Obrázky na stránke
PDF
ePub
[ocr errors]

fact by a succession of writers. Dr. Whitby, notwithstanding all his zeal for Episcopacy, speaks on the subject in this manner. “ The great contro“ versy concerning this, and the Epistle to Timo

thy is, whether Timothy and Titus were indeed “ made Bishops, the one of Ephesus, and the pro“ consular Asia; the other of Crete. Now of this “ matter I confess I can find nothing in any writer “ of the first three centuries, nor any intimation " that they bore that name.” And afterwards he adds, generally concerning the whole argument“I confess that these two instances, absolutely ta“ken, afford us no convincing arguments in favor " of a settled diocesan Episcopacy, because there " is nothing which proves they did or were to ex" ercise these acts of government rather as Bishops “ than as Evangelists."

But it is still urged, that some of the powers represented in scripture as given to Timothy and Titus clearly indicate a superiority of order. Thus Paul besought the former to abide still at Ephesus, and

gave him directions with regard to the selection and ordination of ministers. And he also

appointed the latter to ordain Elders in every city of Crete, giving him, at the same time, particular instructions as to the manner in which he should ex. ercise his ordaining power, and set in order the things that were wanting “Here," say the advocates for Episcopacy, we find in fact the

pre“ eminent powers of diocesan Bishops vested in " these men ; and as long as they possessed the

[ocr errors]

a

powers of Bishops, it is of small moment by what

name they were called.” But on this argument several remarks immediately occur, which entirely destroy its force.

The first is, that even if we allow Timothy and Titus to have held such a superior ecclesiastical rank, as that for which Episcopalians contend, still no certain argument can be drawn from their case in favor of an established arrangement in the Church. That they sustained a character in some respects extraordinary, and were called to act on occasions in some respects out of the common course, none will deny. Are we sure that, in these respects, their mission is to be a precedent for us? Because officers of a certain character were sent, on a particular occasion, to organize Churches, and to ordain Ministers, in Ephesus and Crete, does it follow, upon any principle of legitimate reasoning, that officers of precisely the same character are indispensably necessary in all countries and in all ages to perform a similar service ? Because the Apostle Paul in fact partook with other ministers in several ordinations, are we to infer that no ordination was valid, while the Apostles lived, unless one of them was present, and participated in the transaction ? By no means.' We know that the inference would be false. For we read that Timothy and Titus, who were certainly subordinate to Paul, and who received commands and instructions from him as their superior, were sent on an ordaining tour. We read that certain Prophets and Teachers,

at Antioch, such as Simeon, Lucius, and Manaen, who were of a different description of ministers froni either of the former, still possessed the ordaining power; and that Timothy himself was ordained by the laying on of the hands of Presbyters. In short, there are four classes of Gospel ministers, ordinary and extraordinary, mentioned in the New Testament, viz. Apostles, Evangelists, Prophets, and Teachers, or Presbyters. These different titles, it is granted, on all hands, were intended to indicate some diversity of station and employment in the Apostolic age. But however they differed among themselves, with respect to their endowments and qualifications, we find that they all possessed alike the power of setting apart others to the work of the ministry, and actually ordained. Nay, an instance precisely in point occurs in the history of the Episcopal Church in the United States. In the consecration of the first Bishops for that Church, the Arehbishop of Canterbury presided. Yet we all know that the presence and co-operation of the Primate were not necessary, either to the validity or regularity of the consecration. Three ordinary Bishops would have done just as well. Yet if some zealous hierarchist, a thousand years hence, should insist, that because he was present, the consecration could not have taken place without him; the argument would have just as much force as that which we are now considering. Yielding the whole fact, then, concerning the character of Timothy and Titus, for which our Enisconal brethren contend, it

It no

does not afford the least help to their cause. more proves that precisely such officers are necessary to the performance of every valid ordination, in every subsequent age, than the consecration of the first High Priest, under the Old Testament dispensation, by Moses, rendered it necessary that every succeeding induction of the same officer should be performed by a similar person, and with similar ceremonies; which we know was neither required nor done*.

But, secondly-We utterly deny that Timothy was sent to Ephesus, and Titus to Crete, in any such character as our Episcopal brethren claim for them. We have seen that the fact, if admitted, would be useless to their cause. But it is not admitted, and cannot be proved. To say, that the very circumstance of their being sent to ordain ministers, and to organize Churches, shows that they acted in virtue of a superior episcopal character, every discerning reader will perceive is not proof, but merely taking for granted the whole point in dispute. In truth, the whole argument, drawn from the mission of Timothy and Titus, when carefully analysed, and distinctly stated, amounts to this__"None " but diocesan Bishops, as a superior order of

* Perhaps it will be objected that this argument proves too much, and may be made, by pressing it a little further, to-support the cause of lay-ordinations. By no means.

For though different descriptions of ministers, both ordinary and extraordinary, ordained in the days of the Apostles, yet we read of no ordination but what was performed by ministers of some kind,

[ocr errors]

clergy, have a right to ordain ministers, and ore ganize Churches : but Timothy and Titus, were

sent to perform services of this kind : therefore Timothy and Titus were dincesan Bishops.” In this syllogism, the major proposition, viz. that which asserts that none but Bishops, as a superior order, can ordain, is taken forfgranted. But does not every one see that this is precisely the point to be proved ? Until this fundamental proposition, then, be first established, the whole argument is such as all logicians agree in stigmatizing as deceptive and worthless.

Thirdly-We know not that there were any Church officers ordained, either at Ephesus or Crete*, previous to the mission of Timothy and Titus to those Churches. The advocates for Episcopacy, I know, take the liberty of supposing that there were Presbyters already ordained and resid. ing at both those places, before the period in question. And hence they conclude that Presbyters were not considered by the Apostle as lawfully vested with the power of ordaining,

or else, " say they, “ he would not have thought it necessary

to send superior officers so great a distance, to

* Archbishop Potter, one of the great standard authorities anong Episcopalians, concedes that we have no reason to believe there were any ministers ordained at Crete, prior to the mission of Titus to that place. See Discourse of Ch. Gov. p. 91, 92, &c. This simple concession, when traced to its legitimate consequences, amounts, so far as Titus is concerned, to a surrender of the whole argument.

« PredošláPokračovať »