Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

create obscurity by dwelling on the ambiguity of names. What if Timothy is styled Presbuteros, or man of authority, and the Elders whom he ruled are called so too! Timothy exercised powers which they could not exercise. Timothy governed them. They were subject to his jurisdiction.

As to the business of ordination, St. Paul says to Timothy, "The things that thou hast heard of me among many witnesses, the same commit thou to faithful men, who shall be able to teach others also." To Titus the Apostle says, " For this cause left I thee in Crete, that thou shouldst set in order the things that are wanting, and ordain Elders in every city, as I had appointed thee." Here, let it be observed, in passing along, that Titus is spoken of as having been ordained by the Apostle." As I had appointed thee." Nothing is said of the Presbytery in this case. Paul appointed Titus to his office; and this is a conclusive circumstance for believing that the case was the same in relation to Timothy, as it is not reasonable to suppose that they were commissioned in different ways.

In whom was the power of ordination vested in the Churches of Ephesus and Crete? Clearly in Timothy and Titus alone. Them alone the Apostle addresses, and them alone he speaks of as ordaining Elders, or as committing the things they had received from him to faithful men, capable of teaching others. Is not this utterly in- ́ consistent with the Presbyterian system? What individual among them could with propriety be addressed as the Apostle addresses Timothy and Titus? Not one. The power among them is in a numerous body of equals, lest there should be "lords over God's heritage." The power, in Ephesus and Crete, was in Timothy and Titus, to whom the Presbyters were subject, liable to be tried and punished for misconduct. It is on this plain statement of facts, relative to Ephesus and Crete, as well as to other Churches, taken in connection with the uniform and uninterrupted testimony of the Church universal for fifteen hundred years, that Episcopalians rest their cause. They have never endeavoured to derive arguments from the names made use of. This has been the practice, exclusively, of the advocates of parity. Driven from the ground of fact, not able to deny that Timothy and Titus were supreme Governors in the Churches of Ephesus and Crete, possessing alone the power of ordination, they say that Timothy is called a Presbyter, and was therefore upon a level with those very Elders whom he ruled, whom he could control as to the doctrines they preached, whom he had power to try and to punish!

Episcopalians having established their cause upon the firm ground of Scripture fact, follow the advocates of parity to the argument which they attempt to build on words, and show that it avails them nothing. Driven from this ground also, they turn round and say, Episcopalians can derive no support from the words. They never pretended to derive argument from such a source. They would give up their cause at once if reduced to the necessity of placing it on such a basis. They rely upon the evident state of the Churches of Ephesus, Crete, Jerusalem, and other places, as detailed to us in scripture, taken in connection with the decided and unequivocal evidence of primitive history. And all they say about names is simply to show that they furnish no aid to the system of parity.

The writer has introduced, from an address which he ascribes to Bishop Seabury, certain passages for the purpose of showing the sentiments entertained by Episcopalians on the subject of Presbyterial ordination. In this business, it is unnecessary that he should quote authors, or multiply observations, for the validity of that mode of ordination our Church finds herself constrained most explicitly to deny. She believes that a particular method of conveying the sacerdotal power was instituted by the Apostles, and that man has no more right to change this method of conveying a divine authority, than he has to change the holy supper, which is the appointed method of conveying a divine gift. And if it be objected that so much importance ought not to be attached to the external polity of the Church, I answer, that what God has joined together no man should put asunder; and, that the same mode of reasoning would lead to speaking lightly of the ordinances of the gospel. Can it be so important, the Quaker may ask, to sprinkle water, or tø take bread and wine? The fact is, all these things derive their importance from the command of God, and man has nothing to do with inquiring into the propriety or impropriety of institutions established in the scriptures of truth. They are objects of faith, not subjects of metaphysical investigation.

The validity of Presbyterial ordination, as I have shown in preceding numbers, has been denied from its origin. And I believe I have made it appear that those men who complain so much of the Episcopal Church, have indulged in a mode of expression to wards her, quite as free as that which she has herself exercised. What if Bishop Seabury has expressed himself in a manner some what severe? It has nothing to do with the present controversy. Surely our author does not mean to go back to so distant a period for a justification of the bitter newspaper attack which he has. thought proper to commence. Besides, the whole address of Bishop Seabury must be read before a proper judgment can be formed of detached passages. These may be greatly softened and explained by the general spirit, and the obvious design of the discourse. And since the gentleman has thought proper to bring this matter up, let it be observed, that the Episcopalians of Connecticut had been treated in the most intolerant manner; which circumstance ought certainly to be considered in determining on the propriety of the style which Bishop Seabury uses. Our adversaries will find it their interest, probably, to let these matters rest.

The writer whom I oppose continues to employ a language much better calculated to excite passion than to elucidate truth. After solemnly invoking, in one of his numbers, the guidance of the Holy Spirit, he descends, in a succeeding address, to a mode of expression which even the most strenuous advocates of his doctrines will not justify. There is something in the style of several numbers of the Miscellanies, calculated to excite the warm indignation, not only of every member of the Episcopal Church, but of every friend of decorum and of truth. A Layman of the Episcopal Church,

I

[ocr errors]

For the Albany Centinel.

MISCELLANIES. No. XVII.

SINCE my explanation of the two texts in the Epistles of Paul to

Timothy, I have read a few writers upon them. Two of these interpret the gift mentioned in the first Epistle, to mean the office of the ministry, and that prophecy refers to Timothy being chosen and foretold by the revelation of the spirit. Thus, in chap. i. 18. it is said," according to the prophecies which went before on thee." I shall not contend for the interpretation given by myself; nor is it essential in the argument. Admitting that Timothy was chosen to his office by the "discerning of spirits," and that the gift which he was exhorted not to neglect was ordinary, still his ordination was Presbyterian. It may serve, however, to corroborate my interpretation to mention, that the Greek word "charisma" is ge nerally used to signify an extraordinary gift, and that an ordinary one is expressed by "dorea" and "charis." The gift is also said to be "en soi," in thee, which cannot be properly said of the office of the ministry. Should any still insist that the verse is to be interpreted in connection with chap. i. 18. they will remark that the expression there is "epi se," on or concerning thee; and therefore prophecy in the one place may refer to what was foretold concerning him, and, in the other, to the exercise of the same gift in himself. Whichsoever of the two interpretations is preferred, my argument remains in equal force.

One writer says, It is, at least, highly probable that the impo sition of Paul's hands upon Timothy, mentioned in the second Epis tle, was not for ordination; but at a different time, upon a different occasion, and for a different purpose, viz. to confer on him the extraordinary powers of the Holy Ghost; and that these powers are the gift which the Apostle exhorts Timothy to stir up, i. e. diligently to use for the end for which it was conferred upon him. This interpretation will make the two different accounts perfectly consistent, which perhaps no other will. And that this was in fact the case, may be further argued from the different subjects treated of in the two places under consideration." Dr. Whitby, a learned commentator of the Episcopal Church, is of the same opinion. "The gift here mentioned," says he, "being the gift of the Holy Ghost, was usually conferred by laying on of the hands of an Apostle. Vain therefore is the inference of Esthius from these places, that ordination is a sacrament, seeing the grace here mentioned is no ordinary grace, but an extraordinary gift, conferred only in those times by the hands of an Apostle, and now wholly ceased."

As then, "by the putting on" of Paul's hands, mentioned in this place, an extraordinary gift was conferred, which was conferred only by the hands of an Apostle, and this power is now wholly ceased; and as, at the ordination of Timothy, there was, undeniably, the "laying on of the hands of the Presbytery," so no argu ment whatever can be drawn in favour of the Episcopal mode. Whoever ordained Timothy, it is plain that they did it not as persons of a superior and extraordinary character; but as ordinary

gospel Ministers or Presbyters. Could it be admitted that Paul refers to the ordination of Timothy when he says "by the putting on of my hands," still he ascribes the same power to the hands of the Presbytery in his first Epistle; and, consequently, there is the same reason to say, that the Presbytery ordained Timothy as that Paul erdained him. If Paul laid on hands at the ordination, in this transaction merely, he acted as a Presbyter, and could act as no other. As an Apostle he was superior to Presbyters, and, as such, has no successor. But as a Presbyter, he could commit to others this office. I will not say, that Presbyters are "successors of the Apostles;" because I think that such language savours of arrogance, if not of impiety; but I will say that Presbyters are the highest order to whom the Apostles, by the authority of Christ, have committed the administration of the word and ordinances of the Church.*

I proceed now to give another passage from the New Testament more circumstantial than the last, and which is left on purpose to guide the Church in the important matter of ordination. It is recorded in Acts xiii. 1, 2, 3. "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 I have called them. And when they had fasted and prayed, and laid their hands on them, they sent them away." In this passage, let us attend principally to the following things:

1. The authority by which the ordination was performed. The Holy Ghost said. As the Apostle Paul, under the immediate guidance of divine inspiration, directed Timothy and Titus to ordain Elders, so, in the present case, there was an express command of the Holy Ghost. This was necessary in the first examples of ordination; otherwise the practice of the Church would rest upon the inventions of men. The command which was then given is now our authority, and the pattern which was then set we must now scrupulously follow. Though we have no immediate inspiration, yet we have that which was dictated by it, and this is our sure and only guide.

* The author of Miscellanies bestows a great deal of labour on two texts of scripture, which have never been much relied on by the advocates of Episcopacy. When in proof of the power of Presbyters to ordain, the text is quoted, "with the laying on of the hands of the Presbytery;" the Episcopalians produce the other text, "by the laying on of my hands," and say, that if even by Presbytery be meant a number of Presbyters, it is evident that Paul, who was of a superior order, presided and conveyed authority. But, granting the utmost; the texts taken together, if they do not prove any thing for Episcopal ordination, do not prove any thing against it. And, without relying on doubtful texts, the Episcopalian finds sufficient proof of Episcopacy in the superior powers, which Timothy and Titus possessed at Ephesus and Crete, of ordaining and governing the other orders of the ministry. There is surely nothing of "arrogance and impiety" in saying that Bishops are the successors of the Apostles, in their ordinary ecclesiastical authority. Of this impiety and arrogance, the primitive Fathers were habitually guilty.

Ed

2. The persons ordained were Paul and Barnabas. Separate me Barnabas and Saul. Though they had, before this, been commissioned by Christ as Apostles, yet they were now separated or set apart to their work by the rite of ordination. We are assured that Paul was called to be the Apostle of the Gentiles. "Go thy way," said the Lord unto Ananias, "for he is a chosen vessel unto me, to bear my name before the Gentiles." When he was about to enter upon this mission, it seemed good to the Holy Ghost to have him and Barnabas set apart to it. This is the opinion of Dr. Taylor, a Bishop of the Church of England. His words are, "He [Paul] had the special honour to be chosen in an extraordinary way: yet he had something of the ordinary too; for in an extraordinary manner he was sent to be ordained in an ordinary ministry. His designation was as immediate as that of the eleven Apostles, though his ordination was not." It is not the practice in the Church, when an ordained Minister is about to be sent on a mission, to use the same ceremonies here mentioned; fasting, praying, and imposition of hands. These are used at ordination only; and this is a proof that the passage is universally thus understood. Paul and Barnabas were set apart in the same manner in which Timothy was ordained, and in which he and they ordained others. We must therefore conelude with Dr. Lightfoot, that "no better reason can be given of this present action, than that the Lord did hereby set down a plat form of ordaining Ministers to the Church of the Gentiles in future times."

3. The persons who were the ordainers were the officers of the Church of Antioch. Certain prophets and teachers. Their names are given, from whence it appears, that besides Paul and Barnabas, who were the persons ordained, there were three; the number which, according to the constitution of the Presbyterian Church, form a Presbytery. Whoever these prophets and teachers were, they were all equally concerned in the ordination.*

The direction was given to all, and all laid on their hands. If the prophets were superior to the teachers, it is evident that though Bishops in the scriptural sense, they could not have been Bishops after the fashion of the Church of England, or diocesan Bishops; because there was a plurality of them. A diocesan Bishop is of such magnitude that there is not room for more than one in a city; and he often fills several with a large extent of country. Let it be admitted that prophets are to be distinguished from teachers, does it follow that the former are a standing order in the Church? We may understand by prophets in the primitive Church those who exercised extraordinary gifts, and the same persons were prophets and teachers. These extraordinary gifts have ceased. But if any will insist that prophets here mean a standing order in the Church, superior to teachers or presbyters, it is incumbent on them to prove that Simeon, or Lucius, or Manaen, was of this description. The

*This transaction is not considered by the most judicious commentators (some of them not Episcopalians) as an ordination, but as a solemn desig. nation of two of the Apostles to the exercise of a particular mission. See this point proved by the Layman in his 6th, and by Cyprian in his 4th number.

Ed.

« AnteriorContinuar »