Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

rior class to both, who are alone empowered to ordain presbyters and deacons, and to govern the church; and without whose agency no one can be validly invested with the sacred office? This is the question to the solution of which our attention is now to be directed. Let us examine the evidence from Scripture and from antiquity, which the advocates of the Episcopal claim attempt to produce in support of the affirmative.

CHAPTER II.

TESTIMONY OF SCRIPTURE.

In all disputes relating either to the faith or the practice of Christians, the first and the grand question isWhat saith the Scripture? This is the ultimate and the only infallible standard. Whatever is not found. in the Bible, cannot be considered as essential either to the doctrine or the order of the church. This maxim is especially applicable to the subject now under discussion. As the Christian ministry is an office deriving its existence and its authority solely from Jesus Christ, the King and Head of his church, it is obvious that his Word is the only rule by which any claims to this office can properly be tried, and the powers and duties of those who bear it ascertained. By this unerring standard, then, we are not only willing, but must insist, that the question before us shall be decided. The declarations of two eminent Episcopal writers on this subject are just and weighty. "The Scripture," says Dr. Sherlock, "is all of a piece; every part of it agrees with the rest. The fathers many times contradict themselves and each other."* In the same strain speaks the celebrated Chillingworth. "The BIBLE, I say, the Bible is the religion of Protestants! I, for my part, after a long, and (as I verily hope and believe) impartial search of the true way to eternal happiness, do profess plainly,

* Preservative against Popery. Part I. chap. ii. sec. iii.

that I cannot find any rest for the sole of my feet, but upon this rock only, viz. the SCRIPTURE. I see plainly, and with my own eyes, Popes against Popes; councils against councils; some fathers against others; the same fathers against themselves; a consent of fathers of one age against a consent of fathers of another age; and the church of one age against the church of another age."* And it is satisfactory to know that a late popular and widely circulated tract, written in defence of Prelacy, begins by acknowledging "That the claim of Episcopacy to be a divine institution, and therefore obligatory on the church, rests fundamentally on the one question-Has it the authority of Scripture? If it has not, it is not necessarily binding.” And again, "No argument is worth taking into account that has not a palpable bearing on the clear and naked question, the scriptural evidence of Episcopacy." To this principle we, as Presbyterians, are perfectly willing to accede, and hope that all parties will faithfully adhere. Let us, then, with all impartiality and candour, examine what the Scriptures say on the point in dispute.

And here it is proper to premise, that whoever expects to find any formal or explicit decisions on this subject delivered by Christ or his apostles, will be disappointed. It is true, the discourses of the Saviour, and the writings of those who were inspired with the knowledge of his will, contain many observations and instructions concerning the Christian ministry; but they are chiefly employed in prescribing the appropriate character, and urging the solemn duties. of those who serve God in the gospel of his Son,

*The Religion of Protestants, &c., chap. vi. sect. 56.
+ Bishop Onderdonk's "Episcopacy tested by Scripture."

rather than in defining their titles, in settling questions of rank and precedence among them, or in guarding the immunities and honours of their office. The necessity of knowledge, piety, zeal, diligence, selfdenial, meekness, patience, fortitude, and eminent holiness, in ministers of the gospel, is urged with a frequency, a minuteness, and a force which evince that, in the estimation of infinite wisdom, they are regarded as of primary importance. While questions concerning priority, and grades and privileges, are never once formally discussed; only occasionally alluded to; and then in a manner rather adapted to repress than to encourage any serious regard to them.

Accordingly, it will no doubt surprise any one who approaches the examination of this subject, if he has not been familiar with the controversy, to observe the character of that scriptural testimony on which the advocates of Episcopacy rely. They do not pretend to quote a single Scripture directly and formally to their purpose. But their reliance is on what can only be considered, at best, as distant and indistinct hints; on remote, dubious inferences, and on facts which, to say the least, agree quite as well with Presbyterian as with Episcopal principles. Yet these they quote with as much parade and confidence as if it were direct and unquestionable testimony.

Now, if prelacy had been a divine institution, and especially if it had been regarded by the inspired writers as the fundamental and essential matter which modern high-churchmen represent it, could they have been silent respecting it? Can it be imagined that they would have left the subject in obscurity or doubt? When they had occasion to speak so frequently concerning the Christian character and

hope; concerning the church, its nature, foundation, Head, laws, ministers and interests; it is truly marvellous that they should be explicit on every other point than precisely that which jure divino prelatists consider as the most vital and important of all. We find in the New Testament seventeen epistles written by inspired men to different churches or bodies of professing Christians; but, strange to tell! in no one of them do we find any allusion to a diocesan bishop; or any claim of his prerogative; or any exhortation to honour and submit to him as such. This, on Episcopal principles, is a most extraordinary omission! Yet is it not manifest that this omission exists, the friends of the claim in question themselves being judges? Have they not been constrained a thousand times to confess, that this claim is no where distinctly presented or maintained in the New Testament? When the inspired writers undertake to tell us what those things are which professing Christians ought sacredly to regard, in order to make good their appropriate character, on what points do they dwell? Do they insist on a particular line of ecclesiastical succession, or represent every thing, or indeed any thing, as depending on a certain form of official investiture? Do they tell the humble inquirer after the way of holiness and salvation, that he must be careful, first of all, to receive the sacraments from "duly authorized hands;" and that, whatever he does, he must be found in communion with some bishop, who holds his office by "regular succession ?" Is there a syllable, in all the New Testament, which has the most distant resemblance to such counsel? Assuredly there is not. No; the points every where insisted on, as manifesting that the character and the hopes of men are

« AnteriorContinuar »