« ПредыдущаяПродолжить »
that the then existing Roman authorities were ordained of GOD for perpetuity; for both prophecy (Dan. vii. 26. 2 Thess. ii. 7.) and history attest the contrary; which prophecy is scriptural proof against that interpretion. Neither were the then existing "powers" beyond the Roman empire ordained to be perpetual. They were all, therefore, ordained of GOD in only this lower sense-to serve the purpose of civil government while they should respectively last. In our opinon, "the powers that be" means 'the established civil authorities that at any time exist;' submission to these is made binding on Christians by the Christian law; just revolutions, as incidental to every ordinance or creation of man, being exceptions to this rule. The object of such passages is, we think, to consecrate the social principle which leads to civil magistracy, and affix the seal of the divine Author of Christianity to the maxim, that men are not individually sovereign, but either jointly so, or else subject to some other common sovereignty; and that maxim, thus divinely ratified, decides that men must submit to the lawful public authority under which they live. But this has no bearing on the case of the ministry, which was not only created and ordained of GOD, but concerning the abolition or change of which no prophecy or hint is uttered, which all history attests to have been perpetuated in the episcopal form, and which, if it ever fail, must be again appointed by GoD, and "ordained" anew, not by men, but "for men ;" since its business is "in things pertaining to GOD," since the ministry of reconciliation is "given" by GOD, and by him "committed to" men, or " put in" men, and since it is an embassy from CHRIST. (Heb. v. 1. 2 Cor. v. 18, 19, 20.) Such an office must either be perpetuated or be lost: it cannot be renewed or changed, like the civil offices which are the creation of man. is clear then from Scripture, that civil government, though of perpetual general obligation, is not so in any one of its kinds; while ecclesiastical polity is permanently binding in the form set forth in the New Testament.3. It has been said, that the appointment of a king for Israel by the Deity, is an intimation of the divine will in favour of royal government, and that therefore that form of civil magistracy must be as binding as episcopacy. We reply, that if such an intimation of the divine will existed, it would unquestionably be binding on Christians. But this is not the fact. On the contrary, by the prophet Hosea, (xiii. 2.) GOD declares "I gave thee a king in mine anger." And the history of the affairs which led to the appointment of Saul shows, that it was human perverseness and ambition which insisted on having a king, while the Deity opposed it, and even "protested" against it. (1 Sam. viii. 5-20. See also the margin of verse 9.) This fact neutralizes, not only the inference in favour of royal government drawn from that case, but all other allegations of the kind pretending scriptural authority. This fact shows, indisputably, that GoD permits men to choose for themselves a form of civil government. Not till the Israelites had freely and even irreligiously declared for a monarchy, did the Almighty select the individual who should be their king. In forming, however, the government of the Christian Church, man was not even consulted; the ministry was appointed by CHRIST; its appointment was placed on record by the HOLY SPIRIT; from that record we gather that its model was episcopacy: and this we think a sufficient intimation of the will of God that all Christians should conform to that model. The case of monarchical government is in no respect analogous with this.-4. Parity contradicts its own principles in raising objections to our argument from the precepts contained in Scripture to obey kings. Sound Presbyterians, as well as sound Episcopalians, believe that the ecclesiastical system delineated in Scripture is of permanent obligation. We both insist on ordination by succession from the Apostles. If this succession is broken, ordination becomes neither episcopal nor presbyterian, but, as we both affirm, of mere lay or human authority. Now, if Parity thus
claims perpetuity because it is said to be found in Scripture, yet rejects the perpetuity of kingly government, also found there, why should Episcopalians be censured for doing the very same in behalf of their system? The same arguments which Parity uses in regard to this point, Episcopalians may also If its friends are satisfied that "the king, as supreme," was a transient appointment, so are we. If they are satisfied, on the other hand, that the scriptural model of ecclesiastical polity is not a transient appointment, so again are we. The only question remaining is-what is the model of the ministry contained in Scripture? is it presbytery, or is it episcopacy? And this is the question which has been discussed, and we hope to purpose, in the foregoing essay.
NOTE H-PAGE 439.
That the duties of an Evangelist, as such, were of an itinerant missionary kind, is, so far as the scriptural evidence is concerned, merely taken for granted. This point is indeed of small moment in our controversy. But, as all errors have a tendency to dispose the mind to further perversions, we think the following corroborations of the position, that 'it is not to be presumed that an Evangelist was necessarily a missionary,' may be useful.
An old commentator, strongly anti-episcopal, speaks decidedly against the missionary functions of evangelists, and gives, in this respect, a just view of their duties, as deduced from Scripture only. "These were followers [sectatores, imitators] of the Apostles, and they sometimes abode [subsistebant] in a particular church, teaching and defending the Apostles' doctrine. Hence [the Scripture] often takes them for the [ipso] minister of the word, (the pastor, we presume, of some such particular church,) as in 2 Tim. iv. 'do the work of an evangelist,' that is, diligently and watchfully teach. Such also was Philip in Acts xxi." See ARETIUS on Ephes. iv. 11. It is obvious that this writer considered "evangelists" as rather settled than migratory teachers, and as being often proper pastors. Another reference will show this more fully. "Do the work of an evangelist, that is, faithfully teaching. I suppose an evangelist to mean one who was principally employed in preaching the gospel, yet was not an Apostle. For these (Apostles) with the highest authority of the HOLY SPIRIT, travelled hither and thither for the purpose of instituting and reforming [instaurandi et reformandi] churches, wherever a place was opened. But Evangelists, without [citra, on this side, short of,] the office of apostleship, preached to them (these churches) with the authority of the next; [office;] sometimes they presided over particular churches as Bishops (presbyter-bishops.) Such was Timothy, both an Evangelist and a Bishop." See ARETIUS on 2 Tim. iv. 5. Our author assigns travelling or missionary duty to the Apostles; he regards them as the founders and settlers of churches; but the functions of Evangelists he represents as chiefly of a preaching and pastoral kind.-We have made these quotations in aid of our assertion, that the missionary character of Evangelists ought not to be taken for granted. The author is wrong however in saying that no Evangelists were Apostles, since 'Timothy was both. He is also wrong in calling Timothy a presbyter-bishop. Our essay has settled these points.
Charles I., in his controversy, in the Isle of Wight, with the Presbyterian Divines, very soundly remarks-(p. 6.) "setting aside men's conjectures, you cannot make it appear by any text of Scripture, that the office of an Evangelist is such as you have described it. The work of an Evangelist which St. Paul exhorteth Timothy to do, seems by the context (2 Tim. iv. 5.) to be nothing but diligence in preaching the word, notwithstanding all impediments and oppositions." To this the Presbyterian Divines only allege the various recorded travels of Timothy and Titus. But these travels were common to
them and the Apostles; and as much prove them to have held this latter office, as that of Evangelists.
MILNER (Vol. I. p. 56, 59) thinks that Philip, the Evangelist, resided in Cesarea twenty or thirty years, from the time he reached there after baptizing the Ethiopian, (Acts viii. 40.,) till Paul lodged at his house, as mentioned in Acts xxi. 8.
In fine: There is no scriptural proof that Evangelists, as such, were migratory or itinerant; nay, that sort proof favours the opposite opinion, that they did not travel merely in the fulfilment of their evangelizing function. And we therefore assert, that, so far as appears from the inspired record, Timothy might have "done the work of an Evangelist," without being in any sense a missionary Bishop, but exclusively a diocesan. We say this, only because it is due to truth and accuracy, not because our argument requires it. That Timothy was a proper Bishop we have proved in the essay; and it is of no consequence whether he exercised that office as a missionary, or a diocesan, or both. It is expedient, probably in the highest degree, that every Bishop, whatever extra duties he may perform as a missionary, be a diocesan or coadjutor; but this is not essential. În the first founding of Christianity, the apostolical or episcopal labours of almost every individual in the office were necessarily diffused widely. Yet the docile student of Scripture will not fail to remark, that it leaves Timothy in Ephesus, Titus in Crete, and the seven "angels" connected with their respective Churches; to which the case of James is to be added, in the Church of Jerusalem. (Acts xv. 13, 19., xxi. 18.) Thus much may be securely claimed, in addition to the revealed argument for episcopacy in itself, in favour of diocesan arrange