A vindication of Methodist Episcopacy...

Front matter

I

* I H

Book .73 £

CHAPTER I. Deacons a distinct order in the Church

I. It will be admitted, I presume, on all hands, that there were what were called Ainxovot, Deacons, (servants,) in the Church : and besides their being charged with distributing the alms of the Church to the poor, it was their duty to preach the word. It appears evident from Acts vi. 6, that they were solemnly set apart to their office by prayer and imposition of hands. And though civil magistrates are designated by the same term in various parts of Scripture, and though these men, mentioned in Acts, were especially called to administer to the poor widows, yet it is manifest that they were successful ministers of the Gospel of Christ; for it is said of Stephen, who was one of the seven deacons above-mentioned, that he was " full of faith and power," and that he " did great wonders and miracles among the people, " Acts vi. 8. And in the very next chapter, we have recorded his admirable discourse which he delivered in his own defence, in the presence of his inveterate ene* mies and accusers, the Jews. Philip was also one of those before-mentioned, that was set apart by prayer and imposition of hands, by the Apostles : but in Acts viii. 4, it is said, " Therefore they that were scattered abroad went every where preaching the word; ver. 5. " Then Philip went down to the city of Samaria, and preached Christ unto them;" and in verse 12, we read, "But when they believed Philip, preaching the things concerning the kingdom of God, and the name of Jesus Chiist, they were baptized, both men and women." From these Scripture facts, it is undeniably manifest, that those denominated deacons in the Church of God, were not merely lay-members, appointed for the temporal services of the Church; but they were approved ministers of the word, successfully employed in carrying the glad tidings of salvation to the Gentile world.

That these servants of the Church were a grade of ministers inferior, in respect to office, to the elders, is evident from several considerations. 1. Though all ministers, and even Christ himself, were called Acaawot, Servants, on account of their faithful services in the Church, yet these men wefe emphatically so called, because, it is supposed, they were appointed to serve the Apostles, by acting under their special direction. 2. St. Paul, 1 Tim. iii. after having characterized the persons proper for bishops, proceed* to notice the duties of the deacons, — " Likewise must the deacons be grave :" " For they that have used the office of a deacon well, purchase to themselves a good degree, and great boldness in the faith which is in Christ Jesus." From this passage, it appears obvious, that after being proved, ver. 10, as probationers in the ministry, and having been exalted to the office of deacons by the imposition of hands; and also having used the office of a deacon well, they purchased to them* selves a good degree; that is, they were qualified to become elders in the Church. These considerations sufficiently evince the inferiority of the deacons to the elders; and yet they were preachers of the word, and had authority to administer the ordinance of baptism, as appears from Acts viii. 12.

The same order of men is recognized, and as ministers of the word too, in the epistles of the primitive Fathers, — " Let the deacons be blameless in his sight, as the ministers of God in Christ, and not of men : not evil speakers, nor double tongued, not lovers of money ; but compassionate, careful, diligent, temperate in all things, walking according to the truth of the Lord, who was the servant of all." Epistle of Polycarp to the Philippians. St. Ignatius also, in his Epistle to the Ephesians, distinguishes between the order of deacons and bishops : " Concerning my fellow-servant Burrahsy according to the will of God your deacon, blessed in all things, I pray that he may remain to the honour of you and your bishop." And in his Epistle to the Magnesians, after mentioning the bishop and presbyters, as a higher order of ministers, he says, " And your deacons, most dear to me, being intrusted with the ministry of Jesus Christ," He introduces them, in his Epistle to the Trallians, in a similar way, recognizing them as ministers of the Gospel of Christ.— " The deacons also, as being the ministers of the mysteries of Jesus Christ, must, by all means, please all : for they are not the ministers of meat and drink, but of the Church of God. Therefore they must avoid all offences, as they would do fire." To the Philadelphians he observes, " As concerning Philo, the deacon of Cilicia,he still ministers unto me in the word of God." To the Smyrneans he says, " Ye have done well in that ye have received Philo and Rheus, who followed me for the word of God, the deacons of Christ our God."

From these quotations, both from the word of God and the writings of these Fathers, it appears evident that those denominated deacons, were not mere lay-members attending to the temporalities of the Church; but they were regular ministers of the word, were set apart for that work by the laying on of the hands of the Apostles, and that they did administer the ordinance of baptism, and very probably assisted in the holy eucharist.

Let us now see whether the Methodist

♦ 17

Episcopal Church has, in this respect, followed the Apostolic usage and custom. After having proved a young man, who thinks himself called of God to the work of the ministry, by employing him two years as a probationer in the itinerating ministry, he is, if no sufficient reason can be assigned to the contrary, ordained a deacon, by the laying on of the hands of the bishop. And what are the duties peculiar to his office as a deacon? Ans. " It appertaineth to the office of a deacon to assist the elder in divine service. — And especially, when he ministereth the holy communion, to help him in the distribution thereof, and to read and expound the Holy Scriptures; to instruct the youth, and in the absence of the elder, to baptize. And furthermore, it is his office to search for the sick, poor, and impotent, that they may be visited and relieved "*

So also it is said in section 7th of the form of discipline concerning the duties of a travelling deacon, that he is, 1st, u To baptize, and perform the office of matrimony, in the

* Consecration service. 2*

1 % 3

absence of the elder. 2d, To assist the elder in administering the Lord's Supper. 3d, To do all the duties of a travelling preacher.' 5 Here, then, are enumerated all those duties of a deacon, which the Holy Scriptures have authorized him to perform. In this part of our ministry, therefore, we have not followed a cunningly devised fable, but the word of the living God. And which Church is most according to Apostolic order, that which has preaching deacons, going to and fro, sowing the seed of eternal life; or that which has but one order of ministers, by whatever name they may be called, and whose deacons are recognized only as lay-members, and attend only to the temporal concerns of the Church, or at least are never connected with the ministry ? Those who have attentively considered the above extracts from Ignatius, and others, and have compared them with the Scripture quotations, must acknowledge that we have all the authority any one could desire to justify our practice in respect to this officer in the Church. In the Apostles' days, he preached* baptized, and took the oversight of the poor : our discipline enjoins the same duties on the deacons; therefore, in this respect, we are Apostolic.

CHAPTER II. Of the Elders, and their duty

The second officer in the Church, in the order of the ministry, is Elder, or Presbyter, and who is sometimes called Bishop. That those denominated Bishops, Elders, or Presbyters, in the Apostolical writings, were one and the same order of men, we will now endeavour to demonstrate.

St. Paul, in his letter to Titus, assigning a reason why he left him in Crete, says, "That thou shouldest set in order the things that are wanting, and ordain elders in every city, as I had appointed thee. 5 ' — " If any be blameless, the husband of one wife, having faithful children, not accused of riot, or unruly : For a bishop must be blameless, as the steward of God." In this passage, it is most obvious that the Apostle uses the word ctgEafottg a$, Elder, or Presbyter, and ttiaxotios, Bishop, or as the word should be more properly renderedpsermr, as convertible term?, designating thereby the same person: for the same character is described throughout the passage as should be suitable to be ordained to the office of an overseer or elder ia the Church of God. And here we may observe, that m as much as the deacons were appointed to their office by the imposition of hands and prayer, and as the elders were set apart to their of- I by the same ceremony, it is reasonable conclude, that, in order to constitute an elder, there was a second consecration ; ■ according to the present usage in an Episcopal Church. This argument may be deemed sumcient. at least, to justify the pra: laying on of the hands of the

presbytery, t bate a deacon an elder

in the Church.

To return : — In Acts kx. 17, it is said that S : . P s a 1 l he <s#* 5fo*££(*<, elders of the

in the following manner.—" Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over v.hich the Holy Ghost halh made yoa zzaxomovk bishops or averse ers." In t:

place, it is equally manifest that the identical persons are called, indifferently, elders and overseers, a proof that they were then considered the same order. And that these bishops or overseers could not have had that extensive jurisdiction, which a modern diocesan has, nor have been of a superior grade to elders, is evident, from there having been a plurality of them in the single city of Ephesus. A plurality of diocesan bishops, exercising ecclesiastical jurisdiction over a number of presbyters or elders, each of whom had charge of a particular congregation, in one city ! Such a phenomenon could not have existed in the Church at that, nor at any subsequent period. That there was not an order of ministers, called elders, inferior to bishops, but superior to deacons, in the Church at that time, may be fairly concluded from St. Paul's address to the Philippians, chap. i. 1. He dedicates his Epistle, " To all the saints in Christ Jesus which are at Philippi, with the bishops and deacons." If there had been an order of ministers in this Church coming between the bishops and deacons, called elders, is it not highly probable the Apostle would have mentioned them in this connexion ? This circumstance, therefore, I consider no slender proof of our position, namely, that bishops and elders were one order.

Let it be recollected, that those ministers, denominated bishops now, are never confined to a single congregation,but their charge extends over a number of parishes, including, in the bounds of their jurisdiction, more or less of presbyters and deacons; whereas, in the primitive times, they were each pastors of a single congregation, and this is another proof they were not a superior order to the elders. And this is manifest, not only from the Scriptures already adduced, but also from the writings of the primitive Fathers,as well as the testimony of ecclesiastical history. " It is, therefore, necessary, that without your bishop you should do nothing." Epistle of Ignatius to the Trallians. "Let no man," says he, to the Smyrneans, "do any thing of what belongs to the Church, separately from the bishop. Let that eucharist be looked upon as well established, which is either offered by the bishop, or by him to whom the bishop has given Jbis consent. Wheresoever the bishop shall appear, there let the people also be : as where Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church. It is not lawful without the bishop, either to baptize or to celebrate the holy communion; but whatsoever he shall approve of, that is also pleasing to God." So St. Poljrcarp, who was bishop of the Church of Smyrna, says, " Let nothing be done without thy knowledge and consent : neither do thou any thing but according to the will of God, as also thou dost, with all constancy. Let your assemblies be more frequent : inquire into all by name."

Now, although it is not said expressly, in either of the above quotations, that the bishop was the pastor of a single congregation, yet it is obviously inferable he was so, from the duties he is exhorted to perform, as well as from what the Church is commanded to do in reference to their bishop. If from the duties of his office he exercised an extensive jurisdiction over a number of cities and provinces, resembling the episcopal charge of a modern diocesan, how could he see all things done with his own eyes? How could he " inquire into all by name," not even " overlooking the men and maid servants," as Polycarp was commanded to do ! If not " lawful to baptize, nor celebrate the»holy communion, nor even to marry," without the bishop, nor " do any thing of what appertains to the Church," without him, then surely there must have been a bishop always resident in every congregation, as its immediate pastor. It would not have been possible to have performed these duties, if the bishops of those days held the same rank in the Church which they now do. These very epistles^ therefore, so often appealed to in support of an uninterrupted succession of bishops, holding an extensive episcopal jurisdiction over presbyters, deacons and people, prove directly the reverse; for it is manifest that the bishops in the days of Ignatius, instead of resembling the bishops of our day, were more like the stated pastors of the Presbyterian congregations, or the stated elders of the Methodist Episcopal Church, in their city and country charges.

Such pastors, exercising their office as elders or overseers in their individual charges, may comply with the requisitions before mentioned by Ignatius. They can know (especially those whose church members are divided into " small companies, called classes," and are met by the minister once in three months) each person by name ; can administer the sacraments, visit the sick and poor of the Jlock, perform the marriage rites, and personally superintend all the spiritual and temporal concerns of the Church. And in those cities where a number of pastors are united together over several congregations, one of these elders, better qualified on account of his talent, age, and experience, may, for the time being, have the special oversight of all the rest: and in this sense he may be termed a bishop or overseer, in distinction from the elders who act under him, though, at the same time, he may not be of a higher grade in the ministry. This, in respect to our own Church, we know is frequently done. Allowing this to have been the custom in the primitive Church, and without doubt it was, we can easily reconcile the language of Ignatius, and others of the Fathers, in other parts of their epistles, with the quotations already made from 3

£6

their writings. Thus Ignatius exhorts the Ephesians, " That ye all come together, in one faith, obejing your bishop and your presbytery with entire affection." In his epistle to the Magnesians, his language is in perfect conformity to this idea : — " Your bishop," says he, "presiding in the place of God ; your presbyters in the place of the council of the Apostles." " As, therefore, the Lord did nothing without the Father, neither by himself, nor yet by his Apostles; so neither do ye any thing without your bishop and presbyters."

From such, and ether similar passages found in the Apostolic Fathers, some have inferred that the bishops were a dintinct order from the elders; whereas the truth appears to be, that those here called bishops, were such of the elders as were appointed to preside in their councils, and to take the oversight, as presidents, of all the elders, (where a number of them were associated together in one charge,) deacons, and people : otherwise, these bishops must have occupied the place of the itinerating evangelists, who were, in the Apotles 1 days, an order of ministers superior to the elders, and who extended their oversight to the whole Church. If, however, this were the case, they no longer held that distinguished rank among the Churches, they formerly did, as itinerating ministers; because, it is evident, these bishops were stationary, having each the charge of a particular congregation; which could not have been the case with those itinerating evangelists, who, like the apostles, were continually moving from place to place, and taking the special oversight of all the Churches.

That our ideas respecting the work and rank of these elders or bishops, are correct, will appear further evident from ecclesiastical history, which, indeed, derives its information respecting these circumstances, from those writings we have already consulted : but it is appealed to here, to show that impartial men, who have examined this subject, were of the same sentiment with ourselves. Mosheim, after having spoken concerning the government of the Church, at its first establishment, observes, " Such was the institution of the Christian Church in its infancy, when its assemblies were neither numerous nor splendid. Three or four presbyters, men of remarkable . piety and wisdom, ruled these small congregations in perfect harmony; nor did they stand in need of any president or superior, to maintain concord and order, where no dissentions were known. But the number of the presbyters and deacons increasing with that of the Churches, and the sacred work of the ministry growing more painful and weighty) by a number of additional duties, — these new circumstances required new regulations. It was then judged necessary, that one man, of distinguished gravity and wisdom, should preside in the council of presbyters, in order to distribute among his colleagues their several tasks, and to be a centre of union to the whole society. This person was, at first, styled the angel of the Church to which he belonged, but was afterwards distinguished by the name of bishop; a name borrowed from the Greek language, and expressing the principal part of the episcopal function, which was to inspect into, and superintend the affairs of the Church

It is highly probable, that the Church of Je rusalem, grown considerably numerous, and deprived of the ministry of the Apostles, who were gone to instruct the other nations, was the first who chose a president or bishop. " " Let none, however, confound the bishops of this primitive and golden period of the church, with those of whom we read in the following ages. For, though they were both distinguished by the same name, yet they differed extremely, and that in many respects. A bishop, during the first and second century, was a person who had the care of one Christian assembly, which, at that time, was, generally speaking, small enough to be contained in a private house. In this assembly he acted not so much with the authority of a master, as with the zeal and diligence of a faithful servant. He instructed the people, performed the several parts of divine worship, attended the sick, and inspected into the circumstances and supplies of the poor. He charged, indeed, the presbyters with the performance of those duties and services, which the multiplicity of his engagements rendered it impossible for him to fulfil;— but had not the power to de» cide or enact any thing without the consent of the presbyters and people." — Vol. i. p. 102.

Those who impartially attend to this quotation from Mosheim, cannot but notice the coincidence between the practice of the primitive Church and that of the Methodist Episcopal Church, in respect to the office and work of their elders or presbyters. In the absence of the Apostles, the presbyters appointed one of their own order to M preside in their councils," and " to distribute among his colleagues their several tasks ;" and was so far from exercising a lordly influence over his brethren as a superior minister, that he behaved as a servant, and had his own charge as an individual pastor. Every one who has made himself acquainted with our economy, knows this to be our practice. In those cities, for instance, where a number of elders are required to act in conjunction, one is selected to take the charge of the whole : the others form his council, with whom he confers on all matters of importance, and he assigns to each his work. In this respect.

therefore, we have the sanction of the primitive Church for what we do. And if fur ther testimony were necessary, to corroborate the testimony of Mosheim on this subject, we might add that of Tertullian, who says, " Those who preside among us are elderly persons, not distinguished for their opulence, but worth of character."

That these ministers, denominated bishops and elders, were equal in ecclesiastical authority, except under the circumstances above-mentioned, is further evident from the testimony of some modern episcopal writers themselves.

It ought to be recollected, that at the time of the Reformation, those denominated Protestants, in consequence of their having protested against the unscriptural usurpations df the Church of Rome, were assailed by their adversaries, in a similar manner, and with the same arguments, with which they now attempt to overthrow us. The Church of Rome contended for uninterrupted succession in the episcopal office, and that this succession was confined to that Church, from which the reformers had seceded; and, therefore, it was urged, with great vehemence 3 that the Protestants were an unauthorized body of ministers. To repel these arguments, the Protestant bishops plead the necessity of a reform, and that they were justified on that ground, even allowing the truth of the doctrine of succession, in departing from the established order of the Church they had left. Not resting, however, their cause upon this single point, the} r assumed the proposition we have already attempted to establish, namely, that, in the primitive Church, bishops and presbyters were one order of ministers, and were invested with full powers to consecrate inferior and superior ministers, and to govern the Church. This is proveable from their own words.

Thus, Archbishop Usher, in his letter to Dr. Bernard : " 1 have ever declared my opinion to be, that episcopus and presbytre, gradu tantura differnnt non .ordine, and, consequently, that in places where bishops cannot be had, the ordination of presbyters stands valid." The same prelate, in his answer to Baxter, says, '§ The king having asked me at the Isle of Wight, whether 1 found in antiquity that presbyters alone ordained any ? I replied, Yes; and that I could show his majesty more, even where presbyters alone successively ordained bishops."

Sillingfleet, in his Ironicum, observes, that " bishops and priests were, at one time, not two things, but both one office, in the beginning of Christ's religion."

In vindicating St. Jerome from the charge of contradiction, which some strove to fix upon him, Stillingfleet says, " Jerome spends great part of his epistle, to prove that a bishop and a presbyter are the same. Is it imaginable, that a man, who had been proving all along the superiority of a presbyter above a deacon, because of his identity with a bishop in the Apostles' time, should, at the same time, say, that a bishop was above a presbyter by the Apostle's instruction, and so directly overthrow all he had been saying before ? The plain meaning of Jerome, then, is no more than this; as Aaron and his sons, in the order of priesthood, were above the Levites, und^r the law; so the bishops and presbyters, in the order of the evangelical priesthood, are above the deacons, under the gospel. The comparison runs not between Aaron and his sons under the law, and bishops and presbyters under the gospel ; but between Aaron and his sons as one part, and the Levites as the other; so, under the gospel, bishops and presbyters make one part of the comparison, and the other part, under the gospel, is that of deacons. The opposition is between the same power of order, which is alike in bishops and presbyters, to that of deacons, which stood in competition with them. The scope and drift of Jerome's epistle, was to chastize one who made deacons superior (or equal) to presbyters."

Now, from these quotations from ecclesiastical writers of acknowledged probity and ability, it appears evident that they understood the scriptures upon this point as we do. But the question now arises, What powers did these presbyters or bishops possess? Had they the inherent right to govern the Church, to consecrate ministers, and to do the whole work of the ministry ? These are questions of no small importance, in determining the validity of the ordinances, as administered by the ministry of the Methodist Episcopal Church.

In pursuance of this design, I shall undertake to prove, that the body of elders, in their collective capacity, had the right of consecrating ministers, and of establishing ordinances for the government of the Church. The first authority to which we appeal for the support of this proposition, is Acts xiii. 1, where we have an account of St. Paul's consecration. u Now there were in the Church that was at Antioch, certain prophets and teachers, as Barnabas and Simeon, that was called Niger, and Lucius of Cyrene, and Manaen, which had been brought up with Herod the tetrarch, and Saul. As they ministered to the Lord, and fasted, the Holy Ghost said, Separate me Barnabas and Saul, for the work whereunto 1 have called them. And when they had fasted and prayed, and laid their hands on them, they sent them away." This is the only place that I know of, where we read of St. Paul's being set apart by men to the work of the ministry; and this was performed by an associated bo-

$y of ministers, denominated prophets and teachers. This passage of sacred scripture gives us an accurate idea of the primitive method of consecrating men for the gospel ministry. Not one of the twelve Apostles is mentioned in this list of names : from whence we may conclude that the power of consecration was not confined to them, from whom it is pretended that the right of ordaining ministers is derived. Neither are they called bishops; although there can be no doubt but they were elders, or the authorized overseers of the Church; otherwise, St. Paul would never have consented to receive his credentials, as a minister, from them. But that he felt himself invested with an authority now, which he did not before possess, is manifest, from his entering immediately upon the work of establishing churches, wherever success attended his ministerial labours; a work in which we do not find him engaged heretofore, although he had long been employed in preaching the gospel. From 1 Tim. iv. 14, it appears that Timothy was set apart for the work of the ministry by the same means. " Neglect not the gift that is in thee, which was given thee by prophecy, with the laying on of the hands of the presbytery." It is true, the Apostle exhorts Timothy, in his second epistle, to " stir up the gift of God which is in thee, by the putting on of my hands." But these two passages may be easily reconciled, either by supposing that St. Paul himself ordained Timothy to the office of a deacon, and that he was consecrated afterwards to the office of an elder, by the laying on of the hands of the presbytery ; or, that when he was consecrated to his sacred office, the presbyters assisted in the ceremony, the Apostle acting as the presiding minister. Both of these usages are sanctioned by an episcopal ordination. From these examples, we are authorized in concluding, that an associated body of elders have the right of consecrating men, otherwise qualified, for the work of the ministry. We shall apply this remark to the first establishment of the Methodist Episcopal Church, when we come to that part of our subject; for it appears evident, from the account above

referred to of St. Paul's consecration, that m elders did ordain men who were appointed t© rule over them in the ministry.

But let us now inquire whether the practice of the Church in after ages corroborates the interpretation we have given to the above passages of scripture.. Let it be remembered, in the mean time, that we are not now inquiring whether there were, or were not, ministers in the Church superior to elders or bishops, nor whether these superior ministers did ordain other inferior ministers or not ; — but the question now under consideration is, whether elders and bishops were the same order of ministers, and whether they possessed the right of consecration. These two last positions we maintain are defensible, both from scripture and the primitive usage of the Church. As we have already adduced scripture testimony on the point, we will now proceed to introduce the testimony of ecclesiastical writers of a more modern date.