Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB
[ocr errors]

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) posacía 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 duorayeis fungentis ætati debita propria (sı 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, [ believe, an advocate for presbyterian parity but would readily grant, that whensoever and wheresoever the government of the

o Linus qua collegii sacri Senior prima cathedra donatus, fratrumque εsapxos, 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.

quem

q Quod (seniorem Presbyterum, qua talem ev posaoía successisse) alta mente repostum teneant velim, quotquot dum in veteres Ecclesiarum Primariarium, Romanæ, Antiochenæ, &c. tabulas incidunt in hunc unum successionis ordinem nunc usitatum vident; oculis defixis hærent, usque dum improvisis difficultatibus obruantur. Hæc enim una (și 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 confirmabimus, fundamenti loco sternant. Pref. p. 7.

VOL. II.--4

Church was episcopal, the ordinations were also episcopal." This I have proved by incontrovertible evidence to have been, in fact, the case in the third century, and now it is clearly and necessarily implied in the view we have taken of the epistles of Ignatius.

As Blondel has been introduced, it may be well for me to notice here a striking misrepresentation of what I said of his opinion, about the time when episcopacy was introduced. I said that Blondel acknowledges, that it was introduced as early as 140. You say, 'Blondel does not make such a concession as Dr. B. imputes to him." This is certainly flat contradiction; one of us, therefore, must be in a gross error. Let us see at whose door it lies.

1. Blondel declares that it was Jerome's opinion, that episcopacy was introduced (such episcopacy, no doubt, as prevailed in Jerome's day) "when every where, the people being mad, after the example of the Corinthians, began to divide and separate from one another, which," says he, "cannot be sufficiently proved to have been before the year 140." And, in his preface, he labours to prove that the change of government was made at Jerusalem, about the year 135 or 136; at Alexandria, about the year 143, and at Rome about the year 140."

2. Blondel frequently acknowledges that episcopacy was introduced in the second century. He says expressly, that episcopacy was introduced before Tertullian wrote his book about baptism, which he dates in the year 197."

2. The whole Provincial Assembly of London understand Blondel as I have stated him. In the appendix to the Jus Divinum Ministerii Anglicani, they ask this question-"How long was it that the Church of CHRIST was governed by the common council of Presbyters without a Bishop set over them?" To which they thus answer-" Dr. Blondel, a man of great learning and reading, undertakes, in a large discourse, to make out that before the year 140, there was not a Bishop set over Presbyters; to whose elaborate writings we refer the reader for farther satisfaction in this particular." This certainly implies what I have asserted; and besides, that the whole Provincial Council were of the same opinion.

Not being content with contradicting me, you also impose a sense upon Blondel, which makes him contradict himself. You say, that the import of the passage to which I refer is, that, about the year 140, according to the best light the author had been able to attain, one of the steps towards the establishment of prelacy was taken, which consisted in choosing standing

Continuation, Letter IX. p. 409. [p. 470, 2d ed.]

s On St. Paul's words "I am of Paul," &c. Blondel says-Id est, postquam alii passim Corinthiorum more dementati, in partes discerpti sunt-Quod ante annum 140 evenisse idonee vix quisquam probaverit.

1. Apology, p. 86, 92.

v Cyprianic Age, p. 89.

u Pref. p. 38, 39; and Apology, p. 3, 4.

moderators.w Now, Sir, this cannot be the sense of Blondel, (allowing him to write consistently) because he repeatedly acknowledges that there were standing moderators, or fixed presidents, with a peerless power, from the very beginning; and that the succession to this fixed presidency belonged to the oldest Presbyter, and this your own quotation in your third letter fully proves. It was not the fixed presidency that was introduced in the year 140, but it was the circumstance of the president's being elected instead of succeeding by seniority, that was then introduced, in the opinion of Blondel. Here lies your mistake, which a little more attention would, I presume, have entirely prevented, and, consequently, the not over polite observations you make upon my supposed misrepresentation.

I know, Sir, perfectly well, that Blondel did not mean by his fixed presidency to allow a difference of order. That would have been to write a book in favour of, instead of against episcopacy, and I am certainly not such a child as not to know the difference between for and against. I meant what the Provincial Council of London meant, viz. that about the year 140, a change from a primacy of order to a difference of order took place; and this certainly is episcopacy in the very height of the term. Let our readers now judge which of us is right.

I find, Sir, that you express a suspicion, that I have misrepresented Chamier and Salmasius also. As you do not assert it, I shall take no other notice of the hint to your readers, but refer you to the Cyprianic Age vindicated for full proof that those learned writers, and several others, concede the point, that episcopacy was introduced in the second century.

I also asserted, on the authority of Dr. Chandler, that Dr. Doddridge acknowledged the distinction of Bishop and Presbyter in the time of Ignatius, and that Baxter, as quoted by Hoadly, allowed that there were fixed Bishops in the time of St. John. And it is on these concessions from learned and candid Presbyterians that I introduced Chillingworth's demonstration, that it was morally impossible for so great a change to take place in so short a time.

- I shall now, Sir, sum up all that I have said with respect to the testimonies from Ignatius.

1. The superiority of the Bishop is proved from the repeated injunctions on the Laity, Deacons, and Presbyters to be obedient to him in all things relating to the spiritualities of the Church.

2. It is proved from Ignatius' declaration, that even the sacraments, when celebrated out of communion with the Bishop, or in opposition to him, are neither regular nor valid; because they are administered in schism, which is totally inconsistent with the law of CHRIST'S family, and with charity and brotherly love.

w Continuation, p. 409. [P. 470, 2d ed.]

3. The Bishop's superiority strikingly appears in all the epistles of Ignatius, from the circumstance of his being the fixed president of the Presbytery, which was always formed within his own diocese, and consisted of himself and his Presbyters, and was therefore totally different from a modern Presbytery. 4. The Bishop's superiority appears from his having the same authority out of the Presbytery that he had in it. It appears that, in fact, the Presbyters were the Bishop's counsellors; that they had no control over him, as he had over them; and that they could do nothing, as to the spiritualities of the Church, without his concurrence; he, therefore, had a negative upon all their proceedings.

Lastly; it appears from the epistles of this pious martyr, that the Bishop's superiority was not that of Pastor of a single congregation, and over lay Elders, but of a Pastor over a plurality of congregations, and over Priests; who, of consequence, preached and administered the holy sacraments.

These circumstances I detailed to a considerable extent in my first publication, but not so minutely as I have done at present; and all that I find you saying of any consequence, besides what I have already noticed, is, that 'Dr. B. supposes that Presbyterians consider the Bishop so often mentioned by Ignatius in no other light than as the moderator of some ecclesiastical assembly. Assuming this as our opinion, he attempts to pour ridicule upon it, by substituting the word moderator for Bishop, and endeavouring to show that the supposition is utterly inconsistent with the representation given of the duties of this officer. When a man does not comprehend the subject' (N. B.) 'which he attempts to ridicule, he is extremely apt to draw upon himself the laughter which he thought to turn against others. This is the unfortunate situation of Dr. B.' (Poor man! no doubt he has your pity.) He seizes upon a detached fragment of Presbyterian doctrine; and, imagining that he sees and understands the whole system,' (no easy matter) he thinks to involve that system in the absurdity which he makes to recoil upon his

[merged small][ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

You certainly recollect the answer you gave to the quotation from Tertullian. "The Bishop," says this writer, "is the high Priest." To this you reply, the high Priest may be the Moderator.' On this answer I grounded my ridicule. I showed that there is not a single trait of character in which they agreed; and that, therefore, the idea is perfectly ridiculous. Now, if Tertullian's high Priest, or Bishop, is a moderator, Ignatius' Bishop is a moderator. A moderator of what? Of a Church session? But a Church session is not a Presbytery on your own principles. The Bishop of Ignatius then, if you are right, was the moderator in an assembly of neighbouring Bishops, with a mixture of ruling Elders. But this will not do; for in the Pres

x Continuation, Letter V. p. 164. [P. 320, 2d ed.

« AnteriorContinuar »