commissioned as such by the apostles. And thus is there, in scripture itself, more than enough to overthrow the supposition, that, in direct contrariety to the statement of scripture, the ministry of the word constituted a part of the deacon's office.

§ 6. The primitive, and modern prelatical deacon, entirely different, and prelacy, therefore, an innovation upon the apostolic polity of the church.

Deacons, therefore, are not ministers of the word and sacraments. They have no spiritual jurisdiction or cure of souls. They are simply curators of the poor, and attendants upon tables and the temporalities of the church. They are not an order in the ministry, but ecclesiastical officers appointed for the express purpose of freeing the ministry from any unnecessary occupation and hindrance in the prosecution of their work. The present order of deacons, in prelatic churches, is not, in any essential particular, the same as that instituted by the apostles. The primitive deacons were officers in a particular church, and were always appointed to discharge their functions for the benefit of that congregation, and its bishops or presbyters exclusively; whereas, the modern deacon is connected with no one church in particular, but with an extensive diocese, and may even be transferred to some other and distant portion of the church. The primitive deacon was not regarded as in any measure partaking of the priesthood or ministry, but merely of the deaconship, whereas, the modern deacon is held forth as an order of the priesthood or ministry, and a necessary part of this sacred hierarchy. The primitive deacon was appointed for the very purpose of enabling ministers to give themselves wholly to the preaching of the word and to the church; whereas, the modern deacon is by custom universally authorized to preach, and to baptize, and otherwise to discharge ministerial functions. The office of primitive deacon was in itself complete, and in most cases permanent and final, and in its duties distinct, particular, and well-defined; whereas, modern deacons are a sort of nondescript ministers, who have no particular charge, no invariable and defined duties, no settled and permanent calling, and who are, in fact, mere expectants of some call, by means of which they may secure ordination as presbyters, and induction into some charge. Neither can any deacon ever become a presbyter without some such call. In short, the primitive deacon had a local habi

1) See the Canons of the Protestant Episcopal Church.

tation and a name, and was found desirable and necessary in every church; whereas, as we have seen, the prelatic deacon has been displaced from many churches, through many ages, and is, at this time, except as a probationer under training for office, a useless order, for which, as Van Epen says, the church can find no practicable occupation.1

The declaration, therefore, in the Common Prayer Book, as understood by high churchmen, is contrary to the truth in the case. The first canon of the protestant episcopal church in this country is an encroachment, in the very face of scripture and antiquity, based on the mere authority of its framers. The episcopal theory of three orders, therefore, resting, as it does, upon the pillars of its three orders of ministers, is built upon the sand, and cannot be sustained by the impartial verdict of any enlightened man who will diligently study the scriptures and ancient authors; while presbyterianism must be admitted, in this view also, to be most carefully conformed to the apostolic and primitive churches."

1) See quoted as above.

2) On this whole subject see Anderson's Def. of Presb. pp. 209-211. Henderson's Rev. and Consid. Edinb. 1706, pp. 5, 6, 8. Rutherford's Due Right of Presb. pp. 159, 174, where he fully meets every conceivable objection. Jus. Div. Eccl. Regim. p. 175, &c. Brine's Wks. vol. iv. Rutherford's Plea for Paul's Pres

bytery, pp. 291, 292. Jameson's Sum of the Episcopal Controvery, p. 91, &c. Dr. Rice, in Evang. Mag. vol. x. p. 564, &c. Bib. Repertory, 1835, p. 242, &c. Vidal's Mosheim's Commentaries, vol. i. See also a recent work, received since the above was written, On the Office of the Deacon, by the Rev. John G Lorimer. Edinb. 1842.

CHAPTER XII.

THE ALLEGED PRELATICAL CHARACTER OF EPAPHRODITUS, TIMOTHY AND TITUS, OF JAMES, AND of the SEVEN ANGELS, EXAMINED AND DISPROVED.

OF

WE have now completed our examination of the scriptural claims of presbyters, and shown that, according to the instructions and practice of Christ and his apostles, they are divinely authorized to discharge every function which has been regarded as peculiar to prelates, and that they are, therefore, the highest order in the christian ministry. But before we can consider our way as perfectly cleared, there are several objections offered to this conclusion, on whose strength the advocates of the prelacy triumphantly build their cause. They affirm that there is manifest and clear warrant for the order of prelates, in eleven cases of prelatic episcopacy found in the New Testament. These are the cases of Timothy and Titus, of James, bishop of Jerusalem, of Epaphroditus, and of the seven angels of the seven Asiatic churches. These, therefore, we shall now proceed to examine, after which we shall attend to some other objections.

§ 1. The claims of Sylvanus, Andronicus, and Junia, to be prelates, considered, and a general reply given to all such claims.

In the above enumeration, we have not thought it necessary to particularize the claims of Sylvanus, Andronicus, and Junia, which last personage was no less than the wife of Andronicus, if we are to believe Chrysostom, Theophylact, and several other fathers, and also the Greek and Latin churches generally, which observe their festival as husband and wife on the 17th of May.' And yet, in the zeal of prelatists for the enlargement of the apostolic college into something in the shape and dimensions of an order, even Junia, or, as some copies have it, Julia, is to be

1) Calmet's Dictionary, vol. i. p. 793. Junia.

duly consecrated to the prelacy, and thus give legal succession to other female occupants of the apostolic chair.1

There is, however, one general reply to all these cases of alleged apostolicity, which will show that the efforts expended in sustaining their claims are but an idle waste of ingenuity and labor, and that is, they would all, even if established, be beside the case, and prove nothing. For, could evidence be produced that Christ had sent forth from time to time, five hundred apostles, what would this have to do with the establishment of the exclusive powers of prelates, as a permanent and standing order in the ministry. We must believe that it would have just nothing at all to do with it, since, as we have abundantly proved, that as apostles such persons could have no successors," while, in their ordinary character of ministers, they are succeeded by presbyters, who are clothed with every ministerial function. Presbyters are beyond controversy, a divinely instituted order of christian ministers. Presbyters are

scriptural bishops, and have every episcopal function committed to them which can, in any reason, be pretended to. It is, therefore, impossible that scripture should announce to us another order of ministers different from bishops, to rule over bishops, and yet possessed of no other functions than those attributed to these same bishops. If, therefore, the persons above named, and the others referred to, were all elevated to the seat of the apostleship, they were thereby constituted extraordinary officers; they were adapted to the immature and unorganized condition of the church; they were endowed with supernatural gifts; they can have no successors; and they afford no precedent for the intended order of the church during its fixed, organized, and permanent condition. That order can be deduced only from the platform instituted by these extraordinary officers, and this we have proved to be the order of presbyterianism, in contrast to that of the prelatic hierarchy. But our supposition is entirely gratuitous, since there is nothing like evidence that any of these persons were constituted apostles, although Timothy and Titus, as evangelists, were endowed with extraordinary gifts, and employed in extraordinary duties.

It is allowed, even by episcopalians, that the organization of churches on the prelatical theory, was adopted by the apostles only as it regards some of the churches, while others (as in the case of Philippi) were evidently left without the order of prelates. Now from this undenied and undeniable fact, we

1) Her claims are advanced by bishop Onderdonk; see Bib. Repert. 1835, p. 255.

2) Chap. I, and Lect. on Apost Succ. Lect. ix.

may deduce a strong argument against that interpretation which would erect Timothy and Titus into prelates, and found upon them the superstructure of a hierarchy, as the permanent order of church polity. Even on the supposition that presbyterian parity is the established order of the christian ministry, we can easily comprehend both the necessity and wisdom of the temporary delegation to these supernaturally endowed evangelists, of the work of a general superintendence and arrangement. But if we will suppose the apostles to have taken the same view with episcopalians, of the necessity and supreme importance of the hierarchy, to the preservation of unity, order, and truth, and the conveyance of divine grace in the sacraments, confirmation, and ordination, then it is not possible to account for the fact, that they failed to secure this source of such allessential blessings, to all the churches erected by them. Either such an order was not conceived of by them, or else it was not regarded as of essential importance, or at all necessary for these ends. For, were it possible to secure such benefits through such an agency, there was every possible motive for its immediate appointment. The gospel, be it remembered, had very early spread itself through many distant provinces of the Roman empire, by means of the Jewish converts who were scattered abroad after the days of Pentecost, and the persecution which arose on the death of Stephen. These converts could have been but very imperfectly acquainted with the doctrines of the gospel, and would doubtless connect with it all their Jewish views and prejudices, to its great and serious detriment. The evils arising from this source, and of which we hear so much in the New Testament, must have rapidly increased in the twelve years during which the apostles confined their labors to the land of Judea. Paul did not enter upon his travels for two years subsequent to this time. Indeed, there can be but little doubt that, during this period, the errors which so afflicted the early church took their rise. Now, if, as is supposed, the apostles thus remained together to mature their plans, to unite and concentrate the authority of their decisions, and to afford access to the churches, when they did enter upon the work of travelling, we should most assuredly expect that, were prelates the divinely appointed sources of grace and order, and of unity and purity of faith, they would have been at once secured; not for one or two places, but for all. And when we find that such was not the fact, and that up to the very latest period, and when writing to churches for the last time, these apostles hinted at no such order, we are constrained to repudiate the conclusion, drawn from isolated