament, to designate ecclesiastical office   The only probable supposi



PERPETUITY OF THE APOSTLESHIP.            87
tion a priori is, that it would have the same variety of
meaning as the rest. Now of the seven terms, which
we have been considering, the three which occur most
frequently in application to ecclesiastical office, have a
threefold usage perfectly distinguishable.  They are
all used in a popular sense, in a general religious sense,
and in a specific ecclesiastical sense. Thus 7rpea-fvTepos is used, in a popular sense, to signify an old man;
in a general religious sense, to signify a minister of
any rank; and in a strict ecclesiastical sense to signify
a presbyter.  The popular sense of &LacoKvoS is a servant, its more restricted sense a minister, its most restricted sense a deacon.  The widest sense of   a'o-KcaXos is a teacher of any kind; its more restricted sense
a religious teacher; its most restricted sense, an authorized official teacher in the Christian Church. The
three corresponding senses of the word a7rwo-ToXos
would be: a messenger of any kind; a religious messenger or missionary; an apostle in the strict official sense before described. And this distinction,
suggested by analogy, is verified by usage. The first of
these senses occurs in John 13: 16, "the servant is not
greater than his lord, neither he that is sent (a7roo-roXos) greater than he that sent him."  Here daroo-ToXo9
stands in the same relation to the sender, as the servant
to the lord.  The second sense occurs in Rom. 11: 13,
where ei^cv aC7roTo-Xo9 means not merely a Christian
teacher of the highest rank, but one sent out as a missionary to the heathen.  The same idea is still more
clearly expressed in 1 Tim. 2: 7, where the collocation
of the words connects doTror-oXo?, in a peculiar manner,
with K  pv~ and   laToicaXos C'rvwJv.  The very same
form of speech is repeated in 2 Tim. 1: 11. In neither




88                   ESSAY III.
of these cases would the word bishop, in the modern
sense, seem natural in such a position.  If a7TroToXoso
is here used in the technical sense, without any special
reference to its etymology, why is it thus twice placed
between the titles preacher and teacher of the Gentiles? These remarks are not designed to show, that
Paul was not an Apostle in the strict sense, but that
the word is sometimes used with special reference to
its etymology, and in its secondary sense of a religious
messenger or missionary. The third or strict sense is
the usual one, and need not be exemplified.
Let us now apply this usage of the term  to the
three cases which remain to be considered. 1. It appears from Phil. 4: 10-18, that the Philippian Christians had sent a present to Paul at Rome, by the hands
of Epaphroditus. For this act of benevolence the apostle heartily commends and thanks them in the passage
just referred to.  It is a certain fact, then, that Epaphroditus was a messenger from them  to Paul, for the
specific purpose of supplying his necessities.  When,
therefore, in a former part of the same letter (ch. 2: 25)
Epaphroditus is described in these terms, "Epaphroditus, my brother and companion in labour and fellowsoldier but your dro'r-oXos," which is more probable,
that it means an Apostle in the strict sense, or a messenger?  The solution of this question is made still
more easy by the words which are added —XeLroVp7yov T- p XpeClaS  uov-which are clearly explanatory of
vIwv Be a7drOToov.P. This interpretation of caroo-ToXo9
not only deducts one from the alleged proofs of an addition to the number of apostles, but adds one to the
proofs that adv6o-ro;Xo is sometimes used in the sense
of messenger.




PERPETUITY OF THE APOSTLESHIP.         89
2. It appears from 2 Cor. 8: 16-22, that Titus, in
compliance with Paul's request and his own strong
inclination, was about to visit Corinth, and that Paul
sent with him "the brother whose praise was in the
gospel throughout all the churches," and also another
"brother, whom (says he) we have oftentimes proved
diligent in many things, but now much more diligent
upon the great confidence which I have in you." Of
these two persons who accompanied Titus, one is expressly said to have been " chosen of the churches to
travel with us [i. e. Paul], with this grace which is
administered by us, to the glory of the same Lord and
declaration of your ready mind." He was therefore a
messenger of the churches, and both he and the other
companion of Titus were messengers of Paul to the
church at Corinth; and the other would even seem,
from the last clause of v. 22, to have been a messenger
from that church to Paul. These facts afford sufficient
data for the decision of the question as to the sense of
the word a7r6o-roXot in the following sentence. " Whether any do inquire of Titus, he is my partner and
fellow-helper concerning you; or our brethren be inquired of, they are the Tw6a-TroXot of the churches, and
the glory of Christ" (2 Cor. 8:23). Here are two
cases, then, in which the word is applied to persons,
who are not known to have been bishops, but who
are known to have been messengers, and are so described in the context. This prepares us for the only
remaining case, that of Barnabas.
3. Acts 14: 4, 14. In order to understand this
case aright, it is necessary to bear in mind the nature
of the work, in which Paul and Barnabas were then
engaged. This may be stated in the words of a fa



90                   ESSAY III.
vourite episcopal writer.  "That this transaction at
Antioch [Acts 13: 1] related only to a special missionary'work,' will be found sufficiently clear by those
who will trace Paul and Barnabas through that work,
from Acts 13: 4 to 14: 26; where its conpletion is
recorded-' and thence sailed to Antioch from whence
they had been recommended to the grace of God for
the work which they fulfilled.'  This'work,' their
missionary tour, being' fulfilled,' all was fulfilled that
had been required by the Holy Ghost, when he had
them'separated' or'recommended to the grace of
God''for the work to which he had called them.'
This call, therefore, this separation, this'work,' related only to a particular mission. And this laying
on of hands was no ordination, but a lesser ceremony,
which has no bearing on the controversy between
parity and episcopacy."  "When the latter [i. e. Barnabas] had been made an Apostle, we know not; neither do we know when James the brother of the Lord,
Sylvanus, etc., were admitted to that office."*
The case then stands thus: two men are called
atvro-ToXot, one of whom we know to have been an
Apostle in the highest sense; but when the other
"had been made an Apostle, we know not."  From
this application of the term our opponents infer that
both were Apostles in the strict sense. To this we
might reply that Barnabas is here called an Apostle in
the strict sense, or rather included in the term advr6ooXot-for he is never so called separately, although often
mentioned, and several times described (Acts 4: 36.
9: 27. 11: 24. 13: 1. 15: 35)-merely because he was
Paul's colleague in this work, just as Silas is included
* Episcopacy Examined and Re-examined, pp. 17, 18.




PERPETUITY OF THE APOSTLESHIP.           91
in the description of "Roman citizens" (Acts 16: 37,
38), for no reason that appears but his connection
with Paul, who is expressly and repeatedly declared
to have been a Roman citizen (Acts 22: 25, 26, 27,
29. 23:27). Even granting, therefore, that a&rooroXo9 is here used in its strict sense, it is by no means
certain that it could have been applied, in that sense, to
Barnabas alone; the rather as we have found no other
case, in which it is so applied, either to him or any
other person not of the original thirteen.
So too on the other hand, even admitting that he
is individually styled an awr6o-ToXos, it does not follow
that he is so styled in the strict sense of the term.
The word, as we have seen, is used to denote three
things-(1) a messenger of any kind-(2) a religious
messenger or missionary-(3) an apostle in the strict
sense.  The name is here applied to a man who is nowhere else called an apostle or described as one, but
who was, at the very time referred to, engaged with
Paul in "a special missionary work," a "missionary
tour," to which the Holy Ghost had called them; for
"this call, this separation, this work, related only to a
particular mission." Under these circumstances, which
is more probable, that da7T-ToXoS, as thus used, means
a missionary, or that it means a supreme ruler of the
church, equal in rank to the original thirteen? If it
means the latter, it is singular, to say the least, that
Barnabas, who is so often mentioned and repeatedly
described, is nowhere else called an Apostle, which,
in the case supposed, was his grand distinction. But
if, on the other hand, he is so called in the lower sense,
it is easy to explain why he is nowhere else so called,
to wit, because his apostolic character was temporary.




92                  ESSAY III.
"This work, this missionary tour, being fulfilled, all
was fulfilled that had been required by the Holy
Ghost, when he had them separated or recommended
to the grace of God, for the work to which he had
called them. This call, this separation, this work,
related only to a particular mission." True, he afterwards went out upon a similar mission, but not, as it
would seem, under church authority, nor is the narrative of that mission upon record. Paul, on the contrary, was still an Apostle, and is still so called, which
makes it at least probable that he was an Apostle in a
higher sense than Barnabas.
Still it may be argued that as both are called Apostles, and as Paul was certainly one in the highest sense,
the inference is plain that Barnabas was also an Apostle in the highest sense. This would be valid reasoning if it were not equally certain that Paul was an
Apostle in the lower sense too. One of the senses of
the word applies to both; another applies certainly to
one of them. Which is more reasonable, to infer that
the latter applied also to the other, or to infer that the
former is the sense here intended? In the one case,
this solitary passage is adduced to prove what is nowhere else recorded, viz. that Barnabas was strictly
an Apostle. In the other case, nothing is assumed or
supposed to be here proved, but what is clearly revealed elsewhere, viz. that both Barnabas and Paul
were missionaries.
The argument admits of a familiar illustration.
In the foreign missions of our own and other churches,
the word "missionary" has a double sense; a strict
one applicable only to ordained ministers or clergymen, and a wider one including lay-assistants.  The




PERPETUITY OF THE.APOSTLESHIP.        93
first is considered the most proper, and is certainly the
most usual sense; but the other does undoubtedly
occur, even in the official documents of missionary
boards, especially when several or all of those engaged
in the work are spoken of collectively. Let us suppose then that in a certain mission two persons, A and
B, have long been labouring, the first as a preacher,
the second as a lay-assistant, but that in some one report or journal they are twice mentioned by the common name of missionaries, and it becomes a question
with some readers of the document, whether B was
not an ordained minister. On examining the series of
reports and journals, it is found that B is nowhere
else even called a missionary, and that in the case in
question no act is ascribed to him which necessarily
implies that he is an ordained minister. From these
premises two opposite inferences are drawn. The one
is, that as A is certainly a clergyman, and as both are
called missionaries, B must be a clergyman also. The
other is, that as B is nowhere else represented as a
clergyman, and as both he and A are certainly missionaries in a wider sense, that is the sense in which
the term is used. Without insisting on a choice between these opposite deductions, as entirely conclusive,
we may ask what would be thought of an argument
to prove a doubtful point, as to the organization of
the mission, from the mere application of the term in
such a case? But-in the case of Barnabas there is this
distinctive circumstance, that the -antecedent probability is in favour of the supposition, that the apostolic
office, in the strict sense, was confined to a certain
number of persons, among whom Barnabas was not;
and that this presumption can only be removed by
positive proof that he was an Apostle.




94                   ESSAY III.
The amount, then, of the argument from names is
this, that of five cases, in which the name apostle is
said to be applied to persons not of the original thirteen, there are two in which the application is itself
disputed, and at least so far doubtful as to render them
unfit to be relied on as proofs; while in these cases,
and in all the rest, the word either requires or admits
another sense than that of an Apostle proper. These
cases, therefore, make no change in the truth of the
general proposition, that the extension of the Apostolic office to persons not of the original thirteen, is
nowhere taught in Scripture, either directly, by explicit assertion of the fact, or indirectly, by the application of the name Apostle, in its strict and highest
sense.
III. A  third argument in favour of the proposition, that the Apostolic office was a temporary one,
is that the qualifications for the Apostleship, as a permanent office in the church, are nowhere stated.
Even supposing that an explicit statement of the fact
might easily have been omitted, which is not the
case, and that the absence of any unequivocal application of the name may be accounted for, which seems
impossible, the question still arises, why are the qualifications of an "Apostle-bishop" not revealed?  It is
not enough to say, because Paul or Peter has not left
epistles to those who were to consecrate Apostlebishops. Granting the fact, why was not such a revelation made?  Were the instructions to Timothy and
Titus, as to "Presbyter-bishops," given without necessity? If not, why was not an occasion sought or
made for giving the qualifications of Apostles?  Because this office demands none in particular, or be



PERPETUITY OF THE APOSTLESHIP.         95
cause it is less important than the others? It may be
said, indeed, that we have no right to inquire why
certain things have been revealed and others not.
But this would be a mere evasion of the argument by
the misapplication of an acknowledged principle. The
question is not what should have been, but what has
been revealed; and if both parties are agreed that certain
offices are recognized in the New Testament, and the
qualifications for those offices carefully detailed, and if
one of the parties alleges that another office is there
recognized, the other party has a right to ask how the
omission of its qualifications is to be explained upon
the opposite hypothesis.  This would be the case,
even if the disputed office were the lowest. If, for
example, the qualifications of Deacons had nowhere
been given, the evidence of such an office, as a permanent order in the church, would be much less conclusive than that of the Presbyterate, although Deacons
are expressly mentioned, in connection with the Presbyters or Bishops, in two of Paul's epistles.  How
much inferior, then, is the evidence that Apostles were
permanent officers of the church, when both these
proofs are wanting! And how  much weaker still
when we consider the paramount importance attached
to the apostolic office by the adverse party!
Even admitting, then, that no occasion does present itself in the New Testament, as it stands, for the
detail of the qualifications of Apostles, that very circumstance increases, in a high degree, the improbability that such an office was intended to be permanently established. But this admission is gratuitous.
By whom were subsequent apostles to be consecrated,
if not by their predecessors in the office?  If, then,




96                   ESSAY III.
Timothy and Titus were apostles, and addressed as
such in Paul's epistles, why does he not instruct them
in relation to the paramount importance of admitting
only qualified men to that high station? Is it because
the same qualifications which are required in presbyters are also required in apostles? Even if this were
so, the great alleged superiority of the apostolic office
would entitle it to the honour of a separate enactment,
especially as presbyters and deacons are distinctly
treated, though the qualifications for these two offices
are almost identical.  This difficulty is not merely
theoretical, but practical; for how are the qualifications of Apostle-bishops now to be determined? By
what test shall they be judged? Those described in
the first chapter of Acts are totally inapplicable to all
modern cases.  How  then is it to be ascertained
whether those admitted now to the alleged rank of
Apostles are as certainly possessed of the necessary
qualifications as Presbyters and Deacons, who are tried
by the directions which Paul gave to Timothy and
Titus?  It is not pretended that this omission is itself
sufficient to disprove the perpetuity of the Apostolic
office, but merely that it renders it so far improbable
as to require the most explicit proof to establish it.
But even this is not a full view of the subject of
apostolical qualifications. It is not only true that no
account is given of the qualifications of Apostlebishops, as permanent officers in the church, after it
had been planted by the original Apostles; but also
that the qualifications which are given of an original
Apostle are of such a nature as to discountenance, in
a high degree, the opinion that the office was intended
to be permanent. When the death of Judas made a




PERPETUITY OF THE APOSTLESHIP.         97
vacancy in the apostolic body, the disciples proceeded
to elect a successor, and Peter, in the name of the
eleven, declared the qualifications which were requisite.
These were, first, that the candidate should have been
one of Christ's original followers; secondly, that he
should be a witness of the resurrection (Acts 1: 21, 22).
The obvious prima facie inference from this is certainly that none could be apostles who were destitute
of these qualifications.  And this is very much confirmed by the case of Paul, who seems not to have
known the Saviour personally, during his abode on
the earth, but who, in vindicating his own claim to an
equality of rank with the eleven, says expressly,
"Have I not seen the Lord Jesus?"-thereby admitting that to have seen him was necessary to the apostolic character. This might be urged, with plausibility
at least, as a direct proof that the Apostolic office was
a temporary one, because the number of those wio
had actually seen Christ after his resurrection was
limited, and must soon be exhausted. All that is
now alleged, however, is that the absence of express
declarations that the Apostolic office was continued in
the church, is the more difficult to be explained on the
opposite hypothesis, because when the qualifications of
church-officers are given, in two separate epistles,
those of Apostles are not included; and because the
only requisites prescribed in the election of a man to
fill a vacancy in the original apostolic body, are precisely such as cannot be possessed by any men at
present.
It may, however, be alleged, that although the
permanence of the apostolic office is not explicitly asserted, and although the qualifications of Apostle5




98                   ESSAY III.
bishops are not given, and although the name Apostle,
in its highest sense, is not applied to any but the
original thirteen; others are, nevertheless, spoken of
as actually exercising apostolic powers, and that as it
is the thing, and not the name, which is really in
question, this is sufficient to establish the perpetuity
of the Apostleship. Before proceeding to examine
the grounds of this allegation, there are two preliminary observations to be made upon it.
1. The omission of the name Apostle is by no
means an unimportant circumstance.  The title was
not so regarded in the original institution. It did not
grow out of circumstances, nor was it, in any sense,
the result of accident. It is not said, in an incidental
way, that the twelve were called apostles, as it is said
that the disciples were called Christians at Antioch;
but we are told, that our Lord " called unto him his
disciples, and of them he chose twelve, whom also HE
NAMED APOSTLES" (Luke 6: 13). The office and the
name were conferred by the same authority. When
the persons thus chosen are afterwards mentioned, it
is commonly by the name which Christ bestowed at
first, or by that of " the twelve," denoting their limited
number. After our Lord's ascension, there seems to be
no instance of the Apostles, in the strict sense, being
called by any indefinite name. Now these two facts,
that the name was coeval with the office and recorded as
a matter of some moment, and that the original Apostles are almost always, and after Christ's ascension always, called by it or some other title equally definite,
render it a priori highly probable, that if the office
was to be continued, the name would be continued
with it; and that if continued in common parlance, it




PERPETUITY OF THE APOSTLESHIP.          99
would be applied in the New Testament; and that if
applied at all, it would be applied with greater frequency than ever after the name had been extended
to a multitude of persons. How is it that as the number of apostles increased, the mention of the name becomes less frequent, even when the organization of the
church and the qualifications of its officers are the
subject of discourse? These considerations will perhaps suffice to show, that the failure to establish the
explicit application of the name Apostle to the alleged
successors of the original thirteen is by no means a
matter of indifference, even if it can be shown that
they possessed and exercised apostolic powers. Not
that the actual possession and exercise of peculiar apostolic powers does not prove them to have been apostles; but the omission of the title makes it harder
to establish the fact of such possession and exercise,
and entitles us to call for more explicit proof than
might otherwise be necessary.
2. Before the exercise of apostolic powers by persons not of the original thirteen can be adduced in
proof of the permanent continuance of the apostolic
office, it must be determined what are apostolic powers. It cannot mean all the powers of the original
apostles; for some of these are admitted, on both sides,
to have ceased. It cannot mean any of these powers
indefinitely; for some of them are admitted, on both
sides, to be lawfully exercised by presbyters; and this
would prove that presbyters are the successors of the
apostles in the highest of their powers which did not
cease. If the possession of any apostolic powers is a
proof of the succession, then the succession is in presbyters. If the possession of all the apostolic powers is




100                 ESSAY III.
necessary to establish a succession, then there is none
at all. Either of these conclusions would be fatal to
the adverse argument, which cannot have the slightest
force, except on two conditions; first, that the apostolic powers, shown to have been exercised by persons
not of the original thirteen, be such as are not acknowledged to have ceased; and then, that they be such
as were not exercised by Presbyters. For if they were
powers possessed by Presbyters, their exercise proves
nothing but the continuance of that office, which is not
disputed; and if they were powers which have ceased,
their exercise in apostolic times proves nothing as to
the rights and powers of any office now existing in the
church.




ESSAY IV.
ON THE OFFICIAL RANK OF TIMOTHY AND TITUS.
I HAVE endeavoured to show that the Apostolic office
was not meant to be perpetual; first, because the continuance of the office is nowhere explicitly asserted;
secondly, because the name Apostle, in its strict and
proper sense, is not applied in the New Testament to
any who were not of the original thirteen; thirdly,
because the qualifications for the Apostleship, as a
permanent office in the church, are nowhere stated.
A fourth argument against the perpetuity of the
Apostolic office is, that no peculiar apostolic powers
are said in Scripture to have been exercised by any
person, who was not either an original Apostle or a
Presbyter.
The only cases commonly alleged by controversial
writers on this subject are those of Timothy and Titus,
and the allegation, even with respect to them, is not
founded on the historical statements of the New Testament, but on the instructions given them by Paul, in
his epistles addressed to them respectively. Let this
fact be duly noted and borne in mind, when we examine the proof from the epistles. If, in the Acts of




102                  ESSAY IV.
the Apostles, Timothy and Titus appeared as the
equals and colleagues of Paul, this would create a presumption in favour of their having been Apostles; and
this presumption would materially influence the interpretation of his epistles to them; that is to say,
expressions of a dubious import might be fairly interpreted so as to agree with the presumption afforded
by the history. But what is the true state of the case
in this respect?
The first mention of Timothy is in Acts 16: 1,
where we read that Paul came to Derbe and Lystra,
and found a certain disciple there, named Timotheus,
the son of a believing Jewess and of a Greek or
heathen father. The son was well reported of by the
brethren that were at Lystra and Iconium.  "Him
would Paul have to go forth with him, and took and
circumcised him, because of the Jews which were in
those quarters, for they all knew that his father was a
Greek."
In the subsequent narrative it is hard to tell
whether Timothy is represented as performing even
ordinary ministerial functions, as Silas was also in
Paul's company, and the plural forms of speech employed may be restricted to these two. In the account
of the persecution at Philippi (Acts 16: 19-40), Timothy is not mentioned, and in ch. 17: 4, 10, "Paul and
Silas" are mentioned without Timothy, who was still
in their company, however, as appears from  Acts
17: 14, 15. 18: 5. The omission of his name seems to
show that he was not so intimately related to Paul, at
this time, as Silas was. The office of Timothy would
indeed appear to have been precisely that which John
Mark sustained in Paul's first mission, namely, that




OFFICIAL RANK OF TIMOTHY.            103
of an v'rrJpeT+v, a personal attendant (Acts 13: 5). And
accordingly we find Timothy and Erastus afterwards
described by an equivalent expression, B5o 7TWv 8aKcovVo7VecV av7 (Acts 19: 22). They are called ministers,
not of God (2 Cor. 6: 4), not of Christ (2 Cor. 11: 23),
not of the gospel (Eph. 3: 7), not of the New Testament (2 Cor. 3: 6), not of the church (Col. 1:52), but
of Paul, i. e. personal attendants on him. Or if they
were ministers in a higher sense, their relative position,
with respect to Paul, was that of 83aKcovot to an official
superior.  Timothy next appears as the fifth in the
list of Paul's companions on his return from Greece to
Syria (Acts 20: 4), in which list Silas, Paul's colleague
in the mission, is not included. These are all the traces
which we find of Timothy in the Acts of the Apostles;
and in these, he acts no other part than that of an
attendant upon Paul.
That he became a minister, a BaiKcovo9 in the higher
sense, a presbyter, a preacher of the gospel, is admitted.
Hence in the epistle to the Romans (16:21), Paul
speaks of him as his " work-fellow," a title, however,
which would not have been inapplicable to him, even
as a lay attendant. In the first epistle to the Corinthians, he mentions him twice, once as his "beloved
son and faithful in the Lord" (ch. 4: 17), and again
as "one that worketh the work of the Lord as I also
do" (ch. 16: 10). That this does not imply official
equality between them  as Apostles, is clear, because
the terms are perfectly applicable to the ordinary work
of the ministry; because the phrase "worketh the
work of the Lord" is more applicable to the ordinary
work of the ministry than to peculiar apostolic functions; and because in this very epistle (ch. 4: 17.




104                  ESSAY IV.
16: 10, 11), Paul directs the movements of Timothy,
as those of an inferior.
In the second epistle to the Corinthians, Timothy
is mentioned in the title as follows: " Paul an Apostle
of Jesus Christ by the will of God, and Timothy the
brother."  If *Timothy had been then an Apostle,
could there have been a more appropriate occasion so
to call him? Could it well have been avoided? And
if the mention of his apostolic character had been neglected once, could the omission be repeated as it is in
the title of Colossians?  It may indeed be said that in
the title of the epistle to Philemon, Paul is called "a
prisoner of Jesus Christ" and Timothy " a brother,"
whereas both were prisoners.  But in Heb. 13: 23, an
epistle of the same date, it is said, "know ye that our
brother Timothy is set at liberty.  Besides, SGe/Luoi is
no title of office like air6TrooXos.
This argument from the use of the word "brother,"
where "Apostle" might have been expected, has been
very summarily set aside as follows. " Why does Paul
in some places call himself an Apostle, and Timothy
only a brother?.... Really it is too late to inquire;
but the fact has not the least bearing on the point in
question.  The Apostles were brethren to each other;
the elders were brethren to the Apostles, so were the
deacons; so were the laity. The circumstance, therefore, of Paul's calling Timothy a brother, while he
calls himself an Apostle, proves no more that Timothy
was not an Apostle, than it does that he was not a
clergyman at all, but only a layman.".
This explanation takes for granted, that the argument, to which it is an answer, depends for its
* Episcopacy Examined and Re-examined, p. 50.




OFFICIAL RANK OF TIMOTHY.           105
validity upon  the meaning of the word  86eXo69,
which is not the case.  The argument is not that
Timothy was no Apostle because Paul calls him  a
brother, but because Paul does not call him an Apostle
when he calls himself one.  The case would have
been substantially the same, if any other title had
been given to Timothy, or none at all.  If, for
example, he had said, "Paul an Apostle of Jesus
Christ, and Timothy," the inference would still have
been that Timothy was no Apostle, not because Paul
describes him as being something else, but because he
does not describe him as being an Apostle, in the very
circumstances where such a description, if consistent
with the fact, would seem to be unavoidable. It matters
not, then, how vague or indecisive the term "brother"
may be, in itself considered, or when separately used.
If Paul had merely called Timothy "a brother," the
term  would have had no distinctive meaning; but
when put in opposition to "apostle," it becomes distinctive, as in Acts 15: 23, where "apostles, presbyters,
and brethren" are enumerated. Are not three distinct
classes here intended? Yet "the apostles were brethren to each other, the elders were brethren to the apostles, so were the laity."  But the vague term brethren,
when connected with the specific titles apostles and
elders, itself acquires a specific meaning.
That this is the case in Acts 15: 6, 23, may be
proved by the same high authority which denies it in
the case before us. "These two classes of ministers
are distinguished from each other in the passages
which speak of them  as'apostles and elders,' or
which enumerate'apostles and elders and brethren,'
or the laity.  If'priests and levites,' if'bishops




106                  ESSAY IV.
and deacons,' are allowed to be distinct orders, if'apostles and brethren' are also allowed to be distinct orders, then on the same principle that the
conjunction is not exegetical,'apostles and elders'
may fairly  be accounted distinct orders likewise.
And as in the expression'apostles and elders and
brethren' severalty is unquestionably implied between
the latter of these three classes and the others, it must
as clearly be implied between the former two. Apostles were therefore one class, and elders  another
class, just as the laity were a third class."*
There seems to be no reason why the principle thus
clearly and correctly stated in relation to the plural
forms "apostles and brethren," should not apply to
the singular forms " apostle and brother." If it be said
that in the latter case, a8eXoS' is not the specific designation of a class, as JaEXkbolis in the other, it may be replied
that a8eXkboLowes its specific meaning to its combination
with two other terms of office. This may be rendered
clear by supposing that certain persons had been mentioned in Acts xv. as ol aieX2qo' simply, without the
use of any other title. The term would then be perfectly indefinite, and we should be left to gather from
the context or to guess whether it signified apostles,
or apostles and elders, or the whole body of believers.
But when employed in combination with the other
terms, it necessarily acquires a distinct sense analogous to them.  Why then is not the same effect produced upon the meaning of the singular 4aeXo's by its
combination with the singular aiTocrooXo0?  It is not
disputed that the latter is as much a name of office as
ac7rTo-ToXo in Acts XV.  There is no reason therefore
* Episcopacy Examined and Re-examined, pp. 14. 15.




OFFICIAL RANK OF TIMOTHY.            107
for supposing that a8eXo6S is not as distinctive in its
meaning as a&eXbol.
The perfect analogy between the cases will be
clear if we advert to the grammatical principle on
which the general expression brethren, as used in
Acts, acquires a specific meaning. Since the name,
in itself, was applicable to the apostles and presbyters as well as the lay-brethren, it would embrace
them  all unless its meaning had been limited by
the express mention of two classes comprehended
under the generic term.  That is to say, the name
a,3eXol, comprehends apostles, presbyters, and private
Christians, and when used alone might be naturally
understood to signify them all. But when either of
those classes is expressly mentioned by its proper title,
the general term, if still used, must of course be used
to signify the rest.  Thus "apostles and elders and
brethren" means "apostles and elders (who are not
apostles) and brethren (who are neither apostles nor
elders)." So too "an apostle and a brother" means
"an apostle and a brother (who is not an apostle)."
Or if it does not, some reason should be given for the
use of an expression which seems just as distinctive
as the one in Acts.
I have said, however, that the strength of the argument does not depend upon the meaning of aG&Xos, and
that even if that word had been omitted, the natural inference would still have been that Timothy was no Apostle. This admits of illustration from analogy. When
Cicero and Antony were consuls, it is scarcely conceivable that a joint official letter from them could have been
inscribed as follows: " M. T. Cicero Consul et M. Antonius Civis Romanus." Such an inscription would have




108                 ESSAY IV.
been universally regarded as presumptive evidence
that the Antony thus mentioned was not at the time
consul; a presumption capable of being removed, but
only by positive proof of the most conclusive kind,
including the assignment of some reason for the obvious distinction drawn between the colleagues. But
why should such proof be required?  The terms of
the inscription would be absolutely true, even if Antony was consul; for both he and his colleague were
Roman citizens, and there is nothing inconsistent with
the fact in giving Cicero a specific name and Antony
a generic one. All this is true, and yet it would be
wholly inconclusive for this reason, that the inference,
as to Antony's not being consul, was not founded on
the truth or falsehood of the title civis, nor on its general or specific sense, but on the unaccountable distinction drawn between him and his colleague, by the
marked application of the official title to one of them
exclusively.
This view of the matter serves to show the fallacy
involved in the assertion that "Paul's calling Timothy a brother, while he calls himself an Apostle,
proves no more that Timothy was not an Apostle
than it does that he was not a clergyman at all, but
only a layman." The inference that Timothy was no
Apostle is deduced from the distinction so expressly
made between him and Paul as an Apostle. There is
no such distinction made between him and Paul as a
clergyman or minister, and therefore there is no ground
for the inference that Timothy was "only a layman."
An argument founded on the express mention of a
certain office, however little it may prove as to that
office, cannot prove as much, because it can prove




OFFICIAL RANK OF TIMOTHY.         109
nothing, as to an office which is not mentioned at all.
If we read, in a Presbyterian publication, of " A. B.
the pastor and C. D. a member of the church," although
we know that, according to our constitution, pastors are
always elders, and elders are always members of the
church, we should certainly infer, with absolute certainty, that C. D. was not a collegiate pastor with
A. B., nor would our confidence in this conclusion be
at all impaired by being told, that the writer's calling
C. D. a church-member no more proved that he was
not a pastor than it proved that he was not an elder.
If again we read, in an Episcopal journal, of "Bishop
Potter and Dr. Dorr," we should certainly regard the
very form of the expression as sufficient to evince that
Dr. Dorr was not Assistant Bishop of Pennsylvania,
even in spite of the assurance that the terms used no
more prove that Dr. D. is not a bishop, than they prove
that he is not a presbyter, because bishops, presbyters,
deacons, and even laymen, may be doctors. In both
these cases, as in that which they are used to illustrate,
every reader feels that, if the higher title belonged
equally to both the persons mentioned, its being applied to one, and not the other, would be an anomaly
requiring explanation, in default of which the inference
seems unavoidable, that the application was designed
to be exclusive; or, in other words, that when Paul,
in two epistles, calls himself an apostle and Timothy
a brother, he excludes the latter from the rank of an
apostle.
In the epistle to the Philippians (2: 19-23) we find
Paul proposing to send Timothy to them, and describing him  as one like-minded, who would naturally
care for their state, who had served with Paul in




110                  ESSAY Iv,
the gospel, as a son with a father.  These expressions
are not only reconcilable with the supposition, that
Timothy, although a presbyter, was Paul's inferior and
under his direction, but agree far better with that supposition than with the supposition that he was Paul's
equal, a "supreme" Apostle.  In the epistles to the
Thessalonians, Silas (or Silvanus) and Timothy are
joined with Paul in the inscriptions. It has never
been contended that this of itself implies equality of
rank; and that it does not, is sufficiently apparent
from 1 Thess. 3: 2, where Paul again appears directing
Timothy's movements, and where Timothy is described
as a brother, a minister of God, a fellow-labourer in
the gospel of Christ, but not as an Apostle. And yet
here, if anywhere, the introduction of that title would
have been not only natural, but almost unavoidable,
had Timothy been really entitled to it.
These are all the cases in which Timothy is mentioned, except in the epistles addressed to himself, and
from a view of the whole it would appear, that in the
history he is mentioned only as a personal attendant
upon Paul; that in the epistles, he appears as a minister
of God, a preacher of Christ, a fellow-labonrer of Paul
in the gospel, all which expressions are applicable to
him as a presbyter, and cannot therefore furnish any
proof that he was an Apostle; that he is never expressly called an Apostle, even when he is particularly mentioned and described, and when the omission
of the title could not fail, on any ordinary principle of
interpretation, to distinguish him  from Paul who is
described as an Apostle; that while he is nowhere
represented as performing apostolic acts, he is repeatedly described as being subject to Paul's orders and




OFFICIAL RANK OF TIMOTHY.            111
directions, a fact which harmonizes perfectly with the
supposition of his official inferiority, and can only be
reconciled with any other by means of forced constructions and gratuitous assumptions. This view of Timothy's official character, as it appears in the other epistles and the Acts of the Apostles, will prepare us for
the consideration of the two epistles to himself, and
for the question, whether these epistles contain proof
of his apostleship so clear as to invalidate the strong
presumption, that he was officially inferior to Paul.
In the title or inscription of the first epistle, Paul
addresses Timothy as his " own son in the faith," and
in that of the second as his "dearly beloved son."
These epithets prove nothing, as to official rank or
power, and are only remarkable as additional instances
of the consistent uniformity with which the name
Apostle is withheld from Timothy, whether in speaking to or of him.
From 1 Tim. 1: 3, it appears that, when Paul went
into Macedonia, he left Timothy in Ephesus, that he
might, "charge some to teach no other doctrines,
neither give heed to fables," etc. This charge he is
again said, in v. 18, to have committed to Timothy,
according to the prophecies which went before upon
him. The phrase " this charge" must refer either to
the "ministry" which Paul himself had received, according to v. 12, or to the charge mentioned in v. 3.
If it means the former, the word  laKovt'a, being applicable to all ranks, proves nothing as to Timothy's
apostleship. But that it means the latter appears more
probable, from  the parenthetical character of the
whole intervening passage, vs. 5-17, as well as from
the verbal correspondence between 7rapayyeiXcl   (v. 3)
and 7rapayyeXyMav (vs. 5, 18).




112                 ESSAY IV.
The second chapter contains directions with respect
to public prayer, its subjects (vs. 1-7), the persons
permitted to perform it (v. 8), and the duty of women
with respect to public worship (vs. 9-15). No personal
agency is expressly ascribed to Timothy, but it is
evidently implied that he was to enforce these regulations, and of course that he was clothed with power
so to do.
The third chapter contains the qualifications of
bishops and deacons. Here again no personal agency
is ascribed to Timothy. It is said, indeed, in v. 14,
" these things write I unto thee, hoping to come unto
thee shortly; but if I tarry long, that thou mayest
know how to behave thyself in the house of God,
which is the church," etc. This might possibly refer
to Timothy's own conduct in one of the two offices
which had just been described, or in both, for the
greater includes the less. But when taken in connection with the "charge" mentioned in ch. 1: 3, 18, it
seems to imply that these directions are given to him,
because he would be called upon to ordain others,
and that he might know what qualifications to require.
In the fourth chapter, after enumerating certain
heretical and fanatical errors which were to be looked
for, Paul says to Timothy (v. 6), "if thou put the
brethren in remembrance of these things, thou shalt be
a good minister of Jesus Christ," etc. The "brethren,"
whom Timothy was thus to "put in remembrance," may
have been either brethren in the ministry, or laymen,
or the whole Christian brotherhood, including both.
In relation to these and some other matters, the Apostle adds, "these things command and teach" (v. 11).
He then exhorts him to avoid contempt, by setting




OFFICIAL RANK OF TIMOTHY.          113
an example of consistent conduct, purity, etc., adding
"till I come, give attendance to reading, to exhortation, to doctrine" (v. 13). This implies that when
Paul did come, he would give him more particular
directions for his subsequent conduct, a suggestion
which by no means favours, though it may not directly impugn, the hypothesis of Timothy's apostleship.
The important passage, 1 Tim. 4: 14, having been
examined at length in a former essay, is here omitted.
In ch. 4: 15, Paul exhorts Timothy to meditate on
these instructions, and to give himself wholly to his
work, that his improvement (7rpoKoTrr) might appear
to all.  This, to say the least, is more in accordance
with the supposition, that the person thus addressed
was a young preacher, of the common rank, who had
a character to form and influence to gain, than that he
was a " supreme apostle," the official equal of the person writing. In the next verse (ch. 4: 16) Paul exhorts him to take heed to himself (i. e. his personal
deportment and hopes), and to his doctrine (what he
preached), and to continue in them, because in so doing
he would both save himself and those who heard him.
Timothy here appears in the character of a preacher,
without any allusion to higher powers than might have
belonged to an ordinary presbyter.
In ch. 5: 1, he is told not to rebuke an elder, but
entreat him as a father. Even if rpeo-,rf'epo9 had here
its technical meaning, as a name of office, the passage
would prove nothing as to Timothy's official rank, because upon the supposition that he was a presbyter,
nothing could be more natural than the exhortation
not to rebuke a brother presbyter, but to entreat him.
But that 7'peo-rivT-epo< is here used in its primary and




114                  ESSAY IV.
proper sense, that of an old man, is apparent from the
whole drift of the passage, and especially from the antithetical relation which 7rpeo-fvT'rp  sustains to vewCepovs in the same verse and 7-peofv/3v-paS in the next.
In v. 7, he is commanded to give these things in
charge (rrapay7eXXe), which implies that he was vested
with authority to reprove and exhort both old and
young, and to regulate the conduct of the church
towards widows as the object of their charity. The
same may be said of v. 11 and the intervening verses,
and indeed of the whole passage ending with v. 15.
1 Tim. 5: 17 has been a subject of much controversy, as to the questions whether 7rpeo-VrTepo& means
old men in the popular, or elders in the official sense;
and whether a distinction is here recognized between
the two classes of teaching and ruling elders. The
discussion of these questions would be foreign from my
present purpose.  Whether ruling elders, as distinct
from preachers of the gospel, are here spoken of or
not, it is admitted upon all hands that the text relates
to presbyters or elders in the highest sense, and it will
therefore be sufficient for the present purpose to assume that they alone are mentioned. It appears, then,
that Timothy is here directed, at least by implication,
to treat certain presbyters with particular respect.
This does not necessarily imply that he was their superior; for the very same exhortation might have been
addressed to the people, who seem indeed to be included in the exhortation, as the indefinite passive
form (t:Lovaf-oa-av) is used, instead of a direct address
to Timothy. If Paul, in writing to the whole church,
might have said, " Let the presbyters who rule well
be counted worthy of double honour," without imply



OFFICIAL RANK OF TIMOTHY.            115
ing that the presbyters were subject to the body of the
brethren, his use of the same form of speech to Timothy
cannot possibly prove that they were subject to him.
But one thing it does prove, of a very different nature,
to wit, that Presbyters were rulers in the church, and
not mere agents of " apostle-bishops." It may be said,
that 7rpoeo-7TW0TE merely means presiding or holding the
first place. This is a question to be settled by usage.
In Rom. 12:8, o 7rpoio-ardevo  cannot denote
mere rank or conspicuous position, for two reasons;
because a man could not be exhorted to hold such a
position "with diligence;" and because all the other
terms connected with it denote specific actions. The
same thing is evident from the collocation of 7rpoia-TazEPvovI, in 1 Thess. 5: 12, between cKOrrt&vT7a and vovreTovvTa, both denoting specific functions of the ministry. In 1 Tim. 3: 4, Paul requires a bishop to be one
that ruleth well (IaXwi 7rpoio-Tacevov) his own house,
which can hardly mean one who holds the first place
in it, without any original jurisdiction over it. The
same remark applies to v. 12, where the deacons are
described as ruling (7rpoorTafervoL) their children and
their households well.  Let the same sense which
7rpoi'T'aYLt, evidently has in these four cases, be applied
to that before us, and it becomes plain that presbyters
are spoken of as ruling just as really as bishops and
deacons are said to rule their own families.  That the
rule referred to is that of the church, appears from
what follows in the same verse as to labouring in word
and doctrine.  Here then is an explicit mention of
presbyters as rulers in the church, without any reference to a superior human power. Where shall we
find an equally distinct ascription of the ruling power




116                  ESSAY IV.
to Apostles, not of the original thirteen?  If here, as
in the case of rTpEo-t3vTEplov, it should be said, that
7rpe-r/3veCpo0  means Apostles, then, besides that the
assumption is entirely gratuitous, Timothy, according
to the adverse doctrine, was a hyper-apostolical churchofficer, not only ecjual but superior to Paul, who was
a mere Apostle.
"Against an elder receive not an accusation but
before two or three witnesses," i. e. upon their testimony (1 Tim. 5: 19). If 7rpecrf-,-epos  here means a
ruling elder, as distinguished from a preacher, this is
nothing more than a direction to a pastor with respect
to charges brought against ls assessors. But granting
that the word is here to be taken in its highest sense,
what does this verse prove, as to Timothy's relative
position, with respect to these presbyters? Simply
this, that he was empowered to "receive an accusation" against them. There is nothing said of punishing, condemning, nor even of trying them.  The only
act mentioned is that of receiving  an accusation
against them.  For any thing that appears, the reference might be merely to accusations of a private kind,
which Timothy is cautioned not to "receive" without
satisfactory proof. But even granting that the reference is clearly to judicial process, it will only prove
tlhat Timothy had power to judge presbyters. From
this some argue  that, in judging  presbyters, he
held  an office superior to theirs.  Let us grant,
for a moment, that he did; this superior office may
have been a temporary one.  The most that can with
reason be inferred is that a presbyter was sometimes
clothed with extraordinary powers to try other presbyters.  Nor is there any thing unnatural or contrary




OFFICIAL RANK OF TIMOTHY.           117
to analogy in this hypothesis. The favourite privilege
of modern freemen is to be tried by their peers. If an
Apostle, or " Apostle-bishop," were accused, by whom
would he be tried?  By one or more of the same
order. Would it follow from this that the judges were
superior to the accused in permanent official rank?
There is no distinction between the cases arising from
the fact that Timothy alone is mentioned. Admitting
that the fact is so, although it may be customary, and
on the whole desirable, to appoint a plurality of
judges in such cases, there is nothing absurd in the
appointment of a single one. Some jurists have contended for such a constitution of all courts as the
most safe and reasonable. It is not asserted that
Timothy was clothed with this extraordinary power.
It is only asserted that this is quite as fair an inference from the proposed interpretation of the verse
before us, as the inference that Timothy must have
had a permanent office above that of presbyter, because he acted as the sole judge of presbyters.
But what proof is there that he was to be the sole
judge?  It has hitherto been granted, in order to
evince that, even in that case, nothing could be proved
as to his holding a superior rank. But the concession
was entirely gratuitous. It rests on nothing but the
fact that Paul's instructions are addressed to Timothy
in the second person singular, " Receive not THOU an
accusation."  Let us see what would follow from the
rigid application of this rule. If the singular form of
the command in question proves that Timothy alone
was to receive accusations against Presbyters, then the
similar form, used in other parts of the epistle, proves
that he alone was to war a good warfare, holding




118                 ESSAY IV.
faith and a good conscience (ch. 1:18, 19); that he
alone was to refuse profane and old wives' fables, and
exercise himself rather unto godliness (ch. 4: 7); that
he alone was to command and teach these things
(ch. 4: 11); that he alone was to be an example of the
believers in word, in conversation, in charity (ch. 4:
12); that he alone was to give attendance to reading,
to exhortation, to doctrine (ib. v. 13); that he alone
was to meditate upon these things and give himself
wholly to them (ib. v. 15); that he alone was to take
heed unto himself and to his doctrine, and to continue
in them (v. 16); that he alone had hearers, whose salvation or perdition was at stake (ib.). Is it valid reasoning to infer from these commands that Timothy
was the only preacher in Ephesus? If so, where were
his presbyters?  If not, why should the personal
address, in ch. 5: 19, prove any thing more, as to the
limitation of the powers and duties there referred to,
than it does in all the other cases above cited? If it
be asked, who else could be included in the exhortation, the answer is, they who held the same office, or
the Presbyters mentioned in the context. It is not
necessary for my present purpose to allege that this
must be the meaning. It is sufficient to maintain that
it may be, and that consequently there can be no just
ground for assuming that the official acts ascribed to
Timothy were exclusive acts.
If it be asked, why he is individually addressed,
and not as one of a number, it is a sufficient answer,
that Paul was writing to him alone, and that the acts
to be performed were individual acts, whether performed in conjunction with others or not.  If an
English Bishop should address a letter to an Ameri



OFFICIAL RANK OF TIMOTHY.          119
can one, advising him  as to the performance of his
duties, might he not naturally say to him, "I hope
my brother will be careful, both as to the persons
whom he admits to the episcopal office, and as to the
reception of charges against them, when they are admitted?" Would it be fair to infer from this that the
person addressed had the sole right of consecrating
bishops and of trying them?  Would not the inference be at least as fair, that what was said to him individually had respect to functions which could only
be-performed in conjunction with others? And if so,
may we not infer the same thing in the case of
Timothy?  The bare possibility of such an inference
makes it at least unnecessary to infer, that because Timothy is individually addressed, he alone was competent to do the acts commanded. No doubt multudes of letters have been written to young Presbyterian ministers, in which the same form of address
was used in reference to acts' which, according to
our constitution, no presbyter can ordinarily perform  alone. If then Timothy is not here mentioned
as the sole judge of accused presbyters, nothing can be
inferred as to his superiority. If, on the other hand,
he is so mentioned, it is more natural to infer that he
was clothed with an extraordinary judicial power, than
that he held an office which he is nowhere said to.have
held, by the name of which he is nowhere called, and
the very existence of which, as a part of the permanent
church-system, is a matter of dispute.
The fallacy of the adverse reasoning may be made
apparent by an illustration. Suppose a letter should
be found hereafter, addressed to an officer in our navy,
and advising him as to his conduct respecting cer



120                  ESSAY IV.
tain accusations brought against a captain in the
same service, the address throughout being singular in
its form, and without any intimation of its being applicable to any other person. Suppose this passage to
occur in the letter, "I would advise you never to receive a charge against a captain without ample proof."
A  writer on naval history infers from these expressions, that they relate to judicial process; that the
person addressed had the sole right of trying the accused; and that he must therefore have been superior
in rank to a post-captain. Subsequent inquiry shows,
perhaps, that the language of the letter related merely
to private accusation; or if not, that the person addressed was one of a Court Martial, and in rank pre-'cisely equal to the accused party. Are not the supposed words perfectly consistent with this state of the
case? If so, what follows as to the nature of the reasoning, which led to the false conclusion?  That it
proves nothing, because it proves too much. If, now,
this reasoning had been used to prove that the rank
of Admiral existed in the United States Navy in
1850, would it not very much resemble that which
is used to prove that Apostles (not of the original
thirteen) existed  in  the primitive church?  That
argument, so far as it is founded on this passage,
takes for granted, that the words relate to judicial
process against presbyters; that Timothy is represented as the sole judge; and that he could not be so
unless superior to presbyters in permanent official
rank. Waving the first point, or admitting its correctness, it may be alleged, in  opposition to the
second, that he need not be supposed to have been the
sole judge; and to the third, that his judging presby



OFFICIAL RANK OF TIMOTHY.           121
ters, whether alone or not, is no proof that he was
more than a presbyter himself.  Indeed, supposing
presbyters, as we do, to have been the highest permanent officers in the church, it was only by presbyters
that they could be tried, just as in the Protestant
Episcopal Church bishops must be tried by bishops,
and in the army generals by generals.  Whether
Timothy tried presbyters by virtue of extraordinary
powers, or in the discharge of his ordinary duties as
a member of a presbytery, matters not.  Either of
these suppositions sufficiently accounts for the expressions in the text, and thereby precludes the necessity
of assuming a permanent superiority of rank. He is
elsewhere described as a presbyter; he is nowhere described as an apostle; what he was here described
as doing he was competent to do as a presbyter; it
is therefore unreasonable to infer that he was an
apostle.
The same remarks apply to ch. 5: 22. " Lay hands
suddenly on no man, neither be partaker of other
men's sins." It may even be questioned, whether this
relates at all to ordination. Why may it not refer to
the gift of the Holy Spirit? If such a reference is even
supposable in ch. 4:14, it is highly probable in this
place, where nothing is mentioned but the bare imposition of hands. But granting that it does refer to ordination, it is not said to what office; and why may it
not have been to that of deacon?  But even granting
that it refers to the ordination of presbyters, it does
not follow, for the reasons above given, that Timothy
alone was to lay on hands. And if he did it alone, he
may have done so merely as a presbyter, or by virtue
of an extraordinary but temporary power. A solitary
6




122                  ESSAY IV.
Presbyterian minister, under certain circumstances
might ordain others, in perfect consistency with Pres~
byterian principles. Whether Timothy was clothed
with extraordinary powers, for a particular occasion,
matters not. If he was the only Presbyter in Ephesus,
the necessity of the case would authorize him to ordain. The requisition of a plurality is not to be found
in Scripture. The principle involved in ordination is
that it can only be performed by one who has himself
been ordained. And this requisition is as really complied with by the act of one ordainer as by that of
twenty. For obvious reasons of expediency, the exercise of the power may be limited, in ordinary cases, to
a plurality of persons; but the restriction rests upon
no principle. If one bishop in the Protestant Episcopal Church can admit others to an order inferior to his
own, there is no reason, except usage and arbitrary
regulation, why he should not, if necessary, admit one
to the same office which he holds himself. Even supposing, then, that Timothy ordained alone, it does not
follow that he was superior in rank to Presbyters.
The Apostle's exhortation would be perfectly appropriate, if addressed to one of a body of Presbyters.
And we know from Acts 20: 17, that there were other
Presbyters in or about Ephesus. The assumption,
then, that Timothy held an office superior to that of
Presbyters, is wholly unsupported by the text before us.
In 1 Tim. 6:2, Timothy is commanded to teach
and exhort servants as to their relative duties. In the
next verse, Paul denounces any who should teach
otherwise, implying that there were others authorized
to teach. This passage, then, relates to powers which




OFFICIAL RANK OF TIMOTHY.          123
Timothy possessed in common with others. From
such false teachers he is commanded to withdraw himself. This could hardly be addressed to an ecclesiastical superior, who possessed the sole right of exercising
discipline. It applies much better to one among a
number of authorized teachers, whose defence against
them was to shun their company. In v. 11, the Apostle exhorts Timothy to avoid the sin of covetousness,
and to cultivate the Christian graces, to fight the good
fight of faith, and to lay hold of eternal life. He
speaks of him, at the same time, as having "professed
a good profession."  This commandment he charges
him to keep "without spot, unrebukable, until the
appearing of our Lord Jesus Christ" (vs. 13, 14). This
must refer to the immediately preceding exhortation,
as to the seeking of salvation, and the cultivation of
the Christian graces. It cannot, therefore, be used
as an argument to prove that Timothy had not a temporary commission of an extraordinary kind. In vs.
17-19 Paul tells him what exhortations he should give
to rich men. In v. 20 he charges him to be faithful to
his trust, and on his guard against a spurious philosophy. All these advices are perfectly appropriate, if
addressed to a mere Presbyter.
The second epistle is addressed by " Paul an Apostle of Jesus Christ," to Timothy, not as a brotherapostle, but as a "dearly beloved son."  Such an
address would certainly not have been unnatural, even
to an official equal, much inferior in age. But it cannot be denied that the continual omission of the apostolical title, in the very places where we might expect
it, is somewhat unfavourable to the truth of the position, that Timothy was a "supreme Apostle." In the




124                  ESSAY IV.
sixth verse, Paul says, " 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." This relates
either to the gift of the Holy Ghost or to ordination.
If the former, it proves nothing as to Timothy's official
rank, since persons not described as ministers at all
sometimes conferred the Holy Ghost, as appears from
the case of Ananias, Acts 9: 17. If it relates to ordination, it must have been either to the deaconship, the
eldership, or the apostleship. The first has never been
alleged. If it was to the eldership, the same transaction
is referred to as in 1 Tim. 4: 14, from which, as we
have seen, it may be proved that presbyters ordained.
Or even granting that the ordination was performed by
an Apostle, if it was to the office of a presbyter, Paul's
twice exhorting him to stir up the gift conferred upon
him in his ordination to the eldership, strongly implies
that he was nothing more, and indeed that this was
the highest permanent office in the church. If, on the
other hand, the ordination spoken of is to the office of
Apostle, then it follows that Timothy received this ordination in the interval between the two epistles, and,
consequently, that the powers ascribed to him in the
first epistle (including those of discipline and ordination) belonged to him as a presbyter. The same remarks apply to v. 14, "that good thing which was
committed unto thee, keep by the Holy Ghost which
dwelleth in us."  In v. 13, Timothy is exhorted to
hold fast "the form of sound words" which he had
heard from Paul, who still addresses him as his pupil
and inferior, without the least allusion to his being a
colleague and "supreme Apostle."
Ch. 2-: 1. "Thou therefore, my son, be strong in




OFFICIAL RANK OF TIMOTHY.          125
the grace that is in Christ Jesus; and the things that
thou hast heard of me among many witnesses, the same
commit thou to faithful men who shall be able to teach
others also." Timothy is here directed to ordain teachers. From this some infer that he held an office superior to that of Presbyter. But this assumes, first, that
he was to ordain alone, and then, that a person cannot be admitted to a given rank, except by one who
holds a higher rank. The first, as we have seen, is a
gratuitous assumption. The second would render it
impossible to perpetuate the highest order. If an
Apostle could ordain Apostles, it is not to be assumed
as an impossibility that a Presbyter should ordain
Presbyters. How can it be argued that, because Timothy ordained Presbyters, he must have been more than
a Presbyter himself, any more than that because Paul
(according to the adverse theory) ordained Apostles,
he must have been something more than an Apostle?
If the latter conclusion does not follow of course,
neither does the former. If an Apostle could ordain
Apostles, the natural presumption (in the absence of
all proof to the contrary) is that Presbyters could ordain Presbyters. This would be a natural presumption, even if the perpetuity of the apostolic office could
be proved. How much more when the antecedent
probabilities are all against it, and when this very text
is relied upon, as one of the few passages which prove
it. The question is whether peculiar apostolic powers
are ascribed to Timothy. The proof of the affirmative is, that he ordained Presbyters. The very same
fact we adduce as proof that Presbyters ordained. If
we have no right to assume that he acted as a Presbyter, still less right have our opponents to assume that




126                 ESSAY IV.
none except Apostles ordained. We know that Timothy was a Presbyter, but we do not know that he was
an Apostle. It is, therefore, more allowable to assume
that Timothy ordained as a Presbyter, which we know
him to have been, than that he ordained as an Apostle, which we do not know him to have been.
In this same chapter, Paul exhorts Timothy to
endure hardness (v. 3), to consider what he heard or
read (v. 7), to put the people in remembrance of these
things, charging them before the Lord that they strive
not about words to no profit (v. 14). "Study to show
thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth
not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth,
but shun profane and vain babblings, for they will increase unto more ungodliness" (vs. 15, 16). How much
more natural and appropriate are these advices, if addressed to a mere Presbyter, than if addressed to a
"Supreme Apostle;" and how strange is it that among
these exhortations, having reference to the duties of a
Presbyter, not one should have crept in, relating to
any peculiar apostolic function. How strange that
Paul should have nothing to say to his brother-apostle
about apostolic powers and duties, while he exhorts him
to "flee youthful lusts" (v. 22), to "follow righteousness, faith, charity, peace," etc. (v. 22), to " avoid foolish and unlearned questions" (v. 23). Instead of telling
him what a Supreme Apostle ought to be, he tells him
that "the servant of the Lord must not strive, but be
gentle, apt to teach," etc. (v. 24). It may be said, indeed, that many of these advices have respect to common Christian duties, and that it might as well be argued
that Timothy was a private Christian, as that he was a
mere Presbyter. And so it might, if there were not min



OFFICIAL RANK OF TIMOTHY.          127
gled with these exhortations to common duties, some
which clearly and confessedly relate to those of Presbyters. But as there are none which indubitably recognize Timothy as an Apostle, the cases are not parallel.
In ch. 3:14, after describing the false teachers
and seducers, who were to be looked for, Paul exhorts
Timothy, not, as might have been expected on the opposite hypothesis, to interpose his apostolical authority, but to continue in the things which he had learned,
knowing of whom he had received them. And on
what ground does he exhort him so to do? Not because he was an Apostle, but because he had fully
known Paul's doctrine manner of life, etc. (vs. 10, 11),
and because he had himself from a child known the
holy Scriptures, which were able to make him wise
unto salvation, and which were given that the man
of God might be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto
all good works (vs. 15-17).  Here again the most
tempting opportunities of mentioning Timothy's apostolic rank, and insisting on his apostolic duties, are
neglected. This is still more strikingly the case in the
last chapter, where, in view of his own approaching
death, the Apostle exhorts Timothy to a faithful and
diligent discharge of duty. Here, if anywhere, something might be looked for which should set at rest the
question of Timothy's official superiority to the Presbyters at Ephesus. But what are the exhortations
given him?  To preach the word, to reprove, rebuke,
and exhort, to be watchful, to endure afflictions, and
to do the work of an EVANGELIST (ch. 4: 5).
This last word has been taken in a twofold sense.
Some suppose it to denote a presbyter clothed with
extraordinary powers, for a limited time and a specific




128                 ESSAY IV.
purpose. Others understand by it a preacher indefinitely, without any reference to his official rank. The
former supposition, though perhaps incapable of demonstration, is far more probable, and in better keeping with the tenor of the New Testament, than the
supposition that Timothy was-an Apostle. If adopted,
it explains completely why he was commissioned to
ordain alone (as alleged by our opponents) and to discipline presbyters.  But let it be granted that the
word means nothing more than preacher of the gospel:
it only furnishes another instance of the extraordinary
fact, that every title and description, which could be
applied to Timothy, seems to have come into the mind
of Paul more readily than that of Apostle, which he
seems indeed to have strangely forgotten, not only as
respects the word, but the thing which it denotes.
However then we may explain the word evangelist, it
favours our conclusion.  If it means nothing more
than a preacher, it indirectly strengthens our presumption that Timothy was no Apostle. If it means an extraordinary temporary officer, it precludes the necessity of supposing that he was more than a presbyter,
even on the supposition that he exercised more than
presbyterial powers.
In ch. 4:9, Paul commands Timothy to come to
him as soon as possible, and in v. 21 he fixes the time,
before which he wishes him to come.  The reason
which he gives is that Demas, Crescens, Tychicus, and
Titus had left him. Luke was the only attendant or
w7T7pe6T  who still continued with him. Does not this
imply that Timothy was wanted to supply their
place?  This is rendered still more probable by the
direction which is added in v. 11. " Take Mark and




OFFICIAL RANK OF TIMOTHY.            129
bring him  with thee, for he is profitable to me elS
8LaKovtav, i. e., as a &aKovo9, in which capacity both
Mark and Timothy had travelled with Paul before, as
we have seen. With this, too, agrees the subsequent
direction, as to the cloak and parchments, from which
of course nothing can be proved as to Timothy's official rank, but which, by a vast majority of readers,
must be seen to agree better with the supposition of
his inferiority than with that of his equality. And
thus at the close of Paul's last epistle to Timothy, we
find the latter acting in the same capacity as when
he first appeared in history, namely, that of a personal
attendant upon Paul, and subject to his orders. He
is here recalled as one who had been absent on a
temporary service. This serves to corroborate; the
conclusion that, if Timothy did exercise powers above
those of presbyters, it was by virtue of a special commission.
Titus is not mentioned in the Acts of the Apostles.
In the second epistle to the Corinthians, his name occurs nine times, in one of which places Paul calls him
"my brother" (2 Cor. 2:13), and in another, "my
partner and fellow-labourer concerning you," i. e. the
Corinthians (8: 23).  In the seventh chapter, he is
three times spoken of, as having cheered Paul by joining him in Macedonia (v. 6), and by the good account
which he gave of the Corinthian Christians (v. 13),
and as one who felt a peculiar interest in their welfare
(v. 15). In the twelfth chapter he is again mentioned
(v. 18) as a messenger from Paul to the Church at Corinth.  In Galatians he is incidentally referred to
(ch. 2:1, 3) as having accompanied Paul and Barnabas on a visit to Jerusalem. In 2 Tim. 4: 10, as we
*6




130                   ESSAY IV.
have seen already, Titus is said to have left Paul and
gone into Dalmatia.  In none of these cases is there
any thing to indicate that Titus was superior in rank
to presbyters, the proof of which, if it exist at all,
must be derived from Paul's epistle to himself.
In the title of that epistle, Titus is addressed, not as
an Apostle, but as Paul's " own son after the common
faith," and as one whom he had left in Crete, to regulate Ta XeLrovra, the things which Paul himself had
left undone.  One of his duties is particularly mentioned, that of ordaining presbyters in every city (v. 5.)
From this some infer, as in the case of Timothy, that
Titus held an office superior to that of presbyter. Now
let it be observed that no other proof of this is even
alleged.  The truth of the allegation, therefore, rests
on the assumption that a presbyter, as such, could not
ordain, which is the very point in controversy. There
is no proof that Titus was more than a presbyter, unless we are forced to infer it from the fact that he
ordained. But how can such an inference be necessary, when we may suppose that he ordained as a
member of a presbytery, or as an evangelist, by virtue
of a special commission?  It is not asserted that he
must have done so, but merely that he may have done
so, and consequently that his ordaining presbyters does
not of itself prove that he was an Apostle. Since,
then, we are as much entitled to assume that presbyters ordained, as that Titus was not a mere presbyter,
let the question between us be determined by inquiring
which hypothesis agrees best with the whole drift and
tone of the epistle. Is Titus spoken of in such a manner as would naturally lead us to regard him as Paul's
official equal and a " supreme Apostle," or as his in



OFFICIAL RiANK OF TIMOTHY.          131
ferior, subject to his orders, and with no permanent
rank or authority above that of a presbyter?
After giving the qualifications of presbyters or
bishops (Tit. 1: 6-9), which are the same as those prescribed to Timothy (1 Tim. 3: 2-7), Paul exhorts Titus to rebuke "gainsayers," " unruly and vain talkers
and deceivers;" to "rebuke them  sharply that they
may be sound in the faith" (vs. 9-13). This any presbyter was competent to do. In opposition to such, he
commands Titus (ch. 2: 1) to " speak the things which
become sound doctrine, and especially to urge upon
the different classes of the people their relative duties
(vs. 2-6). These things he was to teach, not only by
precept but example (v. 7), "in all things showing
thyself a pattern of good works, in doctrine showing
uncorruptness, gravity, sincerity, sound speech that
cannot be condemned, that he that is of the contrary
part may be ashamed, having no evil thing to say of
you" (v. 8). There is not a duty here enumerated
which is not incumbent, at the present moment, upon
every Christian presbyter. The same is true of the
concluding exhortation in this chapter (v. 15), " these
things speak and exhort and rebuke with all authority; let no man despise thee."  The only way in
which these counsels can be made to have any bearing
upon Titus's apostolical dignity, is by assuming that
the persons whom he was to teach, rebuke, etc. were
all presbyters. Not only is there no intimation of this
fact, but the contrary is evident from the whole context, in which the subjects of this discipline are particularly mentioned, not as elders in the church, but as
aged men and women (ch. 2: 2, 3), young men and
women (4-6), servants (9, 10), etc. The same thing is




132                  ESSK~ IV.
true of the directions in the last chapter, where Titus
is commanded to affirm constantly the duties of life
and the doctrines of grace (v. 8), but exhorted to avoid
foolish questions and genealogies and contentions and
strivings about the law, as unprofitable and vain (v. 9).
All this would be perfectly appropriate, if addressed
to any presbyter.
Titus 3: 10. " A man that is an heretic after the
first and second admonition reject."  The power to
judge heretics is certainly ascribed to Titus; but in
what capacity?  Our opponents say, in that of an
apostle; we say in that of a presbyter.  The only
ground of their conclusion is the twofold assumption,
that Titus was to be the sole judge of religious
teachers; and that he could not judge them  without holding a superior office.  The same answers
may be given here as in the case of ordination, but
with still more force, because it is not even certain
in the case before us, that any other heresy is meant
but that of private Christians. Granting, however,
that heretical teachers are specially referred to, and
that rejecting them  means refusing to ordain them
(which is far from being evident), or to excommunicate
them; these are acts which, according to the Presbyterian theory, are competent to presbyters, and cannot
therefore be assumed as proofs of apostolical authority.
The question is whether Titus performed acts which
presbyters, as such, could not perform. The adverse
party answer yes, for he judged heretical presbyters,
and therefore could not be a presbyter himself. We
answer no, because presbyters being the highest order
in the permanent organization in the church, if judged
at all, they must bejudged by presbyters.




OFFICIAL RANK OF TIMOTHY.            133
We have now gone through these three epistles
in detail, and the results of the examination may be
stated thus.
1. Timothy and Titus are nowhere addressed or
described, in Paul's epistles to them, as apostles.
2. A large part of the admonitions and instructions
given to them are such as might have been given to
mere presbyters.
3. The powers of ordination and discipline are certainly ascribed to them, but without determining in
what capacity they were to exercise them.
4. The supposition of an extraordinary commission to these two men as evangelists, and the supposition that they acted as mere presbyters, are at least as
probable as the supposition that they acted as apostles.
5. No proof, therefore, can be drawn from these
epistles, of the apostolical authority of either.




ESSAY V.
ON THE'ANGELS OF THE CHURCHES AND THE PALSB
APOSTLES.
BESIDES the case of Timothy and Titus, an attempt
has been made to prove that the apostolic office was
perpetual or permanent, from certain passages of the
Apocalypse.  The first is that containing the Episties to the Seven Churches of Asia (Rev. 1: 20. 2: 1,
8, 12, 18. 3: 1 7, 14). The argument founded upon
these epistles is, that the " angel  of each church is
addressed in the singular number, as if personally responsible for the faith and practice of the church;
from which it is said to follow, that each of these
churches must have had an official head, possessing
exclusively the power of government, and as we know
from Acts 20: 17, that in one of them, at least, there
was a plurality of presbyters, this official head must
have been an apostle or apostle-bishop.
This argument assumes without proof, that the "angels" here addressed were the regular official rulers of
the churches, although the word " angel" is employed,
throughout the book, in another sense, and although
the supposition that they were guardian angels is in
perfect keeping with the language of Scripture else



THE ANGELS OF THE CHURCHES.         135
where, and particularly in the Book of Daniel, the one
which most resembles the Apocalypse. Even granting
the probability that the term is here used to denote an
office in the church, the necessity of assuming this without proof shows on how precarious a foundation the argument is built. And even if it could be proved, how
slight would the presumption thus created be against the
uniform tenor of the New Testament, as seen already.
The adverse argument also assumes that these official Angels must have been superior to Presbyters,
and in order to confirm this, it assumes that the Presbyters of Ephesus, mentioned in Acts 20: 17, were
officers of one church, over whom  the Angel presided as a prelate or diocesan. But we have just as
much'right to allege, on our part, that the Presbyters
spoken of in Acts were ruling Elders, or that they
were the presbyters of churches near to Ephesus, or
that if there was a plurality of presbyters at Ephesus
in Paul's time, there was only one when John wrote
the Apocalypse. This last is rendered highly probable
by analogy. In our own cities there are churches
organized on Presbyterian principles, which anciently
had a plurality of ministers, but as the population has
increased or shifted, these collegiate churches have
given rise to several, each with its own pastor. Now
we know that in the planting of Christianity, churches
were first established at the central points of influence,
from which, by a sort of colonization, others were derived. For obvious reasons, converts in the neighborhood of these mother churches would adhere to
them until a separate organization became necessary.
Hence the churches founded in the more important
cities of the old world would be burdensome charges,




136                 ESSAY V.
and might well employ a number of presbyters, even
supposing all such to have laboured in word and doctrine. That there were such presbyters at Ephesus,
when Paul sent thither from Miletus, we read in Acts
20: 17. That other churches were derived from that
of Ephesus, and that right early,'will scarcely be denied.
This would leave the mother church with its " Angel,"
not as a superior to the presbyters around, but as their
equal, or at most as a primus inter pares.
The personal address to the Angel, then, proves
nothing more than the like address, in analogous circumstances, would prove now. Within the memory of
many persons still alive, the First Presbyterian Church
of New-York had an eldership including three ordained
pastors, who alternately ministered in as many places
of worship, all belonging to the same church organization. This is a fact in Presbyterian church-history beyond all doubt; but it is equally certain that in the
General Assembly of 1842 a minister appeared bearing
a commission in which he was described as Bishop
of the First Presbyterian Church in New-York City.
Now supposing documentary memorials of these two
facts to reach posterity, how plausibly might it be argued, that as one man was recognized in 1842 as the
bishop of that church, and as it had certainly three
pastors half a century before, therefore the bishop in
question was a prelate or diocesan, superior in rank to
other Presbyterian ministers. The inconclusiveness
of this deduction would appear on the discovery, that
in the mean time other affiliated churches had sprung
up and left the " First Church" with a single pastor,
who, according to our usage and our constitution, was
styled in certain documents its bishop. Even if the




THE ANGELS OF THE CHURCHES.           137
analogy between the cases were fortuitous, it would
be a striking one; but when it springs, as we have
seen, from a coincidence of circumstances, and the uniform operation of analogous causes, it seems to warrant the conclusion, that a mode of reasoning, which
would be fallacious in the one case, may be fallacious in the other. We say may be fallacious, for
we need no more than this to justify us in resisting
the attempt to set up, as essential to the organization of the church, an institution which can only
be shown to have existed in the apostolic times by the
evidence of passages admitting of two opposite interpretations, with at least an equal share of probability.
For the truth is that on either hypothesis (the Presbyterian or Episcopal) this passage may be easily explained, and for that very reason cannot fairly be
adduced as decisive proof in favour of either.
The only remaining instance, in which apostolic
powers are alleged to be recognized in Scripture, as
belonging to persons not original apostles, is that of
the'ev8aro6-rToXoL spoken of by Paul in 2 Cor. 11: 13,
" For such are false apostles, deceitful workers, transforming themselves into the apostles of Christ;" and
by our Saviour, in his epistle to the church of Ephesus, Rev. 2: 2, "thou hast tried them which say they
are apostles, and are not, and hast found them liars."
The argument from these texts is, that if there had not
been successors to the apostles, there could not have
been pretenders to that office. Upon this we make
the following observations.
1. The word  r36aT7roXo  is used, as we have seen,
in a plurality of meanings, viz. a messenger of any
kind; a religious messenger or missionary; and an




138                  ESSAY V.
apostle in the strict and highest sense. Now the adverse argument assumes that aTroo-roXot must have
this last sense in Rev. 2: 2. And yet it is certainly
not inconceivable, that the impostors spoken of may
have assumed the name and character of missionaries,
or of special messengers to or from the churches. The
objection, that such an imposition could not be successful, and that no sufficient motive of ambition or of
interest can be supposed, is purely arbitrary, and at
least not favoured by the experience of later times, in
which analogous impostures have by no means been
uncommon. There is no case of remarkable imposture upon record, the reality of which might not be
called in question, on the ground of a strong antecedent improbability.
2. But granting that a'7r6o'0oXt, in Rev. 2: 2, has
its highest sense, why may we not suppose that the
impostors mentioned actually personated some of the
original thirteen? To such imposture the temptations
were too obvious to need specification, and addressed
to various corruptions of the human heart, the love of
notoriety, the love of power, and the love of gain. If
it be answered that no like attempt has been made in
modern times, for example, to personate the Bishops
in this country; it may be suggested in reply, that the
facilities for such a fraud are not so great as in the
ancient church, and the inducements infinitely less.
If, again, it be answered, that at the time when the
last of these two texts was written, there was only one
original Apostle left, and that one in extreme old age,
it may be replied, that as the text in question contains
the words of our Lord himself, in commendation of
the previous conduct of the church at Ephesus, there




FALSE APOSTLES.              139
is nothing to fix the date of the transaction mentioned,
or to show that the " liars" there referred to were not
identical, or at least contemporary, with the "false
apostles" of whom Paul speaks in 2 Cor. 11: 13. Even
after the death of an Apostle, his name might be successfully assumed by an impostor for a time.
But, granting that the fraud referred to was not
that of personating the original Apostles, but that of
falsely claiming to be their successors in the apostolic
office, it by no means follows, that they must have had
genuine and authorized successors. If a man should
visit certain parts of Europe, where America is least
known, and there give himself out as a duke or earl
of the United States; as soon as his imposture was
detected, he would probably acquire the name of the
pretended duke or earl of the United States. Would
the correct application of this epithet imply, that there
were really such orders of hereditary nobles under our
constitution? It may be said, that the analogy is not
complete, because there have never been such distinctions known among us, whereas all admit that there
had been Apostles. Let us then change the illustration, and, to make the correspondence with the ancient
case, as our opponents state it, more complete, let us
suppose that, while Charles Carroll of Carrollton was
the only surviving signer of the Declaration of Independence, an American had palmed himself upon the
European world, as one of that famous company. He
would have been a pseudo-signer of the Declaration.
Would it be a valid inference from this phrase, that
there must have been successors to the original signers, and that this man's fraud consisted in pretending
to be one of these when he had never been promoted to




140                  ESSAY V.
that dignity?  If to this analogy it be objected, that
the signers of the Declaration did not hold an office, in
which they might be expected, as a matter of course,
to have successors, let us, in order to complete the
illustration, have recourse to ancient history, and suppose that after the expulsion of the Tarquins, and the
introduction of the consular regime, an impostor had
travelled through the provinces pretending to be king
of Rome, or heir-apparent to the throne; and that this
impostor had been called, in ancient histories, the
pretended king or prince of Rome. Would this have
proved that there was really a king, or royal family,
in that republic? Surely not; and yet the principle,
involved in such an inference, appears to be precisely
that on which the adverse argument in this case rests,
viz. that the existence of a counterfeit demonstrates
the existence of a genuine original.
The fallacy consists in not distinguishing between
the absolute existence of a thing in rerum natura, or its
historical existence at a former period, and its actual
existence at a given time. There cannot be a counterfeit of any thing which never had a being; but there
may be a counterfeit of things no longer in existence,
as, for instance, of a coin or medal which has been destroyed.  If there had never been a7roo-oXo, there
never could have been fev8aT6ro'-oXotl; but, on the
hypothesis (and it is stated here as nothing more) that
the apostolic office, as distinct from that of presbyter,
was temporary in design and fact, those who claimed
to be successors of the twelve, in their peculiar apostolic powers, would be just as truly,rev8a'7ro —TOXot,
as if they had pretended to be Peter, John, or Paul.
Indeed, the name seems to apply, with greater empha



FALSE APOSTLES.              141
sis, to those who claimed an office which had no existence, than to those who claimed one which was real,
but to which they personally had no right. If he was
a false apostle who merely forged his own credentials,
how much more did he deserve the name, who forged
the very office which he claimed to hold.
All this is true, on the hypothesis, that the false
apostles of the early church were pretenders to the
apostolic office as a permanent part of the church organization, claiming to be duly ordained successors
of the original apostles. But neither of the suppositions which have been considered, and which Bishop
Onderdonk regards as the only possible hypothesis,
is so natural as a fourth, which is free from all the
difficulties that attend the others. It is simply this,
that the false apostles mentioned in the Scriptures
neither personated any of the original thirteen, nor
claimed to be their official successors, regularly constituted by the rite of ordination, but asserted an independent claim, as original apostles, divinely commissioned just as the first thirteen had been.  The
frequency with which such pretensions have been
made in later times, shows clearly that there may be
motives strong enough to lead to the imposture, and
that they may for a time have great success. That
such men as Simon Magus, Demas, and Diotrephes,
might easily be tempted to assert this false claim,
and might easily obtain a temporary reputation as
apostles, is certainly a natural and probable hypothesis. The only objection is, that such could not have
wrought "the signs of an apostle;" those miracles
which all men knew to be indispensable credentials of
the apostolic office, and that such an imposture would
therefore have been hopeless.




142                  ESSAY V.
To this it may be answered, 1. That the miraculous
gifts of the Holy Ghost were not confined to the Apostles, nor even to good men, and that we can easily
conceive of their being abused for ambitious purposes,
before they were withdrawn. 2. Those who had never
received the Holy Ghost sometimes deceived the people with "lying wonders," that is, either juggling
tricks, or wonders wrought by a satanic influence, as
in the case of Simon Magus. 3. The claim to a divine
authority might be maintained among the credulous,
without even an attempt to work a miracle, as appears
from the case of Mohammed, who was often called
upon, by Pagans, Jews, and Christians, to evince the
truth of his pretensions in this way, and yet, without
compliance, still maintained his hold upon the popular
belief. In either of these ways, the false apostles
might have obtained credit, for a time, as men directly
commissioned from Heaven, to complete or abrogate
preceding revelations. And this was the more easy
at the time referred to, because the canon of the New
Testament was not closed, and the people had, as yet,
no reason to believe, that the series of divine communications was at an end. What was thus a priori
likely.to occur, seems to have actually taken place, in
reference at least to inspiration, from the warnings
contained in the New Testament against false prophets,
and the exhortations not to believe every spirit, but to
try the spirits whether they were really from God,
to prove all things and hold fast that which is good.
If the false prophets of the early church pretended to
be prophets sent immediately from God, it is natural
to conclude that the false apostles made a like claim,
rather than that they either assumed the names of the




THE APOSTLESHIP A TEMPORARY OFFICE.  143
original thirteen, or claimed to be their regular successors in the church by ordination. This being the
case, the existence of false apostles, far from proving
that the office was continued, only proves that it had
once existed.
These are all the passages of Scripture in which,
with any show of probability, proofs of the continuance of the Apostolic office have been sought. An
attempt has now been made to show, that its continuance is nowhere recognized in Scripture, either by direct
assertion of the fact, by a statement of the necessary
qualifications for the Apostolic office, by directions for
the ordination of Apostles, by the record of their having been in fact ordained, by the application of the
name Apostle in its highest sense to any not of
the original thirteen, or, lastly, even by the indirect
ascription of peculiar Apostolic powers to any not included in that number. Even supposing one or more
of these distinct proofs to be wanting accidentally, and
the defect to admit of explanation, it is too much to
assume that they were all omitted, and are all to be
supplied by mere conjecture. It is too much to assume that the office of Apostle was to be perpetuated
by succession, and yet that it is nowhere so alleged
in Scripture, nor the qualifications of Apostles stated,
nor the ordination of an Apostle anywhere recorded,
nor the name Apostle so applied, nor any persons
represented as exercising the peculiar Apostolic powers. There will, of course, be a difference ofjudgment
as to the question of fact, whether these proofs are
thus wanting; but it is surely not too much to assume
that, if they are, the perpetuity of the Apostleship
cannot be maintained.




ESSAY VI.
ON THE APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSIOIN.
IN opposition to the doctrine, that Presbyterian ordination is invalid because not derived from a superior
order of ministers, there is a twofold argument, negative and positive. The negative argument is founded
on the fact, that there is no order of church-officers
existing by divine right superior to Presbyters; that
no such order can exist as the successors of the primitive Bishops, for these were identical with the primitive Presbyters; nor as successors of the Apostles, for
these, as such, had no successors. The positive argument is founded on the fact, that the primitive Presbyters actually exercised the highest powers now belonging to the ministry.
There is only one ground left, on which the validity
of Presbyterian ordination can be called in question, to
wit, that it is not derived even from true Presbyters,
that is to say, from the regular successors of the primitive Presbyters.  This ground has commonly been
taken by the advocates for the necessity of Bishops as
an order superior to Presbyters. It is through such




THE APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION.          145
Bishops that the succession has been usually traced.
The two doctrines are not however identical, nor even
inseparable. Even granting what we have allegedthat there is no superior order, and that Presbyters
have always rightfully exercised the highest powers
now belonging to the ministry-it may still be said
that this, at most, only proves modern Bishops to be
nothing more than Presbyters, and as such authorized
to govern and ordain, but that these powers may not
be claimed by those who cannot, like the Bishops,
prove themselves to be the successors of the primitive
Presbyters.
This argument against the validity of Presbyterian
ordination I propose to examine; but before, doing
so, it will be necessary to define the meaning of certain
terms continually used on both sides of the controversy. The necessity of this arises from the fact, that
much confusion has been introduced into the subject
by the abuse of terms, and by confounding under one
name things which are materially different. The substitution of a sense in the conclusion wholly distinct
from that used in the premises must vitiate the argument, although the effect may pass unnoticed. Hence
have arisen many current fallacies, the popular effect
of which has been to give a great advantage to that
party in the controversy, by whom or in whose behalf
the stratagem is practised. Thus, when the question to
be agitated is whether apostolical succession is "necessary" in the Christian ministry, the term employed admits of two distinct interpretations. It may be said to
be necessary, in the sense of being convenient, useful,
desirable, and therefore binding under ordinary circumstances.  The necessity here predicated of succes
7




146                  ESSAY VI.
sion is an improper or a relative necessity, from the
admission of which it would be most unfair to argue
the existence of an absolute or strict necessity, as of a
condition sine qua non, without which there can be no
valid ministry. Yet these meanings of the word are
easily confounded, or the one supposed to involve the
other, so that our theoretical admission of the value of
succession, and our requiring it in practice, is regarded
as a contradiction of our doctrine that it is not essential, and the seeming. inconsistency throws weight into
the scale of the adverse argument. The fallacy consists in the assumption, that the utility and relative
necessity of this arrangement springs from its absolute
necessity, whereas it springs from its simplicity, convenience, and the want of any better method to perpetuate the ministry. If we are bound to effect a certain
end, we are bound to effect it in the most direct and
efficacious method; but if this method ceases to possess
these qualities, our obligation to employ it ceases,
while our obligation to attain the end remains unaltered.
The facility with which the two things here distinguished are confounded may be made apparent by
an illustration. It is a rule of most legislative bodies,
that the qualifications of the members shall be judged
of the body itself, and consequently that no new member shall enter upon his functions, until formally recognized and admitted by his predecessors.  This
practice has been found so useful and is reckoned so
important, that with us it is inserted in the Constitu*tion, and in England, whence it is derived, the House
of Commons has by solemn votes asserted it to be a
natural and necessary right inherent in the body.. The




THE APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION.           147
historical fact however is that this important power
has repeatedly changed hands, and that recently a
proposition has been made to transfer it.  Whatever
may be thought, by those concerned and authorized
to judge, of the expediency of such a change, it would
evidently not affect the source or tenure or extent of
legislative power in the members of the house. The
obvious advantages belonging to the present system,
and the force of habit and association, may have led
men to believe that reception by the sitting members
is essential to the legislative standing of one newly
elected; but in point of fact, it is derived from a source
exterior to the body and independent of it. This is
not adduced as an argument against ministerial succession, but merely as an illustration of the statement
that.a relative necessity may come to be confounded
with an absolute necessity, or at least regarded as a
certain proof of it.
The same discrimination is necessary in relation to
the word " succession," which may either mean an uninterrupted series of incumbents, so that the office is
never vacant, or a succession in which the authority
of each incumbent is derived directly from his predecessor.  The material difference between these senses
of the term, and the facility with which they may
nevertheless be confounded, will be made clear by a
single illustration.  The Kings of England and the
Presidents of the United States hold their office in a
regular succession, equally uninterrupted and equally
necessary in both cases. But the nature of the succession is entirely different. Each King derives his
kingly office from his personal relation to his predecessor. Each President derives his office from the people,




148                  ESSAY VI.
without any action on the part of his predecessor contributing to it, often against his wishes, and sometimes
in direct opposition to his claims as a competitor. The
former is a derivative succession; the latter a succession of mere sequence. Nor is this the only distinction to be made in the application of the word " succession," which may sometimes have relation to whole
bodies or classes of men, and sometimes to single individuals, in which respect it may be distinguished as
general or particular succession.
With these preliminary explanations, let us now
proceed to consider the necessity of what is called the
Apostolical Succession as a condition of a valid ministry.
And let it be observed that the amount of evidence in
this case should bear due proportion to the extent and
the importance of the allegations in support of which
it is adduced.  If the question were whether an unbroken succession is lawful, or expedient, or an ancient
practice, or of apostolical origin, much less would be
requisite to establish the affirmative than is required
to prove it absolutely necessary to the existence of a
valid ministry.  When a question of such moment is
at issue, it is not too much to ask that the proof adduced be clear, conclusive, and if possible cumulative.
Especially may we expect the proposition to be confirmed by an express divine command, or in default
of that by some clear Scripture analogy, or, at the
least, by clear proof of some natural necessity arising from  the nature of the ministry or its design.
All these conditions might be fairly insisted on. The
want of any, even of the least, would shake the credit
of the adverse doctrine, much more the want of several
and even of the greatest; but if all are wanting, we




THE APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION.           149
must either reject the doctrine or believe without a
reason.
To begin with the most important, if not incispensable; where is the express command, requiring an
unbroken succession in the ministry?  The only passage which can be made to bear such a construction,
is that in which Paul writes to Timothy: " The thing
that thou hast heard of me among many witnesses,
the same commit thou to faithful men, who shall be
able to teach others also.' 2 Tim. 2: 2. In order that
this text may be made to prove the doctrine now in
question, it must be assumed, first, that it relates to a
regular derivative succession in the ministry; then,
that it makes such a succession absolutely necessary;
and lastly, that it makes the succession more necessary
than the other things mentioned in connection with it,
namely, faith or fidelity, ability to teach, and conformity
of doctrine to the apostolic standard. Without this last
assumption the argument will prove too much for those
who use it, by proving their own orders to be vitiated
by a want of ability or faith in any of their predecessors. But all these assumptions are gratuitous. The
text speaks only of the transfer of authority to teach
from Timothy to others, without mentioning the precise
mode in which the transfer should be subsequently
made. It is not even said, "who may be able to ordain others also," as might have been expected if the
precept were intended to enforce the necessity of an
unbroken ministerial succession.
But even granting that it does enjoin such a succession, it does not so enjoin it as to make it more essential to the ministry than many other things which
were enjoined by the Apostles upon their contempo



150                   ESSAY VIE
raries, but are now regarded as no longer binding. Or
if this be conceded, it is surely arbitrary in the last degree to make it obligatory as to this one circumstance
of a succession, and not as to others which are mentioned with it. There are four things included in the requisition, the continuance of the office, faith or fidelity, ability to teach, identity of doctrine with that of the Apostles. Now the adverse argument supposes the first of
these-and that not merely the continuance of the office,
but its continuance in a certain form-to be rendered
absolutely and for ever binding, while the others are regarded as mere secondary circumstances.  Either no
such distinction is admissible between the parts of the
command, or if it is, it may be differently drawn.  If
one may insist upon the mere succession as essential,
another may with equal right insist upon fidelity,
ability, or soundness in the faith.  This last, indeed,
may be contended for, not only with an equal but a
better right, because the test of doctrinal conformity is
elsewhere made essential, which is not the case with
that of succession.  All this would be true, even if
uninterrupted succession in the ministry had been
expressly mentioned in the text, whereas it is found
there only by inference, so that if we adopt the meaning which the adverse argument would put upon the
passage, we are under the necessity of supposing that
which is not mentioned here, nor at all commanded
elsewhere, to be more obligatory than other things,
which are particularly named here, and especially enjoined elsewhere.  If this is unreasonable or absurd,
the text in question cannot be a proof of the necessity
of an unbroken ministerial succession.  And yet this,
if not the only text, is much the strongest, that has




THE APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION.          151
ever been appealed to, in support of the position.
There is no other which has even the appearance of
an express command upon the subject.
It is necessary therefore to supply the want of positive explicit declarations, by the substitution of analogies, for instance that afforded by the succession of the
Jewish Priests. As these were ministers in the church
of God, it may be argued, that the requisition of uninterrupted succession in their case creates a strong
presumption, that the same would be required in the
Christian ministry. But can it prove such succession
to be absolutely indispensable? Such a conclusion
presupposes, 1, that the existence of succession in the
old economy can be binding upon us without express
command; 2, that the only analogy thus binding is
that of the Levitical Priesthood; 3, that the succession
of the Jewish Priests was of the same kind that is now
contended for; 4, that in this Levitical succession,
thus obligatory on us, there are some things which we
may discard or imitate at our discretion.
Let us look at the ground of these assumptions,
and first that we are bound by the analogy of Jewish
succession. It will not be denied by either of the parties to this controversy, that the churches of the old
and new dispensations were essentially the same. As
little will it be disputed that in some points they were
extremely different, and that the differences were not
arbitrary or fortuitous but characteristic. Now the
grand distinctive features of the old dispensation and
of the church under it were its ceremonial forms and
its restrictions; the stress laid upon outward regularity, and the limitation of the church to one small
country and a single race. And as some parts of the




152                  ESSAY VI.
old economy were intended to be permanent and others
temporary, these must be distinguished by observing
whether any given right or usage bears the peculiar
impress of the system which was done away in Christ,
Let this test be applied to the requisition of an uninterrupted ministerial succession. With which economy
does it more naturally harmonize? - With that which
was characteristically ceremonial, making spiritual interests dependent to a great degree upon external
forms, or with that in which the ceremonial element
appears to be reduced to its minimum? With that in
which, by means of local restrictions, an unbroken
succession might be easily secured and promptly verified, or with that in which the abolition of all national
and local limitations makes the application of the rule
precarious, if not impossible?  Surely if any institution or arrangement can be said, in an extraordinary
measure, to require and presuppose the peculiar circumstances of the ancient dispensation, the necessity
of uninterrupted succession may be so described.
But this is not the only consideration which would
lead to the conclusion that the official succession of the
Jewish constitution was a temporary rather than a permanent arrangement. There is another reason which
deserves attention.  The ceremonial and restrictive
character of the old economy naturally tended to produce and foster a certain spirit of exclusiveness and
overweening attachment to external circumstances.
This was, in a certain degree, necessary to the successful operation of the system, one important end of which
was to keep the Jews distinct from other nations until
Christ should come.  But when he did come, this necessity being at an end, the disposition which before




THE APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION.        153
had been intentionally fostered was discouraged and
denounced. And even while the old economy subsisted, all excess of the exclusive spirit which belonged
to it was checked and censured in a manner clearly
showing that the institutions out of which it grew
and to which it attached itself were of a temporary
nature. Of these corrections and rebukes, which run
through all the writings of the prophets, we have
one remarkable example near the first introduction
of the Mosaic system, when seventy elders were selected as the subjects of a special inspiration. "And
it came to pass that when the Spirit rested upon them,
they prophesied and did not cease. But there remained
two of the men in the camp, the name of the one was
Eldad, and the name of the other Medad, and the Spirit
rested upon them; and they were of them that were
written, but went not out unto the tabernacle, and
they prophesied in the camp. And there ran a young
man, and told Moses, and said, Eldad and Medad do
prophesy in the camp. And Joshua, the son of Nun,
one of his young men, answered and said, My lord
Moses, forbid them. And Moses said unto him, Enviest thou for my sake? Would God that all the Lord's
people were prophets, and that the Lord would put his
Spirit upon them I" (Num. 11: 25-29). Here we are
expressly told that these two men had all that was
essential.  "They were of them that were written,"
i. e. designated for this very purpose; this was their
external qualification. " And the Spirit rested upon
them;" this was their internal qualification. Yet simply because they were not visibly united with the rest,
because they " went not out unto the tabernacle " but
"prophesied in the camp," the zealous Joshua would
7*




154                 ESSAY VI.
have them silenced. The reply of Moses seems to
have been designed not merely to check Joshua's
excessive zeal for his master's personal honour, but to
point out the error of postponing the highest to the
lowest evidence of divine authority, and taking it for
granted that God could not or would not grant his
spiritual gifts beyond the bounds of a certain temporary organization.
A remarkable parallel to this instructive incident
occurs in the New Testament. Even in the announcing of the new dispensation, John the Baptist had intimated that the Jewish prejudice in question would-be
wholly at variance with the changed condition of the
church. "Think not to say within yourselves, We
have Abraham to our father; for I say unto you that
God is able of these stones to raise up children unto
Abraham" (Matthew 3: 9). And yet no sooner was the
body of apostles organized than a Judaic spirit of exclusiveness began to show itself, a disposition to regard
external union with that body as a necessary proof of
authority derived from Christ. "John answered him
saying, Master, we saw one casting out devils in thy
name, and he followeth not us, and we forbade him,
because he followeth not us. But Jesus said, Forbid
him not, for there is no man which shall do a miracle
in my name, that can lightly speak evil of me" (Mark
9: 38, 39). Some, indeed, are of opinion that our Saviour intended to express disapprobation of the man's
proceeding as unauthorized; but of this there is no
intimation in his language, and it seems to be directly
contradicted by the words " Forbid him not." On the
contrary, he seems to teach distinctly, that the evidence
in this case of connection with him was of a higher na



THE APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION.          155
ture than connection with his followers, and derived
directly from himself. To follow them was indeed a
strong presumptive proof that they who did it followed
Christ; but to work a miracle in his name was a direct
proof of the same thing. Christ had conferred the
power of casting out devils on his personal attendants
and immediate followers. We do not read that he
had publicly conferred it upon any others. It was
natural, therefore, that they should regard it as impossible for any others to possess it rightfully. But here
was a man upon whom Christ had bestowed it nevertheless, and he refers them to the possession of the
gift itself, as a sufficient proof that he had so bestowed
it. This he could not do without implying that the
exclusive spirit, which occasioned his rebuke, was
one belonging to the temporary system  of the old
economy.
From this, and from analogous expressions used
by Paul in his epistles, in relation to the same contracted views, as well as from the intrinsic qualities
which make an indispensable succession in the ministry peculiarly accordant with the forms and spirit of
the old economy, we surely may infer, that the analogy
of that succession cannot be absolutely binding upon
us, unless enforced by an express command. But even
if the mere example were thus binding, its authority
must of course extend to all the great theocratical
offices, and not to that of the priesthood alone, which
was no more a divine institution; and no more a type
of Christ's mediatorial character, than the offices of
King and Prophet. But in the succession of the Kings
there was a breach made very early, as if to warn us
not to argue from a uniform custom to an absolute




156                  ESSAY VI.
necessity. David was no less the successor of Saul than
Solomon of David; and yet in the latter case there
was derivative succession, in the former not. This, it
is true, admits of another explanation; but as to the
Prophets, there appears to have been no regular or
uniform succession in their office. The general analogy
of Jewish institutions, then, and even of the great theocratical offices, would lead to the conclusion, that an
unbroken ministerial succession is by no means indispensable. Let us grant, however, for the sake of argument, that the only binding analogy is that of the
levitical priesthood; it is not true that in it there was
an uninterrupted derivative succession from the time
of Moses to the time of Christ. Not to mention that
the line of the succession of High Priests was twice
changed during the period of the Old Testament
history-which, as we shall see, was by no means an
unimportant circumstance-it is notorious matter of
history, that after the Roman conquest, the derivative
succession of the Priests was interrupted, and the appointing power vested in a foreign government. And
yet the High Priests who, according to the adverse
doctrine, could not be legitimate successors of the earlier incumbents, appear to have been recognized as
such by the Apostles and by Christ himself; for
when officially adjured by Caiaphas, acting in that
character, he broke through the silence he had hitherto
maintained.
But even granting that the levitical succession was
in these respects precisely such as our opponents plead
for, and that being such it binds us to exact conformity, this obligation must extend to every thing which
necessarily entered into the levitical succession. But




THE APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION.           157
that succession was hereditary, and must therefore
bind us, if at all, to a hereditary Christian ministry.
If this conclusion be evaded by alleging, that the
hereditary mode of derivation was a secondary circumstance, derivative succession being all that is essential, then the same thing must be true of the succession which is formed upon the Jewish model; that
is to say, the only thing essential in our case is a derivative succession; the precise mode of derivation is
an accidental circumstance. If so, hereditary succession, though not necessary, must be lawful, and if lawful entitled to the preference, because more ancient
and accordant with the Jewish model than the mode
of ordination. If it be said, that God has changed the
mode but made the principle still binding, this assumes the existence of some explicit revelation on the
subject; but if there were such a revelation, there
could be no need of resorting to the analogy of Jewish institutions as a ground of obligation.
Again, if one may arbitrarily distinguish between
the derivative succession as essential, and the hereditary mode of derivation as an accident, another may
with equal right insist upon a different distinction, and
discriminate between a mere unbroken series or constant occupation of the office as essential, and a derivative succession or the constant derivation of authority to each incumbent from his predecessor as an accidental circumstance. This analogy then proves either
too little or too much, for it either leaves the main
point in dispute discretionary, or it invalidates all orders not derived by a hereditary succession from the
primitive presbyters. This is the case, let it be observed, even after we have granted that the Jewish




158                  ESSAY VI.
succession is a binding example, that this binding
power is restricted to the priesthood, and that the succession of the priesthood was a derivative unbroken
succession; all which, as we have seen, are mere gratuitous concessions.
It would seem, then, that the argument from analogy is no more conclusive than that from an alleged
command; or in other words, that the necessity of
uninterrupted succession can be neither indirectly nor
directly proved from Scripture. If this be so it must
of course be fatal to the adverse doctrine, unless it can
be shown that there is some inherent necessity for
such a constitution, independent of a positive command, and springing from the nature of the ministry
itself or of the ends it was designed to answer. NoIv
it will not be disputed, that the end for which the
ministry was instituted is the maintenance of truth
and its inseparable adjuncts.  But if uninterrupted
ministerial succession is essential to this end, they
must always go together. If the end can be secured
by any other means, the necessity of this means cannot
be absolute. To say that a certain means is essential
to a certain end, and yet that the end can be secured
without it, is a contradiction. If then succession is
essential to the maintenance of truth, they must be
always found together. But that teachers of falsehood
and apostates have been found in the line of the most
regular succession, under both dispensations, is an
undisputed and notorious fact.  Some of the highest
papal authorities admit that even in the series of the
Popes there have been heretics and infidels. And
few perhaps would question that the truth has been
defacto held and taught by those who were externally




THE APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION.          159
irregular and without authority. The doctrines of what
is called the Low Church are regarded by some high
Episcopalians as a serious departure from the faith;
and yet these doctrines are maintained, not only by
priests but by bishops in the boasted line of apostolical succession.  The opposite opinions, on the
other hand, have sometimes been espoused by men
in churches charged with wanting this advantage, and
before any change of their external relations.
Here then, according to the adverse doctrine, is
succession without truth, and truth without succession.
The latter cannot, therefore, be essential to the ends
for which the ministry was founded. The necessity,
if any such there be, must have respect to the continuance of the ministry itself. It may be argued that
no positive command is needed, because God undoubtedly designed the ministry to be perpetual, and to
this end an uninterrupted succession is absolutely necessary. If so, the necessity must arise, either from
something peculiar to the office of the ministry, as
different from all others, or from something in the nature of office in general, something common to this
office with all others.  Now  the only thing which
makes the ministry to differ from all other offices is
the peculiar relation which it bears to God; but this
instead of making succession more necessary makes it
less so. However indispensable such an arrangement
might be thought in human institutions, its absolute
necessity would seem to be precluded in the church,
by God's perpetual presence and unceasing' agency.
And as to office generally, that an unbroken derivative succession is not essential to its perpetuity, is
very clear from the familiar case, before alluded to, of




160                   ESSAY VI.
kings and presidents, two offices which surely may be
equally perpetual, and yet in one of them derivative
succession is entirely wanting.  That a succession of
mere sequence is essential to the perpetuity of office,
is no doubt true; but to assert it is to assert an identical proposition.  It is merely saying that in order
that an office may be never vacant, it must be always
filled. Since, therefore, a succession of the kind in
question is essential neither to the ends for which the
ministry was instituted, nor to the perpetual existence
of the ministry itself, there seems to be no original
necessity, arising from the nature of the case, and superseding the necessity of positive explicit proof from
Scripture.
If, in default of all such evidence, the necessity of
such succession is alleged to rest on the authority of
the church, the question immediately presents itself,
of what church? The practical use of the whole discussion is to ascertain what is a true church, by establishing criteria of a valid ministry. To say then that
the church requires something as the indispensable
criterion of a true church, is to reason in a circle. It
is in effect, to take the thing for granted, without any
reason; and to this, irrational as it may seem, there is
a strong disposition on the part of many.  But let
them remember that besides the unreasonableness of
such a course, it has this inconvenience, that it opens
the door for an indefinite number of precisely similar
assumptions.  If one undertakes to say, without assigning any reason or attempting any proof, that apostolical succession, in the sense before explained, is
absolutely necessary to a valid ministry, another may,
with equal right and equal want of reason, insist upon




THE APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION.         161
inspiration or the power of working miracles, pretending at the same time to possess them. Nor would
this claim be chargeable with any more absurdity than
that which we have been considering, but on the contrary admit of a more plausible defence. If for example a follower of Irving, believing himself to possess
an extraordinary gift of tongues, should make this the
indispensable criterion of a valid ministry, and plead
the promise of extraordinary powers to the apostles
and to those who should believe, the actual possession
of these powers in the primitive church, and their obvious utility as means for the diffusion of the gospel;
he would certainly make out a very strong case, in
comparison with that of him who pleads for the necessity of apostolical succession. The charge of mere
delusion or unauthorized assumption would admit of
being readily and forcibly retorted, and indeed no argument could well be used by the champions of succession against those of extraordinary gifts, except at
the risk of having their own weapons turned against
themselves.
The same is true, in an inferior degree, of many
other requisitions which might be insisted on, if once
the necessity of proof could be dispensed with. There
is therefore no security against extravagant and
groundless claims, except in the position that none,
however slight and seemingly innoxious, shall ever be
admitted without clear decisive evidence, of which we
have seen the one now  under consideration to be
wholly destitute. On this safe and reasonable principle, the failure to establish the necessity of apostolical
succession, from the word of God or the nature of the
ministry, must be regarded as an ample vindication of




162                  ESSAY VI.
our orders from the charge of invalidity. To make
assurance doubly sure, however, we may add to this
negative view of the matter several positive objections
to the doctrine of apostolical succession, in the sense
before repeatedly explained.
In the first place, it appears to be at variance with
the doctrine, common to both parties in this controversy, that the Lord Jesus Christ is the supreme Head
of the Church, and as such present with her to the end
of the world. The doctrine of succession seems to rest
upon a false and fanciful analogy, derived from human
institutions, where the founder, being mortal, loses all
control of his affairs by death, and is thenceforth inaccessible, except in a figurative sense, through those
who have succeeded to the trust. In them he lives as
"in a figure" (ev qrapa/o\X), Heb. 11: 19); and through
them his will is supposed to be consulted and complied
with. Now in such a case succession is the only link
between the founder and later generations.  It is indispensable, or may be so in certain cases, only
because nothing can be substituted for it. But the
church of Christ is no such corporation; for its founder,
though once dead, is alive again and ever liveth to
make intercession for his people, and as Head of the
Church is still within their reach. True, he uses human intervention in the government of his church,
that is, the intervention of its present rulers; but to
say that his communications pass through all the links
of the immense chain which connects the church of
this day with the church of the apostles, is to say that
he was nearer to their first successors than he is to us;
for if he was not, why must we resort to them as an
organ or medium of communication?




THE APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION.         163
And what seems especially remarkable is this, that
some who plead for the immediate presence of our Saviour's body in the eucharist should deny his spiritual
presence in the church, by deriving all authority, not
from him directly, or through those whom he actually
uses as his instruments, but through a long succession
of dead men, reaching back to the apostles, as if Christ
had never risen. Thus the popish doctrines of the
real presence and of the sacrament of orders, by a
strange juxtaposition, go together. The doctrine of
succession seems to place the Saviour at the end of a
long line, in which the generations- of his ministers
follow one another, each at a greater remove from
Him than that which went before it, and consequently
needing a still longer line to reach him. But according to our view of the true doctrine, Christ, as the
Head of the Church, may, in some respects, be likened
to the centre of a circle, and the successive generations
of his ministers to points in the circumference, at various distances from  one another, but all at the same
distance from the centre of the system.  Through
those who thus surround him he may choose to act on
others who are still without the circle, as for instance
in the rite of ordination; but when this has brought
them into the circumference, they derive their powers
as directly from the centre as if none had gone before
them. All valid powers are derived from Christ, and
not from the apostles, or from any intervening men
whatever. The agency of men in ordination is a simple, natural and efficacious method of perpetuating the
ministry without disorder, recommended by experience, sanctioned by apostolical practice, and approved
of God, but not essential to a valid ministry, when




164                  ESSAY VI.
Providence has made it either not at all attainable, or
only at the cost of greater evils than could possibly attend the violation of external uniformity.
The argument thus drawn from Christ's relation to
the church may seem  at first to prove too much by
proving, that the Scriptures are not necessary as a rule
of faith, because the author of the Scriptures is still
living and accessible.  The fallacy in this objection
lies in overlooking two essential points of difference
between the cases. The first is, that the word of God
contains explicit declarations of its own exclusive claim
to our obedience, and denounces curses upon any who
shall venture to add to it or take from it; whereas the
apostles put in no such claim for their direct successors, and utter no anathemas against all others who
should claim to be Christ's ministers. The other difference is this, that in the Scriptures there is no succession, as there is in the ministry. The Bible of the
present day is that of the first century, and claims the
same respect that would be due to the original apostles
were they still alive.  This total want of correspondence in the circumstances takes off any force,
which the objection drawn from the analogy of Scripture might have had against our argument, that the
necessity of what is called the apostolical succession
supposes Christ to be no longer in reality, but only in
name or retrospectively as matter of history, Head
over all things to the Church.
Another positive objection to the doctrine is, that
a different test of ministerial authority is expressly
and repeatedly laid down in Scripture.  This is the
test of doctrinal conformity, as taught by Paul, in reproving the Galatians for abandoning the doctrine of




THE APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION.         165
gratuitous salvation, under the influence of erroneous
teachers. (Gal. 1: 8, 9.) That these teachers acted
under the authority of a regular external warrant, may
be inferred not only from the improbability that such
influence could have been exerted by private individuals or self-constituted teachers, but also from the
form of Paul's expressions-" if I or an angel from
heaven "-which imply that the Galatians might naturally be disposed to justify their change by appealing
to the authority of those by whom they were induced
to make it. As if he had said, it is in vain that you
plead the apostolical commission and authority of
these false teachers, for if I myself or an angel from
heaven preach any other gospel, let him be accursed.
His reproof of the Galatians for their doctrinal defection necessarily implies that it might have been
avoided, by refusing to receive the instructions of
their teachers. But unless he meant to teach, in opposition to his teaching elsewhere, that they ought not
to acknowledge any spiritual guides whatever, his
meaning must be that they ought to have applied a
discriminating test to those who came to them as public teachers. But what should this test be?  The
answer to the question is given in the words, "though
I, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel
unto you than that which we have preached unto you,
let him be accursed."  The form of anathema which
Paul here uses, includes all possible degrees of censure; for one who was accursed of God could not be
recognized as a member of the true church, much less as
possessing authority in it, or entitled to the confidence
and obedience of its members. The expressions are
so chosen too as to extend to every class of persons




166                 ESSAY VI.
whose pretensions could at any time be called in question. He does not say, "if any private individual or
unauthorized public teacher" —he does not say, "if
any minister, not of apostolic rank"-he does not say,
"if any other apostle''-he does not even say, " if any
human being"-but by mentioning himself and an
angel from heaven, deliberately cuts off all claim to
exemption from' the operation of the rule.  The
standard of comparison established is not something
to be afterwards made known, but something notorious and fixed already. He does not say, " another
gospel than that which we shall preach hereafter"he does not say, " another gospel than that which is
propounded by the church"-but "any other gospel
than that which we have preached to you already."
Now if Paul could thus appeal to his oral instructions as establishing a standard from which he had
himself no right to swerve, how much more may such
a test be now insisted on, when the canon of Scripture
is complete, and a curse impending over any who shall
venture to add to it or take from it. If Paul himself,
or an angel from heaven, preaching any other gospel
than the one which he had preached already, must be
treated as accursed of God, how much more must any
other man, departing from the standard of true doctrine now confirmed and sealed for ever, be rejected as
an unauthorized pretender to the ministerial office,
whatever his external claims may be. If to this it be
objected that a man may be accursed of God, and yet
be entitled to respect and obedience as a minister, this
can be true only where the curse remains a secret, not
where, as in the present case, it is explicitly revealed.
That Paul when he says vaEJcSea'Ta Towo does not speak




THE APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION.           167
merely of God's secret purpose, or of the ultimate perdition of false teachers, but declares the duty of the
church respecting them, is evident from the imperative form of the expression, "let him be (treated or
regarded as) anathema;" from  the irrelevancy of a
mere prediction to the writer's purpose; and also
from a parallel passage in the second epistle of John,
where the same test is established. "Whosoever transgresseth, and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ,
hath not God.  He that abideth in the doctrine of
Christ, he hath both the Father and the Son." 2 John,
9. This might seem to relate merely to God's personal
favour, without any bearing upon ministerial authority or standing; but such an explanation is precluded
by the practical directions in the following verse. "If
there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine,
receive him not into your house, neither bid him God
speed," much less submit to his instructions, or acknowledge his authority, in order to avoid which even
social intercourse with such must be forborne, "for
he that biddeth him God speed is partaker of his evil
deeds."  2 John, 10, 11. In these two passages, by
different apostles, and addressed to different persons,
conformity of doctrine to the' apostolic standard is emphatically set forth as essential to a valid ministry,
the want of which could be supplied by no external
warrant or commission. The apostolical succession,
therefore, in its purest form and clearest evidence, can
be of no avail without this doctrinal conformity, because
the church is bound to treat not only the successors
of apostles, but apostles themselves, and even angels
from heaven, as accursed if they preach another gospel.




168                  ESSAY VI.
It may be said, however, that although this doctrinal conformity is necessary, it is not sufficient; that
the apostolical succession is another test of valid ministrations, and one equally essential; that the rule
which Paul prescribes to the Galatians presupposes an
external regularity in the official character of those to
whom it is applied; and that although it proves even
apostolical orders to be worthless without purity'of
doctrine, it does not prove purity of doctrine to avail,
apart from an apostolical commission. But does not
the explicit and repeated mention of the one condition, as absolutely necessary, without the least allusion to the other, in the very cases where it was most
important to enforce it, for the guidance of the church,
and the prevention of pernicious misconceptions-does
not this present a serious objection to the doctrine
that the thing thus passed by sub silentio was no less
essential to the being of a valid ministry than that
which is expressly and exclusively enjoined?  If the
early Christians were as liable to suffer from the want
of apostolical authority in ministers as from their want
of orthodoxy, why are they frequently warned against
the latter, but against the former never?
This objection presses with peculiar force on those
who look upon external regularity (including apostolical succession) as the great security for truth of
doctrine.  If Paul and John had thus regarded it,
they surely would have urged their readers to adopt
so simple and effectual a safeguard, by submitting to
the exclusive guidance of a duly sanctioned and commissioned ministry; their failure to do which is as
decisive as a negative proof can be, that they did not
even think of apostolic succession, as a preventive of




THE APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION.         169
the evil to be feared, but thought it necessary to direct
attention to the evil itself, as one with which the people must contend directly, and from which they could
escape unhurt only by vigilance, a just discrimination,
and a timely exercise of private judgment.  Let it
moreover be observed, that the value of the apostolical
succession, as contended for, depends in a great measure
on its furnishing a simple and sufficient method of determining who are and who are not true ministers,
without the necessity of seeking other evidence or applying other tests. The very fact, then, that another
is required after all, and that the worth of apostolical
succession, even when it can be ascertained, depends
upon the doctrinal correctness of the persons who possess it, makes it not indeed impossible but highly improbable that this external test was ever meant to be
essential. The end to be obtained, on any supposition,
is the maintenance of TRUTH, in the most comprehensive sense of the expression; and the strongest recommendation of the adverse doctrine is that it appears to
furnish a convenient, tangible, and efficacious method
of deciding between different opinions, without being
under the necessity of canvassing their merits in detail.
But what is the practical value of this method, if its
application must be followed by an inquiry whether
those who can abide this test are apostolical in doctrine
also? This is equivalent to laying down a rule, that
we are bound to receive as teachers of the truth all who
have apostolical commissions-provided that they teach
the truth!
An illustration may be drawn from military usage.
The design of countersigns or watchwords in an army
is to furnish those who act as sentries with a simple
8




170                  ESSAY VI.
and decisive method of discriminating friends from
foes. But what if the officer, in giving out the word,
should add an exhortation to observe the dress, complexion, gait, and language of all persons who present
themselves, and suffer none to pass who are not in
these respects entirely satisfactory? Such a direction
might be very wise and necessary; but it would certainly destroy the value of the simpler test to which it
was appended; for if even those who give the word
must be subjected to its further scrutiny, the only advantage of the watchword would be to save a little
unnecessary trouble in a few rare cases.  Another
illustration of a more pacific kind is afforded by the
usage of some churches in admitting communicants
to  the Lord's table by means of tokens, bearing
witness to the fact of their having been approved by
the competent authorities. If, in addition to this testimonial, an examination of the person were required
on the spot, the use of tokens would be soon dispensed
with as an empty form. It may be objected to this illustration, that it supposes proof to be required of the
very thing which is attested by the token; whereas
apostolical doctrine and apostolical succession are distinct and independent tests of ministerial authority.
This is true, if apostolical succession is required simply
for its own sake or the sake of some mysterious influence, actually derived from the apostles, through the
line of their successors, which we have seen to be at
variance with the doctrine of Christ's headship. But
if, as I suppose will be admitted by most Protestants,
the apostolical succession is of value as securing the
possession of the truth, then the express command to
judge of the pretensions of all ministers directly by their




THE APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION.         171
agreement with the apostolic doctrine, makes it highly
probable, to say the least, that an indirect method of
determining the same thing was not meant to be equally
essential as a test, the rather as it is not even mentioned or referred to, in connection with the other.
We have seen already that the doctrine of apostolical succession, as essential to the ministry, proceeds
upon the supposition, that it may be clearly ascertained,
and that it furnishes an easy and infallible criterion by
which to try the claims of all professing to be ministers.
Now if this were the case, it would be inconsistent
with the whole scheme of God's providence respecting
his church, as disclosed in Scripture and verified by
history. So far as his purposes are thus made known,
it forms no part of them to place the church beyond the
reach of doubt or the necessity of caution. There are
promises of ultimate security and triumph, but none
of absolute assurance and exemption from perplexity
in the mean time. On the contrary, the word of God
abounds with warnings against error and deception
and with exhortations, not to outward conformity as a
preventive, but to watchfulness and diligence and nice
discrimination. Christians are there taught not to believe every spirit, but to try the spirits whether they be
of God; to prove all and hold fast that which is good.
I John 4: 1. 1 Thess. 5: 21. "There must be heresies (or sects) among you, that they which are approved may be made manifest among you."  1 Cor. 2: 19.
This would seem to be a very unnecessary discipline,
if the original organization of the church involved a
simpler and less dangerous method of attaining the
same end. With these intimations of the Scripture
agree perfectly the facts of all church history, as show



172                  ESSAY VI.
ing that the means, by which God has been pleased
to preserve and to restore the knowledge of his truth,
have not been those afforded by ecclesiastical organizations or implicit faith in certain- teachers as successors of the apostles, but others involving the necessity
of studying the truth and searching the Scriptures, as
the only sovereign rule of faith and practice.
When considered in this aspect, the alleged simplicity and perfect certainty of apostolical succession,
in determinint all doubts, without the troublesome necessity of reasoning or investigation, far from proving
it to be a necessary part of the divine economy in governing the church, would rather tend to raise a strong
presumption that it formed no part of it at all, because
at variance with its other parts and with its fundamental principles. And this presumption is abundantly
confirmed by the fact, which may easily be verified,
that no such facility or certainty as that alleged attends
the process, but that, on the contrary, whatever it may
seem  to be in theory, it always must in practice be
uncertain and precarious. Now if the apostolical succession, as we have already seen, is not explicitly
commanded, and must therefore rest its claims on its necessity or usefulness, and if its only use can be to furnish a criterion of valid ministrations, it is clear that want
of safety and efficiency in its application must destroy
its claims to be regarded as a necessary part of the
divine economy by which the church is governed.
That God has suffered apostolical doctrine and
apostolical succession to be put asunder in a multitude of cases, and so changed the condition of the
church under the new dispensation as to render it
unspeakably more difficult to ascertain a ministerial




THE APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION.          173
succession than it was under the old, are cogent reasons
for regarding the hypothesis of its necessity as contradieted by the providence of God. And this leads
directly to the last objection which I shall suggest, to
wit, that apostolical succession, as atest of ministerial
authority, is an impracticable one, and therefore useless.
The official pedigree of no man living can be traced
with certainty to the apostles. This state of the case
might be expected apriori, from the very nature of
the case itself. That every link in the immense chain
should be absolutely perfect in itself and in its connection
with the rest; that no flaw should exist, in any instance,
from defect in the act of ordination or the ministerial
rights of the ordainer, through a period of eighteen
hundred years and an extent of many nations, must,
if looked at without prejudice, be seen to be an expectation too extravagant to be fulfilled, without an extraordinary interposition to effect it, of which we have
neither proof nor promise.
The reason that it does not thus strike every mind
when first presented, is that the nature of the succession
in question is apt to be obscurely or erroneously conceived. Many assume that nothing more is meant by it
than the perpetual existence of a ministry and its
continuance by ordination.: But that this is far from
being  the  succession  against which we are contending, is apparent from  the fact that it is not the
test applied to non-episcopal communions.  These are
required to demonstrate the validity of their ministrations by an exact deduction of their orders from
the first ordainers. That this should be possible could
never be expected a priori.  That it is not possible,
may easily be proved a posteriori, from the fact that




174                  ESSAY VI.
even under the most favourable circumstances, where
the line of the succession has been most conspicuous,
most carefully guarded, and attended by the most
abundant facilities for verifying facts-as for instance
in the case of the Roman bishops-no such succession
has been proved.
But apart from these considerations, the impossibility of proving a particular succession, in the case
of any minister, is tacitly admitted, on the part of those
who claim it, by evading the demand for proof, and
simply alleging the fact to be notorious. The case of
ministerial succession is compared to that of natural
descent from Adam or Noah, which no man can prove,
but which no man disputes. The fallacy of this analogical argument scarcely needs to be exposed. The
descent of any individual from Adam is notorious only
on the supposition that the whole human family is
sprung from a single pair. This being assumed, the
other follows of necessity. If all descend from Adam,
so must every one. To make the cases parallel, we
must suppose a plurality of races, and a dispute to
which of these a certain individual belongs. In that
case the appeal to notoriety would be absurd, and in the
absence of explicit genealogies, the only proof available would be correspondence in the physical characteristics of the progenitor and his alleged descendants.
In the supposed case this might be a difficult and
doubtful process from the want. of any accurate and
authentic description of the ancestor. But in the case
of ministerial descent, we have the advantage of a
description not only exact but infallible, with which
those who claim t6 be successors of the primitive ministers may be compared with rigorous exactness. Let




THE APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION.          175
us suppose that according to the Scriptures men had
sprung from two distinct originals, and that these were
represented as distinguished by the same external
marks which now distinguish Africans from Europeans. If any one should claim to be descended from
either of these stocks, and his pretensions were disputed, the nearest approach that could be made to a
solution of the question, would be by comparing the
complexion, features, form, hair, etc. of the claimant with the like particulars ascribed in Scripture to
the father of the race. The application of the rule
might be precarious, but without specific genealogies,
no better proof could be adduced or would be called
for.
This imaginary case affords a close analogy to that
of apostolical succession. Certain bodies of men claim
to be exclusively descended, by official derivation,
from the primitive apostles, and reject the claims of
others to a similar descent, upon the ground that they
are not able to produce specific proofs of an unbroken
succession: and when charged with the same defect
in their own orders, they appeal to notoriety, as if
there were no room to doubt or question their extraction.  But it may be questioned on the same grounds
upon which they question that of others, and the only
way in which the point at issue can be settled is by comparing the distinctive attributes of those who now
profess to have succeeded the apostles in the ministerial
office, with the corresponding traits of the apostles
themselves. By this test we are willing to abide. We
lay no claim to apostolical succession, except so far as
we agree with the apostles and the primitive ministry,
in doctrine, spirit, discipline, and life. And we con



176                  ESSAY VI.
sider our opponents as reduced to the necessity; either
of submitting to the same test, or of proving in detail
their individual descent from the apostles. The attempt to substitute for such proof the admitted fact,
that the Anglican or Romish clergy of the present
day are, as a body, the successors of the apostolic
ministry, is to evade the difficulty by confounding
general and particular succession, by insisting on the
latter when our orders are in question, and producing
the former when their own commission is demanded.
This is a virtual admission of the fact, which forms
the ground of our last objection, to wit, that apostolical succession, in the strict sense of the terms, and
as a practical test of valid ministrations, is impracticable and therefore useless.
If then, as we have tried to show, this doctrine is
not only unsupported by express command and binding
example, and by any necessity arising from the nature
of the ministerial office, or the ends for which it was
established, but at variance with the doctrine of Christ's
headship, superseded by the surer test of doctrinal
conformity to apostolic teachings, contradicted by the
providence of God, and practically useless even to its
advocates; it is not perhaps too bold an inference from
these considerations, that an incapacity to trace our
ministerial authority in regular succession, step by
step, to the apostles, is no conclusive argument, nor
even a presumptive one, against the validity of Presbyterian orders. Here we might safely rest the defence
of our ministrations against all attacks connected with
this point of apostolical succession; but we cannot do
justice tothe strength of our position, without exhibiting
the subject in another point ofview. We have endeavour



THE APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION.         177
ed to show, that the apostolical succession, which we are
accused of wanting, is not essential to a valid ministry.
This would suffice to justify our claims, even on the
supposition that our opponents possess in the highest
degree what they demand of us, and that we, on the
other hand, are utterly without it. But we have furthermore seen reason to believe that our opponents have
it in a much more limited degree than that which they
require of others. This, in addition to the unessential
character of the advantage, would at least have the
effect of bringing us nearer to a level with our neighbours, still supposing apostolical succession in the
ministerial office to be altogether wanting upon our part.
But even this residuary difference between us, with
respect to the validity of our pretensions, disappears
when it is known that, so far as apostolical succession
can be verified, the Presbyterian Church in the United
States possesses it, as really and fully as the Church
of England. In making this assertion, as in all the
reasonings of the present essay, we assume as proved
already, that a superior order in the ministry to that
of presbyters is not essential to the being of the
church, but that from the beginning presbyters have
exercised the highest powers now belonging to the
ministry. If so, it is through them that the apostolical
succession must be traced, and we accordingly maintain that our orders may be just as surely traced in
this way up to apostolic times, as those of any other
church through bishops. The denial of this fact has,
for the most part, been connected with the false assumption that the ministry of our church has been
derived from that of Geneva, and depends for its
validity  on the ministerial authority  of Calvin;




178                 ESSAY VI.
whereas we trace our orders, through the original
Presbytery of Philadelphia, to the mother-church of
Scotland, which is well known to have been reformed
with the concurrence and assistance of men regularly
ordained in the church of Rome.  The principal
admixture of- this Scottish element, in our earliest
presbyteries, was with New England Puritans, among
whom only two examples of lay-ordination are believed to have occurred, and whose ecclesiastical system
was orignally founded by regularly ordained priests of
the Anglican establishment. The proportion of those
members, in  our primitive church-courts, whose
ordination was derived from more obscure and doubtful
sources, such as the Welsh and English Independents,
was extremely small.  Whatever then a regular
succession may be worth, we can lay claim to it as far
back and as certainly as any of our adversaries.
This fact is indeed so "notorious," that it has been
met, for the most part, not with a denial of the fact
itself, but with an allegation, that the only apostolical
succession in existence is derived through Bishops, as
superior to Presbyters. It is the need of something
to destroy the force of presbyterial succession, as a
fact which cannot be denied, that has occasioned the
perpetual and almost universal combination of the
doctrine of succession with the doctrine of episcopacy,
as alike essential to the organization of the church.
We have ventured, however, to discuss them separately, and have thus been led to the conclusion, that the
highest powers of the church belong to Presbyters as
such; that succession, if derived at all, must be derived through them; and that through them we possess
it no less certainly and fully than the church of England




THE APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION.         179
or the church of Rome. We cannot indeed show
that every link in the long chain has been without a
flaw, but neither can our adversaries do so upon their
part. Until the Reformation the two lines are coincident, and since that time, the continuation of the
series of Presbyters, in Scotland, England, Ireland,
and America, is as certain and notorious as that of
Bishops. Supposing then, as we of course do, that
the rank which we have claimed for Presbyters is
justly due to them, it follows necessarily, that no objection to the validity of Presbyterian orders can be
founded on the want of apostolical succession; partly because it is not absolutely necessary, partly because we
are as really possessed of it as any other ministers
or church whatever. When any urge this argument
against our ministrations, they assume two facts, both
essential to the truth of their conclusion; first, that
such succession is of absolute necessity, and secondly;
that they alone possess it. If either of these assumptions is unfounded, it destroys the argument; for
if succession is not necessary, it matters little who has
or has it not; and if on the other hand we have as
much of it as our opponents, they can have no pretext
for impugning the validity of our ministrations. By
disproving either of those two positions, the conclusion
is destroyed. By disproving both, it is doubly destroyed, "twice dead, plucked up by the roots."
THE END.