Page images
PDF
EPUB

every church." Now, as it will not be pretended by Episcopalians, that Timothy was not an "apostle," and as it is undeniable, that he was at that time at Corinth, the argument will as well apply to set aside his right to administer discipline in the case, as that of the elders. Borrowing, then, the words of the Answer, we would say: "Yet without noticing" this apostle "in the matter, so far as the epistles show, though" he was "doubtless noticed and consulted, as much as courtesy and his" apostolical "standing made proper; without putting the matter into" his " hands, or even passing it through" his " hands, Paul threatens, inflicts, and remits discipline. This is a 'ministerial' act. And Paul's doing it himself, instead of committing it to" Timothy, " shows, that he, an apostle, was superior to" him " in ministerial power and rights." Now no Episcopalian will fail to be at once deeply impressed with the fallacy of this reasoning, in regard to the "apostle" and "bishop" Timothy. And yet, it is manifestly just as pertinent and forcible in his case, as it is is for the purpose of the Answer in regard to the elders of Corinth. It cannot be pretended, that a difference existed, because the " elders" were permanently located there, and Timothy not; for the argument of the "Tract" and the "Answer" is, that the apostles were superior, as apostles, and therefore it made no difference on this point, whether they were at Corinth, or at Crete, or at Antioch; they were invested with the apostolic office every where. Our conclusion from this instance, and from the fact which we have now stated, is, that there was some peculiarity in the case at Corinth, which rendered the ordinary exercise of discipline by presbyters difficult; which operated equally against any interference by Timothy; and which called peculiarly for the interposition of the founder of the church, and of an inspired apostle, for one clothed with authority to inflict a heavy judgment, here denominated "delivering unto Satan for the destruction of the flesh," (1 Cor. v. 5.) -a power which could be exercised by none then in Corinth. Our next inquiry is, whether there are any reasons for this opinion? The following we believe satisfactory :

(1.) Paul had founded that church, (Acts xviii. 1-11.) and his interference in cases of discipline, would be regarded as peculiarly proper. There would be a natural and obvious deference to the founder of the church, which would render such an interposition in the highest degree appropriate. We are confirmed in this view, because he puts his authority in this very case on such a fact, and on the deference which was due to him as their spiritual father. 1 Cor. iv. 15. "For though ye have ten thousand instructors in Christ, yet have ye not many FATHERS; for in Christ Jesus I have begotten you through the gospel."

(2.) The circumstances of the church at Corinth were such, evidently, as to render the ordinary exercise of discipline, by their VOL. VII.

7

1

own elders, impossible. They were distracted; were rent into parties; were engaged in violent contention; and the authority, therefore, of one portion of the "teachers," and "instructors," would be disregarded by the other. Thus no united sentence could be agreed upon; and no judgment of a party could restore peace. An attempt to exercise discipline, would only enkindle party animosity, and produce strife. See Chap. i. 11-17. So great, evidently, was the contention, and so hopeless the task of allaying it by any ordinary means, that even Timothy, whom Paul had sent for the express purpose of bringing them into remembrance of his ways, (1 Cor. iv. 17.) could have no hope, by his own interference, of allaying it. It was natural, that it should be referred to the founder of the church, and to one who had the power of punishing the offender.

(3.) It is material to remark, that this was not an ordinary case of discipline. It was one, that required the severest exercise of authority, and in a form which was lodged only with those intrusted with the power of inflicting disease, or, as it is termed, "of delivering to satan for the destruction of the flesh." 1 Cor. v. 5. Such cases would inevitably devolve upon the apostles, as clothed with miraculous power; and such, beyond all controversy, was this case. It therefore proves nothing about the ordinary mode of administering discipline. This case had reached to such a degree of enormity; it had been suffered to remain so long; it had become so aggravated, that it was necessary to interpose in this awful manner, and to decide it. Yet,

(4.) The apostle supposes, that they ought to have exercised the usual discipline themselves. This is evident, we think, from a comparison of the following passages: 1 Cor. v. 9, 10, 11, 12, with v. 2. In these verses it is supposed, that they did themselves usually exercise discipline. Paul (ver. 9.) gave them the general direction, not to keep company with fornicators; that is, to exercise discipline on those who did. In ver. 11, he asks them, in a manner shewing that the affirmative answer to the question expressed their usual practice, whether they did not "judge those that were within?" that is, whether they did not ordinarily exercise discipline in the church? And in ver. 2, he supposes, that it ought to have been done in this case; and as it had not been done by them, and the affair had assumed special enormity, he exercised the miraculous power intrusted to him, by inflicting on the offender a grievous disease. (ver. 4, 5; comp. 1 Cor. xi. 30.)

(5.) It is evident that other churches did, in ordinary cases, exercise discipline without the intervention of an apostle. Thus, the church in Thessalonica, where Episcopacy, with all its zeal, has never been able even to conjecture, that there was a diocesan bishop, was directed to exercise discipline, in any instance where the command of the inspired apostle was not obeyed. (2 Thess. iii. 14.) We shall soon make this point incontestible.

(6.) The circumstances of the early churches were such, as to make this apostolic intervention proper, and even indispensable, without supposing, that it was to be a permanent arrangement. They were ignorant and feeble. They had had little opportunity of learning the nature of christianity. In most cases, their founders were with them but a few weeks, and then left them under the care of elders ordained from among themselves. (Comp. Acts xiii, xiv. et passim.) Those elders would be poorly qualified to discharge the functions of their office; and they would be but little elevated, in character and learning, above the mass of the people. The churches must be imperfectly organized; unaccustomed to rigid discipline; exposed to many temptations; easily drawn into sin; and subject to great agitation and excitement. Even a great many subjects which may now be considered as settled, in morals and religion, would appear to them open for debate; and parties, as at Corinth, would easily be formed. (Comp. Acts xiv. xv; Rom. xiv. 1 Cor. viii.) In these circumstances, how natural was it for these churches to look for direction to the inspired men, who had founded them? and how natural, that such persons should interpose and settle important and difficult cases of discipline? And after these obvious considerations, are we to suppose, that the fact, that the apostle Paul, in two cases, and two such cases only are recorded, exercised an extraordinary act of discipline, is to be regarded as proof, that this power appertained only to the apostolic office, and was to be a permament arrangenent in the church? We confess our 'amazement,' that but two cases of apostolic interference are mentioned, during the long and active life of Paul; and we regard this as some evidence, that the churches were expected to exercise discipline, and actually did so, on their own members.

(7.) We are confirmed in our views on this point, from what is known to take place in organizing churches in heathen countries at the present day. Since we commenced this article, we were conversing with one of the American missionaries, stationed at Ceylon. In the course of the conversation, he incidentally remarked, that the missionaries were obliged to retain the exercise of discipline in their own hands; and that, although the mission had been established more than fifteen years, yet the exercise of discipline had never been intrusted to the native converts. He farther observed, that the missionaries had been endeavoring to find persons, to whom they could intrust the discipline of the church, as elders, but that as yet they had not found one. The native con

Rev. Mr. Winslow.

verts were still ignorant of the laws of christianity; they had so little influence in the church; they were so partial to each other, even when in fault; that thus far, discipline,-though somewhat frequent acts of discipline were necessary, was retained in the hands of the missionaries. Substantially the same thing must have occurred in the early churches in Asia Minor, in Syria, and Greece. Will Dr. Onderdonk infer, that because Mr. Winslow, Mr. Poor, and Dr. Scudder, in Ceylon, have found it necessary to retain the power of administering discipline, that therefore they are diocesan bishops, and that they do not contemplate, that the churches in Ceylon shall be other than prelatical? If not, his argument in the case of the church in Corinth can be allowed no weight.

We have now done with this instance of discipline. We have shown, that all the circumstances of the case can be accounted for, without any such conclusion, as that to which the author of the Tract is desirous to conduct it. We turn, therefore, to his other case of discipline, in the church at Ephesus.

The case is thus stated in 1 Tim. i. 20: "Of whom is Hymeneus and Alexander; whom I have delivered unto satan, that they may learn not to blaspheme." His argument is, that " it is the apostle who inflicts the discipline; the elders do not appear in the matter. And discipline is a ministerial function, and excommunication its highest exercise." (Answer, p. 13.) In reply to this case, we make the following observations.

(1.) It occurs in a charge to Timothy, - Timothy, on the supposition of Episcopalians, an apostle co-ordinate with Paul himself; Timothy, prelate of Ephesus. If Timothy was an apostle, and diocesan bishop, and if the exercise of discipline pertained to an apostle and bishop, why did Paul take the matter into his own hands? Why not refer it to Timothy, and repose sufficient confidence in him to believe, that he was competent to fulfill this part of his Episcopal office? Would it now be regarded as courteous, for the bishop of Ohio to interpose and inflict an act of discipline on some Hymeneus or Alexander, of the diocese of Pennsylvania? And would there be as cordial submission of the bishop of Pennsylvania, as there was of the bishop of Ephesus? If Timothy was at Ephesus, and if the case of discipline occurred at the time which Dr. O. supposes, this case appears, to our humble apprehension, very much as if Paul regarded Timothy as neither an apostle nor a prelate.

(2.) If the exercise of the authority in this case of discipline by Paul, proves, that the presbyters at Ephesus had no right to administer discipline; for the same reason it proves, that Timothy had not that right. By the supposition of Episcopalians, Timothy was there, as well as the presbyters. The assumption of the authority by Paul, proves as much, that it did not belong to Timothy, as that it did not belong to the presbyters.

(3.) This was a case such as occurred at Corinth. It was not an ordinary act of discipline; it was one, which supposed the infliction of the judgment of God by a miraculous agency. "Whom I have delivered unto satan, that they may learn not to blaspheme." Compare this account with the record of the case in Corinth, (1 Cor. v. 5.) and it is evident, that this was not an ordinary act of discipline, but was such as implied the direct infliction of the judgment of the Almighty. That such inflictions were intrusted to the hands of the apostles, we admit; and that Paul, not Timothy, inflicted this, proves, that the latter was neither an apostle nor a prelate.

(4.) Dr. Onderdonk supposes, that this occurred at Ephesus, and while Timothy was there. But what evidence is there of this? It is neither affirmed, that the transaction was at Ephesus, nor that Timothy was there. His argument proceeds on the assumption, that Timothy was bishop there when this epistle was written, and that the case of discipline occurred there. And the proof of this would probably be, the subscription at the end of the second epistle, and the "tradition of the elders." But that subscription has no authority; and it is not to be assumed, but proved, that Timothy was there in the capacity of a prelate, or there at all, when this epistle was written to him. The demonstration, that a bishop only exercised discipline, it must be admitted, rests on slender grounds, if this be all.

(5.) But if this case did occur at Ephesus, what evidence is there, that it occurred at the time that bishop Onderdonk supposes ? The account in the epistle to Timothy, by no means fixes the time of the transaction. "Whom I have delivered (παρέδωκα) unto satan," etc. It was already done; and the presumption is, that it was done when Paul was himself present with them. It is morally certain, that it was not an act of discipline, that was then to be done.

Our readers have now the whole case before them. Episcopacy affirms, that prelates only have the power of administering discipline. It affirms, that the churches are prohibited from exercising it on their own members; that those appointed to preach the gospel, to administer the sacraments, and to be pastors of the flock, and who may therefore be supposed to understand the cases of discipline, and best qualified to administer it, have no right to exercise this act of government over their own members; but that this exclusive prerogative belongs to a stranger, and a foreigner, a prelatical bishop, whom the churches seldom see, and who must be, in a great degree, unacquainted with their peculiar wants and character. All power of discipline, in an entire diocese of some hundreds of churches, is to be taken away from the members

« PreviousContinue »