Изображения страниц
PDF
EPUB

5th. Ignatius in his epistle to the Smyrneans, says, "It is not lawful without the Bishop, neither to baptize, nor to celebrate the holy cominunion." And again, "Let that Eucharist be held good and valid which is offered by the Bishop, or by him to whom the Bishop has given his consent." Here we have the Presbyters in all their ministrations completely under the jurisdiction of the Bishop. Must he not then be in a higher grade than the Presbyters?

I have promised to show that the Presbyters of whom Ignatius speaks, were the ministers of the word and sacraments, not ruling Elders. This is necessary, because I find you asserting in the most positive manner, that, 'There is not a single instance in which the pious father represents his Presbyters as, in fact, preaching or administering sacraments.' Let us examine this point.

1. Ignatius, as often as he mentions Presbyters, never once gives us a hint about ruling Elders. It is really incredible, that when he so repeatedly enumerates the different officers of the Church, he should not, in a single instance, put into his list that order of men. For you therefore to suppose that he meant to include them, is altogether assumption, which can never be admitted in fair reasoning. I have a right therefore to say, that all his Presbyters were ministers of the word and sacraments. But I do not rest the matter here, clear as it is.

2. As Ignatius, in order to show the great difference between the Bishop and his presbyters, considers the former as representing the LORD CHRIST, and the latter as representing the Apostles, who acted in an under grade to CHRIST, then the Presbyters he speaks of must necessarily be ministers of the word and sacraments, otherwise they could not possibly represent the Apostles. Besides, he says, that the Deacons are the ministers of the mysteries of CHRIST. But certainly there is no mystery in receiving the alms of the congregation, and distributing them among the poor. They must therefore be ministers of the word. And so he tells us in plain terms, "They are not the ministers of meat and drink, but of the Church of GOD." And he says again, that they are intrusted with the ministry of JESUS CHRIST." This would be strange language, if they were confined to "the serving of tables." But he positively says, that they were not. It is therefore evident that they preached, and consequently a fortiori, that Ignatius' Presbyters were ministers of the word and sacraments.

66

So

3. In the epistle to the Philadelphians, Ignatius says, "The priests are good, but the chief Priest (CHRIST) is better." But Christian Priests always administered the sacraments. evident it is that Ignatius' Presbyters were ministers of the word and of the mysteries of CHRIST.

4. Ignatius says, "Let that Eucharist be held good and valid

m Contiuuation, p. 133, [p. 301, 2d ed.]

which is done by the Bishop, or by such as he permits." The great object of the pious martyr in all his epistles is to prevent schism, to which he knew men are strongly inclined. To secure this point, he repeatedly inculcates on all orders to be subject in spiritual matters to the Bishop, and to consider nothing as legally done in the Church in opposition to the just exercise of his authority; not even to consider the sacraments as legally administered in opposition to him. Then consequently the Presbyters under him were the ministers of those sacraments.

All I find that you say to the last quotation is, that Ignatius 'might mean the Bishop of some neighbouring congregation.' And were I to say he might not mean so, it would be a sufficient answer. One might' is as good as the other. But, Sir, he could not have meant so. The martyr's epistles were written to particular Churches. What he said was intended for the Church to which he addressed himself, and not for other Churches, which he was not sure would ever see his epistles. When, therefore, he enjoins submission to the Bishop upon all orders in any particular Church, it is a complete absurdity to suppose that one of those orders, the Presbyters, was not the object of one of his most important injunctions. "Let the Eucharist be held good and valid, which is done by the Bishop, or such as he permits;" that is, according to you, which is done, not by his own Presbyters, but by the Presbyters of some other Bishop, about whom he was not saying a single syllable, and whom the epistle never once contemplates. Besides, was there any necessity for telling the Bishop of the Smyrneans, that if any other Bishop came into his diocese to administer the sacraments without his consent, it would be irregular? What a childish observation would that be! No, Sir, he was endeavouring, by his admonitions to the Smyrneans, to preserve the unity of their Church, and for that purpose advises them to adhere to the Bishop, and not to consider any ministrations valid when done even by their own Presbyters, in opposition to him. And by strictly adhering to this advice, the unity of their Church would be effectually secured. It follows then that the Presbyters of that diocese were ministers of the word and sacraments.

5. From the very state of the Church of Antioch, and the other great Churches, which have been fully proved to contain numerous congregations, and numerous Presbyters, those Presbyters must have been ministers of the word, otherwise all the congregations but one must have been destitute of a preaching ministry. This would have been a very serious defect, which the Bishop, by his personal ministrations, could not possibly have supplied. This single consideration fully proves that those great Churches must have been supplied with preaching Presbyters.

Let us now take another view of this point, and suppose that all the Presbyters of those Churches were ruling Elders. Then I say, that the Epistles of Ignatius are totally inconsistent with such a notion. Let us examine three or four passages,

Speaking to the Ephesians, he says, "that being subject to their Bishop and his presbytery, they be wholly and thoroughly sanctified." Was the presbytery composed entirely of ruling Elders? You will not venture to say so. There are several passages of this kind in which the pious martyr speaks of the presbytery, and enjoins obedience to them. But upon your ground, none of the Churches to which he writes had a presbytery, unless a number of ruling Elders could form one.

Again: "The Priests," says Ignatius, "are good:" "and so are the ministers of the word," (the Deacons.) "The Priests are good," that is, the ruling Elders are good. Were ruling Elders ever called Priests?

Once more: "It is not lawful, without the Bishop, (for the ruling Elders) either to baptize or to celebrate the holy communion;" or, according to your ingenious gloss, for a neighbouring Bishop or Presbyter to intrude himself into another's Church, and there administer the sacrament. This is a wonderful discovery!

I have one more observation to make; it is, that the presbyteries of your Church, and the presbyteries of the primitive Church, are totally different things. From every one of the Epistles of Ignatius, it is beyond all contradiction, that the respective presbyteries of the Churches to which he wrote, were formed of the Bishop's own clergy, over whom he presided. A primitive presbytery then consisted of a number of clergymen with a Bishop at their head. But this is not the form of your presbyteries. They are composed of a plurality of congregational Bishops, situated within a convenient distance, and of a plurality of lay Elders. Thus speaks your Form of Church Government, chap. ix. sec. 2. "A presbytery consists of all the ministers, and one ruling Elder from each congregation within a certain district." Now, it seems, in order to form a presbytery, the Bishops of several independent congregations, with lay Elders, must convene; but in the time of Ignatius, which was close to the times of the Apostles, a Bishop had not to go out of his own Church or diocese to form a presbytery. He, at the head of his Presbyters, formed the presbytery of the diocese; by necessary consequence, episcopacy was diocesan; and again, by necessary consequence, your presbytery resolves itself into congregational episcopacy. In this diocese, Bishop Moore forms a presbytery within his own Church; for if he had a thousand churches under him, they would make but one aggregate Church, he being the principle of unity to every individual congregation. But Bishop Miller cannot form a presbytery within his own church. He may indeed form a Church Session, consisting of himself and his lay Elders; just as the Rector of a church can form a Vestry, by calling together the wardens and vestrymen of his church. But all this is totally different from an apostolical presbytery. That was always formed by a number of Presbyters united under their head, the Bishop. Igna

tius speaks this language over and over again; and what is more, the case is undeniable from the form of the Church of Jerusalem. There we find James seated among his Elders; he at their head formed the presbytery. This was a diocesan presbytery, which is the only one that Scripture and antiquity say any thing about.

The case is also plain from the state of the Church of Ephesus. There we find several congregations and several Presbyters, who are also styled Bishops, and consequently ministers of the word. Timothy at their head, and before him St. Paul, formed an apostolical presbytery; but the Presbyters alone, without a Bishop, could not have formed such a presbytery. This shows that St. Paul, after he gave up the government of the Church of Ephesus, immediately supplied his own place by sending Timothy to govern all orders of men in that Church. That the powers of government were given him, nobody denies; and whether he exercised them under the title of an Apostle, or of an Evangelist, or of a Bishop, or of a Presbyter, it does not make one tittle of difference. He was the governor of all the congregations, and all the Presbyters and Deacons in that Church; and, consequently, was the Diocesan of that district while he continued there, whether it was during his whole life or not. And it has always appeared to me one of the greatest instances of puerility and of inconsistency, for our opponents to contend so strenuously against Timothy's having been Bishop of Ephesus, with a plurality of Presbyters and Deacons and congregations under him, when several of their best writers admit that James was Bishop of Jerusalem, with many more Presbyters and many more congregations under him; and that Ignatius was Bishop of Antioch, and Polycarp of Smyrna, with subject Presbyters, and, consequently, were diocesans.

And now, Sir, I think that I have fully proved, that your Presbyteries and apostolic presbyteries are totally different things, and that episcopal presbyteries, composed of a number of Presbyters, with a Bishop at their head, are the true apostolical government of the Church of CHRIST.

So strikingly is this the case, from the Epistles of Ignatius, and from the Scripture instances which I have mentioned, that Blondel himself could not invalidate the evidence of it, but freely acknowledged that there was from the beginning a primacy of order in the Christian Church, and that the Bishop was ex-officio the president of the presbytery, and superior not only in dignity, but in power to his Presbyters. And further, that this fixed president was the person in whom the succession was reckoned from the very beginning."

n Fuitque tunc (ab istis Apostolorum temporibus) posaría illa Seniorum eique adnexa singularis quædam et exors (qualis præsedentium omnium quomodocunque constitutorum fuit et erit semper) Potestas non Presbyterio major ordo, sed Presby terio inter duorayis fungentis ætati debita propria (si loqui fas sit) natalium in CHRISTO jure prærogativa. Pref. p. 6.

Blondel makes a majority of power intrinsic to the notion of a fixed President; so that, according to him, the Church never was governed by pastors acting in parity. He says, his constant president had a singular and peerless power-the chief power in the presbytery-that he was the prince of the brethren, and that he neither had nor could have any colleagues. And it is observable that he does not, as you do, make the apocalyptic angels collective bodies, but single persons, who had so far the chief power, that they were peculiarly chargeable with the enormities committed in their respective Churches. This settles his opinion beyond all contradiction. He does not indeed infer from this that the Bishop was of a different order; for that would have been going the full length of the highest toned Episcopalian. This is the consequence which he labours to disprove; but as to parity, he utterly denies it; as well he might; for there is not a shadow of it in the Scriptures, or in all antiquity.

This plan, Blondel explicitly says, is absolutely necessary to avoid difficulties. He could not, with the smallest degree of plausibility, reconcile parity with the Scriptures and the testimony of the Church. He therefore freely yields to the superiority of dignity and power to the Bishop. And thus we have Prelacy without a difference of order in the episcopate.

A Bishop thus presiding over Presbyters, Deacons, and Laity, and without whom, according to Ignatius, nothing of a spiritual nature was to be done in the Church, places him upon such elevated ground, that no art whatever can make it consistent with the notion of parity.

It follows, I think, inevitably, from this superiority of a Bishop, that all ministerial authority flowed from him. For as Dr. Chandler justly observes, "there never was in fact, nor indeed in the nature of things can there be, an episcopal Church, wherein any other than episcopal ordination was or can be allowed. In every society, the appointment and the commissions of the various degrees of officers must proceed from those that govern it. This is so evident, that there never was, I believe, an advocate for presbyterian parity but would readily grant, that whensoever and wheresoever the government of the

[ocr errors]

o Linus qua collegii sacri Senior prima cathedra donatus, fratrumque sapxos, collegas nullos habuit aut habere potuit; (cum plures una primatus contingere nequeat) sed successores tantum. Pref. P. 35.

p Preface, p. 6. The whole passage is long, and, therefore, I give nothing more than a reference.

q Quod (seniorem Presbyterum, qua talem v rй πposaría successisse) alta mente repostum teneant velim, quotquot dum in veteres Ecclesiarum Primariarium, Ro manæ, Antiochenæ, &c. tabulas incidunt in hunc unum successionis ordinem quem nunc usitatum vident; oculis defixis hærent, usque dum improvisis difficultatibus obruantur. Hæc enim una (si quid capere valeo) se ex ejusmodi salebris expediendi via commoda suppetit, si quam supra de Seniorum sub Apostolis apostolicisque viris et Primatu et successione hypothesin statuimus, et statuendam plenius confirmabi. mus, fundamenti loco sternant. Pref. p. 7.

VOL. II.--4

« ПредыдущаяПродолжить »