Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

attested, sufficient evidence to convince us that there were seven men entrusted with the dignity and power of Bishops of the Church in this part of Asia, at the time that St. John sent these Epistles to them? Have we not sufficient proof that the seven Angels, emblematically represented by the seven stars in the candlesticks the Churches, were seven Bishops? But let us bring this part of the subject to a conclusion.

The case of Timothy alone, had we no other evidence from scripture, would, when taken in connection with the testimony of ancient writers, be perfectly satisfactory to me. This alone demonstrates all that we can desire. He was placed by St. Paul to superintend the Church of Ephesus. This case is even stronger than was that of Titus in Crete. It cannot be denied that there had long been Presbyters in the Church of Ephesus. Listen then, to the language which St. Paul speaks in his Epistles to him, and see if it is possible that he possessed no superiority over the Presbyters of that Church. "I besought thee," says he to Timothy, "to abide still at Ephesus when I went into Macedonia, that thou mightest charge some that they teach no other doctrine." Would Timothy have been commissioned to charge the Presbyters to teach no other doctrine had he possessed no superiority over them? Would they not have had a right to resist any attempts at a control of this kind as an encroachment on their privileges? Again, Timothy is directed to try and examine the Deacons, whether they be blameless or not. If they prove themselves worthy, he is to admit them into the office of a Deacon; and upon a faithful discharge of that office, they are to be elevated to a higher station. "Likewise," says he, "must the Deacons be grave, not double tongued, not given to much wine, not greedy of filthy lucre, holding the mystery of faith in a pure conscience." "Let these also be first proved, and then let them use the office of a Deacon, being found blameless." Here we find no mention made of the Presbyters of Ephesus, in the ordination of Deacons. They are not associated with him at all in the work. Does not this indicate, does it not demonstrate a superiority of power on the part of Timothy? Timothy is also exhorted to lay "hands suddenly on no man.' There is no such thing as a recognition even of the co-operation of Presbyters with him. He seems to be the supreme and the only agent in the transaction of these affairs.

Now, I appeal to the common sense of mankind, had the Presbyters of Ephesus possessed an authority equal to that of Timothy ; had they, like him, possessed the power of ordination, would not St. Paul have recognized their agency in connection with his? Would it not have been to treat them with improper neglect not to mention them? But what consummates our evidence on this point, and places the subject beyond all doubt, is the charge which St. Paul gives to Timothy in relation to the penal discipline he was to exercise over his Presbyters. Timothy is required to "receive an accusation against an Elder or Presbyter, only before two or three witnesses." "Them (that is, those amongst the Presbyters) that sin, rebuke before all, that others also may fear." Can any one imagine that Timothy would have been commissioned to listen to accusations made against Presbyters, openly to rebuke them, had

not his authority transcended theirs? Does not this single circumstance unquestionably establish the point of his superiority? "The man," says a learned and ingenious writer of our country, "who shall not find a Bishop in Ephesus, will be puzzled to find one in England."

I cannot conceive of a case that could be more clear and unequivocal, that could speak more loudly to the common sense of mankind, than the case of Timothy in Ephesus. He is obviously intrusted with apostolic authority. Every thing which the Apostle could do in his own person, he commissions Timothy to perform during his absence. He is to adjust the affairs of the Church; he is to prove and examine Deacons; he alone is to ordain them; he alone is recognized in the performance of the task of ordaining Elders or Presbyters; he possesses perfect control over these Presbyters. If they are guilty of any offences or misdemeanors, he is to inflict punishment upon them. I cannot conceive of a case more satisfactory in proof of the apostolic original of the Episcopal form of Church Government. Had Timothy been of the same order with the Presbyters of Ephesus, can it be imagined that the Apostle would, by elevating him to such high privileges amongst them, have endangered the peace of the Church, have taken a step so well calculated to excite discontent and dissatisfaction amongst the remaining Presbyters or Elders? This cannot be imagined. Timothy was then undeniably intrusted with Episcopal authority in the Church of Ephesus; he was the Bishop of that place. This is proved by the concurring voice of ancient writers. Eusebius tells Us "that he was the first Bishop of the province or diocese of Ephesus," The anonymous author of his life in Phocius says, "that he was the first that acted as Bishop in Ephesus, and that he was ordained Bishop of the metropolis of Ephesus by the great St. Paul." In the council of Chalcedon twenty seven Bishops are said to have succeeded in that chair from Timothy. To prove the same point goes the testimony of St. Chrysostom and Theodoret; and in the apostolical constitutions we are expressly told, that he was ordained Bishop of Ephesus by St. Paul.

I shall conclude the detail of our scripture evidence in my next number.

CYPRIAN.

THE

For the Albany Centinel.

CLEMENS. No. I.

HE author of "Miscellanies" has published nothing lately on the subject of Church Government. He thus allows the reader time to consider what has been already written, and his opponent, "A Layman of the Episcopal Church," room in the newspaper to muster all his forces. This latter writer, though he started early, and has been very industrious, yet he still lags behind, and his knowledge appears by no means to equal his zeal. It will be useful

Dr. Bowden, in his answer to Dr. Stiles.

to the public as well as to himself to point out a few mistakes in his last piece.

[ocr errors]

He says that Episcopalians "rely upon the powers which Timothy exercised, not upon the manner of his ordination." I have been so weak as to believe that the manner is the only subject of dispute. If the reader will turn to p. 25 of “ A Companion for the Festivals," &c. he will see that the text in the second Epistle to Timothy is brought to prove that his ordination was Episcopal, and that "much stress" is laid upon it.* This writer ought to have recollected too, that he relied upon it in his first pieces, and unjustly blamed the author of " Miscellanies" for using by instead of with.

Again he asserts, "that there is not a single example to be produced from scripture or from the whole history of the Church, before the days of Calvin, of an ordination by any but an order of ministers superior to the elders who officiated in the clerical character," &c. I know how he interprets scripture, but I cannot tell what Church history he has read. Let him take one example, until others are found for him: In the celebrated Church of Alexandria, Presbyters ordained even their own Bishops for more than 200 years, in the earliest ages of Christianity. Whatever rank and power these Bishops had (which is not now the question), this was the manner of their ordination.† He mentions farther some cases in which the Apostles " alone performed the act of ordination." I merely ask him, what was the number of the Apostles? How could the very first ordinations have been otherwise? Who ordained Paul and Barnabas at Antioch?

He alleges that the cause of parity has nothing but words to rest on"-that the Episcopalians "never pretend to derive arguments from such a source"-and that "they would give up their cause at once, if reduced to the necessity of placing it on such a basis." This is, indeed, strange. I thought that they did rest on the words, "by the putting on of my hands," to prove that Paul ordained Timothy. I thought that this writer was not willing to give up the little word meta, and that he was now striving to force it into his service. I should suppose that the words of scripture were the best source from which to derive arguments.‡ Verily, if he will not admit the obvious construction and force of these words, "with the laying on of the hands of the Presbytery," he is right in giving up the cause at once, and not challenging persons to dispute with him.

After all, this writer seems loath to part with meta. He still asserts that "the two words dia and meta are opposed in the Epistles to Timothy"—" that dia signifies, particularly, the cause of a thing, and that meta is the preposition of concurrence." Now I

*This text is there brought forward to explain and ascertain the meaning of the text relied on by the advocates of Presbytery in the first Epistle to Timothy.

See this assertion disproved by Detector, No. 1.

Ed.
Ed.

How disingenuous and quibbling is this writer, who, the reader will recollect, is the author of Miscellanies under a different signature. By the words on which, the Layman asserts, the cause of parity rests, he evidently means, the words which are used as titles or names of office, and which change in their signification, and vary in their application.

Ed

aver that they are not opposed, that meta, with the genitive case, has frequently the same meaning and force as dia, and that it mustbe construed by, or, by means of. A few examples follow: Thucyd. Hist. Stephanus edit. printed 1588. book ii. p. 197, folio ed. Kai meta kainoteetos men logou apatasthai aristoi meta dedokimasmenoi de mee zunepesthai ethelein. Translation. Ye are easily deceived by novelty of speech, but hard to be prevailed upon to execute what is laudable. In this sentence, the word meta is twice used for dia, as will be seen by attending to its grammatical construction. Thucyd. same edit. book v. fol. 354. Dia teen ek tees Attikees pote meta dooroon dokousan anachoreesin. In this sentence, like that in Timothy, both the prepositions are used; though in Thucyd. dia is taken for propter, and governs the accusative. The translation is this: On account of his return from Attica, supposed to have been occasioned by presents. Thucyd. book vii. folio 526. Meta misthou elthein; To come for the sake of pay. Mounteney's Demost. 1st. Olynth. p. 46, Ěton. 1764. Met' aleetheias; Through the medium of truth. The same, p. 109. Meta polloon kai kaloon kindunoon kieesamenoi, &c. Having required it by many and glori ous (or noble, or honourable) dangers or hazards. Plutarch, Leips. 1774, p. 16. Meta autou de acetteeton ousan; But in his hands, or when employed by him being invincible. With these authorities I leave the reader at present, to judge whether "the word meta is as appropriate an one as dia to express the cause of a thing." Whatever reputation" the "Layman" may have "as a scholar," and whatever "lexicons" he may consult, I protest that I had rather depend upon Thucydides, Demosthenes, and Plutarch, in this case, than upon him.

[ocr errors]

Omitting several things until another occasion, I remark now only the singular way in which this writer proves that Paul ordained Timothy. He quotes these words to Titus, " For this cause left I thee in Crete, that thou shouldest set in order the things that are wanting, and ordain Elders in every city, as I had appointed thee." "Here, let it be observed," says he, "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." The reader will please to look at this passage, and say what he thinks of the ingenuousness of him who wrote it, For my own part, I wish the writer, in passing along, had passed over this. Paul appointed Titus to his office." How does this appear? "I had appointed thee." Does this mean that Paul had ordained Titus? Most assuredly not. The meaning evidently is, as I had directed thee, or had given thee in charge. It is a different word from that which is used in the same verse for ordain, and is properly rendered in our translation appoint. This will be seen by any one who examines the Greek Testament for the use of the word in other places. See Mat. xi. 1, and Luke viii. 55, where it is rendered commanding and commanded. But if Paul did ordain Titus, how is it "a conclusive circumstance" that he ordained Timothy? Does it necessarily follow, that, because a man has or

dained one, he must have ordained another? "Nothing is said of the Presbytery in this case:" for this good reason, that the Apostle is not speaking of the ordination of Titus. When ordination is the subject, he expressly mentions "the laying on of the hands of the Presbytery." If there be no other proof than this, then may it safely be denied that Paul ordained either the one or the other. As to Timothy, I have some doubt whether he was so much as present at his ordination.

CLEMENS.

For the Albany Centinel.

CLEMENS. No. II.

WHEN I wrote last, I did not point out half the inaccuracies

which occur in a late piece of "A Layman of the Episcopal Church." I can mention now only a few more of the grosser

ones.

In one place he says, that certain circumstances" prove as far as moral evidence can prove any thing, that the Presbytery, or Church officers mentioned in the Epistle to Timothy, were of the order of the Apostles." In another place he says, that "the circumstance of the Apostle using a word, in relation to himself, which denotes the instrumental cause, and, with respect to the Presbytery, a word, which, particularly as distinguished from dia, expresses agreement, shows clearly, that the authoritative power was vested in him, and that the act, in the part of the Presbytery, was an act of mere concurrence." Here is an apparent contradiction. First the Presbytery consisted of Apostles, and afterwards they are changed into Presbyters. If they were Apostles, where was the necessity of more than one laying on of hands? Had they not all equal authority to ordain ? If they were Apostles, and the Bishops of the Episcopal Church are their successors, will it not follow that a number of Bishops must be present to ordain one of their Priests, as well as one of their Bishops, unless the text be disregarded altogether. I take it to be a good rule for a writer carefully to review his piece before he publishes, and to see whether all the parts are consistent with one another.

The "Layman" is of opinion that the practice "of Presbyters imposing hands in connection with the Bishop can do no harm." Now, I am of opinion that it does a great deal of good, and that the laying on of the hands of the Presbytery is the appointed mean of setting a man apart to the office of the ministry. What did the Apostles convey? Surely not the Apostolic office. They ordained men to be Church officers. Are not Presbyters Church officers, and cannot they convey the office which they themselves possess?* This writer is anxious to have it remembered that Paul has been said to have acted at the ordination of Timothy (if present) as a mere Presbyter. In what other way could he have acted? He was not ordaining an Apostle, but a Presbyter; or, if this writer

* Not unless they had received power to convey it.

Ed.

« AnteriorContinuar »