apostle did not himself exercise the discipline or execute the sentence, but merely denounced the crime, pronounced the penalty it deserved, and should receive, and then required the church to see it carried into effect. 'Purge ye out the old leaven,' 'do not ye judge them that are within, therefore, put away from among yourselves that wicked person.' It is here, as Whitby allows, the apostle alludes to the sentence of excommunication, and here, even while bishop Timothy was present, he refers the whole case to the church, acting by its own ecclesiastical authority. And thus he afterwards speaks of it, when consummated as 'the punishment inflicted by many,' (2 Cor. 2:6,) not before (лoo) but by (vño,) many, and, therefore, not by Timothy alone, or by the apostle alone, but by all the ministers referred to in 1 Cor. 12:28, 29, and in the presence of the people. And whereas Paul delivers the criminal over to Satan, this was done by virtue of his miracu lous power to inflict corporal punishment, and was not the ecclesiastical censure inflicted by the church. The apostle thus enforced the sentence authoritatively inflicted by the teachers, with the consent of the people; but when he afterwards heard of the penitence of the offender, he first urges the church to forgive and restore him, and then intimates that he also would withdraw his inflicted penalty. In this interpretation Whitby concurs, and the ancients generally, including Theodoret, Chrysostom, and Theophylact.1

The only other case in which this interposition of apostolic authority is alleged, is that of Hymeneus and Alexander, whom the apostle delivered unto Satan, (1 Tim. 1:20.) But this also was evidently not an ordinary, but an extraordinary case, implying miraculous agency. And, if it occurred at Ephesus while Timothy was there, and is here introduced in a charge sent to Timothy, if it proves anything in the matter at all, it is that the exercise of discipline was exclusively an apostolic prerogative, and that prelates had as little interest in it as presbyters, since Timothy, the very prince of prelates, was here restrained from its exercise.2 But this case, like the preceding, is manifestly to be considered as an exercise of the miraculous and extraordinary authority of the apostle, which could not possibly be delegated to any class of men.

1) See Boyse's Anct. Episc. p. 212. See this interpretation vindicated by Cartwright, Refut. Rhem. 1 Cor. 5:4; by Parker, Pol. Eccl. 1. iii. c. 4, p. 17, &c.; by Willet, Contr. Cent. i.; by Fulke, Answ. to Rhem. 1 Cor. 5, 4; by Zanchius in præcep. 4, c. 10, p. 688; by Pet. Martyr, 1 Cor.

5; by Bucer, de Regn. Christ. 1. i. c. 9; and so also by Polanus, Dr. Field, Paræus, Zwinglius, &c. See also Sion's Royal Prerogative, Amsterdam, 1641, p. 10.

2) See this point fully discussed in Barnes's Episc. Examined, p. 126.

It is not true, therefore, that the apostles appropriated the power of excommunication to themselves. For they planted many churches, which they never again visited, in which this power must have been exercised by the presbyters ordained in every church; nor can one single instance be produced, where the apostles did excommunicate any person, in any church thus settled and supplied with pastors. It is still more baseless to assert, that the apostles delegated this power to an order of diocesan prelates, since no such prelates can be pointed out for the first two centuries, in any christian church, and since even after the distinctions of prelacy had arisen, this power was still exercised by presbyters.1

That the cases to which we have alluded were extraordinary, and were manifestations of the supreme apostolic power, is still further evinced by the general course pursued by these same apostles. They were certainly employed, during a great portion of their time, in discharging the ordinary duties of the ministry. In every possible way they identified themselves with presbyters. They frequently applied to themselves this name, and spoke of presbyters as their fellow ministers and co-workers.2 Between the false Judaizing teachers, who utterly denied his apostleship, and his claims, and himself; the apostle Paul calls the Gentile. converts, to be judges of the validity of his ministerial authority. The apostles certainly united with presbyters in the synod of Jerusalem, as fellow members, and so conducted themselves throughout that whole meeting as to make it manifest that they acted not as apostles, with a transcendent and infallible authority, but as presbyters, and as a pattern to all future assemblies. From the history of this synod, it is most clear, that Paul and Barnabas had not undertaken to decide the matter in dispute in the church at Antioch, by their own authority, but had, on the contrary, argued and debated the matter with them, and conducted themselves as fellow presbyters with the prophets and teachers there. They were also sent by that church to Jerusalem as ordinary officers, and received from it instructions and authority, as did the other presbyters sent with them. They were thus delegated as ordinary presbyters, to unite in a common council with the other apostles, presbyters, and

1) See Boyse's Anct. Episc. pp. 215, 216, where proofs are given See also Neander's Hist. of the First Plan of Christ'y, vol i. p. 170. 2) See chap.iv.

3) Ep. to Galatians. See Tay. lor's Process of Hist. Proof, p. 157.

4) See this point fully considered in Bastwick's Utter Routing, &c. p. 426, &c.

brethren. Throughout the whole discussion-for the whole matter was debated the presbyters acted as authoritatively as the apostles, (Acts, 15:6, 22, 23.) And the final decree was given in the name of the presbyters, as much as of the apostles, who, indeed, in so many words, declare, 'we have written and concluded,' (Acts, 21:1,) thus completely identifying themselves with the presbyters. From all which it is evident, that the apostles, except when employed by Christ as infallible and inspired founders of the church, acted as ordinary officers. They always professed complete subjection to the word of God as revealed to them by inspiration, or in the Old Testament, so that when Peter swerved from that rule, Paul resisted him to the face. Their very movements, as inspired apostles, were directed by the Holy Spirit.1 They were accountable to the presbytery at Jerusalem, by which even Peter was questioned,2 and required to give satisfaction. To this presbytery the other apostles were also subject, and gave an account of their labors, and of the doctrines preached by them while on their missionary tours. Paul, on different occasions, thus reported himself, and made known his doctrinal sentiments.3 He received orders from the presbytery of Jerusalem, and was ruled by them. The apostles disclaimed all lordship over the other churches also. They paid them all respect and deference in the Lord. They became all things to them. They were willing to be employed, at any time, as their agents in the accomplishment of their will. 'I'hus Peter and John were sent to Samaria; 5 Paul and Barnabas to Jerusalem, and from thence to Antioch, Syria, and Galatia. They thus preached, not themselves, but Jesus Christ the Lord, and regarded themselves as the servants of the church for Jesus' sake. It is also susceptible of the clearest proof, that under the very eye of the apostles, the several congregations in Jerusalem were united together under the government of a presbytery. This pattern was followed at Ephesus, at Corinth, at Rome, and, we may believe, every where else. To presbyteries the apostles every where committed the whole oversight and management of the churches. So that, on the whole, we may be well assured, that the power of jurisdiction was designed to reside ordinarily and permanently in the order of presbyters, and

1) Acts, 16.

2) Acts, 11.

3) See Lord Barrington's Essay

on the Apostles. 4) Acts, 21. 5) Acts, 8.

6) 2 Cor. 4:5; 1 Cor. 3:21, 23; Gal. 1:7, 8; 2 Cor. 10th, and 11th.

7) See the author's Eccl. Catechism, ch. iv. 4, &c., and Bastwick. ibid, this is the subject of nearly his whole volume.

that these are the true successors to the apostles, though not apostles in the special meaning of that term.

§ 5. The apostles were not prelates of the churches founded by them, but these churches were presided over by one of their own presbyters, chosen by themselves, as appears from numerous passages.

But we must notice one other objection to our argument, the assertion, namely, that the apostles acted during their lives as the prelates of the several churches, and that all the power exercised by presbyters was in subordination to them. This objection cannot be sustained. It is contrary to the very nature and design of the apostolic office, that the apostles should act as fixed officers or prelates over any church; the general superintendency which was a part of their extraor dinary functions, being inconsistent with every essential characteristic of prelates, who are fixed officers, and of whom there can be only one in any given church, according to the ancient canons. The apostles, therefore, could not possibly act as prelates of all the churches they founded; whilst in their extraordinary and general oversight and control, they never can have any successors. Besides, if the apostles, during their lives, continued to exercise these prelatic functions, it follows, of necessity, that there could be no such thing as prelates appointed until their death, and none afterwards, since there were none left to appoint them. Timothy, and Titus, and the whole host of aspirants after official preëminence, are thus at once denuded of their honors, whilst the angels of the churches dwindle into stars of the second magnitude, and shine forth as the simple presbyters of the churches.

But what is worst of all, we have found that one of the very last acts of these apostles was to commit into the hands of presbyters the office of the episcopate and the entire gov ernment of the churches. It admits of no question that presbyters are said to exercise the episcopate.3 This was the course pursued by the apostle Paul, by Peter, and also by the apostle John, as appears from the Book of Revelation; for, as he was then living, the epistles to the seven churches must have been addressed to their presbyters, he being still their only prelate.

1) See these views extended in Lect. on the Apost. Succ. Lect. x. 2) See ibid.

3) 2 Pet. 5: 1, 2; Nolan's Cath. Char. of Christ, p. 220; Potter on Ch. Govt. p. 115; Eng. ed. Stilling. Iren. p. 286; King's Prim. Ch. p. 79.

And thus does it appear, to the utter confusion and dismay of all hierarchists, that the apostles devolved the whole succession of their ordinary power and jurisdiction upon presby

Accordingly we find that the churches, acting upon the full belief that no other order of ministers were to be ever established, than that instituted by the apostles, namely, presbyters, proceeded to organize themselves into presbyteries, and to elect their own presidents for the better management of business, and the more efficient completion of all their plans.

Such is the view given of the apostolic churches by archbishop Potter, who allows that there was a college of presbyters ordained over the church of Jerusalem, who were plainly concerned in the care of the church.1 Our fourth proposi tion,' says Grotius, 'is this, that this episcopacy is approved by divine law, or, as Bucer says, it seemed good to the Holy Ghost that one among the presbyters should be charged with a peculiar care.' 2

In the absence of the apostles, the presbyters, as we have seen, were accustomed to preside in the church at Jerusalem.3 The presbyters of the church of Antioch must also have had one of their number to act as president when they were assembled together for the ordination of Barnabas and Saul. Such appears to have been the general practice of the churches, in all of which, according to the necessity of the case, there were a plurality of presbyters, one of their number being elected to preside in their councils; a custom which is still maintained in all its original simplicity by presbyterians.

A plurality of bishops, presbyters, or governors, says Blondel, existed at one and the same time, in one and the same church. He further supposes that these pastors, or bishops, were all indued with equal power and honor; that the eldest minister, by virtue of his seniority, was constantly the moderator among his colleague presbyters; that this moderator was subject to the power of the presbytery, and obeyed its com mands, with no less submission than did the meanest of their number; and that while he had chief power in the college, he had properly no power over it or independently of it.5 That officers of this kind might be expected in the apostolic

1) On Ch. Govt. c. 3, p. 107, Eng. edition.

2) Sacra, c. 11.

3) See Lord Barrington's Wks. vol. ii. pp. 165, 175. Also Benson on the Relig. Worship of the Christians, c. 3, § 2, p. 83.

4) Acts, 13: 1, &c. See ch. vii.

5) Apol. Præfat. pp. 6, 7, 18, 35. See Jameson's Cyp. Isot. pp. 231, 232, vol. ii. pp. 77, 78. See also Goode's Divine Rule of Faith, ch. viii. This writer denies that any thing more can be proved from scripture or from primitive antiquity.