Page images
PDF
EPUB

In part cotemporary with these authors, was the very learned Origen; who had good reason to kick against Episcopacy, if the beginning of it had been recent: for he was hardly used-indeed persecuted

by his bishop; and yet in his works, he speaks repeatedly of the legitimate government of bishops in the Church. One instance shall suffice. It is where he says"More is required of me" (being a presbyter)" than of a deacon: more of a deacon, than of a layman: but he who obtains the highest seat of the Church, shall render an account of the whole Church.”**

The above authors, or at least three of them, wrote at a period about as distant from the apostles, as the present from the settlement of Pennsylvania: and if there are abundant documents of the interval, in the one case, so were there in the other. What would be thought of a man of the present day, who, in a work attracting the notice of the world, and being himself of acknowledged learning and talents, should gravely express the opinion, that about one hundred years ago, the principal magistracy of the province of Pennsylvania was constitutionally, and in fact, not in a governour, but in a council; among the members of which there was a perfect parity? The difference to the present age, is the want of the most of the documents which would substantiate the errour of the position, on the subject of the Episcopacy: but this makes nothing as to the practicability of deceiving the publick, while the documents existed.

supposed not to be the fact-there is the insuperable objection to them, that they prove too much even that Clement, a presbyter of the great Church of Alexandria, knew not of a diocesan Episcopacy established in it in his day. But there is hardly any fact of ancient history, better established than this. And it is acknowledged by the ablest advocates of parity; who have referred the supposed invasions made on it to a period not long before.

* 11 Hom. on Jer.

That there is now a transition to the time of Eusebius, after passing over the decisive proofs from the early part of the third century to the early part of the fourth, is owing to the circumstance, that the said historian must have been possessed of the materials, not only of the intervening time, but also of the times before it.

There can be no making light of his testimony, consistently with any principles of historick certainty. His history is supposed to have been written soon after the council of Nice; which was within three hundred years of the beginning of the apostolick ministry. He is very particular in recording the Episcopal succession, in the sees of Jerusalem, Rome, Antioch and Alexandria. Now that this author should have attempted, and with success, to impose such barefaced falsehoods on the world, when there must have been innumerable documents testifying presbytery to have been the regimen of all those Churches, during above half the time within the compass of his history; seems one of the most extravagant suppositions which can be imagined. The remark is especially applicable to the Church of Jerusalem; within the vicinity of which Eusebius was born, and held his bishoprick of Cæsaria. He recites the names of about thirty bishops of the former Church, beginning with St. James, and ending within his own time; all which, had it been false, must have been notoriously so, in the country wherein the writer was a person of great eminence; as indeed he was throughout the Christian world. All the sees, of which he is here mentioned as giving an account, had been under the same civil jurisdiction, during the whole time spoken of; which would have exposed in all of them such a string of falsehoods, reported of any individual see. In short, according to any fair law of criticism, the name of Eusebius should be expunged from the list of credible historians-which none have hitherto had the hardihood to attempt-before

[ocr errors]

Episcopacy can be given up, as having subsisted from the beginning, to the time in which he wrote.

It is here thought not worth while, to cite authorities from succeeding times; because it may easily be believed, that they blindly copied from Eusebius; if it be first admitted, that without and even contrary to authorities, he passed his fabrications or his fancies on the world.

Fourth proposition: The Episcopacy, thus instituted, was not congregational, but diocesan.

Congregational Episcopacy, is either that of a pastor with lay elders; or that of one principal pastor, over others equal to him in the grade of ministry, and only subordinate to him in their respective relations to their flock.

The former of these schemes is proper to the stricter advocates of parity; who contend, that it remained in full force, until towards the close of the second century. The latter is comparatively of modern origin; and seems to have been brought in with the view, of reconciling the two theories of Episcopacy and presbytery. But although the two anti-episcopal opinions in contemplation rest on very different grounds; yet it is not uncommon to see them combined, in a manner which the more consistent advocates of strict parity vehemently disapprove of. Such a combining is here supposed to arise out of the difficulty of reconciling the mind fully to the sudden and general change, which the stricter theory supposes. The magnitude of the change, at whatever period it may have taken place, would be considerably lessened by the second hypothesis, if it were tenable.

The first named species of congregational Episcopacy, has been founded principally on where it is said "Let the elders who rule well be accounted worthy of double honour; especially they who labour in the word and doctrine."* This is construed to be evidence of lay-elders, associated with ordained elders in * 1 Tim. v. 17.

administering the discipline of the Church, but not in preaching and in the sacraments. Against this sense, the following objections occur.

First: There is not an instance in the New Testament, of such a use of the word translated presbyter or elder; unless it be in this particular text: to urge which, would be a presuming of the matter in question.

Secondly: There are several instances of the use of the said word, disproving such a construction of the text. The distinction made in the Church of Jerusalem of "the apostles, elders and brethren,"* clearly distinguishes the two former classes from the lay-body of Christians. St. Paul, in his instructions to the presbyters of the Church of Ephesus, exhorts them to "feed the Church of God:"+ doubtless meaning with the food of doctrine proper to a spiritual pastor; a character, which thus seems necessarily the same with that of presbyter or elder. In the very epistle containing the text under consideration, in which it is agreed on both sides that the terms "bishop" and "elder" are applied to the same persons, it is said-" A bishop," and of course "an elder" must be " apt to teach:" which would have been irrelative to those, had there been such, who were set apart not to teach, but to govern. So in the epistle to Titus-" A bishop"of course-"an elder"—must be "able by sound doctrine, to exhort, and to convince the gainsayers." But this, according to the theory, is out of the department of the persons in question; and therefore the apostle did not know them, as a portion of the body of elders. St. Peter says "The elders I exhort, who am also an elder *** feed the flock of God which is among you, taking the oversight thereof:" He certainly could have known no elders, to whom both these branches of the ministry were not committed. It is said in the epistle to the Hebrews-" Obey them which have the rule over you, who have spoken to you the word of God:"||

Acts xv. 23. † Acts xx. 28.. xiii. 7.

ți. 9.

SI v. 1..

Or, according to a stricter translation--." Remember your rulers, who have spoken &c." Here are ruling, but not distinct from preaching elders: whether the passage relate to the then ministers of the Church of Jerusalem; or, as is here believed, it be a call on the people to an affectionate and profitable recollection of former pastors; who had reached "the end of their conversation," and were in possession of the reward.*

Thirdly: Neither the Greek word translated "elder" in the New Testament, nor the Latin word answering to it, are ever found applied to a layman in any of the ancient writings of the Church. In the fourth century, there come under notice a class of persons known by the name of the seniors of the people: but they were the more considerable of the laity; whose concurrence was sought by the ministry, instead of that more general concurrence, which the clergy of earlier times aimed to carry along with them in the concerns of the respective dioceses. The habits of thinking did not in those days, as at present, take the track of representation: and therefore, when the Church of a diocese became too numerous for the transacting of its business collectively, there arose those seniors of the people, of the manner and the conditions of whose selection no documents remain. Still, they were a different description of persons, from those spoken of in the text: for

Griesbach, in his edition of the Greek Testament, makes a full stop after the words cited, and then follows, as a distinct sentence-"Jesus Christ is the same yesterday today, and for ever." According to the view here taken of the passage, there is insinuated the idea, that the Saviour, who had been preached by pastors no longer living, was still the same in his doctrine and in his offices; which was very pertinent to the circumstances of a people, to whom the apostle had found occasion to say, v. 12-" Ye have need that one teach you again, which be the first principles of the oracles of God." Perhaps in the text in question, there was designed to be an intimation to the pastors then living, that they were not as faithful as their predecessors had been.

« PreviousContinue »