word regendam "govern," in the latter; which was either a great oversight or a great inconsistency. Observe especially this further consideration. When the Romanists urge that, in their sense, Peter was to "rule" CHRIST's sheep, we answer, that this notion is fully disproved by other Scriptures; as, Paul's withstanding Peter to the face, and James' presiding in a council held at Jerusalem, though Peter was present. (Gal. ii. 11. Acts xv. 13, 19.) And when the advocates of parity assert, that, in their sense, the Elders "ruled" at Ephesus, we give them an answer precisely analogous; other Scriptures contradict that notion, as is especially seen in both the epistles to Timothy, as also in those to Titus and the "angels" of the seven Churches. The word "feed" therefore (or "tend") is clearly the proper one in both passages: neither the Pope nor Presbyters have a right to the rule which they respectively claim. NOTE C-PAGE 435. In the epistles to the "angels" of the Churches in Smyrna and Thyatira, (Rev. ii.) there is a change from the singular to the plural number. This we Episcopalians say, marks a transition of the address, from the angel or Bishop, to his Church generally; but parity often alleges that these examples of the plural number show the entire epistles to have been intended for each whole Church; and thus, it is supposed, the idea is refuted that these seven epistles were meant for the angels or Bishops, distinctively and individually. But the same change in the mode of address occurs in the epistle of Ignatius to Polycarp, Bishop of the same Church at Smyrna; as will be seen by a reference to Archbishop WAKE's Translation of the Apostolical Fathers, p. 228, American edit.; or Dr. COOKE's Essay, p. xxiii.* In the first four paragraphs, Ignatius addresses Polycarp personally and exclusively. In the fifth he sends a message, through Polycarp, to the " sisters" and the "brethren." But in the sixth he bursts forth directly to the Church of Smyrna, the flock at large-"Hearken unto the Bishop, that God also may hearken unto you. My soul be security for them that submit to their Bishop, with their Presbyters and Deacons. And may my portion be together with theirs in GOD. Labour with one another, contend together, run together......Let none of you be found a deserter......Be long-suffering therefore toward each other in meekness, as GOD is towards you." The paragraphs following are addressed to Polycarp, like the first four. Now, no one doubts that this epistle was directed to one individual, Polycarp, and that the greater part of it related to him personally, or in the sacred office which he held; those even who deny its authenticity must allow that it is fabricated on this principle: yet the whole of the people are, in the very body of the epistle, addressed directly by Ignatius. Such an episode then is no violence to the main current of such a writing; it was not, in that age, deemed absurd or incongruous. An address to the flock does not vitiate the address to their Bishop in which it occurs. This answers the only real objection to the episcopal construction of the epistles to the seven "angels." It may be here added, that, in the second epistle of St. John, the address is twice changed from the plural number to the singular; part of it being addressed to the "elect lady" particularly, and part to her and her children jointly. The inscription and the conclusion of the epistle to Philemon are addressed to several persons and a Church; the body of the epistle is addressed to Philemon, and intended for him exclusively. In Philip. iv. 2, 3. are direct addresses to individuals, occurring within the body of an epistle to a whole Church. * See page 401, second edition. NOTE D-PAGE 436. Episcopacy Permanent. answer Scriptural proof having been given for episcopacy, down to the latest date of the inspired canon, and it having been also shown that no other ministry is set forth in the New-Testament, all is done that was proposed in the beginning of this essay. It will not, however, be improper to add a few more remarks concerning its permanent obligation. Some allege that, though as the only scriptural model it was binding in the first ages, it does not follow that it continues binding through the whole Christian dispensation. To this allegation we thus reply:-1. It resembles that of the denomination of Friends concerning the sacraments, that their outward signs were intended for only the early Christians, not for our later periods. There is no stronger intimation, we believe, that visible sacraments were to be perpetual, than that the ministry established by the Apostles was to be so: the expression, concerning the LORD's Supper, "ye do show the LORD's death till he come," being no stronger than the charge to Timothy (and every succeeding minister of his rank) to "keep the commandment" or trust committed to him "till the appearing of our LORD JESUS CHRIST." (1 Cor. xi. 26. 1 Tim. vi. 14.) The answer to this error concerning the sacraments is or includes an answer to the supposition before us, that episcopacy, though having inspired authority at first, was yet of only transient obligation. This to the mistaken opinion concerning the sacraments we need not here detail, as those we now address unite with us in deeming it sufficient.-2. If it be allowed, of any two ministries now existing, that the one is based on Scripture, and the other not, no sound mind, we think, will deny that the former is obligatory to the exclusion of the latter.-3. When our Saviour, after finally commissioning his Apostles, added "lo, I am with you alway, even to the end of the world," (Matt. xxviii. 20.) he meant that He would always be with the apostolic ministry. This is affirmed by sound Presbyterians, as well as by ourselves. And the declaration proves that that ministry was to exercise its LORD's authority in the Church to the end of the world. That ministry, the apostolic or scriptural one, we have demonstrated, and is allowed by the persons with whom we now argue, to have been episcopal. Can it then be imagined by those who are thus far with us, that any ministry subsequently established has the Saviour's authority? If not, then the position cannot be evaded, that episcopacy is permanently binding, "even to the end of the world."4. The epistles to Timothy are said by parity to be intended for all ministers in all ages. Episcopalians say that, besides being addressed to him as the chief minister at Ephesus, they were intended for the direction of all other chief ministers, by us called Bishops; and this, we presume, is allowed by those for whom this note is written. We now make the more explicit statement, that these epistles are for the direction of Bishops in all ages. This assertion is proved by the injunction, before quoted, to fulfil their trust "till the appearing of JESUS CHRIST;" and particularly by there being passages in them which speak of" the latter times" and "the last days." (1 Tim. iv. 2 Tim. iii.) These periods, as distinguished by the evils that were to attend them, did not, we think, begin during the life of Timothy; for what the Apostle writes concerning them is in the future tense, "in the last days, perilous times shall come," &c. And it has been well remarked, that, though the vices there mentioned have always existed in the world, their being spoken of as characteristic of the latter days implies, that besides being com mon, they would be openly avowed and defended; which cannot be said of the primitive Church. But begin "the last days" and their mischiefs. when they might, they have not ended yet; neither, of course, is the obli gation respecting thein, imposed on Bishops by these epistles, ended; nor is the consequent obligation of Christians ended, to support bishops in these their duties, i. e. to conform to episcopacy; non-conformity being opposition, either active or passive. And thus episcopacy had and has authority through all these periods; its authority is permanent, down to the present age of the world. One direction, grounded on latter-day defections, is particularly worthy of notice;" from such turn [thou] away," or as otherwise translated, "such turn [thou] away." (2 Tim. iii. 5. See M'Knight.) In the former sense, the passage recognises an authoritative discountenance or rejection of false teachers, or of false flocks with their teachers, to be exercised by an individual church officer "in the last days." In the latter sense, it recognizes, more explicitly, the power of excommunicating such persons, as residing in such an individual officer, in these periods. In either sense, episcopacy is recognized, as existing and having authority "in the last days"in other words, as a permanent institution, and of permanent obligation. NOTE E-PAGE 436. The Plea of Necessity. It is due to our discussion, to add a few remarks on the question-whether necessity will justify a departure from the apostolical or scriptural ministry, or the instituting of a new ministry where that cannot be obtained? On this subject, the first point to be determined is, what is 'necessity'?--'Absolute necessity' to assume the functions of the ministry never can exist; salvation is not indissolubly connected with the offices of a pastor; the sacraments are not absolutely, but only "generally necessary to salvation," those who cannot obtain them not being required to partake them.-Difficulties long insuperable, preventing the attainment of an important object, form the next species of 'necessity,' and that which is usually referred to in this argument. And here several questions arise--are the difficulties insuperable-have they been long insuperable-is the object so important as to justify deviation from an institution allowed to be divine? There should be no reasonable doubt on either of these points. In our opinion, the last of the above questions can never be justly answered in the affirmative; no plea can be strong enough to release us from divine appointments. What God has instituted for his Church he will preserve in his Church, and diffuse though it, till the institution be abrogated by him, or is about to be so. This appears to us so clear a dictate of faith, so fundamental a religious truth, that we will not argue for it; it is an axiom, or at least an undeniable postulate. And it ought to settle the whole matter. But we shall carry the discussion through. As then to the other two questions-we doubt whether the difficulty of obtaining an apostolic ministry, has ever been insuperable for any greater period than might naturally and fairly be allowed for the purpose-and we deny that the difficulties, be they what they might, have ever been long insuperable. And thus far, having used only the phrase apostolical or scriptural ministry, we suppose that Parity agrees with us, We now remind our readers that we have, in our essay, proved the apostolical ministry to be episcopacy. And, to come at once to the great case, we think it doubtful whether Luther and his associates, and Calvin and his associates, were prevented from obtaining episcopacy by difficulties strictly insuperable. It is well known to those acquainted with ecclesiastical history, that Novatian, a schismatic Bishop, induced three obscure Bishops to consecrate him* and among the multitude of papal Bishops, could not * MILNER, Vol. I. p. 331, and EUSEBIUS, Book & those Reformers have found three, elevated or obscure, to give them the succession, or else to join with them, and preside over their purified Church? and this, without resorting to the culpable methods ascribed to Novatian? if this was not clearly impracticable, our present argument has all that it asks. Again: it is known to the readers of church history, that Frumentius, after collecting together a few Christians in India (perhaps Abyssinia,) and converting some of the natives, applied to Athanasius, Bishop of Alexandria in Egypt, for a Bishop to govern them, and ordain pastors for them :* and could not the Reformers alluded to, failing with Romish Bishops, have gone or sent, to the Greek, or other Eastern churches, for the episcopal succession? did they ever make the experiment? Yet again: it is recorded, that the Bohemian Church obtained episcopacy from the Waldensest and could not the Reformers above mentioned have obtained it from either the Waldenses or the Bohemian fraternity? did they attempt to do so, although these Christian communities were as much opposed to the Pope as themselves? In fine: Did either of those Reformers use any efforts whatever for this purpose? if not, how can the difficulty be c called insuperable? or how can it be made the basis of the plea of necessity? Now, be it recollected we question not the motives of these eminent servants of God; we believe them to have been pure; but, on that point, they and we stand or fall only to our common master; motives have nothing to do with the claims of truth. All that we assert is, that be the difficulties what they might in procuring episcopacy, it is doubtful whether they were insuperable; and that if they were not insuperable, the case of 'necessity' did not exist. We may indeed carry this part of our argument yet further, and ask, whether any difficulty of magnitude can be alleged-if we may draw, from the following quotations from Milner, the conclusion, that Bishops so friendly to Luther would have consecrated him?". John Thurzo, Bishop of Breslaw in Silesia. This good prelate was descended from a noble family in Hungary, and is said to have been the very first papal Bishop who, in his diocese, was favourable to the revival of pure Christianity. Luther, on the occasion of his decease, says in a letter to a friend, 'in this faith died John Thurzo, Bishop of Breslaw, of all the Bishops of this age the very best."" "The pious Thurzo died in August, 1520; but the reformation does not appear to have materially suffered from this loss. His successor, James of Saltza, trode in his steps. This Bishop appointed.... John Hesse..... a dear friend of Luther, to preach the gospel in the church of St. M. Magdalen at Breslaw. Hesse not only explained and enforced the great truths of Christianity from the pulpit, but for eight days together, in a public disputation, defended the same, and exposed the papal dogmas concerning the mass and the celibacy of the clergy"t-to the joy of Luther, and the vexation of the Pope. Bishops thus friendly to Luther and his cause, and thus appointing to a conspicuous station one of his dear and zealous friends could they not have been prevailed on to consecrate him? They were, of course, under the usual promises of fidelity to the Romish Church; but these could have been no stronger in their particular cases, no more binding, than those of all the first Reformers, whether Bishops or Presbyters; who all held such obligations to be dissolved, when they came to perceive that the vital corruptions inflexibly maintained by that Church required their separation from it. We therefore suggest the doubt, whether there was any difficulty of magnitude in the way of Luther's obtaining episcopacy for his Church. *SOCRATES, B. 1, c. xix. and MILNER, Vol. II. p. 110 +Commenius, quoted in BOWDEN'S Letters, Vol. II. p. 79. Vol. III. 332, 342 Vol. I. p. 223. II. p. 163, 2d ed.] MILNER, Vol. V. p. 259, 260. The above considerations render almost unnecessary a notice of our remaining proposition-that insuperable difficulties did not long exist. We proceed however to the proof. Luther separated from the Church of Rome in 1520; the protest on which the name Protestant was founded, was made in 1529; the Confession of Augsburgh dates 1530.* Now, to say nothing of the possibility of getting the episcopal succession in England under Henry VIII, who died in 1547, or under Edward VI, the Church in Sweden was fully reformed in 1527, and that in Denmark in 1539;† both were reformed under Lutheran influence; and both retained episcopacy. Will then any considerate person deny, that, had efforts been made, the succession might have been obtained from Sweden not "long" after Luther abjured the papal authority, and before the period when the name Protestant and the Augsburgh Confession gave the finish to the Lutheran Church? Or, if that Church had obtained episcopacy ten years afterwards, when Denmark could have given it to them, would that have been waiting "long" for a divine institution? Where then is the evidence on which the plea of 'necessity' is grounded!-Let the reader be reminded, that we are not discussing, in this note, the claims of the ministry which those great reformers established; is done in our essay. Neither are we arguing here with those who deny episcopacy to be a scriptural institution; they have no occasion for the plea of necessity. Neither do we now touch the question, whether this point of external order is of importance; on that subject, our essay has, we presume, said enough; and those who plead 'necessity' allow, by so doing, the importance of the rule departed from on that account. The present note is intended for those who grant the apostolic origin of episcopacy, and its obligation, except in the one case of necessity,' reasonably defined. And to these we say, that there is no evidence that such 'necessity,' concerning the point before us, has ever existed. that On the subject of 'supposed necessity' (supposed by the persons originally concerned) it is impossible to argue, because the case cannot be defined; one person calling that 'necessity' which another denies to be so. When the difficulty appears great, those who yield to it are, we doubt not, excused by a merciful God; and they ought to be fully and readily excused by men. But this mild judgment of persons does not establish either the correctness of their opinions, or the validity of their acts. Least of all, can the 'supposed necessity' which may formerly have led to a deviation from divine institutions, be a sound plea for persevering in that deviation after the 'supposed necessity' has ceased. It has now been shown, we think, that there never was any real' necessity' for dispensing with episcopacy. But, allowing for former periods all that is ever claimed on that score, there has been no difficulty at all in procuring a protestant episcopate, or else in finding one to conform to and unite with, since the Scotch Bishops consecrated Bishop Seabury, the first on our American list, NOTE F-PAGE 437. The great petitio principii of our opponents is, that the whole apostolic function, as distinguished from that of Presbyters, was transient. For this supposition, there is neither proof nor hint in Scripture. Inspiration was transient; but in no other respect can the apostleship be shown to have lost its original completeness. Timothy, Andronicus, and Junia, are called Apostles; but there is no evidence that they were inspired; and though Silvanus, also denominated an Apostle, was a "prophet" (Acts xv. 32.) it * MOSHEIM, Vol. IV. p. 50, 71, 89. + Ibid., Vol. V. p. 79, 82. |