Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

ascertain the intention of our Saviour beyond all cavil or contradiction? His followers must imitate him in their meekness, their humility, their condescension. This is all that can be implied, for did our Saviour never assume or exercise any power in his Church? But what places this point beyond all possible controversy, is the conduct of the Apostles, which must be admitted, on all hands, to be a good comment on the precepts of their Master. If Christ here intended to prohibit the exercise of all authority and power in his Church, how did they dare, in their intercourse with believers, violate the wishes of their Lord? How did they dare outrage his solemn injunctions? Did they not take upon themselves the power of ordaining laws in the Church of Christ, of carrying their laws into execution? Did they not reprove, rebuke, receive into communion, excommunicate with all authority? But the idea is too unfounded and absurd to be longer dwelt on. If our Saviour meant in this passage what this writer would have him mean, how dare the Presbyterian Ministers, at this time, assume any superiority over the rest of their brethren? How dare they arrogate to themselves the power of performing the sacerdotal functions? How dare they exercise any ecclesiastical authority? How dare they become "lords in God's heritage?" After what has been said, it is possible that it may still be maintained that the "mitre and the crown are connected;" but I trust it will appear that there is no foundation for the proverb, "No King, no Bishop." It seems there was once a time in this country when our enemies could effect their purposes by the use of such watch-words as these, that merit a harder name than I am disposed to give them; but that time, happily for us, has passed away. The good people of America are no longer to be duped and misled by such unworthy arts. I now dismiss the objection, founded on this passage of scripture, I trust, amply refuted.

I proceed to establish our first proposition. That the three orders of Ministers, Bishops, Presbyters, and Deacons, the Bishops solely possessing the power of ordination, are of apostolic original, is proved incontestably from the sacred Scriptures themselves. I shall first lay down our arguments, and then refute the objections that have been made to them.

Let us examine the passages of scripture which the writer himself hath produced, and see whether we cannot help him to more legitimate conclusions than those he hath thought proper to deduce from them. In Titus i. 5. it is said by the Apostle Paul, "For this cause left I thee in Crete, that thou shouldest ordain Elders in every city." Let us contemplate the circumstances that attended this transaction, and see what inferences we can draw from it. St. Paul had planted the gospel in the island of Crete. He had made proselytes in every city who stood in need of the ministrations of Presbyters. He speaks not to Titus as if he had left him in Crete to convert the cities to the faith. He speaks as if this work was already accomplished, as if the way was paved for the establishment of the Church. These being the circumstances of the case, it appears to me that this transaction carries on its face a proof of superiority on the part of Titus to the Presbyters or Elders. Will it be imagined by any reasonable man, that St. Paul had converted

so many cities on this island without having ordained any Elders amongst them? What! When it was his uniform and invariable practice to ordain Elders in every country in which he made prose İytes? What! Could he have neglected to ordain those amongst them who were absolutely necessary to transact the affairs of the Church during his absence? Would he have left the work he had begun only half performed?

These considerations are sufficient to convince every unprejudiced mind that there were Elders or Presbyters in the Church of Crete at the time St. Paul left Titus on that island. And if there were. Presbyters, and those Presbyters had the power of ordination, why was it necessary to leave Titus amongst them in order to perform a task that might as well have been accomplished without him? If the Presbyters possessed an authority equal to that of Titus, would not St. Paul, by leaving him amongst them, have taken the surest way to interrupt the peace of the Church, to engender jealousy, and strifes, and contentions? Again. Let us view this transaction in another point of light. St. Paul had made converts, as I have said, in every city of Crete. Titus had attended him on his last visit to that island. If Presbyters were at this time considered as competent to the task of ordaining others, why did he not ordain one at any rate during his stay amongst them, and commission him instead of detaining Titus, to ordain Elders in every city? The efforts of Titus were as much wanted as his own, to carry the light of the gospel to other nations who had not received it. Why was it necessary that Titus should ordain Elders in every city? After the ordination of a few, would not his exertions have become useless, if they were able to complete the work which he had begun ?

In short, Titus seems to be entrusted with all the authority of supreme ruler of the Church. He is directed to ordain Presbytersto rebuke with all authority-to admonish hereticks, and in case of obstinacy, to reject them from the communion of the Church. These circumstances infallibly designate the presence of a Bishop. Accordingly we find that the united voice of ancient writers declares him to have been the first Bishop of Crete. Eusebius informs us "that he received Episcopal authority over the Church of Crete." So also says Theodoret, St. Chrysostom, St. Jerome, St. Ambrose. If these considerations united do not show that Titus possessed in Ephesus powers superior to those which were held by the Presbyters of those Churches, I know not what considerations would. I shall proceed with the proofs from scripture in my next number. CYPRIAN.

For the Albany Centinel.

THE LAYMAN. No. VI.

I HAVE been occupied, thus far, in noticing the arguments by

which the Miscellaneous writer attempts to support the Presbyte. rial system, and the objections with which he endeavours to assail the Episcopal Church. The facts, and the reasoning on which

K

1

Episcopacy rests, have been only cursorily attended to; but it is my design, should not circumstances take off my attention, to present them in the course of these papers, as distinctly, and regularly as I am able, to the public consideration.

The writer in question has brought forward nothing that has not been a thousand times advanced, and as often refuted; except, indeed, that rare interpretation of prophecy, in the Epistle to Timothy, for which, I believe, the merit of originality may very safely be awarded to him.*

I flatter myself that I have furnished a sufficient refutation of his reasoning, and a satisfactory answer to his objections. Nor can the charge of self complacency, I trust, be justly made against me for this observation; for, indeed, the task of replying to all that the gentleman has, thus far, produced, and, judging of the future from the past, to all that he is capable of producing, can be a task of no very difficult execution. I think I may venture to pledge myself to expose, as he advances, all his errors, and to detect all his misre presentations. There is one particular, however, in which I must be excused from following him. I can never permit myself to descend to personal attack. However desirous the gentleman may be of displaying wit, he would do well to recollect that the fame which even real wit might procure him, is too dearly purchased at the expense of those rules of delicacy, which every ingenuous mind proposes to itself as an inviolable law.t

There is a passage of scripture relied upon in an early part of the Miscellanies, upon which I think it proper to bestow some little attention. Not, indeed, on account of any weight it can possibly possess in the controversy; but because it is a passage that has been frequently brought forward, and that is capable, by plausible representation, of being made to operate on the minds of those who have not given attention to the subject of ecclesiastical authority. "Grant," said the mother of Zebedee's children," that these my two sons may sit, the one on thy right hand, and the other on thy left, in thy kingdom. And when the ten heard it, they were moved with indignation against the two brethren. But Jesus called them

[ocr errors]

* The gentleman, it appears, has read a few books lately; and finds a very different interpretation put upon the words from that which he had given. Still, however, he retains a parental affection for his offspring; being resolved, at all events, not to let it perish. Let us, then, paraphrase the passage accord ing to this new idea. Neglect not the gift of prophecy that is in thee, which was given thee by the act that gave it to thee." The words, " by prophecy," mean, says our author, the gift of prophecy bestowed upon Timothy. Then Paul exhorted him to stir up the gift of prophecy that was given him by prophecy or, in the words of our author, by the act that conferred prophecy; that is, "Neglect not the gift of prophecy that is in thee, which was given thee by the act by which it was given thee." This is the champion who threatens to spread dismay through the Episcopal ranks.

Another, residing either in the city of Schenectady, or some where in the adjacent country, was made to strip off his methodistical coat, and to do penance, for several months, in a white shirt, before he could come near the altar to minister." This is the way in which he speaks of a most respectable and pious Clergyman of our Church. I refer it to the reader to decide how far such conduct can entitle him to the esteem of good men.

unto him, and said, Ye know that the princes of the Gentiles exercise dominion over them, and they that are great exercise authority upon them. But it shall not be so among you: but whosoever will be great among you, let him be your Minister; and whosoever will be chief among you, let him be your servant: Even as the Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister." Mat. xx. 21, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28. Desperate, indeed, must be the cause of parity, when its advocates are driven to have recourse, for argument, to such passages as these. Does the gentleman really consider the above texts of scripture as militating against the principles of subordination in the government of the Church?

Let it be remarked, in the first place, that they have no reference whatever to spiritual power. It had been the prevailing idea of the Jewish nation, that the Messiah would erect a temporal kingdom of great splendour. This was the expectation of the Apostles themselves, and our Saviour frequently endeavoured, without effect, to correct their views on the subject. All his efforts to give them a true idea of the nature of his kingdom had been unavailing. They still cherished the hope of being promoted to civil stations of great power and importance. "We trusted,” said two of his disciples, upon seeing their Master put to death, "that it had been he who should have redeemed Israel!" After his resurrection, the same hopes of temporal consequence revived in their minds, and they asked, "Lord, wilt thou, at this time, restore the kingdom to Israel?" It is perfectly clear that James and John, in desiring to sit, the one on the right hand, the other on the left of Jesus, aspired after civil importance. Our Saviour, after addressing his Apostles in the way just mentioned, immediately subjoins," And I appoint unto you a kingdom, as my Father hath appointed unto me; that ye may eat and drink at my table, in my kingdom, and sit on thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel." Luke xxii. 29, 30. This clearly shows the sense of the passages that go before, and that our Saviour had no design in them to deprive the Apostles of spiritual authority over their fellow Christians. But what does the writer mean to prove by this portion of scripture? Is it his intention to show that the Apostles were upon a level with respect to each other? This is a principle for which the Episcopal Church has invariably contended, although it certainly cannot be derived from the passage cited by the writer on this occasion. No; the design of the gentleman is to prove that no such thing as subordination, in the ministry, was ever intended by Christ. Let us, then, trace the reasoning, and test it by the conclusion to which it leads.

If these passages prove that there was no superiority in the Apostles, over the other Ministers of the word, they equally prove that there was no such superiority in Jesus Christ himself. Any thing which may be here commanded to the Apostles is illustrated and enforced by the example of our Saviour. "Even as the Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister." Matt. xx. 28.

that

Or in the parallel language of St. Luke, "I am among you as he that serveth." xxiii. 27. If, then, these passages prove the Apostles were to have no spiritual control over the other Clergy, they equally prove that our Saviour had no spiritual control over the Apostles. This conclusion necessarily follows, and it shows,

most clearly, that the passage has nothing to do with the government of the Church, being designed merely as a lesson of humility to those to whom it was addressed. Again, this writer is completely at variance with himself; for in a late number he admits that the Apostles were superior to other Ministers of the word, and yet he brings this passage to destroy all idea of such superiority. In fact, trace this reasoning to its true consequences, and it puts down all kind of authority in the Church; placing every individual upon a level with every other individual; thus annihilating the priesthood altogether. And indeed it has been applied, by those who first brought it forward, to show that our Saviour never designed to invest one member of his Church with power over any other member.

The Miscellaneous writer is certainly one of the most dangerous champions that ever defended a cause; for he constantly adopts a mode of reasoning that involves both his friends and enemies in promiscuous ruin. If the weapons with which he fights be keen enough to wound his adversary, they may be immediately turned to his own destruction. Those general passages of scripture that recommend humility and lowliness, commanding us to prefer others to ourselves, with the texts reproving the ambition of the Pharisees, in affecting to have the chief places in the synagogues, and to be called masters, and fathers, have been applied to the subversion of all authority in the state and this by the very same sort of logic that the Miscellaneous writer so frequently employs. It is forgotten that the whole scripture is to be taken to gether, and that a consistent interpretation is to be put upon its several parts, so that nothing may be destroyed. Thus, the licentious opposer of all subordination in civil society fastens his attention upon particular passages, wherein the ambition of rulers is condemned, forgetting those places in which obedience to the magistrate is enjoined. And so this writer, in his rage to destroy all subordination in the Church, directs the view of his readers to a passage designed simply to reprove an inordinate love of temporal consequence in the Apostles, forgetting those high powers with which Jesus invested them, before his ascension, and which were constantly exercised by them and those whom they appointed, as their successors, in particular places, over all other members, both clergy and laity, of his Church.

I proceed to consider that passage of scripture, in which certain prophets and teachers of Antioch are represented as laying their hands on Paul and Barnabas. This is greatly relied on by the Miscellaneous writer, who ventures to speak of it as universally con、 sidered to refer to ordination. What shall we think of this, when it is observed that the most respectable commentators regard it as not referring to ordination at all. Take, as an example, the interpretation of Doctor Doddridge, an eminent dissenter from the Church of England. "If there be any reference to a past fact in these words, it is probably to some revelation made to Paul and Barnabas, to signify that they should take a journey into several countries of Asia Minor, to preach the Gospel there. But that they were now invested with the Apostolic office by these inferior Ministers, is a thing neither credible in itself, nor consistent with what Paul himself says, Galatians i. 1. And that they now

« AnteriorContinuar »