Apostolic organism.

Front matter

Apostolic Organism.

BY

J. C. MAGEE, D- D

Section I. Western, Latin, or Roman Catholic Church, 26

II. Eastern, or Greek Church, 65

III. Anglican, or Established Church of England 66

IV. Anglo-American, or Protestant Episcopal Church, 84

V. Unitas Fratrum, United Brethren, or

Moravian Church, 86

VI. Culdee Church, 89

VII. Other Claimants, 90

" VIII. Various Objections Stated, 90

CHAPTER II. Derivation, or Accreditization, 116

Section I. Church Defined, 116

" II. Ministry, How Scripturally Constituted 138

" III. Orders and Offices, 150

" IV. Ministerial Prerogatives or Functions, 165 a u

10 CONTENTS.

Part II. HARMONY OF METHODIST EPISCOPAL GENESIS AND

ORDER WITH THE PRECEDENTS AND PRINCIPLES

OF THE NEW TESTAMENT.

CHAPTER I.

Page.

Development and Formation of the Methodist

Episcopal Church, 179

Section I. Organic Act and Principles, 183

" II. Relation of John Wesley to the Organic Act, 199

" III. Harmony of Methodist Episcopal

Structure with New Testament Uses

of the word Church, 216

IV. Ministry — Orders, Offices, Prerogatives 218 V. Combination of Qualities of Various

Forms, 230

" VI. Some Methods — Itinerancy, Episcopacy, Presiding Eldership, Classmeetings, Love -feasts, Modes of Worship, Probationary Membership 238 " VII. Duty of All Christians to Sustain Ecclesiastical Order, 254

VIII. Conclusion, 257

Introduction

ANEW book demands a raison d'etre. Why this book? The answer is not far to seek. " Apostolic Organism" is not a work of supererogation. It is not a Quixotic assault upon a wind-mill. In it will be found no knight-errantry. The author has no call to assail or withstand dead foes. He is himself too thoroughly alive to be satisfied with a moribund cause. He is intent on peace ; hence his choice of keenest weapons and of most advantageous positions. He does not defend his fortress by marching out his garrison. Conquest does not mean surrender. Thorough self-respect asks only for a fair field and no concessions. Cowardice never produces conviction. A rational faith calls for no compromise. Apologetics are not here in order. A challenge of one's right to be, invites candid questioning as to what life is. This the author has undertaken. The issue discussed ia both old and new. The matter is apostolic ; the method is modern ; the spirit is irenic. To determine 1 ' the signs of an apostle " is the aim ; to determine

the legitimacy of Succession as well. The work,

12 INTR OD UCTION.

though brief, is well done ; the merit of this brochure is neither scant nor obscure. It is written in an attractive style ; the argument is conducted in a candid and judicial spirit, as free from bigotry as it is from cant ; the historical data adduced are ample and valid ; and the conclusions reached abundantly vindicate the apostolicity of our Church organism, without, on the one hand, making the baseless claim of exclusive tactual succession, or conceding, on the other, the futility of any attempt to identify the Church of to-day with that of the apostolic period. The author has written from the stand-point of a pastor, with a distinct perception of the needs of the people. I am confident that his work will prove a boon to the younger members of the Methodist Episcopal Church, while it will be read with pleasure and profit by mature minds both in the ministry and laity.

J. C. W. COXE.

Part Or>e.

ALTERNATIVE DOCTRINES OF GENESIS AND ORDER OF A NEW TESTAMENT CHURCH AND OF MINISTERIAL AUTHORIZA- TION STATED AND EXAMINED.

Apostolic Organism.

PRELIMINARY.

GOVERNMENT, FACT, FORM, TENDENCY.

GREAT facts have great underlying philosophic principles; and great institutions, not only reasons why they exist, but rational methods by which they came into and continue in existence. There is a philosophy of history, as well as a history of philosophy. " History," it is declared, "is philosophy teaching by example."

Because of the varied relations of man, government has been one of the world's great facts. In both civil and ecclesiastical affairs, order and stability have always been a desideratum.

In civil fabrics three principal forms of government have obtained, all others being but modifications or combinations of these ; namely, Monarchy, Aristocracy, Democracy. The first, being executed by the authority of a single individual, the throne of power being obtained by hereditary descent and held through life, when

absolute or autocratic, the executive rules without ministry, parliament, or council; when despotic, he governs by his own will, with oppression, and without established law ; when limited, the power is restrained by a constitution and a representative assembly of the people governed.

In the second the nobles of a country govern conjointly — an oligarchy, being nearly allied to it, obtaining where a few, either nobles or plebeians, rule;t his form usually arises where, in the revolution of empires, the former ruler is deposed.

In the third, power is lodged wholly in the hands of the people collectively. A republic is the same principle, only administered by representatives chosen by the people.

Anarchy is a want of government, a state of lawless confusion, being, of all conditions, the very worst possible, even tyranny being preferable — the worst government being better than none at all.

The tendency of each form, because of human selfishness, is to an accumulation of power, — in the first, to become more and more despotic ; in the second, the officers of government incline to act for their own personal interests, as against the good of the people ; in the third, government inclines to become more and more liberal, and, if unrestrained and un sustained by the highest order of patriotism and public virtue, will terminate iu anarchy and ruin.

The Church of the living God is the most exalted organism on the face of the earth, it being not a mere society or fraternity, but a fellowship originating in heaven, the place of its glorious destination; it is identified with the very highest interests of humanity in time and in eternity. The absolute necessity of some form of Church government, with plenary power properly vested to receive members, hear complaints, and exclude the incorrigible, is clearly obvious; no society, fraternity, or fellowship, being able to long exist without power to do all things necessary to its well government and preservation (c/*. Watson's Institues, Part IV, ch. i). Many, impatient of restraint and unwilling to be subject to Church order, have called the New Testament their Discipline, and, conveniently understanding it to suit their feelings, have sought to form and perpetuate Churches without efficient governments; but such have usually proved short-lived, like Jonah's gourd, and the hue and cry of liberty, dying away, serves no purpose but to warn of the folly of such useless efforts.

The principal forms of Church government which have obtained since the introduction of the gospel are, namely, Independent, Congregational, Presbyterian, and Episcopal.

In Independency, all ecclesiastical power originates and remains with the local assembly or

Church, it elevating one of its own number to ministry. In Congregationalism, the same definition obtains, with the additional element of consociation with neighboring Churches for purposes of mutual advice and co-operation in matters of discipline, and association of ministers of those Churches for the same purposes, and mutual helpfulness. In Presbyterianism, power is quite largely lodged in the Presbytery, consisting wholly of elders, one preaching and one ruling (a layman) from each Church or congregation ; and the affairs of the local Church quite largely administered by its life-tenure officiary, constituting a Session for such purpose. In Episcopalianism, two salient views obtain : First. Prelatical Episcopacy, which, in its turn, is maintained by two views, — (a) That ecclesiastical authority has lineally descended from the apostles to the bishops, who are held to be a superior order, holding authority over the inferior clergy, the presbyters or priests, and the deacons, and that the high functions connected with ordination to ministry and general superintendence over ministers and Churches, is the divinely enjoined and inherent prerogative of this class of officers. While the advocates of this view will grant that God has left men at liberty to modify every other kind of government, according to the needs and circumstances, they will yet contend that one form of government for the Church is unalterably fixed by divine appointment, and that theirs is that one, absolutely essential to the existence of the Church. (6) That the primacy of St. Peter has descended through the line of the bishops of Rome, and that the true Church and true Churchliness can be found only where this descent, with all its hierarchical accompaniments, can be traced.

As the result of this view, there have been unlimited confusion and uncertainty. As applied by Rome, it excludes from Christendom all of the Eastern Churches before the Reformation, and the entire Protestant world since. As applied by Protestant High-Churchism, while untenable on its own grounds, it yet cuts off all other episcopal and all non-episcopal communions, declaring that wherever it is wanting there is no Church, no regular ministry, no valid ordinances; and that all who are united with religious societies not conforming to this order are " aliens from Christ/' " out of the appointed way to heaven," and have no hope but in the " uncovenanted mercies of God."

Charity leads us to hope that it is but a small contingent who hold this extravagant view. Indeed, many prelatists hold it with great modification, saying that the government of the Church by bishops, as a superior order to presbyters, was sanctioned by apostolic example, and that it is the duty of all Churches to imitate this example; but, while considering episcopacy as necessary to the highest perfection of the Church, they magnanimously concede that it is by no means necessary to the existence of Church-life; and accordingly acknowledge, as true though incomplete Churches of Christ, many in which the episcopal doctrine is rejected, and other principles made the basis of ecclesiastical government.

Second. Moderate Episcopacy holds that neither Christ nor his apostles prescribed any particular form of ecclesiastical government, to which the Church must positively adhere in all ages and under all circumstances; but that he and they simply indicated general or constitutional principles, leaving their application of details, or statutory enactments to Christian expediency. It agrees with Independency and Congregationalism, in maintaining that all ecclesiastical authority, by Divine institution, originates in the Body of Believers— the Church — but parts hands with them when they aver that the exercise of such authority must reside or remain there; holding that the body where authority originates may lodge its exercise in a properly constituted executive, under suitable constitutional checks and balances; and, requiring accountableness back to itself, may order such things as are Scripturally and historically allowable for the attainment of the highest ends — - a true Church objective — as the needs of the work from time to time demand. This includes supervisory power over pastors and the Church at large, as well as pastoral supervision over particular Churches. Hence, while recognizing the equality of ministerial order, it also recognizes diversity in jurisdiction. In advocacy of this view there have been many of the most pious and learned of earth.

The tendencies of these forms of Church government, like those of the State, if unrestrained by proper checks and balances, is for power to accrete or accumulate in the direction in which it is lodged.

The tendency of a government which is an amalgam or union of the best phases of all, will be an interesting study in its proper place.

May the Good Spirit guide us into a desire to know the truth as we proceed !

DOCTRINES STATED.

What is the legitimate genesis, beginning, or origination, of a particular Church? Whence are ecclesiastical constitution and order? What the source and method of legal ministerial commission? In reply, there are two sharply denned, and, we may say, rigidly alternative doctrines; namely, —

First. A Church is a divinely constituted organism, a body of Believers in covenanted compact, providentially associated for the ends and purposes of the Christian life ; incumbency in the ministerial office therein originating in the call of God, and deriving its legal ecclesiastical status by the accreditization of the Church, acting in the name of the Lord Jesus, the Head of the Church, and the sole source of all authority in his kingdom.

Second. A Church is a corporate body, existing intact in external documentary form from the beginning of the Christian era; ministerial or priestly functions and status therein being transmitted in consecutively successive commissions by the authority of the ordainer to the ordained, by the imposition of hands and accompanying ceremonies.

The first we shall call the doctrine of Derivation, or accreditization ; the second, the doctrine of Transmission, or successionism.

DOCTRINES EXAMINED.

Reversing the order, we first consider the doctrine of Transmission, or successionism.

CHAPTER I.

TRANSMISSION, OR SUCCESSIONISM.

AS a fair statement of this doctrine, whether it be held by papists or Protestant High- Churchmen, I quote from a work entitled, "Apostolical Succession in the Church of England," by Arthur W. Haddan, B. D., which is put forth as representative of the standard doctrine on that theme, in which it is said, in chapter i : " The doctrine of Apostolical Succession means that, according to the institution of Christ, a ministry ordained in due form by [episcopal] succession from the apostles, and so from our Lord himself, is an integral part of that visible Church of Christ upon earth to which Christian men are to be joined. It implies, further, that the ministry so ordained is not a merely external office of convenience and of outward government, but involves also the transmission of special gifts of grace, in order to the carrying on in the Church of the supernatural work of Christ by his Spirit. For although, no doubt, it might have been appointed that even a merely outward office of convenient order should have required a supernatural authorization, yet it is more intelligible, and seems more necessary, and is actually part of the doctrines as held by the Church, that a supernatural work should need a supernatural sanction, and that what is rightly held to be the grace of orders, and not a merely outward appointment, should be transmitted by those only who have themselves, in succession, received that grace, and the authority to transmit it, from its own original source."

As items implied in a belief of this statement of an apostolic ministry, the same author proceeds to state, under six heads: "1. A belief in the continued need of supernatural gifts, a supernatural revelation of truth, and a supernatural gift of spiritual life, — a belief in the grace of God. 2. That these gifts of grace are intrusted to a corporate body, established and continued in the world by God himself, and that they are to be obtained ordinarily and primarily by the individual Christian, as in union with Christ through this his mystical body upon earth. ... 3. A belief that in this Church there is a divinely constituted ministry, . . . an order of clergy, . . . men to whom God, by his appointed instruments, has intrusted certain authority and powers — a message of truth to be delivered and gifts of grace to be dispensed, — ministers of the Word and sacraments. 4. A belief in the grace oj orders;

i. e., in the necessity and in the spiritual effectiveness of a proper formal ordination. 5. A belief in episcopal ordination. 6. Lastly, if the grace of orders be a grace at all, we are brought, in the end, to that which is specially intended by Apostolical Succession, viz., to a belief that the gift of orders, so transmitted by the bishop, with the laying of the hand of the Presbytery, must needs have descended in unbroken line from those who first had it, viz., the apostles. All this scheme of doctrine/' he continues, "obviously is of one piece, and holds together as one complete and homogeneous view of the way of God's dealings with Christian men. It means, in a few words, without bishops, no presbyters ; without bishops and presbyters, no legitimate certainty of sacraments; and without sacraments, no certain union with the mystical body of Christ, viz., with his Church. Without this, no certain union with Christ; and without that union, no salvation."

In a moment of tenderness Mr. Haddan's Christian charity rises superior to his logic, and he says: "It is true, no doubt, that those Christian communities who have no such ministry do, nevertheless, on the one hand, cling to parts of the scheme of doctrine — some more, some less — < to which it belongs, and repudiate often, and many of them maintain, extremely opposite views;

and that, on the other, they show proofs in Christian love and earnestness that the grace of God, from the ordinary channels of which they have cut themselves off, has, nevertheless, overflowed its bounds, and reaches over to them." This ebullition of generosity would not find favor with all who advocate the former statements of that author. However, we are thankful to Mr. Haddan for " small favors/' and are abundantly capable of being " proportionately so for large ones."

The complexion to which the whole matter must finally come is simply this: Can such a doctrine be sustained Scripturally, historically, morally? To such inquiry we address ourselves, examining patiently every possible link in such a chain.

Section I. is thk doctrine; of transmission demonstrable

THROUGH THE WESTERN, OR EATIN, CHURCH, COM- MONEY KNOWN AS THE ROMAN CATHOEIC?

The papal claim runs thus : Peter the apostle was given, by our Lord Jesus Christ, a visible headship of the whole militant Church ; and a primacy, not of honor and rank alone, but of direct and sovereign jurisdiction over all the other apostles; that this primacy was not limited to Peter's person only for his life-time, but was conferred on him with power to bequeath it to his successors ; and that he did so bequeath it to the bishops of Rome, and that it has continued in unbroken descent through the Christian centuries.

This claim for what the modern Roman theologians have called the " Privilege of Peter," as set forth in the first two propositions above, in order to be accounted divine in the Church of Pome, and warranted by Revelation, must be based (a) on Holy Scripture, (6) on the historical tradition of the Church, (c) on the unanimous consent of the fathers. The proof of the third and concluding proposition above, must depend upon the evidence of Church history subsequent to the New Testament period.

The charter or conveyance by which such a right could be given to Peter needs to be very express and clear, because privilege being a private exception to the usual public course of law, either in the form of exemption from some burden generally imposed or of enjoyment of some benefit generally withheld, is essentially an invidious thing, and requires fuller proof than any other right before it can be allowed as valid.

An examination of the Holy Scriptures, not from a theological but a legal point of view, is vital to the issue. Our Lord's charter to St. Peter is held to be contained in the three following clauses of the Gospels, namely :

1. "And Jesus answered and said unto him,

Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-jona : for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but ray Father which is in heaven. And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church ; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven ; and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven ; and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven." (Matt, xvi, 17-19.)

2. " And the Lord said, Simon, Simon, behold, Satan hath desired to have you, that he may sift you as wheat : but I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not: and when thou art converted, strengthen thy brethren." (Luke xxii, 31, 32.)

3. " So when they had dined, Jesus said to Simon Peter, Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou me more than these? He saith unto him, Yea, Lord; thou knowest that I love thee. He saith unto him, Feed my lambs. He saith unto him again the second time, Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou me? He saith unto him, Yea, Lord; thou knowest that I love thee. He saith unto him, Feed my sheep. He saith unto him the third time, Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou me? Peter was grieved because he said unto him the third time, Lovest thou me? And he said unto him, Lord, thou knowest all things; thou knowest that I love thee. Jesus saith unto him, Feed my sheep." (John xxi, 15-17.)

This is the sum total of the charter. In noticing these Scriptures the following facts are apparent: First. By reference to the Greek text of the passage in Matthew, in connection with that of the partially parallel passage in John i, 42, there is unquestionably an ambiguity of wording which is not certain, manifest, and unmistakable in meaning, a peculiarity reproduced by the Vulgate, thus failing to satisfy the condition required by the canonists that the wording must be certain and manifest, not obscure or doubtful. Obviously the words can not be obscure or ambiguous in expressing what the Lord Jesus actually meant; but, in order to warrant the stress laid by Roman theologians, the same word should be used in both clauses of the sentence, which is not. As the clauses actually stand, there is contrast as well as likeness implied; and the stone, although akin to the rock, is something different and apart from, less in dimensions, stability, and importance.

Furthermore, the analogy of faith demands that the Gospel shall always be, at the very least, on an equality with the law, and that, wherever possible, it shall move in a higher plane; but that it shall never descend, under any circumstances whatever, to a lower level, much less substitute a type for a reality, a shadow for a substance. Now, wherever in the Old Testament the word rock is spiritually used to denote either the basis and strength of the Hebrew Church, or the refuge and confidence of a single believer, it invariably means none save Almighty God himself, in which sense it occurs very many times — e. g., Deut. xxii, 4; Deut. xxxii, 18; 1 Sam. ii, 2; 2 Sam. xxii, 2, 3, 32 ; 2 Sam. xxiii, 3 ; Psa. lxii, 1, 2 ; Isa. xxvi, 4 (margin) ; Isa. xliv, 8 (margin), et al. The same identity of spiritual application is preserved by our Lord in the .New Testament, Matt, vii, 24, 25; Luke vi, 47, 48; and by Paul, 1 Cor. x, 4, and 1 Cor. iii, 2.

Second. The prerogative expressed, whatever it may have been, was not peculiar to Peter, but common to others. Was not the question put to the whole twelve ? Did not Peter answer for the whole twelve in the mighty confession which he uttered relative to the God- man ? More ; we are told that in what appears to be the interval between Peter's going away to pay the tributemoney for Christ and himself (Matt, xvii, 27), and his return to the other apostles, when he put his question to Christ on the forgiveness of injujuries, our Lord conferred the same power of binding and loosing on the remaining apostles, apart from Peter, saying : " Verily, I say unto you, Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven " (Matt, xviii, 18); and again bestowed it on all the apostles collectively after his resurrection (John xx, '21-23).

The second passage, that from Luke, so far from exalting Peter, actually puts him below the level of his colleagues, as the context shows. All of them are to be tried, and sifted by Satan like wheat. Peter is the only one whose actual fall and denial of his Lord is foretold — cowardly flight being the worst fault of the other apostles — and thus he is the only one who stands in need of being converted from the apostasy. And he is bidden, when this necessary repentance and change have taken place in himself, to support, by his newly revived zeal, his vet un fallen brethren, lest they should sin as he had just done. To fortify them by confession of his own weakness, is in no respect, I submit, akin to exercising authority over them.

The third passage, that in John, while it is the only place where the apostles are spoken of as " sheep," includes Peter as one of them, jind in no way designates him as their shepherd; in like manner it confers no exceptional privilege, because we have it twice attributed to the elders of the Church. (Acts xx, 28 ; 1 Peter v, 1-3.) In truth, furthermore, part of the immediate context of John xxi, 17, furnishes incidental but adequate disproof of the popish claim. (John xxi, 20-22.) It is obvious that, if Peter had received jurisdiction over John only a few moments before, his question was perfectly legitimate and reasonable, and merited a reply as being his concern, because affecting one for whom he had been just made responsible. But the answer he actually receives can denote nothing short of John's entire independence, and the restriction of Peter's own commission to attending to his own specific and limited share of apostolic work, with no right of control over John.

Therefore it is an inevitable and irresistible conclusion that the interpretation which makes Peter alone personally " the rock " upon which the Church is built, is an eisegesis — that is, reading a meaning into it — rather than an exegesis, or drawing its own meaning out of it; and that not Peter alone, but each and every apostle was a rock, and a recipient of the keys as well, and all were coequal in powers. Indeed, the Church is expressly said (Eph. ii, 20, doubtless in allusion to the foregoing passages) to be built on the foundation of the prophets and apostles, " Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner-stone " — " apostles," not apostle. All of the apostles were Peters, or stones, of the foundation, as well as he.

Inasmuch as the whole New Testament ought, for the purposes of this inquiry, to be construed as a single document, there are a number of expressions and apparent indications, but a collation of them is impossible herein for want of space.

An investigation of the early Liturgies and comments of the Church Fathers, and the Canons and Decrees of the early Councils,* results, to say the very least, in establishing the charter of the " Privilege of Peter."

The eifort to establish the proposition that Peter was constituted primate in the Apostolic Church failing, the proposition of a successional attribute for him goes with it. The only question in this connection to receive consideration is: Was the apostle Peter ever actually Bishop of Romef This is the first link in the chain, not to say the staple by which the chain is attached to the Heavenly Throne. Is it not passing strange that the Holy Scriptures are absolutely and ominously silent on a subject upon which so much has been staked by papal assumptions, except that it contains very strongly adverse presumptive evidence? Not merely is there no positive proof that he was ever Bishop of Rome, or that he ever lived there and exercised the pastoral office, but there are certain statements which are

* The student especially interested will do well to investigate " Petrine Claims," by Dr. Littledale.

irreconcilable, on any hypothesis, with the theory that he was, and that he did actually sit as such for twenty-five years, dying there, a martyr by crucifixion, on the very same day1 — June 29, A. D. 67 — as that on which Paul was beheaded. Papists claim, it is true, that Peter came to Rome in the second year of the Emperor Claudius, for the purpose of counteracting the influence of Simon Magus. This second year of Claudius occurred A. D. 43, but from Acts xii, 3, 4, we learn that Peter was a resident at Jerusalem, and was there cast into prison by Herod Agrippa in the last year of his reign (verse 23), which was in the fourth year of Claudius. Thus, two years after the time when Roman Catholic writers affirm that Peter took up his abode in Pome as the bishop of that Church, and was administering there as such, he was in prison at Jerusalem.*

In Acts xv, 6, Peter is spoken of as still at Jerusalem, in the ninth, some say eleventh, year of Claudius. In Acts xxviii, 17, it is recorded that Paul came to Pome, a prisoner, in the seventh year of Nero; that is, A. D. 60 (some say 62, and others, with more probability, even 63), but, on this occasion, not the slightest mention is made of Peter being at Rome. Neither do the

* For citation of authorities covering this matter, see " Romanism of Low-Churchism, and End of Prelacy," by R. C. Shimeall, pp. 288-292. Also, " Petrine Claims." by Littledale.

Jews name him, nor do the Christians there, for the gospel had been introduced into Rome very early, possibly by converts of the day of Pentecost (Acts ii, 10, 41), though many came out to meet Paul. When Paul arrived in Rome, he sent for the resident Jews there, who were very glad to meet with an apostle, from whom they could learn distinctly what that new religion was, of which they only knew that it was " everywhere spoken against." (Acts xxviii, 22.) Up to that time, therefore, neither Peter, nor any other apostle, had preached the gospel at Rome. Another strange fact is that in the whole Epistle to the Romans, written A. D. 58, no mention is made of Peter, much less as the resident Bishop of Rome. This is the more remarkable, as in the epistle many persons are referred to by name, with salutations, and as Paul was accustomed to refer to Peter, when addressing Churches which Peter had either founded or to which he was known (e. g. 1 Cor. i, 12-15; iii, 22 ; ix, 5; Gal. i, 18 ; ii, 7, 8, 9, 14). There is not the slightest evidence, as late as A. D. 63, that Peter had any personal or official connection with the Church at Rome ; and i'f he ever had subsequently, it can not be proven from the New Testament, and must be decided by post- Biblical testimonies.* Church history gives no