Pagina-afbeeldingen
PDF
ePub

Here then we find a church or churches, formed undoubtedly on the proper christian platform, without any diocesan bishop, and with many rulers, which cannot be accounted for but on the admission that presiding elders and bishops are the same officers. Dissenting presbyters, therefore, while they preside in the discipline of the church, only act up to the injunction of the apostle, to rule well and be blameless, for a bishop must rule well and be blameless.

[ocr errors]

The advocates of diocesan episcopacy dispute the validity of ordination among dissenters. From Tit. i. 5., where it is mentioned, that Paul had left Titus in Crete, to ordain elders in every city, it has been concluded, that the power of ordaining is scripturally limited to a bishop. Our limits will not allow us to pursue the inquiry, whether ordination, in the appropriate ecclesiastical sense, be undoubtedly intended by the word καταστησης ? Does it not rather convey the idea, that the elders who were already ordained, were by Titus to be constituted the ministers of particular churches, by his appointing them to their respective spheres of labour? This passage, however, might be left out of the discussion, until it can be shown that Titus was a bishop, in the prelatical sense of the word, or indeed that he was a bishop of Crete, in any sense. How long did he reside in Crete before he returned with Paul to Nicopolis? Where in the epistle can it be found, that he ever settled in Crete at all ? If not in the epistle, in what other document of apostolic history can the fact be shown? Does not Dr. Whitby give up this passage, as failing in evidence that Titus was a diocesan bishop?

Another passage advanced to support ordination by a diocesan bishop, is that wherein Paul admonishes Timothy to lay hands

"

[ocr errors]

دو

suddenly on no man.' 1 Tim. v. 22. But this argument, like the other, is a mere begging of the question; for what evidence have we that Timothy ever was such a bishop? or that he was the bishop of Ephesus? Paul directs him to do the work of an evangelist, and to come to him at Rome; not one of which could have been accomplished had he been a diocesan bishop. To do the work of an evangelist, was to itinerate, to preach the Gospel-this his charge of a diocese would not allow him to undertake, much less a journey to Rome. But were we to allow the full force which episcopalians may claim for this passage, disgenting presbyters can with great confidence appeal to the very ordination of Timothy himself. Timothy was not ordained by a diocesan prelate, or a suffragan bishop, but by elders, or, in the language of the apostolical code, "by the laying on of the hands of the presbytery.' 1 Tim. iv. 14. Here, then, dissenting presbyters may fix their standing, and ask, Does not the New Testament ascribe the power of ordination, as decisively and as explicitly to elders as to bishops? We might also plead, that if there be any advantage to be derived from an uninterrupted succession in ordination, dissenting presbyters can claim it as legitimately, and derive it from as pure a source, to say the least, as diocesan prelates. Here is an ordination by presbyters or by pastors, of unquestionable antiquity, and this is the very ordination practised among dissenters of the present day, and this ordination is as old and as valid as that of episcopalians. As an argumentum ad hominem, it may be advanced, that the old dissenters were ordained by nonconformist ministers, who had received ordination from the hands of consecrated diocesan bishops. Ordination from such

noncon

formists was undoubtedly valid, unless it can be proved that to render ordination efficacious, it requires that the person who ordains should, at the time, actually wear lawn sleeves and a mitre. If there be any mysterious influence communicated by the imposition of the hands of lord bishops, did that influence degenerate in the poor nonconformists? And is that influence, after being handed down to the present race of dissenters, so degraded and debased, that it is not worthy to be claimed, when compared with what episcopalians have derived from "the mother of harlots?"

We have hitherto endeavoured to show, that dissenting ministers do the scriptural works of bishops, whence we infer, that they may lawfully adopt the name of bishops. We will now pursue the inquiry a little farther, to discover whether the New Testament will authorize such an assumption of the If we find there the appellation of bishops given to those who do the work of bishops, that is, to pastors, or presbyters, or elders, it is enough for our pur

pose.

In 1 Peter v. 1-3, the Apostle Peter exhorts the elders of Asia Minor to feed the flock of God, as επισκοπούντες, taking the oversight thereof, i. e. doing the office of bishops. The elders are not invited to assume that office, but to exercise it as the office to which they were already constituted. The apostle regards the presbyters, in the exercise of their office, as ETLOKOTOUYTES, doing the office of bishops. Where then is the incongruity of conceding the name of ETLσкOTOι, bishops, to those who are εжLØKOπOUVτes, doing the office of bishops? or, how can it be a sacrilegious presumption in those who do the office, to assume the name, of bishops? Besides, could the presbyters of Asia Minor possibly imagine, that the instructions

as

given so absolutely and so indiscriminately to elders, were, in fact, only intended for one out of every thirty of them, namely, their diocesan ? If these elders did not already regard themselves ETIOкоTOL, bishops, would they not have startled at the exhortation of the apostle to do the office of bishops? or could St. Peter create bishops by letter?

Again, in the introduction of the Epistle to the Philippians, Paul and Timothy address the saints there, "with the bishops and deacons." Phil. i. 1. Episcopalians lay great stress on the argument, that the word elder is a generic name, including both bishops and the ordinary elders or ministers; but even this will not serve them here. If three orders of ecclesiastical officers existed at this period, how came the epistle not to be addressed to bishops, elders, and deacons? If elders were inferior to bishops, they are certainly superior to deacons: are the elders then to be included among the bishops, or among the deacons? Was the church at Philippi properly constituted on the apostolical order? If not, would not Paul and Timothy, if they would ever write to such heretical nonconformists, intimate such a thing, or rather remonstrate with them? When this epistle arrived at Philippi, with what face could the diocesans, if there were diocesans in that one city, for they are plural in the text, read it, to the church, from which the whole college of presbyters was excluded? When the elders heard it read, among which of the other two orders would they class themselves? Surely the fondest episcopalian will hardly suppose them classed with deacons: and we know to a certainty, in what order they were classed in the apostle's own mind. He who addressed the elders of Ephesus as bishops, now addresses the

elders of Philippi under the same

name.

This introduces us to ACTS xx. 17. 28., where Paul expressly gives to elders the name of bishops. This is a stubborn passage, and a passage that never can be made to bend to diocesan episcopacy. The translators of King James's Version saw with what tremendous weight and edge this text would fall on prelacy; therefore, to break its force, and prevent the effects, they introduced a Saxon compound, which has rendered its fall so easy, that the mere English reader never imagines this text to have any bearing on the question of episcopacy. Here, however, it is not "all the same in Greek." The word ETLOKOTOL, which they have in Timothy, Titus, and elsewhere, translated bishops, is here made to mean overseers: why the word overseer was introduced here, instead of the word bishops, cannot be easily accounted for, except that it was to favour episcopacy. Nevertheless, here we have every necessary evidence, that in the church of Ephesus there were several elders,

that these elders were επίσκοποι, bishops-that every one of these elders was a bishop-that all these elders were constituted bishops by "the Holy Ghost"-that the Apostle Paul, with the spirit of inspiration, recognizes them as legitimate bishops, and in the most absolute, direct, and solemn manner gives to them the name of bishops. The argument of this text might be carried farther, to show that there was no one bishop, who was by higher power, or superior dignity, distinguished from the other bishops; and that Timothy could not be, as has often been asserted, the diocesan of Ephesus. All that this essay pleads for, is, that as this illustrious presbyter recognized the presbyters of Ephesus as divinely constituted bishops, it is lawful and proper that presby

ters, and that dissenting presbyters, should bear the name of bishops.

The two terms πρεσβύτερος, elder, and emoкожоç, bishop, mean, in the Scriptures, uniformly the same office and not a single passage has yet been produced, from the writings of the apostles, in which it appears, from the context, that they mean two distinct offices. This question is limited to the New Testament history of the church. As to the fathers, their ambidextrousness in religious controversies is well known; and their sentiments, like Delphian blades, have been made to cut either way; but the law and the testimony is sure and immoveable.

By pleading for the adoption of the name bishop, it is not intended to ape the pomp and grandeur of prelates. To constitute New Testament bishops, we seek no clerical frocks, no lawn sleeves, no mitres, no ecclesiastical courts, no princely revenues, in a word, LORD bishops; but faithful and affectionate pastors, who will feed the flock of God, be ensamples to their flocks, and take the oversight thereof.

no

The assumption of this name by pastors or presbyters, is the only way of handing down to posterity the true interpretation of the name, and a just idea of the lawful extent of the office of a bishop. It would also greatly strengthen our arguments to vulgar apprehension. The common people generally argue thus: the primitive apostolical church had bishops, the Church of England has bishops, ergo, the Church of England is an apostolical church. Or thus, there were bishops among apostolic churches-dissenting churches have no bishops, therefore, dissenting churches are not apostolic; to which every old woman puts her Quod erat demonstrandum. All this proceeds from the use of the name bishop, for, we believe, even his Lordship of Winchester does

not contend that the bishops and deacons of England are at present precisely the same that bishops and deacons were in Asia Minor seventeen centuries ago. It would not only meet the prejudices of the vulgar, but also check the arrogancy of high church episcopalians. Were dissenting ministers to assume the name, and exemplify the simplicity and the legitimate extent of primitive bishops, lordly prelates could not, before an enlightened public, so shamelessly lay claim either to their high superiority over presbyters, or their uninterrupted succession, jure divino, from the apostles. Successors of the APOSTLES! In what? Have they seen the Saviour personally? Have they received their commission immediately from Christ, without human ordination? Can they confer any spiritual gifts by imposition of hands? Is it the object of their commission to promulgate the Gospel throughout the world, to the exclusion of particular flocks? Such were the apostles, and such diocesan bishops are not. If there were to be authorized successors of the apostles, how then, when the college of apostles became extinct, the title became extinct with it? The successors of what arch-apostles are archbishops? In whose arch-deaconry were Stephen, Philip, and other deacons of the acts of the apostles? Let not, then, the fancy of an uninterrupted succession, secretly lead dissenters to regard the name of bishop as of some peculiarly eminent sacredness, so that it would be the very height of sacrilege to assume it: let them read their classical authors, or rather their septuagint, where they will find the word not to be confined to privileged ecclesiastics.

Since dissenters preserve the name of deacon for one officer in

N. S. No. 26.

the church, why discard the name of bishop for another? Persons who do the work of deacons, hesitate not to assume the name of their office; why then should those who do the work of bishops shrink from assuming their appropriate name? To the objection that dissenting ministers would not be recognized nor owned in this country as bishops, it is enough to reply, that this would not make the assumption of the name less congruous. English and Lutheran bishops are not owned as such by papists; do they, therefore, the less regard themselves bishops? Some perhaps will plead, that such an assumption would be greatly ridiculed by the ecclesiastics of the country. Notwithstanding such ridicule, we call our other officers, deacons; our academies, colleges; and some of our ministers, doctors in divinity; why then tremble to introduce the word bishop? The methodist conference, (if report be correct,) is not afraid to contemplate the creation of Wesleyan bishops, which will certainly not be of the primitive kind. Then let congregational dissenters give specimens of primitive episcopacy. sion of members, let the letters testimonial be yet more conformed to the apostolic model by the use of this scriptural term. Let it be freely interchanged in the solemn services of ordination with those more generally in use; and let not the Editors of our magazines shrink from recording that a bishop has been ordained over a particular congregational church. By these means the word will be brought into circulation amongst us, and though the high-church episcopalians may laugh, yet eventually its restrictive use shall be abolished, and the magic influence which it now possesses shall pass away.

S

On the dismis

T. W. J. W.

[blocks in formation]

every

(To the Editors.)

GENTLEMEN-From my truly excellent and beloved friend I have received the following letter, which will, I am sure, give delight to reader who has his spiritual senses exercised in the things of God. The writer is aware that, from his want of familiarity with the English language, he may not, in all cases, have accurately understood the passages on which he animadverts. It also appears to me, that what he so justly and pathetically describes, as the experience of the soul relying on the Saviour, is entirely in harmony with what I had endeavoured to establish. The operations of faith, as by him described, are effects of its holy nature, and constitute that characteristic or qualification, not meritorious, but evidential, from which the peace and assurance flows. Some important distinctions and explications would require to be made, in order to examine to the bottom the use of reason matters of religion, and the nature of the blindness or insensibility of the natural man to the evidence of divine truths, which, I am persuaded, can be shown to be no defect of intellectual powers, but a most unreasonable and criminal submission to wrong affections of the soul.

in

I have just received a third letter, written after my correspondent had seen your Number for February. I hope to communicate it for your next. It gives me the peculiar pleasure of finding that the publication of his letters is not disagreeable to my amiable friend. I think it will appear, at last, that our differences are little more than verbal.

[blocks in formation]

a second letter to you, though my illness renders me scarcely able to do so.

"Dear Sir; have you not allowed yourself too easily to be drawn to point us out to the Christian world, and to all besides, as the propagators of principles among the most dangerous of all that the artifice of Satan has ever brought forwards to poison the church of Christ; principles most likely to draw the souls of men into present delusion and eternal perdition; principles which are the very ganmake us shudder, (these are your grene of true religion, and which own expressions ;)-to point us out, I say, under these odious representations, both to Christians and to the enemies of Christ,-us who, though unworthy, have nevertheless received grace to suffer for the testimony of Jesus, and to be the instruments of the first movements in a work of reviving religion, which is at this time among the most glorious that his power has wrought upon the continent of Europe?*

that

"As an exposition of our principles, and even, you say, the most favourable exposition could be made of them, you take passages of two English authors, whom we have never quoted, nor read, nor even known. Thus you assail the doctrines of others, as if they were ours; and you lay to have never so much as read; I our charge arguments which we speak of us ministers of the Can

one

ton of Vaud; for the letter of a
young person in
of our
churches was the occasion of your
taking up the pen.

"If Hervey says, in a general inherent qualities to find out our way, that we must not look into interest in Christ, the expression may be liable to wrong interpretations. To judge of the proposition,

This passage is put in italics, not by the writer, but by the translator.

« VorigeDoorgaan »