Obrázky na stránke
PDF
ePub

cers whose peculiar business it is to take care of

the poor.

Of the three orders, then, contended for in this argument, there remains but one, viz. the Apostles, who received a permanent commission to be ministers of the Gospel, and who, in this character, are to be considered as having successors. The Seventy Disciples had ceased to exist, as officers in the Church, a considerable time before the Deacons were appointed; and it is trampling upon every intimation of Scripture on the subject, to make the latter an order of clergy at all. The favorite Episcopal doctrine, therefore, of clerical imparity, receives not the least countenance from this boasted argument.

It is impossible not to observe the difficulties to which our Episcopal brethren are reduced, in endeavoring to show, on their own principles, that three orders of clergy have been maintained at every period. Considering the twelve Apostles and the Seventy Disciples, as two distinct orders appointed by our Lord before his crucifixion, they have thought themselves bound to find a third or der, during that period. And what expedient do you suppose they have adopted to make out their beloved number? Why, some of them gravely tell us that Christ himself was one of the orders of Clergy at that time! I will not so far insult your understandings, Brethren, as to attempt a refutation of this idea. But if this were the case, then, to say nothing of other objections, the Apos, tles stood in the place of Presbyters, which is contrary to the Episcopal system. Besides, where will the zealous advocates for the doctrine of three orders find their favorite number, even on their own principles, immediately after the ascension of Christ, when the Deacons had not been appointed, and when we hear no more about the Seventy Disciples ?

[ocr errors]

III. Closely connected with the foregoing argument is another, which is urged with great considence by many Episcopal writers. It is—“ That “the Apostles, while they lived, held a station in “ the Church superior to all other ministers; that

Bishops are the proper successors of the Apostles ; “ and that they hold a corresponding superiority of " character and office.”

If this argument be examined, it will be found to have no other force than that which consists in a mere gratuitous assertion of the point to be proved

The ministry of the Apostles was, in some respects, extraordinary, and of course terminated with their lives. In other respects, it was ordinary, and transmitted to their successors. Considering them in the former light, as men distinguished by the extraordinary gifts of the Holy Ghost; as endowed with immediate inspiration, with the knowledge of tongues, with the power of discerning spirits, and working miracles, and of con. ferring that power on others; and as invested with authority to order everything relating to the Churches of Christ, under the unerring gui

a

dance of the Spirit of God, until the Canon of Scripture, the grand charter and directory of the Church, should be completed-considering them in this character, the Apostles had no successors. They were exalted above all Bishops. The Scriptures give no hint of any class of ministers coming after tirem, to be endowed with a similar character ; and until those who claim something like Apostolic pre-eminence, produce satisfactory testimonials that they possess similar gifts and powers, they must excuse us for rejecting their claims.

Considering the ministry of the Apostles in those respects in which it was ordinary, and perpetual, they had, and still have, successors ; and nothing is more easy than to show that these successors consist of all those, without exception, who are empowered to go forth and teach men the way of salvation, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost; that is, all regular ministers, who are clothed with authority to preach the Gospel and administer sacraments. For it was in immediate connexion with the command to perform these ordinary functions, that the promise, which is considered as constituting the ministerial succession, was given --Lo I am with you always, even unto the end of the world. Could the advocates of Episcopacy, show from Scripture, that the powers possessed by the Apostles were afterwards divided; that, while one class of ministers succeeded them in the ordinary duties of preaching and administering sacraments, another class succeeded them in some higher and more appropriate duties; their cause would rest on better ground; but this, as was before observed, can never be proved. There is not a syllable in Scripture that looks like such a divided succession ; nor has it ever been so much as pretended that a passage is to be found which gives a hint of this kind. On the contrary, as has been repeatedly before mentioned, the Scriptures uniformly represent preaching the Gospel, and administering Sacraments, as the most important and honorable of all ministerial functions.

Accordingly, when we ask those who adduce this argument, whence they derive the idea that diocesan Bishops peculiarly succeed the Apostles in their Apostolic character, (for this supposition alone is to their purpose), they refer us to no passages of Scripture asserting or even hinting it; but to some vague suggestions, and allusions of a few of the early Fathers. Now on such a subject, even if the Fathers were unanimous, we might and ought to hesitate, if nothing like what they intimate were to be found in the word of God. But it ought to be known and remembered, that the Fathers contrarlict one another, and the same Fathers contradict themselves on this subject. Several of them expressly represent Presbyters as the successors of the Apostles. Among others, Ignatius, than whom no Father is more highly esteemed, or more frequently quoted as an authority by Episcopalians, generally represents Presbyters as standing in the place of the Apostles. The follow

ing quotations are from his far-famed Epistles. “ The Presbyters succeed in the place of the bench " of the Apostles.”—“ In like manner let all reve

rence the Deacons as Jesus Christ, and the Bi. - shop as the Father, and the Presbyters as the " sanhedrim of God, and college of the Apostles." “ Be subject to your Presbyters as to the Apostles " of Jesus Christ our hope.” “ Follow the Pres- . “ bytery as the Apostles," &c. Other quotations from the Fathers might easily be adduced, equally pointed and decisive against the argument in question; but these are reserved for a subsequent letter.

But still the advocates of diocesan Episcopacy ask—“Do not the Apostles, in many passages of " the New Testament, manifestly assert their su

periority over other ministers? Do we not find " them exercising jurisdiction over uninspired pas

tors; directing them how to behave themselves in " the house of God; and, in short, authoritatively or

dering the conduct of ministers, and the affairs " of the Churches? Now, say they, if the Apos" tles had any successors in the exercise of this “ general jurisdiction over other ministers, these

successors can be no other than our diocesan Bi. shops, who are constituted governors of the infe• rior clergy ; which is precisely the point for 6 which we contend.”—To this reasoning I answer, the Apostles did possess, and did exercise the general power of jurisdiction and superintendency which has been stated. In the infancy of the Church it was necessary that they should do

« PredošláPokračovať »