Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

The Methodists, though they have "Episcopal" in the style of their Church, yet are not acknowledged by the right Episcopalians as of their generation. The Bishop informs us, that Mr. Wesley, when he had got into his dotage, was persuaded by Dr. Coke to ordain him a Bishop. In this I confess Mr. Wesley was wrong; and whether in his dotage or not, he had lived long enough to know, that he could not confer a power which he did not possess. If three Bishops of the true Episcopal Church, descending in an uninterrupted line from the Apostles, must unite their efforts to consecrate one like themselves, how vain in Mr. Wesley, a Presbyter, a Christian Bishop, singly to think of anointing a High Priest! This was neither Episcopal nor Presbyterian ordination. I wonder most at Dr. Coke, who could not be in his dotage, in requesting and submitting to such a thing. He would have been more excusable in applying to some Romish Bishop, or to some Bishop in the line of succession from Rome; for then he would have been on an equality with the Bishops of the Protestant Episcopal Church, and they would not have dared to thrust him out of doors.

Though I do not pity him and his Clergy, yet I think the usage hard. He had no business to be neighing after Episcopal ordination, or he ought to have espoused it in a proper manner; and if he must have it, I would recommend him and Bishop Asbury to make application yet to "the successors of the Apostles." In what an awkward situation are their preachers at present! Before one of them could be admitted to an Episcopal pulpit in the city of New-York, he was obliged to renounce all the authority he once supposed himself to have had, and to receive orders from the true Connecticut were irritated by the intolerant treatment which they had received. But what connection has this pamphlet with the other works of which this writer complains? There are no expressions in the Companion for the Altar, or for the Festivals and Fasts, which authorize the charge that the author of them "contemns, ridicules, or abuses his fellow Christians." The charge is unjust and ungenerous, and comes with a very ill grace from a writer who, in almost every sentence, casts ridicule and abuse upon the Episcopal cause and its advocates. As to "haughty pretensions;" there are no pretensions made which were not avowed in the primitive ages by some of the most humble and pious men that ever adorned the Christian Church. That advocate for Episcopacy does injury to his cause who does not speak of his fellow Christians, who may differ from him, with all the respect and esteem that may be due to their talents and their virtues. But it is surely too much to expect that, as a mark of his respect and esteem for them, he should give up his principles. The Episcopalian only wishes to be permitted to maintain these principles without being accused of "haughty pretensions" or "an imperious temper." It does not become a follower of CALVIN to cast on others the charge of "imperious temper." Mildness and humility cannot be ranked among the conspicuous virtues of this great man. And it is thought by many that it is the tendency of the religious system which he formed to cherish an austere, self-sufficient, and domineering spirit. "In tracing the coherence among the systems of modern theology, we may observe that the doctrine of absolute decrees has ever been intimately connected with the enthusiastic spirit as that doctrine affords the highest subject of joy, triumph, and security to the elect, and exalts them by infinite degrees above the rest of mankind." Hume's Eng. There must be always many excep tions to all general remarks of this sort. Ed.

H

Church. Another residing either in the city of Schenectady, or some where in the adjacent country, was made to strip off his Me thodistical coat, and to do penance for several months, in a white shirt, before he could come "near to the altar to minister." These are real inconveniencies, and are to be charged to the account of Dr. Coke. He being called a Bishop, and his Church Episcopal, young men are deceived, and not one in ten of them ever discovers the mistake. Had not the preachers alluded to had more than common reading and common genius, they would have floundered on through life.

One reason, no doubt, why the Methodists are treated so cavalierly is, that Messieurs Coke and Asbury, "in imitation of Dr. Stiles and his brethren of Connecticut, have usurped the title of Bishops," and the Episcopal dignitaries are afraid, that the style of "Right Reverend" will be usurped next. So far as I know, they need not be jealous and fearful on these points; for the Presbyterians at least covet neither their ordination nor their titles as used by them. Presbyterian Ministers are indeed the Bishops of the New Testament, and they have no superiority over one another, but what talents, learning, piety, and usefulness give.*

POSTSCRIPT.

As the leaders of that small portion of professing Christians calling themselves Episcopalians, and setting themselves up for the only true Church in the United States, appear to have read partially, so I have thoughts of having reprinted "The divine right of Presbyterian ordination asserted, and the Ministerial authority, claimed and exercised in the established Churches of New-England, vindicated and proved: in a Discourse delivered at Stanford, Lord's-Day, April 10, 1763, by Noah Welles, A. M. Pastor of a Church of Christ there." This performance has lately been put into my hands. It consists of seventy-eight pages octavo. The writer has handled his subject with ability, and in a manner which must afford conviction to every unprejudiced inquirer after truth.

It seems that before the Revolution the Episcopalians used the same unjustifiable language as now. "Had our Episcopal neighbours," says Mr. Welles, "been contented with the peaceable unmolested profession of their own peculiar principles, I never should have thought of introducing this subject into the pulpit, much less of publishing my sentiments upon it. But the restless endeavours of some among them, to draw away persons from our communion, and their unwearied attempts to increase their party, by constantly insinuating to you, the danger of continuing in fellowship with Churches in which (as they would bear you in hand) there is no authorized Ministry, no regular gospel administrations; at last convinced me, that it was high time something should be publicly offered for your satisfaction, on this important point."

* And had Timothy and Titus no superiority over the other Ministers of Ephesus and Crete but what "talents, learning, piety, and usefulness give!" Ed.

† An answer to this pamphlet was published, written by the Rev. Dr. Leaming, an Episcopal Clergyman of Connecticut.

Ed.

[ocr errors]

For the Albany Centinel,

THE LAYMAN. No. V.

THE Remarks on the Jewish priesthood, I confess, surprised

me. They are, certainly, of a very singular nature; proving, if they prove any thing, that there is no sort of connection between the Old and the New Testament. This shall be fully shown when I come to the subject in the regular course of the investigation.

I proceed, in the meantime, to the observations on the Epistles to Timothy, upon which observations no little reliance appears to be placed. The writer would have it supposed that Episcopalians lay much stress on the passages in question. Not so. They rely upon the powers which Timothy exercised, not upon the manner of his ordination; and all they do on this point, is to show that there is no evidence from scripture of the ordination being after the Presbyterial mode. Our opponents, knowing full well that the state of things, in the Church of Ephesus, gives no sort of countenance to their doctrine, take care to be as silent as possible upon it; going always to the passage in the first Epistle to Timothy, and setting that up as the great bulwark of their cause. In this, they act wisely, since the structure of the passage gives them an opportunity of dwelling on the term Presbytery; it being on terms alone that their whole argument is grounded. The rules of just reasoning, then, obviously require the Presbyterians to prove that the passage in question establishes their mode of ordination. They rely upon it as proof. Episcopalians do not; resting their cause, in reference to Timothy, upon the powers which he exercised in that Church of which he was the spiritual governor. All that is incumbent upon us, therefore, is to show that the words of Paul to Timothy prove nothing for the opposite cause; and it will be recollected that I took this ground expressly in my first address to the public. Let our author prove, then, that the Presbytery spoken of were nothing more than Elders or Presbyters, in the sense in which these terms are now used. Until he does this, the passage will avail him nothing. True, we cannot prove absolutely, that they were Apostles, although we think this much the most rational interpretation; especially when it is considered that the practice of Presbyters uniting with Bishops, in the imposition of hands, has never prevailed in the Greek Church, and was not introduced into the Western until the latter part of the fourth century. This is a strong, indeed I may say a conclusive circumstance to prove that the Presbytery spoken of were members of a superior order who laid their hands on Timothy, in connection with Paul; and such is, accordingly, the interpretation put upon the passage by some of the most judicious commentators. And here let it be briefly added, 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 at Ephesus and other places. While our Saviour remained upon earth, he alone commissioned persons to act in his name. This power, immediately

before his ascension, he gave to the Apostles; and, let it be recollected, that he gave it to them alone. They, accordingly, ordained the seven Deacons of Jerusalem, and Paul and Barnabas ordained Elders in every city. In these cases, the Apostles who were the Governors of the whole Church, both Clergy and Laity, alone performed the act of ordination. No Presbyters or Elders were united with them. These circumstances, taken in connection with the late introduction of the practice of Presbyters joining with Bishops, in the imposition of hands, 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. All that is necessary to us, however, is to show that there is no evidence of the Presbytery being mere Elders; for, until this point is unequivocally established, the cause of parity can receive no sort of support from the passage. And as to the word Presbytery, it signifies Church officers, Eldermen, or men of authority; and, therefore, may as well mean Apostles as an inferior order.

Again, Jerome and Calvin, both of whom the advocates of parity are fond of quoting, give a construction to the passage in question which completely puts down all that our author has said upon it. They understand the Apostle to say to Timothy, "Neglect not the gift of the Priesthood, which was given thee by prophecy, with the laying on of hands;" making the term Presbuterion refer to the office of a Priest or Church Governor, bestowed on Timothy, not to the manner in which he was ordained. And the powers of office are to be ascertained from the Epistle of Paul to Timothy, in which he is addressed as the Spiritual Governor of the Clergy, as well as of the Laity of Ephesus. I barely mention the opinion of Jerome and Calvin here, to show how very feeble is the aid to be derived to the system of parity from the word so much relied upon in the passage under consideration.

There is still another way in which all support to the Presbyterian cause, from this passage, is destroyed. Paul was present at the ordination. Well, then, according to the hypothesis even of this writer himself, superior and inferior orders united in the ordination of Timothy, which is very different from the Presbyterian system. Here, however, we are again assailed with the artillery of words. True, Paul laid his hands on Timothy; but he did it as a Presbyter. Yes, he laid on his hands as a Church Governor, which is the meaning of Presbyter; but that he laid on his hands as an officer, on a perfect level with the Elders of Ephesus, is an assertion which I utterly deny, and which has never been even attempted to be proved by the only evidence worth attending to, the evidence of facts. How, then, is it proved? Why, the term Presbytery is used; which is, doubtless, demonstration itself. It is high time that this sort of reasoning were given up. Paul is nothing more than an Elder of Ephesus, at the ordination of Timothy, because a general term, signifying elder, or grave men, or men of authority, is used. What will not this mode of reasoning prove? Christ is called Diakonos, which is translated a Deacon, or Minister. Therefore, Christ was on a level with the Deacons of Jerusalem. Presbuteros signifies an elder man; whence comes the term Alderman. By this new species of logic, it might be proved that the Apostles were,

to all intents and purposes, Aldermen, in the civil acceptation of the term; and that every Alderman is, really and truly, an Apostle. Eliezer, the steward of Abraham's house, is called Presbuteros, and, of course, was a Presbyter, in the same sense in which the term is applied to the Elders, whom Paul and Barnabas ordained. The Judges appointed by Moses with power over thousands, and hundreds, and fifties, and tens, are called Presbuteroi, and must, therefore, have been Apostles. Cicero was saluted by the Roman army with the title of Imperator. Therefore Cicero held the same office with Augustus Cæsar. And we might he told, in the same way, that the three consuls of France, before the establishment of the empire by Bonaparte, were nothing more than commercial agents. How vain, how superlatively vain is this reasoning from names! Surely a word cannot be mentioned that is not used in different senses; and the sense which it is designed to convey in a particular case, must ever depend upon the circumstances of that case. The powers, not the titles of office, are the great objects of attention. Paul, in laying hands on Timothy, did it as a mere Elder of Ephesus, or of any other place, because he is sometimes called Presbuteros, that is, a ruler, an elder, or grave man, or man of authority. Let this be remembered.

To admit that Paul laid on his hands at the ordination of Timothy, is to admit that it was not a Presbyterial ordination. For Paul was an Apostle, and exercised power over Elders. In other words, he was of a superior order. And this is not to be answered, let me assure the gentleman, by saying that the term Presbytery, signifying Church officers, is used. I would submit it to any candid man of the denomination to which this writer belongs, whether the perpetual attempt to darken the subject, by dwelling on terms of a general signification, does not completely prove that the cause of parity has nothing but words to rest on. Paul, in laying hands on Timothy, is on a level with that order of Elders which he was in the continual habit of directing and governing, because he is called Presbuteros, that is, a Church officer, a grave man, or man of authority. I repeat it, let this be remembered.

We perceive the same mode of proceeding in what our author says relative to the Greek terms dia and meta, an attempt to cover the weakness of his cause under the ambiguity of words. It is known to every Greek scholar, that dia signifies, emphatically, the cause of a thing; while meta denotes, emphatically, nearness of situation, relation, connection, agreement. It need not be observed that words are used sometimes more loosely, and sometimes more strictly. A term is often introduced in a sense different from its original and primary meaning. The two words dia and meta are opposed in the Epistles to Timothy. Well, then, the two words being opposed, and the first, as every Greek scholar knows, denoting, emphatically, the cause of a thing; the latter conveying, particularly, the idea of relation, connection, agreement, it follows, obviously, that they are to be taken in these their appropriate senses. Our author will not venture to say that the Greek word meta is as appropriate an one as dia to express the cause of a thing. He will not so far hazard his reputation as a scholar. I assert, then, that dia signifies, particularly, the cause of a thing, and that meta is the

« AnteriorContinuar »