Obrázky na stránke
PDF
ePub

other zealous and able writer in favour of dioce. san episcopacy, goes further. He acknowledges that Dr. Hammond stands alone, in the solution of the difficulty above mentioned ; that he cannot undertake to defend it; and that “ he could never “ find sufficient reason to believe these Bishops any “other than Presbyters, as the generality of the “ Fathers, and of the Church of England have “ done.” Defence of Dioc. Episc. p. 29.

The third passage to be adduced is in Titus i. It is as follows. For this cause left I thee in Crete, that thou shouldest set in order the things that are wanting, and ordain Elders, (Presbyters) in every city, as I had appointed thee. If any be blameless, the husband of one wife, having faithful children, not accused of rict, or unruly. For a Bishop must be blameless, as the steward of God; not self-willed, not soon angry, not given to wine, no striker, not given to filthy lucre, &c. Here the apostle, in di. recting Titus to ordain Elders, enjoins upon him to choose those officers from among the most temperate, blameless, and faithful believers ; and the reason he assigns for this injunction is, that a Bishop must be blameless ; evidently meaning, that Presbyter and Bishop are the same office. On any other construction, the different parts of the address are unconnected, and the whole destitute of force. But these are charges which no man who is conversant with the writings of Paul, would ever think of bringing against the

This passage also establishes another point. It

a

not only shows that the Elders here to be ordained, were considered and denominated Bishops, thereby proving the identity of the office designated by these names; but it likewise proves, beyond controversy, that, in apostolic times, it was customary, to have a plurality of these Bishops in a single city. We have before seen that there were a number of Bishops in the city of Ephesus, and a number more in the city of Philippi: but in the passage before us we find Titus directed to ordain a plurality of them in every city. This perfectly agrees with the Presbyterian doctrine, that scriptural Bishops were the pastors of single congregations, or Presbyters, invested, either separately or conjointly, as the case might be, with pastoral charges; but it is impossible to reconcile it with the modern notions of diocesan episcopacy.

There is one more passage, equally conclusive in this argument. It is that which is found in 1 Peter, v. 1, 2. The Elders (or Presbyters) which

among you I exhort, who am also an Elder, and a witness of the sufferings of Christ, and also a partaker of the glory that shall be revealed. Feed the flock of God which is among you, taking the oversight thereof (ETIKOTOUYTES, that is, exercising the office, or performing the duties of Bishops over them) not by constraint, but willingly; not for filthy lucre, but of a ready mind. The construction of this passage

is obvious. It expressly represents Presbyters as Bishops of the flock, and solemnly exhorts them

a

manner.

to exercise the powers, and perform the duties of this office.

In short, the title of Bishop, as applied to ministers of the Gospel, 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

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 GaiusThe 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 Epis.

copacy

have affected to make light of the argument, in favour of the parity 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.

a

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 whichever 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 bear. ing 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.

« PredošláPokračovať »