Page images
PDF
EPUB

occurs only four times in the New Testament: in three of these cases, there is complete proof that it is given to those who are styled Presbyters; and in the fourth case, there is strong presumption that it is applied in the same manner. On the other hand, the Apostle Peter, as we have just seen, in addressing an authoritative exhortation to other ministers, calls himself a Presbyter. The same is done by the Apostle John, in the beginning of his second and third epistles-The Elder (Presbyter) unto the well beloved Gaius -The Elder unto the Elect Lady, &c. Could more complete evidence be desired, that both these titles belonged equally, in the days of the apostles, to the same office?

But it is not necessary further to pursue the proof that these names are indiscriminately applied in scripture to the same office. This is freely and unanimously acknowledged by the most respectable Episcopal writers. In proof of this acknowledgment, it were easy to multiply quotations. A single authority shall suffice. Dr. Whitby confesses, that "both the Greek and Latin Fathers do, "with one consent, declare, that Bishops were called Presbyters, "and Presbyters Bishops, in apostolic times, the names being then "common." Notes on Philip, i. 1.

I know that many advocates for diocesan episcopacy have affected to make light of the argument, in favour of the parity of of ministers, drawn from the indiscriminate application of these scriptural names. Indeed, some of them have attempted, by florid declamation and ludicrous comparisons, to turn the whole into ridicule. This is an extremely convenient method of evading the force of an argument which cannot be fairly answered. But to evade an argument is not to refute it. Besides, have those who reject all reasoning drawn from the application of scriptural names, considered whither this principle will lead them? Have they reflected how large a portion of those weapons with which they defend the Divine character, and the vicarious sacrifice of the blessed Redeemer, against the attacks of Socinians, and other heretics, are necessarily surrendered, if the names and titles of scripture are so vague and indecisive as they would, in this case, represent them? Will they venture to charge the great Head of the Church, who dictated the scriptures, with addressing his people in a language altogether indistinct, and calculated to mislead them; and that too on a subject which, they tell us, lies at the foundation

not merely of the welfare, but of the very existence of the Church? Surely these consequences cannot have been considered. The argument, then, drawn from the indiscriminate application of the names Bishop and Presbyter to the same persons, is conclusive. It was pronounced to be so, by the venerable and learned Jerome, more than 1400 years ago; and his judgment has been adopted and supported by some of the greatest and best divines that have adorned the Christian Church, from that period down to the present day.

But we have something more to produce in support of our system, than the indiscriminate application of the names in question to one order of ministers. We can show,

III. That the same character, duties, and powers, which are ascribed in the sacred writings to Bishops, are also ascribed to Presbyters; thereby plainly establishing their identity of order as well as of name.

Had Bishops been constituted, by the great Head of the Church, an order of ministers different from Presbyters, and superior to them, we might confidently expect to find a different commission given; different qualifications required; and a different sphere of duty assigned. But nothing of all this appears. On the contrary, the inspired writers, when they speak of ministers of the Gospel, by which ever of these names they are distinguished, give the same description of their character; represent the same gifts and graces as necessary for them; enjoin upon them the same duties; and, in a word, exhibit them as called to the same work, and as bearing the same office. To prove this, let us attend to some of the principal powers vested in Christian ministers, and see whether the scriptures do not ascribe them equally to Presbyters and Bishops.

1. That Presbyters had, in apostolic times, as they now have, authority to preach the word, and administer sacraments, is universally allowed by Episcopalians themselves. Now, if we consult either the original commission, or subsequent instructions given ministers, in various parts of the New Testament, we shall find these constantly represented as the highest acts of ministerial authority; as the grand powers in which all others are included. Instead of finding in the sacred volume the smallest hint, that ordaining ministers, and governing the Church, were functions of

an higher order than dispensing the word of eternal life and the seals of the everlasting covenant; the reverse is plainly and repeatedly taught. The latter, we have already seen, are the most prominent objects in the original commission; they formed the principal business of the apostles wherever they went; and all the authority with which they were vested is represented as being subservient to the promulgation of that Gospel which is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth. Preaching and administering sacraments, therefore, are the highest acts of ministerial authority; they are far above ordination and govern ment, as the end is more excellent than the means; as the substance is more important than the form.

If, then, Presbyters be authorized, as all acknowledge, to perform these functions, we infer that they are the highest order of Gospel ministers. Those who are empowered to execute the most dignified and the most useful duties pertaining to the ministerial office, can have no superiors in that office. The Episcopal system, then, by depressing the teacher, for the sake of elevating the ruler, inverts the sacred order, and departs both from the letter and the spirit of Scripture. The language of Scripture is, Let the Presbyters who rule well be counted worthy of double honour, ESPECIALLY THEY WHO LABOUR IN THE WORD AND DOCTRINE. But the language of modern episcopacy is, that labouring in the word and doctrine is a lower service in the Church, and government a more exalted that bearing rule is more honourable and more important than to edify-a language which to be refuted needs. only to be stated.

From these premises I am compelled to conclude, that the officer of the Christian Church who is authorized to preach and administer sacraments, cannot be an inferior or subordinate officer, but must be equal to, or rather the same with, the scriptural Bishop. And in this reasoning I am supported by the judgment of Bishop Burnet, who declares-" Since I look upon the sacra "mental actions, as the highest of sacred performances, I cannot "but acknowledge those who are empowered for them, must be of "the highest office in the Church."*

2. The power of government, or of ruling the Church, is also

• Vindication of the Church and State of Scotland, p. 336.

committed to Presbyters. This is denied by Episcopalians; but the Scriptures, expressly affirm it. The true meaning of the word Presbyter, in its official application, is a church ruler or governor, as Episcopalians themselves allow. Hence the "oversight" or government of the Church is in Scripture expressly assigned to Presbyters as their proper duty. The Elders to whom the Apostle Peter directed his first epistle, certainly had this power. To them it is said, The Elders which are among you I exhort. Feed the flock of God, taking the oversight thereof, not by constraint, but willingly; neither as being lords over God's heritage, but as ensamples to the flock. Scarcely any words could express more distinctly than these the power of ruling in the Church. But, as if to place the matter beyond all doubt, these Elders are exhorted to use this power with moderation, and not to tyrannize, or "lord it over God's heritage." Why subjoin this caution, if they were not invested with a governing authority at all?

The case of the Elders of Ephesus is still more decisive.— When the Apostle Paul was about to take his final leave of them, he addressed them thus: Take heed, therefore, unto yourselves, and to the flock over which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God which he hath purchased with his own blood, &c. The word here translated feed, is Topanew, which means taking such care as a shepherd does of his flock; and, of course, implies watching over, guiding, and ruling, as well as feeding. Here the government of this Church, then, as well as ministering in the word, is evidently vested in the Elders. No mention is made of any individual, who had the whole ruling power vested in him, or even a larger share of it than others. Had there been a Bishop in this Church, in the Episcopal sense of the word, that is a single person of superior order to these Elders, and to whom, of course, they were in subjection, it is strange that, in this whole account, we do not once find the most distant allusion to him. When the Apostle was telling the Elders that they should never see his face more, and that dissen

The reader will bear in mind, that the zealous advocates for Episcopacy suppose and assert that Timothy was Bishop of Ephesus at this time. On what grounds this assertion is made will be seen in the next letter.

sions and difficulties were about to arise in their Church, could there have been a more fit occasion to address their superior, had there been such a man present? To whom could instruction have been so properly directed, in this crisis, as to the Chief Shepherd ? On the other hand, supposing such a superior to have existed, and to have been prevented by sickness, or any other means, from attending at this conference, why did not the Apostle remind the Elders of their duty to him? Why did he not exhort them, in the strife and divisions which he foretold as approaching, to cleave to their Bishop, and submit to him, as the best means of unity and peace? And, finally, supposing their Bishop to have been dead, and the office vacant, why did not the Apostle, when about to take leave of a flock so much endeared to him, select a Bishop for them, ordain him with his own hands, and commit the Church to his care? But not a word of all this appears. No hint is given of the existence of such a superior. On the contrary, the Apostle declares to these Elders, that the Holy Ghost had made them Bishops over the Church at Ephesus; he exhorts them to rule that Church; and when about to depart, never to see them more, he leaves them in possession of this high trust.

But the passage just quoted from 1 Tim. v. is absolutely conclusive on this point. Let the Elders that rule well be counted worthy of double honour, especially they who labour in word and doctrine. Here the power of government in the Church is ascribed to Presbyters in terms which cannot be rendered more plain and decisive. Here, also, we find officers of the Church who are not recognized in the Episcopal system, but who are always found in the Presbyterian Church, viz. ruling Elders, or those who are appointed to assist in governing the Church, but who do not preach or administer sacraments. But this is not all bearing rule in the Church is unequivocally represented in this passage as a less honourable employment than preaching, or labouring in the word and doctrine. The mere ruling Elder, who performs his duty well, is declared to be worthy of "double honour;" but the Elder who, to this function, adds the more dignified and important one of preaching the Gospel of salvation, is declared to be entitled to honour of a still higher kind.

As this passage is directly hostile to the claims of modern Episcopacy, great exertions have been made to set aside its

« EelmineJätka »