own elders, impossible. They were distracted; were rent into parties; were engaged in violent contention; and the authority, therefore, of one portion of the "teachers," and "instructors,' would be disregarded by the other. Thus no united sentence could be agreed upon; and no judgment of a party could restore peace. An attempt to exercise discipline, would only enkindle party animosity, and produce strife. See Chap. i. 11-17. So great, evidently, was the contention, and so hopeless the task of allaying it by any ordinary means, that even Timothy, whom Paul had sent for the express purpose of bringing them into remembrance of his ways, (1 Cor. iv. 17.) could have no hope, by his own interference, of allaying it. It was natural, that it should be referred to the founder of the church, and to one who had the power of punishing the offender.

(3.) It is material to remark, that this was not an ordinary case of discipline. It was one, that required the severest exercise of authority, and in a form which was lodged only with those intrusted with the power of inflicting disease, or, as it is termed, "of delivering to satan for the destruction of the flesh." 1 Cor. v. 5. Such cases would inevitably devolve upon the apostles, as clothed with miraculous power; and such, beyond all controversy, was this case. It therefore proves nothing about the ordinary mode of administering discipline. This case had reached to such a degree of enormity; it had been suffered to remain so long; it had become so aggravated, that it was necessary to interpose in this awful manner, and to decide it. Yet,

(4.) The apostle supposes, that they ought to have exercised the usual discipline themselves. This is evident, we think, from a comparison of the following passages: 1 Cor. v. 9, 10, 11, 12, with v. 2. In these verses it is supposed, that they did themselves usually exercise discipline. Paul (ver. 9.) gave them the general direction, not to keep company with fornicators; that is, to exercise discipline on those who did. In ver. 11, he asks them,-in a manner shewing that the affirmative answer to the question expressed their usual practice,-whether they did not "judge those that were within ?" that is, whether they did not ordinarily exercise discipline in the church? And in ver. 2, he supposes, that it ought to have been done in this case; and as it had not been done by them, and the affair had assumed special enormity, he exercised the miraculous power intrusted to him, by inflicting on the offender a grievous disease. (ver. 4, 5; comp. 1 Cor. xi. 30.)

(5.) It is evident that other churches did, in ordinary cases, exercise discipline without the intervention of an apostle. Thus, the church in Thessalonica,-where Episcopacy, with all its zeal, has never been able even to conjecture, that there was a diocesan bishop, was directed to exercise discipline, in any instance where

the command of the inspired apostle was not obeyed. (2 Thess. ii. 14.) We shall soon make this point incontestible.

(6.) The circumstances of the early churches were such, as to make this apostolic intervention proper, and even indispensable, without supposing, that it was to be a permanent arrangement. They were ignorant and feeble. They had had little opportunity of learning the nature of christianity. In most cases, their founders were with them but a few weeks, and then left them under the care of elders ordained from among themselves. (Comp. Acts xiii, xiv. et passim.) Those elders would be poorly qualified to discharge the functions of their office; and they would be but little elevated, in character and learning, above the mass of the people. The churches must be imperfectly organized; unaccustomed to rigid discipline; exposed to many temptations; easily drawn into sin; and subject to great agitation and excitement. Even a great many subjects which may now be considered as settled, in morals and religion, would appear to them open for debate; and parties, as at Corinth, would easily be formed. (Comp. Acts xiv. xv; Rom. xiv. 1 Cor. viii.) In these circumstances, how natural was it for these churches to look for direction to the inspired men, who had founded them? and how natural, that such persons should interpose and settle important and difficult cases of discipline? And after these obvious considerations, are we to suppose, that the fact, that the apostle Paul, in two cases, and two such cases only are recorded,― exercised an extraordinary act of discipline, is to be regarded as proof, that this power appertained only to the apostolic office, and was to be a permament arrangenent in the church? We confess our 'amazement,' that but two cases of apostolic interference are mentioned, during the long and active life of Paul; and we regard this as some evidence, that the churches were expected to exercise discipline, and actually did so, on their own members.

(7.) We are confirmed in our views on this point, from what is known to take place in organizing churches in heathen countries at the present day. Since we commenced this article, we were conversing with one of the American missionaries, stationed at Ceylon. In the course of the conversation, he incidentally remarked, that the missionaries were obliged to retain the exercise of discipline in their own hands; and that, although the mission had been established more than fifteen years, yet the exercise of discipline had never been intrusted to the native converts. He farther observed, that the missionaries had been endeavoring to find persons, to whom they could intrust the discipline of the church, as elders, but that as yet they had not found one. The native con

Rev. Mr. Winslow.

verts were still ignorant of the laws of christianity; they had so little influence in the church; they were so partial to each other, even when in fault; that thus far, discipline,-though somewhat frequent acts of discipline were necessary,-was retained in the hands of the missionaries. Substantially the same thing must have occurred in the early churches in Asia Minor, in Syria, and Greece. Will Dr. Onderdonk infer, that because Mr. Winslow, Mr. Poor, and Dr. Scudder, in Ceylon, have found it necessary to retain the power of administering discipline, that therefore they are diocesan bishops, and that they do not contemplate, that the churches in Ceylon shall be other than prelatical? If not, his argument in the case of the church in Corinth can be allowed no weight.

We have now done with this instance of discipline. We have shown, that all the circumstances of the case can be accounted for, without any such conclusion, as that to which the author of the Tract is desirous to conduct it. We turn, therefore, to his other case of discipline, in the church at Ephesus.

The case is thus stated in 1 Tim. i. 20: "Of whom is Hymeneus and Alexander; whom I have delivered unto satan, that they may learn not to blaspheme." His argument is, that "it is the apostle who inflicts the discipline; the elders do not appear in the matter. And discipline is a ministerial function, and excommunication its highest exercise." (Answer, p. 13.) In reply to this case, we make the following observations.

(1.) It occurs in a charge to Timothy,-Timothy, on the supposition of Episcopalians, an apostle co-ordinate with Paul himself; Timothy, prelate of Ephesus. If Timothy was an apostle, and diocesan bishop, and if the exercise of discipline pertained to an apostle and bishop, why did Paul take the matter into his own hands? Why not refer it to Timothy, and repose sufficient confidence in him to believe, that he was competent to fulfill this part of his Episcopal office? Would it now be regarded as courteous, for the bishop of Ohio to interpose and inflict an act of discipline on some Hymeneus or Alexander, of the diocese of Pennsylvania? And would there be as cordial submission of the bishop of Pennsylvania, as there was of the bishop of Ephesus? If Timothy was at Ephesus, and if the case of discipline occurred at the time which Dr. O. supposes, this case appears, to our humble apprehension, very much as if Paul regarded Timothy as neither an apostle nor a prelate.

(2.) If the exercise of the authority in this case of discipline by Paul, proves, that the presbyters at Ephesus had no right to administer discipline; for the same reason it proves, that Timothy had not that right. By the supposition of Episcopalians, Timothy was there, as well as the presbyters. The assumption of the authority

by Paul, proves as much, that it did not belong to Timothy, as that it did not belong to the presbyters.

(3.) This was a case such as occurred at Corinth. It was not an ordinary act of discipline; it was one, which supposed the infiction of the judgment of God by a miraculous agency. "Whom I have delivered unto satan, that they may learn not to blaspheme." Compare this account with the record of the case in Corinth, (1 Cor. v. 5.) and it is evident, that this was not an ordinary act of discipline, but was such as implied the direct infliction of the judgment of the Almighty. That such inflictions were intrusted to the hands of the apostles, we admit; and that Paul, not Timothy, inflicted this, proves, that the latter was neither an apostle nor a prelate.

(4.) Dr. Onderdonk supposes, that this occurred at Ephesus, and while Timothy was there. But what evidence is there of this? It is neither affirmed, that the transaction was at Ephesus, nor that Timothy was there. His argument proceeds on the assumption, that Timothy was bishop there when this epistle was written, and that the case of discipline occurred there. And the proof of this would probably be, the subscription at the end of the second epistle, and the "tradition of the elders." But that subscription has no authority; and it is not to be assumed, but proved, that Timothy was there in the capacity of a prelate, or there at all, when this epistle was written to him. The demonstration, that a bishop only exercised discipline, it must be admitted, rests on slender grounds, if this be all.

(5.) But if this case did occur at Ephesus, what evidence is there, that it occurred at the time that bishop Onderdonk supposes? The account in the epistle to Timothy, by no means fixes the time of the transaction. "Whom I have delivered (apédʊxa) unto satan," etc. It was already done; and the presumption is, that it was done when Paul was himself present with them. It is morally certain, that it was not an act of discipline, that was then to be done.

Our readers have now the whole case before them. Episcopacy affirms, that prelates only have the power of administering discipline. It affirms, that the churches are prohibited from exercising it on their own members; that those appointed to preach the gospel, to administer the sacraments, and to be pastors of the flock, and who may therefore be supposed to understand the cases of discipline, and best qualified to administer it, have no right to exercise this act of government over their own members; but that this exclusive prerogative belongs to a stranger, and a foreigner, a prelatical bishop, whom the churches seldom see, and who must be, in a great degree, unacquainted with their peculiar wants and character. All power of discipline, in an entire diocese of some hundreds of churches, is to be taken away from the members

themselves, and from the pastors, and lodged in strange hands, and committed to a solitary, independent man, who, from the nature of the circumstances, can have little acquaintance with the case, and possess few of the qualifications requisite for the intelligent performance of this duty. And does the reader ask, What is the authority for this assumption of power? Why are the churches, and their pastors disrobed of this office, and reduced to the condition of humble dependents, at the feet of the prelate? Let him, in astonishment, learn. It is not because there is any command to this effect in the new testament; it is not because there is any declaration implying, that it would be so; it is not by any affirmation, that it ever was so. This is the reason, and this is all :-The apostle Paul, in two cases, and in both instances over the heads of presbyters, (and over the head of bishop Timothy, too,) delivered men to satan for the destruction of the flesh, that they might learn not to blaspheme;' and THEREFORE, bishop Onderdonk, and bishop Griswold, and bishop Doane, only, have power to administer discipline in all the churches in Pennsylvania, and in the eastern diocese, and in New-Jersey; and THEREFORE, all the acts of discipline exercised by Presbyterians, Methodists, Baptists, etc., in Pennsylvania, and New-Jersey, and by the Congregationalists of New-England, are null and void. The disposal of such antecedents and consequents, may be safely left to all who hold, that "no argument is worth taking into the account, that has not a clear and palpable bearing on the naked topic,-the scriptural evidence of Episcopacy." Tract, p. 3.

But we have not done with this subject. We are now prepared to show, not only, that there is no evidence, that the apostles exclusively exercised discipline, but that there is positive proof, that all the acts of discipline were in fact exercised by the presbyters of the churches. Το put this matter to rest, we adduce the following passages of scripture:

Acts, xx. 17, 28. "From Miletus, Paul sent to Ephesus, and called for the PRESBYTERS of the church, and said unto them: Take heed unto yourselves, and to all the flock over which the Holy Ghost hath made you BISHOPS, (ἐπισκόπους) to feed, (ποιμαίνειν like good shepherds, to provide for, watch over, and govern,) the church of God." It would be easy to show, that the word translated feed, includes the whole duty which a shepherd exercises over his flock, including all that is needful in the supervision, government, and defense, of those under his care. Proof of this

may be found in the following passages of the new testament, where the word occurs in the sense of ruling, or governing, including of course the exercise of discipline; for how can there be government, unless there is authority for punishing offenders? Matt. ii. 6; John, xxi. 16; 1 Peter, v. 2; Rev. ii. 27.

"And