Popes it is frequently broken. In the English church we find an organization, created, governed, and sustained by the state: it is the church of the Parliament of Great Britain, but still excommunicated by the acknowledged true church. In the United States we find the chain sundered, the congregations absolutely independent of each other, and entirely without a bishop for years; the church is constituted on the principle of voluntary association, and its first bishops are consecrated in England by the authority of Parliament. We are compelled to adopt the conclusion to which the Rev. J. E. Riddle comes in his "Plea for Episcopacy." London, 1839, p. 72 of the preface. "Whatever may become of the apostolic succession as a theory or as an institute, it is impossible, at all events, to prove the fact of such succession, or to

trace it down the stream of time. In this case, the fact seems to involve the doctrine; and if the fact be hopelessly obscure, the doctrine is irrecoverably lost. It is impossible to prove the personal succession of modern bishops, in an unbroken Episcopal line, from the apostles or men of the apostolic age." It would be no difficult task to multiply quotations from the most learned and candid, showing that no confidence is to be placed in the doctrine of apostolical succession, as set forth by the Episcopalians of these United States. We have no objections to their entertaining the most exalted opinions of their own peculiar organization, but we do, and must most solemnly and publicly, protest against their lordly assumptions and their unchurching "church principles."

EVANGELISTS are expressly mentioned among the ascension gifts of Christ. When he ascended up on high, and received gifts for men, "he gave some apostles, and some prophets, and some evangelists, and some pastors and teachers." Ephes. 4: 11. As to the particular office and work of the evangelists here spoken of, there can be no doubt. Philip was an evangelist;* and from the brief account which we have of his labors, it would seem that he was an ardent and successful itinerant minister or missionary, who, for the most part, published the gospel in regions where before it had been but little known. We first hear of him, as a preacher, at Samaria; where his

Not Philip the apostle; but Philip who was first a deacon. See Acts 6:5; 21:8. Vol. II. 38

labors were followed by a great and precious revival of religion. Next, we find him instructing and baptizing the Ethiopian eunuch; some time afterwards we hear of him at Cesarea, which he seems to have made his home. Acts 21: 8.

Timothy also was an evangelist; (2 Tim. 4: 5,) and his office and work were evidently the same as those of Philip. He was the chosen companion and assistant of Paul, and often traveled with him.

Among the primitive evangelists whose names occur in the New Testament, were Titus, Luke, Mark, and many others. They were the uninspired missionaries of those times, who penetrated into regions near and remote, and were chiefly instrumental in spreading the gosSuch is the account given of them pel through the vast Roman world. in the Scriptures, and the represen

tation is confirmed by the testimony of Eusebius. He describes the evangelists as a class of ministers who aided the apostles in their labors, not by taking the charge of churches, but by acting as itinerant preachers and teachers, wherever their assistance was necessary. Very nearly resembling them in point of office and work, are the missionaries of our own times; both those who go to the heathen, and those who labor in the more destitute parts of our own country. Such men are pioneers in the Christian conflict and work, who break up the ground, and prepare the way for pastors to come after them. Their duties are not only prior, in the order of nature and time, to those of the settled pastor, but they possess, to say the least, an equal importance. They more nearly resemble those of the apostles; and such men have a better claim to be called successors of the apostles than, perhaps, any other in the world. Would that evangelists of this primitive stamp were multiplied an hundred fold. The world hath need of them.

But there is another sense in which the term evangelist is now frequently used; and it is the class of men which the word, so used, designates, about which we are here to inquire. These are not missionaries to the heathen, or to the destitute within our own borders, but revivalists by profession, whose calling it is to labor in the midst of churches and pastors, to stir them up to a consideration of their duties and delinquencies, and take the lead in promoting revivals of religion. Such an order of evangelists are regarded by some as of great importance in the church; as constituting an instrumentality which can hardly be dispensed with. The question before us is, Are they needed? Are they to be counte

Ecc. Hist. V, 9.

nanced and encouraged? Is such a class of laborers contemplated in the Scriptures? Is a system of evangelism, after this pattern, to be entered upon, and provision to be made for it accordingly?

In replying to these questions, we remark, in the first place, that when the gospel has been preached in any section of country, and churches have been established having the requisite ability to support religious institutions, God's method of procedure seems to be, to sustain such churches and build them up, and by means of them to advance the cause and kingdom of Christ, through the instrumentality of settled pas tors. In first publishing the gos pel, and organizing churches, and watching over them during their infant state, and thus preparing the way for a more settled order of things, there is need of the labors of the primitive evangelist, or (which is the same) of the modern missionary. But when this primary work is accomplished, and the way is prepared for an established ministry, God's method seems to be to employ such a ministry, and by means of it to accomplish in general all those purposes which the ministry, in any form, was intended to effect. Thus, when Paul and Barnabas had performed their mis sion in the region of Lystra, Iconium, and Antioch, and had confirmed the souls of the disciples, and exhorted them to continue steadfast in the faith, they ordained them elders in every church; and "when they had prayed, with fasting, they commended them to the Lord on whom they believed." Acts 14: 23. So when Paul, assisted by evangel ists, had passed through the island of Crete, and many had been con verted, and churches had been gathered, he departed, leaving Titus be hind him, that he might "set in order the things that were wanting, and ordain elders in every city." Tit. 1: 5. In Paul's enumeration

of our Savior's ascension gifts to his church, the apostles, prophets, and evangelists were first mentioned, and appropriately so, as their office was to go before the pastors and teachers and prepare the way for them. The mention of pastors and teachers naturally followed. But no class of church officers was appointed to follow them. When they had been introduced and established, on them rested the responsibility of laboring "for the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ." If God's method of procedure is such as is clearly indicated in the passages here referred to, then the question of evangelists, in the modern sense of the term, would seem to be settled. To raise up and send forth a class of ministers to itinerate in the midst of churches and pastors, for the purpose of stirring them up to a consideration of their duties, and promoting revivals of religion among them, is to break in upon the settled order of the gospel, and undertake to alter and improve what God has established.

Our second remark in regard to the question before us, is, that where pastors are what they should be, and what the Scriptures require them to be, the labors of the evangelist (in the modern sense of the term) are not needed. Let any one take into consideration the qualifications of ministers, as laid down by our Savior in his instructions to his disciples, or by Paul in his epistles to Timothy and Titus-" blameless, vigilant, of good behavior, given to hospitality, apt to teach," sober, just, holy, temperate, holding fast the faithful word, that they may be able, by sound doctrine, both to exhort and convince the gainsay ers ;" and say, what need can such pastors have of the labors of evangelists, to stir them up to diligence and fidelity, and promote religion in congregations of their charge?

the

They are themselves diligent and faithful men, who "hold fast the faithful word" of the gospel; who preach it with energy and power; who accompany it with prayers and labors, and enforce it by a blameless life; and to obtrude evangelists into the pulpits of such men, with a view to excite them to greater diligence, and effect among their people what they can not accomplish, must certainly (to make the best of it) be regarded as a superfluity. It is a thing not needed, and of course uncalled for.

Accordingly we remark, third, that an evangelist can not be introduced, under such circumstances, without an implied reflection upon the character of the pastor, and without sinking his reputation in the minds of his people. If the pastor is what he should be, and has health and strength for his work, the evangelist is not needed. Hence, if he is needed, or if any considerable portion of a congregation think that he is needed; this is as much as to say, that the pastor is deficient. "Our minister is ignorant, and needs to be enlightened. Or he is dull and stupid, and needs to be awakened. At least, he does not understand the subject of revivals, and needs some one to teach and guide him in this most important depart ment of his labors.' On supposition that a pastor is in health, and is physically competent to the discharge of his duties, we do not see how an evangelist can be needed, unless the pastor is deficient in some one, or all, of the respects here referred to; or how he can be called in, so that the fact of calling him shall not seem to utter itself in language like that which has been given. And it needs no great acquaintance with men and things to understand, that a pastor can not long live, and retain his reputation and influence under such circumstances. He must inevitably sink, at least for a time. He may re

cover himself after a season, when his people shall have become sensible of their mistake, and better counsels shall prevail; but the probability rather is, that division and alienation will be excited, the church will be rent asunder, and a dissolution of the pastoral relation will ensue. For when the real condition of a pastor under the tutelage of an evangelist comes to be understood, it is impossible that he should feel easy in it. And his friends will be as ill-satisfied as himself. And now the bone of contention begins to show itself. A part of the congregation will adhere to the old minister, and a part to the new. A part will be for old measures, and a part for new. And a state of things will speedily be induced, which, if it should not issue in a permanent division of the church, will seem to require that both ministers should depart, and make room for one against whom there are no prejudices, he having had no hand in the strife.

Or if such a result is not reached in this way, it may be in another. The effect of employing evangelists must necessarily be to break up the quiet, settled habits of a people, and induce what the apostle denominates "itching ears." They are fond of excitement and of change, and like the Athenians of old, would be glad to "spend their time in nothing else, but to tell or to hear some new thing." They think little of steady, holy living, but much of impulses and impressions; and he who is most successful in exciting these, is to them the best minister. An uneven, fitful state of religious feeling is produced, lacking consistency, lacking uniformity. When a revival of religion is felt to be needed, instead of humbling themselves before God, and seeking blessings at his hands, the first thought is, to send for an evangelist. Nothing can be done to any purpose without him. While he is

present, all hands engage in the work; but when he retires, exertion is relaxed, and the excitement is followed by a season of slumber. Such a state of things in a church and society, we need not say, is a most undesirable one, promising little improvement or comfort to a people, and rendering the situation of the pastor most precarious and unhappy.

In every view which we can take of the subject, therefore, we are constrained to regard the employ. ment of evangelists as of destructive influence, both upon pastors and people. It is a breaking in, as we have shown, upon the established order of the gospel, and would result, if pursued, in the total breaking up and dissolution of that order. From the nature of the case, modern evangelists and settled pastors can not long exist together. Hence, if the former are to be extensively patronized, the latter must soon dis appear from the church. And then our congregations must either do without ministers, or must depend for a supply upon itinerants and evangelists. In a little time, the ministerial character would lose all respect; and were it not that we rely on the sure promise of God, we should fear that the Christian name might become extinct in the earth.

There is another view in which this question of evangelists may be considered; we mean in its bearing on the evangelists themselves. What kind of ministers will the system, if adopted, be likely to produce? What sort of characters will it have a tendency to form?

It is obvious that these itinerants can not be men of much reading and writing, of laborious study, of solid learning. Their course of life absolutely forbids it.

Nor will they be likely to be sta ble men, men of foresight and judg ment, who will form their plans with a far-reaching wisdom, and with a view to remote as well as immedi

ate results. Their calling rather requires, that they be ardent, excitable, easily moved and easily led on by the force of their feelings to extravagance of speech, and to doubtful expedients. And this infirmity of character, which the very nature of their calling seems to demand, the exercise of it is calculated to foster. Living in the midst of excitement, they come, at length, to live upon it. They feel that they can hardly live without it. And as they go from place to place, with the responsibility of creating an excitement resting upon them, they have strong inducements to have recourse to questionable means for this purpose. They must indulge in eccentricities, if not extravagancies. They must say and do exciting, startling things. Aware that their services will be estimated, and sought after, according to the measure of their success, they have strong temptations to magnify their successes; to represent conversion as an easy work; to swell the number of the converted; and with slight examination, to hasten them into the church. And if the thought sometimes comes over them, "peradventure these persons may fall away, and give the church and the pastor trouble," they comfort themselves with hoping better things, and with reflecting "if any do fall away, and make trouble in the church, we shall be off, and shall have no concern with it.'

Nor are these evangelists out of danger, in respect to their own characters and lives. Claiming as they do, to take the lead in all movements pertaining to revivals, they naturally become arrogant and overbearing, And exposed, as they are, to a good deal of contradiction, their spirits are liable to be embittered, and their words to become as sharp arrows. They judge uncharitably of those who may honestly differ from them, and not unfrequently charge them with fighting against God.

We do not regard the persons of

whom we thus speak as worse, by nature, than other men. We do not call in question their sincerity, or their piety; or suppose them to be actuated, necessarily, by bad intentions. But their employment is without warrant in the Scriptures, and is manifestly one of dangerous influence, not only upon the church at large, but upon their own spiritual interests. If they think themselves called to the work of evangelists, then let them do as did the primitive evangelists. Let them press out into the missionary fields of the world, which are all white and ready for the harvest. Here let them labor, and organize churches, and prepare the way for settled pastors; instead of pressing upon pastors already settled, and preparing the way for their dismission. For the labors of the evangelist of the primitive stamp, there is abundant authority in the Scriptures, and a loud and impressive call in the present condition of the world. But for evangelists, in the modern sense of the term, we find no authority in the Scriptures; and we think that their labors, in the general, however well intended, will be followed with more injury than benefit.

We are aware that there are objections to the reasonings here employed, and it may be well, before closing, that some of these should be considered.

It will be said, in the first place, that God sometimes raises up men, and fits them eminently to labor as evangelists, when they are qualified for almost nothing else. They are not adapted to a settled course of life. They could not long discharge the duties of pastors, if they were to become such. But to move round among pastors and churches, and rouse them up to engagedness in duty, and promote revivals of religion, they are specially qualified. The case of the late Mr. Whitefield is often referred to, as one peculiarly in point.