Page images
PDF
EPUB

was elected by the people, of their own accord, by acclamation: Martin of Tours, A. D. 375: Chrysostom at Constantinople, A. D. 398. But there is no need to multiply proofs. Even Slater admits (p. 77) and uses the fact in argument, that "all the brethren met together in the Church to choose a Bishop, in the 4th, 5th, and 6th centuries."

The accurate historian Mosheim thus states the conclusion to which his own mind came after a most thorough investigation. "In these primitive times, *** the highest authority was in the people, or the whole body of Christians; for even the Apostles themselves inculcated by their example, that nothing of moment was to be done or determined but with the knowledge and consent of the brotherhood." ****« The people did everything that is proper for those in whom the supreme power of the community is vested."*

Neander, the most distinguished ecclesiastical historian of the present day, says, " Each individual Church which had a Bishop or Presbyter of its own, assumed to itself the form and rights of a little distinct republic or commonwealth; and with regard to its internal concerns, was wholly regulated by a code of laws, that, if they did not originate with, had at least received the sanction of the people constituting such Church.t"

"Power is

I need not pursue this part of the subject further. always stealing from the many to the few." Favors granted to the ministers of metropolitan and other important towns, were soon demanded as inherent prerogatives. Step by step, corruption and despotism crept stealthily on. Moderators and ministers of large towns grew into Prelates-into archbishops, patriarchs; till the apex was at length crowned by a Pope.

We see what principles are worth. The lessons drawn from the history of our fathers are corroborated by the history of more ancient times: both show the importance of the principles for which our fathers stood.

Once more we are invited to enter the path of Prelacy, and of the incipient corruptions of the Man of Sin. The beggarly elements of ancient despotism and superstition are again stalking forth, and striving, with "high swelling words," with lordly claims, and contemptuous abuse of all who refuse to receive their yoke, to make their way once more to the empire of the world. It is not to be disguised that the battle of the Reformation is once more to be fought with those who once gloried in the style of Protestant, but who are now beginning to be weary of the

name.

* In Punchard.

↑ In Coleman.

XXIV.

OFFICERS OF THE CHURCH.

Extraordinary functions. Men called to a special work. Evangelists. Deacons. Bishops. Presbyters, or Pastors. Singular error of the Prayer-Book. Apostles; their office; requisite endowments.

WE read, Eph. iv. 11, that "Christ gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers; for the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ."

In 1 Cor. xii. 28, that "God hath set some in the Church; first, apostles; secondarily, prophets; thirdly teachers; after that miracles; then gifts of healings, helps, governments, diversities of tongues."

Here are men discharging some eight sorts of functions; none pretend these are eight orders of permanent officers in the Church. Some of these powers were adapted to the special and miraculous establishment of the Gospel. "Diversities of tongues," "gifts of healings," "miracles;" there were none to discharge these functions after the Apostolic age. These may therefore be dismissed from our present inquiry.

Evangelists, as such, are men specially called to a special work; but nowhere recognized as officers attached to any church. They were men sent to preach where Churches were not formed; or sent to complete the organization and arrangement of Churches where anything was wanting. Thus Philip, originally a deacon, afterwards styled Philip the Evangelist, is found in the capacity of Evangelist attached to no Church, but preaching and baptizing in unevangelized places (Acts xxi. 8). Thus Timothy, 2 Tim. iv. 5, is exhorted to "do the work of an evangelist." His work is on all hands agreed to be the same with that of Titus, who was left in Crete, that he might "set in order the things that were wanting, and ordain elders in every city:" the churches being not as yet fully organized.

As Timothy was called to do the work of an Evangelist, it is plain that he was not regarded as an Apostle; since Paul makes the two offices distinct: "some Apostles, some prophets, some

Evangelists." If Timothy had been regarded as an Apostle, it would have been said to him, " Do the work of an Apostle."

The officers recognized by the Epistles as permanently attached to the several Churches, are BISHOPS and DEACONS, the Bishops being also styled Elders [Presbyters], and Pastors. Thus, Paul writes "To all the saints in Christ Jesus which are at Philippi, with the BISHOPS and DEACONS." Had there been a third, fourth, or fifth order of officers attached to the Church, he would not have passed them by. So in 1 Tim. iii. he sets down the qualifications requisite for the officers of the several Churches; and specifies only two sorts, Bishops and Deacons. He makes no allusion to the existence of any other.

In 1 Tim. v. 17, Paul says, "Let the elders that rule well be counted worthy of double honor, especially they who labor in word and doctrine." From this many infer that there were elders who rule, but who do not labor in word and doctrine; i. e. RULING ELDERS. In this conclusion the early Churches of New England agreed with the Presbyterians; but they attributed to the ruling elders different functions; such as are not inconsistent with retaining the power of discipline in the body of the Church. In their polity, the ruling elder was a sort of select-man to look after the affairs of Church rule and discipline, and to present them in due form for the adjudication of the Church.

In addition to these officers, Episcopacy maintains that their DIOCESAN BISHOPS are official successors of the Apostles; and in reality Apostles; only having, for modesty's sake, assumed the name Bishop; which was, in the days of the original Apostles, exclusively appropriated to the second order-the elders, presbyters, or pastors. These claims of Diocesan Bishops we entirely deny; maintaining the office of Diocesan Bishops to be an entire corruption and usurpation, and one fraught with immense mischief to the Church of God. The reasons we shall give in the proper place. In the meantime, let us look more particularly at the unquestionably permanent officers of every Church.

1. DEACONS.

These were appointed, Acts vi., for the special purpose of attending to the ordinary secular affairs of the Church; and for the very reason that the Apostles might give themselves "continually to prayer, and to the ministry of the word." The conclusion is inevitable, that the deacon's work is not to preach. The office is permanent. There are deacons attached permanently to each particular Church; and those Churches have other officers to act as pastors and teachers.

In all these respects, Prelacy, according to her usual custom, sets herself to alter and subvert the arrangements set down in

the Word of God; she attaches the deacon permanently to no Church; she makes him a preacher, and sends him wandering abroad.

It is no justification of this course to allege, that Philip preached and baptized; that was not the work for which he was appointed a deacon; when he preached and baptized, the sacred record expressly styles him an Evangelist.

2. BISHOPS OR PASTORS.

That these were "Elders who labor in word and doctrine," all agree. Among the requisite qualifications set down for the office are these (1 Tim. iii.): He must be "blameless," "vigilant," " ," "sober," "of good behavior," "given to hospitality," "apt to teach," "one that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity. For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the Church of God?" Moreover he must be one "Holding fast the faithful word, that he may be able by sound doctrine both to exhort, and to convince gainsayers" (Tit. i. 9).

The requisite qualifications point out the duties of the Bishop, Pastor, or Elder; for these terms are indiscriminately applied to the same office and person. As an office bearer, he is styled ELDER; as charged with rule, he is called Bishop (overseer, superintendent); as charged both with oversight and instruction, he is styled Pastor. These terms are in the New Testament indiscriminately applied to the same person and office. Thus, 1 Peter i. 1-4, to the Churches "throughout" the several provinces of Asia Minor: "The elders which are among you, I exhort, who am also an elder, and a witness of the sufferings of Christ. Feed the flock of God which is among you, taking the oversight thereof." The elders (presbyters) he exhorts to feed the flock (original ouvi-to do the work of a shepherd or pastor); taking the oversight (εлiσxолоννтεs-doing the work of bishop). The Elder, then, is the same as Pastor, or Bishop, throughout all the Churches of Asia Minor. Dr. Scott makes the following just remark on the passage: "This must be allowed decisive testimony that no express distinction between presbyters and bishop was, at the time the Apostle wrote, established in the Church."

Again (Acts xx.), Paul being at Miletus, sends for the Elders (Presbyters) of the Church at Ephesus, and says to them; "take heed therefore unto all the flock over which the Holy Ghost has made you overseers" (εлiσxопoνs-Bishops); to feed the flock of God (o-to do the work of shepherd, or Pastor). The two Apostles, Peter and Paul, entirely agree in making the Bishop, the Presbyter, the Pastor, ONE AND THE SAME

OFFICE, IN ONE AND THE SAME PERSON.

Again Paul (Titus i. 5) says" and ordain elders (Presbyters) in every city." Describing their qualifications, he says, "For a Bishop must be blameless;"-the Bishop and the Presbyter are one and the same.

Now that word Bishop, so regularly interchanged with the word Presbyter, is in no instance interchanged with the word Apostle in the New Testament. It was never, in a solitary instance, used by the Apostles or their contemporaries, to dignify a Diocesan Bishop, or an officer, distinct from, and above, a Presbyter. THE BIBLE BISHOP, IS UNIFORMLY THE pastor, or one OF THE PASTORS, OF A CONGREGATION; never is the name Bishop given to a Diocesan, or an Apostle, either by the Apostles, or in the Apostolic age. It is absolutely certain, that for a hundred years after Christ, the name Bishop, whether used by Apostles or Fathers, signified the Pastor of a Church; never a persou holding a degree above that office.

And yet, I apprehend, that till quite recently, the mass of the common people, who have entertained Episcopal views, have rested upon the name Bishop, in the New Testament. Till recently the mass of Episcopalians have not dreamed that their Diocesans were not Bible Bishops, but veritable Apostles. The views of their learned men were confused and contradictory. The learned Dr. Hammond maintained that all who bore the title of Bishops or Presbyters in the New Testament, were Prelates; and that none of the second order were ordained during the Apostolic history. Dodwell on the other hand maintained, that Bible Bishops were simple Presbyters; and that no Prelates were ordained till in the second century. Owen observed, two centuries ago, that "the most learned advocates of Prelacy begin to grant, that in the whole New Testament, Bishops and Presbyters and Elders are every way the same persons in the same of fice," (vol. xx., p. 394). At the present day, all well-informed Episcopalians fully admit this to be true. Thus Bishop Onderdonk, in his work on Episcopacy, says (p. 12), " It is proper to advert to the fact, that the name Bishop, which now designates the highest grade of the ministry, is not appropriated to that office in the Scripture. That name is there given to the middle order, or Presbyters; and all that we read in the New Testament concerning Bishops (including, of course the words "Overseers," and "oversight" which have the same derivation), is to be regarded as pertaining to the middle grade. It was after the Apostolic age that the name Bishop was taken from the second order, and appropriated to the first, and when we

find in the New Testament the name Bishop, we must regard it as meaning the Bishop of a parish, or a Presbyter. The Bishop of a diocese, or the highest grade of the ministry, we must seek

« PreviousContinue »