Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

But the advocates of prelacy cannot prove, by any satisfactory evidence, that Timothy and Titus were succeeded by diocesan bishops. This they aoknowledge to be essential to their argument.

For

if they had not successors of this description, they cannot possibly be considered as any part of a per manent order of diocesan bishops. But so far are the advocates of prelacy from being able to prove this succession, that the learned Dr. Whitby himself confesses, that it cannot be proved by any testimony prior to the fourth century, that "Timothy and Titus were indeed made bishops, the one of Ephesus, the other of Crete." "Now, of this matter," as he proceeds to observe, "I confess I can find nothing in any writer of the first three centuries, nor any intimation that they bore that name:' In the fourth century, Eusebius informs us in his Ecclesiastical History, it was "reported" that Timothy was bishop of Ephesus, and Titus of Crete. And, for any thing that appears to the contrary, the whole story trans

that

*Dr. Bowden renders the original word by a very free translation, "it is recorded in history." Of this meaning of the term he thinks it a proof that the Eng lish word history is derived from it. But the Dr. forgot to inform his readers that the English word story is also derived from it, and that the one is as fair a specimen of its meaning as the other. The truth is, the term is perfectly ambiguous. It might signify indifferently a written or an oral relation. But as it does not appear that Eusebius had any written authority, and as he says that he derived much of his history from tradition, it can be placed upon the scale of evidence no higher than a mere traditionary report.

mitted to us has been founded upon this report of Eusebius. It has been adopted and repeated by a number of writers from that day to the present time. By this we may readily see how Timothy and Titus have been made bishops. Still the advocates of prelacy contend, that there can be no valid minis try and no visible church without the bishop. But can you consent, my brethren, as christians or ar men, that the vital existence of the ministry and the essential order of the Church should be suspended upon a mere traditionary report, two or three hundred years after the event?

Now, I appeal to your candor and good sense, my brethren, whether the scriptures do not establish presbyterian parity with the most conclusive evidence. I appeal to your candor and good sense, whether there is a single circumstance, when duly examined and understood, that even militates against this doctrine. But if this be admitted, the question is settled upon an immovable foundation. For, to use the language of an illustrious Episcopal writer,* "The BIBLE," my brethren, "the BIBLE is the RELIGION of Protestants."

*Chillingworth.

SERMON VII.

ISAIAH viii. 20.

"To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them."

DIVINE Revelation is called " the law," because it teaches us what GOD requires; it is called "the testimony," because God declares it to be the truth. The prophet therefore, appeals to it with great propriety as the standard of truth and duty. By this the pretensions of all those, who undertake to advise or instruct us upon religious subjects, must be tried. To this test they must be brought, whatever learning, or knowledge, or wisdom they may claim to possess. If their instruction or counsel does not agree with "the law and the testimony," it must be rejected without hesitation. "Cease, my son, to hear the instruction that causeth to err from the words of knowledge."*

But if the appeal could with propriety be made to this as the standard in the days of the prophet, with what additional confidence may we appeal to it since the Apostolic age. The canon of scripture was then completed and ratified by its immutable Author. “If any man shall add unto these things, GOD shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book: and if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, GoD shall

*Prov, xix. 27.

take away his part out of the book of life" If any one should be so presumptuous, it will be at his peril. He must answer for his temerity to Him, from whose eye there is no concealment, from whose hand there is no escape, from whose tribunal there is no appeal.

By this, then, we are required, and under the highest responsibility, to ascertain and observe all the doctrines, precepts, and institutions, given by Divine authority. By whatever plausible arguments ingenious men may assail us, by whatever powerful motives they may press us to forsake this standard, we must resist them, we must disregard them, and adhere inviolably to the truth as GOD has revealed it." To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them."

Let me then ask in the first place,

1. Why we should attend to the Fathers?

With what propriety, my brethren, are we called upon to neglect the "sure word of prophecy," and receive the opinion or testimony of uninspired and fallible men? We have endeavored to ascertain, by careful examination, what the Son of GOD and the HOLY GHOST have taught us concerning the order and powers of the gospel ministry. But we are called upon by the advocates of prelacy to give up the authority of the Son of Gop and the HOL

Rev. xxii. 18, 19.

GHOST, and permit the Fathers to decide this ques tion. Is it possible that any man, who has any respect for the Redeemer or Sanctifier of his people, can consent to this proposition? Is it possible that any man should imagine, that what the Fathers have said in repugnance to the word of God is of any authority? These Fathers at best were no more than uninspired and fallible interpreters of "the law and the testimony" of GOD. And is the authority of these interpreters to be preferred to that of the faithful and true witness, and all those holy men of old, who spake as they were moved by the HOLY GHOST? “To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is beeause there is no light in them." Wherever the Fathers differ from the word of GOD, they are falla

cious and delusive instructors. Whatever may be

their authority in other cases, in this they deserve no attention. The moment we ascertain that they disagree on any subject with the scriptures, we know that they are in an error. We have no occasion to wait before we decide, till we can explain the cause of this difference. The simple fact, that they differ from the infallible standard, decides the question, and so far destroys their authority.

But we are sometimes told by the advocates of prelacy, that they do not appeal to the Fathers as interpreters. They appeal to their testimony merely to prove a matter of fact. They call in the Fathers as witnesses of the form of government, which prevailed in the church in their days. But what, my brethren, is this to the purpose? Let us suppose that they prove by the testimony of the Fathers

« AnteriorContinuar »