Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

received a power, before unknown in the Church, of preaching to the idolatrous Gentiles, is inconsistent with Acts xi. 20, 21; and upon many other considerations, to be proposed elsewhere, appears to me absolutely incredible." (Doddridge's Family Exposition, iii. 181.) Such is the language of the learned and pious Dr. Doddridge; and such, let me add, is the language of the most judicious commentators. They view the thing as a solemn recommendation of Paul and Barnabas, to the grace of God, upon their entering on a temporary mission. This, then, is one of the numerous examples of the boldness with which the Miscellaneous writer asserts, and of the weakness with which he argues. And, indeed, if the passage in question refers to an ordination of Paul and Barnabas, to what office, let it be asked, were they ordained? Not to that of prophets and teachers; for prophets and teachers, according to the very passage itself, they were already. Paul, it is well known, had been preaching and acting as a Minister of Christ long before this event. So also had Barnabas. Was it to the apostolic office that they were called by the imposition of hands of these subordinate officers of the Church? This, as Dr. Doddridge says, is truly incredible, and is altogether inconsistent with what Paul says of himself. He expressly calls himself " an Apostle, not of man, neither by man, but by Jesus Christ." Galatians i. 1. Here he expressly speaks of himself as commissioned to the apostolic office by our Saviour, without the intervention of man. Well might Dr. Doddridge represent this as inconsistent with the idea of his being ordained to that high office by the prophets or teachers of Antioch. Paul received his commission of Apostle from Jesus Christ, without the intervention of man; in other words, without any ordination from human hands.

In what point of view then is this transaction to be considered? Simply in the light of a solemn benediction on the ministry of Paul and Barnabas, in preaching the gospel to a particular district; and, in the utmost latitude of construction, can be carried no further than a designation of these men to a special mission. Imposition of hands was not always for ordination. It was frequently by way of conveying or of imploring a blessing. In this manner was it commonly used by the Jews and primitive Christians. Jacob put his hands on the heads of Ephraim and Manasseh when he blessed them. And thus did our Saviour act in relation to the little children who were brought to him.

In the case under consideration, Paul and Barnabas were plainly not invested with any office; for whatever office they held after the transaction, they had held before; but a benediction was bestowed on their labours, in the circuit to which they were directed to go by the Holy Spirit. The transaction invested them with no new authority. It made them nothing that they were not before; which circumstance is utterly inconsistent with the idea of ordination, that being the mode of delegating power not previously possessed. This matter, however, is put out of all doubt by referring to other passages of scripture relating to the same event. In the very next chapter, Paul and Barnabas are represented as having fulfilled the particular mission to which they had been designated, by the transaction at Antioch, and as returning to give an account of the same.

"And thence sailed to Antioch, from whence they had been RECOMMENDED TO THE GRACE OF GOD FOR THE WORK WHICH THEY FULFILLED." Now, take these two parts of scripture, and compare them together, and all doubt about the nature of this transaction will immediately vanish. Paul and Barnabas fulfilled all that the transaction at Antioch related to. Can any thing more clearly show that it was not the apostolic office, but a temporary mission to which they had been set apart? The latter they might well represent themselves as having fulfilled; but not, surely, the former, it being an office that continued through life. We are here, also, let into the true meaning of the laying on of hands in this particular case. " And hence sailed to Antioch, FROM WHENCE THEY HAD BEEN RECOMMENDED TO THE GRACE OF GOD, FOR THE WORK WHICH THEY FULFILLED." Acts xiv. 26. The imposition of hands then, had been merely a solemn benediction by which Paul and Barnabas had been recommended to the grace of God, in the particular mission to which they were set apart by the Holy Spirit. When all the circumstances of the transaction, as recorded in the thirteenth and fourteenth chapters of the Acts, are fairly considered, there can be no sort of colour for representing Paul and Barnabas as ordained to any office, much less to the apostolic office, in this case. No. Whatever office they had afterwards they had before. They were merely "recommended to the grace of God," on being sent upon a particular mission; after fulfilling which they returned to Antioch, and gave an account of such fulfilment. They had fulfilled the particular mission, not the apostolic office. The imposition of hands was not, then, an ordination to office, but a solemn recommendation of them to the grace of God, in the mission which they were about to undertake. The writer then is very welcome to call this a Presbyterial ordination; for, according to Dr. Doddridge himself, it was no ordination at all.

And here let it be remarked, that the advocates of parity ground their mode of ordination on the two cases of Timothy, and of Barnabas and Paul. There is not another case which they have even a pretext for representing as a Presbyterial ordination. Now, in respect to the passages concerning Timothy, and Barnabas, and Paul, the utmost that can possibly be contended for, is that they are disputable passages. And is it in any point of view correct or safe to build up a mode of ordination, unknown to the Church for fifteen hundred years, and expressly contradicted by the constant exercise of the power of commissioning by an order of men superior to the Elders of Ephesus, upon two cases of doubtful construction? Surely not. All the other acts of ordination, recorded in scripture, were performed by the Apostles alone, and not a single example of ordination by Presbyters can be produced from ecclesiastical history for the first fifteen hundred years of the Church. And, if John Calvin had happened to be a Bishop when he entered upon the business of reformation, Presbyterial ordination would have been as unknown to us as it confessedly was to the Christians of the primitive times. But I forbear to go into this matter here; intending to consider it more distinctly in a future address, A Layman of the Episcopal Church.

For the Albany Centinel.

CYPRIAN. No. III.

IF from Crete we pass to Jerusalem, we shall there discover

equally striking evidence that St. James, the brother of our Lord, possessed in that place the pre-eminence of a Bishop in the Church. In the first council that was held there, in order to determine the controversy which had arisen in regard to the circumcision of Gentile converts, we find him pronouncing an authoritative sentence. His sentence, we may remark also, determined the controversy. "Wherefore my sentence is, says he, that we trouble not those who from among the Gentiles are turned unto God." In Acts xxi. 17 and 18, we are told "that when St. Paul and his com→ pany were come to Jerusalem, the brethren received him gladly; and that the next day following, Paul went in with them unto James, and all the Elders or Presbyters were present." Acts xii. 17, it is said, that "Peter, after he had declared to the Christians to whom he went, his miraculous deliverance, bade them go and show these things to James and to the brethren." In Galatians ii. 12, St. Paul says, "that certain came from James," that is, from the Church of Jerusalem to the Church of Antioch. Surely these passages strongly indicate that James held the highest dignity in the Church of Jerusalem. The brethren carry Paul and his company to him as to a supreme officer. He has Presbyters and Deacons in subordination to him. When messengers are sent from Jerusalem to other Churches, it is not done in the name of the Presbyters and Deacons, or of the Church of this place; it is done in the name of James. Do not these considerations prove that James was the supreme ruler of this Church?

If, however, any one shall think these considerations not satisfactory in proof of the point in question, when we add to them the testimony of ancient writers, the subject, I trust, will no longer admit of a reasonable doubt. According to Eusebius, Hegesippus, who lived near the times of the Apostles, tells us that James, the brother of our Lord, received the Church of Jerusalem from the Apostles. Clement also, as he is quoted by the same author, tells us, "that Peter, James, and John, after the ascension of Christ, chose James the just to be Bishop of Jerusalem." And in the Apostolical constitutions, the Apostles are introduced as speaking thus: "Concerning those that were ordained by us Bishops in our life time, we signified to you that they were these, James the brother of our Lord was ordained by us, Bishop of Jerusalem, &c." St. Jerome also says "that St. James, immediately after the passion of our Lord, was ordained Bishop of Jerusalem by the Apostles." And Cyril, who was afterwards Bishop of the same Church, and whose testimony, therefore, has peculiar weight, calls St. James the first Bishop of that diocese. To all this evidence we may add the testimonies of St. Austin, of St. Chrysostom, of Epiphanius, of St. Ambrose. And even Ignatius himself, who lived in the Apostolic age, makes St. Stephen the Deacon of St. James. I trust it will no longer be doubted that James was the first Bishop of Jerusalem.

The Apostolic authority was also manifestly communicated to Epaphroditus. St. Paul in his Epistle to the Philippians ii. 25, calls him the Apostle to the Philippians. "But I supposed it neces. sary to send to you, Epaphroditus, my brother and companion inlabor and fellow-soldier, but your Apostle." Accordingly St. Jerome observes, "by degrees, in process of time, others were ordained Apostles by those whom our Lord had chosen"-as that passage to the Philippians shows; "I supposed it necessary to send unto you Epaphroditus, your Apostle." And Theodoret, upon this place, gives this reason why Epaphroditus is called the Apostle to the Philippians. "He was intrusted with the Episcopal government, as being. their Bishop." But these are parts of scripture on which the advocates of Episcopacy place the least reliance.

In the three first chapters of the Revelations of St. John, we find absolute demonstration of the existence of the Episcopal dignity and authority, at the time in which this work was written. In these chapters, St. John gives us a description of the seven Bishops, who superintended the interests of the Church in the seven principal cities in the Pro-Consular Asia. Our Lord is represented as sending seven Epistles to the seven Churches of these cities, directed to the seven Angels of the Churches, whom he calls the "seven stars in his right hand." From all the circumstances that are mentioned, it undeniably appears that these seven Angels were so many single persons, invested with supreme authority in the Churches; that is to say, they were the Bishops of those Churches.

I say it manifestly appears, that these seven Angels of the Churches, whom the Lord calls the "seven stars" in his right hand, were single persons. They were not the whole Church or collective body of Christians. This is proved incontestably from these considerations. The whole Churches, or collective body of Christians, are represented by "seven candlesticks," which are distinguished from the "seven stars," that are emblems of the Angels, the Bishops. They are constantly mentioned in the singular number. "The Angel of the Church of Ephesus." The Angel of the Church of Smyrna," and so of the rest. And in the Epistle to Thyatira it is said, "I know thy works." "I have a few things against thee." "Remember how thou hast heard." "Thou hast kept the word of my patience." This is the style which is used when the Angel or Bishop of the Church is addressed. But when what is said relates to the people, the style is altered, the plural number is then used. "The devil shall cast some of you into prison." "I will reward every one of you according to your works. That which ye have, hold fast till I come." And this variation in the number, proves that some parts of these Epistles relate to the whole Church, and others only to the Angels. But what places this subject beyond all reasonable doubt is this circumstance: The titles of Angels and stars are constantly applied in the book of Revelation to single men, and never to a society or number of men. Our Lord is called the "morning star and the sun," and the twelve Apostles are called "twelve stars," and "twelve Angels."

It is evident, therefore, that the seven stars or Angels in the book of Revelation are single persons. That these persons possessed supreme authority in the Churches, is also demonstrated from thes

considerations. These Epistles are addressed to them alone. The Churches are called candlesticks, and they the stars that give light to the candlesticks. The seven Angels are praised for all the good which they had done, and blamed for all the evil which hap pened in the Churches. The Angel of Ephesus is commended because "he could not bear them that were evil, and had tried those who called themselves Apostles, and were not so," which seems to imply that he had convicted them of imposture. The Angel of Pergamos is reproved for having them "who hold the doctrine of Balaam, and he is severely threatened unless he repented." This shows that he possessed authority to correct these disorders, or he could not justly be menaced with punishment for permitting them. The Angel of Thyatira also is blamed for suffering" Jezebel," who called herself a prophetess, to teach and seduce the people. And the Angel of Sardis is commanded "to be watchful, and to strengthen those who are ready to die," otherwise our Lord threatens to come on him " as a thief; at an hour which he should not know." These circumstances demonstrate, that under the appellation of Angels, and also under the emblems of stars, are represented, in the Revelations of St. John, the Bishops of the Churches, as the ancient Fathers also imagined.

It appears, then, that at the time St. John wrote this book, which closes the canon of scripture, there were seven supreme rulers of the Churches, or, in other words, Bishops in the Pro-Consular Asia. If, however, we are able to prove from the most early accounts of the primitive Church, that there were Bishops settled in these Churches at or near the time when this Epistle was sent to them, the subject will no longer bear a controversy. Let us see how this point stands. The book of Revelations was written, according to the testimony of ancient writers, towards the end of the reign of the Emperor Domitian. We are told, that in a short time after the death of Domitian, St. John, being recalled from banishment by Serva, went to Ephesus, and took upon him the care of the Church in that city, in the presence of seven Bishops. Is it not more than probable that these are the seven Bishops alluded to in the three first chapters of the Apocalypse. The numbers are the same, and all the Churches were included in the Pro-Consular Asia, of which Ephesus was the metropolis. But if this cannot be absolutely demonstrated, yet without the aid of this circumstance, we can prove as much as we wish on the present subject. We know that about this very time Ignatius tells us that Onesimus was Bishop of Ephe sus. We know from the scriptures themselves, that some time before this, Timothy had been made Bishop of Ephesus by St. Paul. We know that there was an uninterrupted succession of twentyseven Bishops, from his time to the period in which the great council of Chalcedon was held in the fourth century. There was then, undoubtedly, a Bishop of Ephesus, the metropolis of the Pro-Consular Asia, at the time in which the Apocalypse was written. We know also, that not long after the time of St. John, Sagaris was Bishop of Laodicea. The Philadelphians had a Bishop amongst them when Ignatius wrote his Epistle to them. He exhorts them to be dutiful to him. Polycarp, we are sure, was also about this time Bishop of Smyrna. Do we not derive from these facts that are well

« AnteriorContinuar »