their authority'. They, and they only, ordain ministers—they confirm-they issue their decrees to the Church—they receive appeals in matters of controversy-they regulate all the rising Churches. It is true that, at first, they have no specified districts over which each presides (save that, from the unanimous testimony of the early Church, James appears to have been very early Bishop of Jerusalem 2); but this is again precisely what, ments to prove any thing more, than that, until the schism at Corinth spoken of by St. Paul, one saying, I am of Paul, another I am of Apollos, &c., the Gospel was preached, and the Church governed, by the common council of persons who were promiscuously termed Bishops and Presbyters. The words were applied to the same persons-those persons were both Bishops and Presbyters-but he does not deny that there were two offices. Even he not only recognizes the two offices, though at first exercised by the same individual, but professes to fix the time and the cause (the Corinthian schism) of their being separated, and separated by the Apostles, and placed in the same superiority and subordination as Aaron and his sons. The Apostles, we know, called themselves elders, but we also know that there were elders who were not Apostles, nor pretended to Apostolical functions. The promiscuous use of the name is no proof that the offices were not distinct. But it is unnecessary, in this pamphlet, to enter upon the questions of Jerome's theory. The reader will find it well sifted in Hammond's work on Episcopacy, Dissert. 2nd, cap. 27, 28, and 29; and also in Fran. Amessana. Difficilia, S. Hieron, loca. 1 Titus i. 5. 2 Hooker cites in proof of this, Acts xv. 13, xxi. 18; also the direct testimony of Eusebius and Jerome. Ecc. Polity, lib. vii. §. 4. This is fatal to the pretensions of Rome; and, indeed, it is from the state of things, we should naturally expect. The Church was at first confined to the Jewish nation and the proselytes of the gatetherefore the principal seat of episcopal government, is Jerusalem. At first, all the offices of the ministerial character centered in the Apostles : they performed the functions of Bishops, Priests, and Deacons', and did not establish the subordinate offices till the increase of the Church required them. Their labours also, for some time, must have been rather of a missionary character-to travel about-to make converts-to settle and regulate small congregations, not sufficiently populous, nor protected from jealousy or persecution, to have a separate episcopal government, or be more than parishes under an ordinary Presbyter, with the episcopal superintendence of the Apostles. Afterwards, as Churches became firmly established, and Bishops placed over them, the archiepiscopal superintendence of the Apostles (directed by the Spirit) over those infant establishments 2 appears evident that the Bishop of Rome had no other precedency than that which the Church might reasonably concede to him as Bishop of the chief city of that empire under which they were. He had no right to rule over independent Churches. The principle of the concession, one of social convenience, not Divine institution, is followed out in practice in the separation of the Eastern and Western Churches, when Constantinople became the seat of empire. 1 See Acts vi. 1-7. 2 2 Cor. xi. 28. to have been continued. This seems to have been a chief object in St. Paul's travels, which so largely occupy the narrative of the Acts of the Apostles. But while the exercise of their superiority and special power is to be traced occasionally in the Acts, the language of the Epistles, as I have already observed (especially that of St. Paul), is almost every where that of a ruler and a superior officer in the Church, directing not only the laity, but the ministers of religion. And in his Epistles to Timothy and Titus, his language is not only that of a Bishop, but of one addressing with archiepiscopal authority and paternal affection Bishops themselves-men who were themselves rulers, and who had authority to ordain elders, and under whose jurisdiction elders were placed. Especially to Timothy does he speak with these views, and also with a plain reference to the office being continued after his own and Timothy's decease in lawful succession for ever. I regret being compelled to hurry over this interesting portion of our subject, but am sensible that with the utmost compression I must exceed the limits which, on such an occasion as this, I ought to claim. I must therefore very briefly touch upon the abundant marks of the recognition of Timothy's episcopal character, which was discernible in St. Paul's Epistles to him. St. Paul reminds him of the apostolic authority from which his commission is derived, and of the firmness with which he ought 2 to exercise it. "I put thee in remembrance that thou stir up the gift of God which is in thee by the putting on of my hands. For God hath not given us the spirit of fear; but of power 1." He tells him that he appointed him to Ephesus, and that he is to use his power in ruling teachers-in charging "some that they teach no other doctrine "." He gives him instructions as to the character and conduct of a Bishop. He suggests the points in which he is to reprehend or praise the conduct of the Deacons under him 4. He cautions him that heresies must arise, and teaches him what course to take with respect to them 5. He declares distinctly his jurisdiction over elders, and gives him some cautions how to exercise it. He tells him to inflict public censure. He warns him, with a most solemn appeal to "God and the Lord Jesus Christ and the elect Angels," to use his authority in these matters with impartiality. He recognizes his power of ordination, and guards him against rashly, and without due examination, admitting any to the Ministry! He authorizes and enjoins him also to provide for a succession in the Church, and that all those things which he had learned from an Apostle before many witnesses, and which 1 2 Tim. i. 6, 7. 3 1 Tim. ii. 5 Ibid. iv. passim. 7 Ibid. v. 20. 9 Ibid. v. 22. 2 1 Tim. i. 3. 6 Ibid. v. 1. 17. 19. 8 Ibid. v. 21. he was to keep until the appearing of our Lord Jesus Christ', he should "commit to faithful men, who shall be able to teach others also 2." And lastly, in the words of the text, the awful and general charge is given to him before God and the Lord Jesus Christ. Can we read these instructions and exhortations, and regard them as given to any other than a Bishop, or successor of St. Paul in his apostolical jurisdiction, as St. Paul and his fellow Apostles were successors of Jesus himself, and intended to convey his authority to the faithful men, with whom He promised to be "to the end of the world?" Even Milton, furiously prejudiced as he was, admitted that Timothy was a vicegerent of St. Paul, but only with a temporary power. How far will prejudice mislead great minds! Let any read the chapter from which the text is taken, and set the grave words of the Apostle against the gratuitous assumption of the poet. It is won 3 1 Tim. vi. 14. 2 2 Tim. ii. 2. and 1 Tim. vi. 14. Jesus also, giving his injunctions to the Apostles, tells them to teach all nations-all things whatsoever he had commanded or taught them; and couples it with the promise of being with them "to the end of the world." This is of precisely the same import as St. Paul's injunction in these texts. 3 Pierce says: "I do not, indeed, deny, that in every Church there was one chief Presbyter, who was then constant Moderator. I am so far from blaming this custom, that I think it was derived from the Holy Scriptures."- Vind. of Dissenters. |