صور الصفحة
PDF
النشر الإلكتروني

It will not be denied by any one who is acquainted with the sacred scriptures, that the Jewish dispensation, although not in all its minute points, yet certainly in its outlines, was typical of the Christian. In the one, the other was completely adumbrated. And were not the orders of the Levitical Priesthood--was not the form of Ecclesiastical government established by Moses, a very important part of the old dispensation? Is it not probable that by the orders of the Jewish Priesthood were adumbrated corresponding orders in the Christian Church?

But we are told "that the whole Jewish dispensation was typical, and was completely fulfilled and abolished at the coming of Christ." This is partly true. But was the substance also abolished with the shadow? Can it be supposed that Christ did not intend to perpetuate the Priesthood? And if he did intend to institute a Priesthood, why should not the law in this instance, as well as in every other, be a "shadow of the good things to come?" Under the old dispensation, by various types, the new one was prefigured. Christ himself was adumbrated by unnumbered figures. So also was his Church. So also were many institutions of his Church. And why should not this be the case with his institution of Ecclesiastical government? Why should not the orders of the Priesthood under the old economy be supposed to typify those orders that were to be established under the new? Besides, the fact is, that the Christian dispensation was not so much the abolition, as it was the fulfilment of the Jewish. Christ came, not to destroy, but to fulfil the law and the prophets.

It is true, that in many respects God accommodated himself as a merciful and wise Legislator, to the peculiar circumstances of the Jewish nation, and thereby rendered the law a school-master, that prepared them, by its instructions, for the coming of Christ. But all the fundamental principles of the systems he pursued towards the Jewish and Christian people, were precisely the same. From these great principles there was no necessity that he should stoop, in order to suit himself to the sentiments, the manners, and prejudices of his people. The revelations which he communicated to Jews and Christians, in relation to his own nature and attributes, in relation to the origin, the fail, the restoration, the present condition, and the everlasting destiny of the human race, were precisely the same. The moral laws, which he promulgated to the one people, and the other, were, with a very few modifications, the

same.

So also the form of ecclesiastical government was, with very little alteration, the same amongst Jewish and Christian people. There can be conceived to be no necessity on this point for a radical change—a total abolition. The form of Church government established by Moses, was as much the appointment and institution of God, as that which was established by Christ himself. Why then should God be supposed to have abolished his own institution, where no imperious necessity, as in the case of the rites and ceremonies, and peculiar usages of the Jewish Church, seemed to require it, before he could usher in the new dispensation? It is true, indeed, we possess not the Jewish form of Church government. We possess one, however, which is the consummation of the Jewish--a govern

ment of which the Jewish was an imperfect image. We possess 2 Priesthood more glorious than the Levitical, inasmuch as it ministers under a more glorious dispensation-inasmuch as it performs purer and more exalted offices-inasmuch as in its nature and offices, it is the glorious substance which was only faintly shadowed out under the law.

We think, therefore, that we stand on substantial ground when we maintain that we derive a strong argument in demonstration of the divine origin of our form of Church government, by showing that on this point the new dispensation is made to correspond with the old; is made the true substance of which the old was the shadow. What the High Priests, the Priests, and the Levites were in the temple, such are the Bishops, the Presbyters and Deacons in the Church of Christ. This is the uniform language of the Fathers. This is the conclusion to which the data afforded us by the Apostles inevitably lead.

Such was the model of Church government instituted by God himself, and intended to be transmitted through all ages, with modifications that should vary, no doubt, according to the varying circumstances of mankind; provided these modifications affected not its great and cardinal principles. We say that the Jewish Priesthood was the image of the Christian. We say that it is sound reasoning to deduce the probable form of the substance from the lineaments of it that may be traced in its image.

Nor will our mode of reasoning tend in the smallest degree to favour the pretensions, or sanction the usurpations of the Pope of Rome. Let it be remembered, that wherever there is a Bishop, Presbyters, Deacons, and a people, there we believe also is the Church of Christ. It is a matter of no importance whether his jurisdiction be extended over a smaller or a greater territory. A Bishop, says St. Jerome, has the same authority whether he be placed over the diocese of Eugubium or of Rome; of Rhegium or Constantinople.

Nor does it diminish the force of that evidence which we derive in support of our cause, from the similitude between the Jewish and our Priesthood, from the one being typical of the other, that the analogy cannot be traced through every minute point. As well might the infidel attempt to prove that none of the types which are considered by believers as having a reference to our Saviour, can properly be applied to him. Not one of them will apply to him in every particular. As to the remaining observations made on this head by the "author of Miscellanies," I make no remarks upon them. I leave it to his readers to determine whether they do any credit to his understanding or his feelings.

These are the arguments which we derive from Scripture, in proof of the Apostolic origin of our form of Church government. We trust they are satisfactory to every unprejudiced mind.

And what are the considerations by which the advocates of parity endeavour to evade the force of this strong and accumulated evi, dence? By a few expressions of scripture, almost too inconsiderable to merit a moment's examination. From the promiscuous use of the terms Bishop and Presbyter in the sacred scripture-from its being mentioned in one place, that Timothy was ordained" with

the laying on of the hands of the Presbytery"-from the transaction that took place between Paul and Barnabas, and the men of Antioch-from such considerations as these, do they endeavour to counteract the evidence which we derive from the most clear and undoubted facts. After what has been already advanced on these points, it is altogether unnecessary that I should dwell upon them. The argument which the advocates of parity once attempted to draw from the promiscuous use of the terms Bishop and Presbyter, is, I believe, at this time generally relinquished. It is too feeble to merit a serious reply.

With regard to the passage in which St. Paul exhorts Timothy "to stir up the gift which was in him, which was given him by prophecy, with the laying on of the hands of the Presbytery;" I wish to be indulged only in a few remarks. There can be no doubt that when St. Paul speaks of the gift which was imparted to him by the laying on of his hands, it refers to the same transaction. St. Paul then, at any rate, was himself present at the ordination of Timothy. This is all that is necessary to every purpose which we wish to accomplish. This passage does not show that Presbyter's alone ever possessed the power of ordination. St. Paul was, in this instance, obviously associated with them.

But the author of "Miscellanies,” before he enters on this part of his subject, offers up a petition, which certainly merits our very serious attention. He prays that the same spirit which indited the word may also direct him in the interpretation of it. If he will avow that his petition was granted, that the spirit for which he offered up his solemn petition was dispensed to him, surely it would be rashness, it would be presumption in us to proceed a step further. Who shall dare make one inspired penman contradict or even misunderstand another? Nevertheless, since after the interpretation he hath given to the phrase "by prophecy," there seems to be no internal evidence of his having really received this super natural power, and since he hath not as yet afforded us any external proof on which to found pretensions of this kind, we hope we shall be excused for our infidelity, when we reject, as unworthy of credit, the whole of what he has advanced on this part of the subject. It is altogether unsupported by any proof. This has been amply de monstrated in the answer he hath already received. It would be to impose on the patience of the public, should I attempt to enter a field which has been so thoroughly explored.

The sect of Presbyterians can derive no advantage, then, to their cause from that passage of St. Paul's Epistle already illustrated; nor will they be any more profited by the transaction which took place between Paul and Barnabas, and the people of Antioch. Let them prove to us, that this was a real ordination, and not a mere benediction, a ceremony very common in the Jewish Church; let them show us that the Apostles did not always esteem it as their peculiar privilege to have received their consecration to their office Immediately from the hands of Christ himself, and that this is not the only way in which they were ordained; let them show us that St. Paul had not been already ordained by Christ whilst on his way to Damascus persecuting his Church; in short, let them show us that this was not altogether an extraordinary affair, and therefore,

R

not tending to establish a precedent by which to regulate the future practice of the Church; let them prove these things, and then we will admit that this fact gives some countenance to Presbyterian principles. Let their Ministers prove to us that the Holy Ghost hath ever said to their congregations as it did to the people of Antioch, Separate me such men for the Ministry, mentioning their names, and we will no longer question their jus divinum-we will no longer require even their ruling Elders to give validity to the work of their ordination.

Such is the abundant proof which the Scriptures afford us in favour of Episcopacy.

Such are the feeble attempts that have been made to invalidate them. CYPRIAN.

For the Albany Centinel.
MISCELLANIES. No. XXI.

It may be expected that the sentiments of Bishop White, of

Pennsylvania, will have greater weight with Episcopalians than any thing which could be written by myself. He wrote at a time critical to the Episcopal Churches, has accurately examined the subject, and prudently accommodated himself to the prejudices of many of those for whom he wrote. His station in the Church and his character, alone entitle him to respect and attention. In stating “the grounds on which the authority of Episcopacy is asserted," he differs widely from those late writings which have given such just cause of offence. "That the Apostles," says he, "were succeeded by an order of Ministers superior to Pastors in general, Episcopalians think they prove by the testimonies of the ancient Fathers, and from the improbability that so great an innovation, as some conceive it, could have found general and peaceable possession in the second or third century, when Episcopacy is on both sides acknowledged to have been prevalent." The use here of the words think, and as some conceive it, plainly enough intimate the Bishop's own opinion. The author of "A Companion for the Festivals," &c. not only thinks, but is sure, and will allow nobody else so much as to think, except those who show "ignorance, invincible prejudices, imperfect reasonings, and mistaken judgments." Bishop White proceeds to reason as follows:

*

* The words " as some conceive it" evidently apply to the opponents of Episcopacy. Ed.

66

Does not the Miscellaneous author believe in the doctrine of the Trinity, in the necessity of Baptism and the Lord's Supper? Does he not believe that those who reject them are imperfect" in their "reasonings," "mistaken" in their judgements? What excuse will he make for them but that their "ignorance" is unavoidable," their "error involuntary," or their "prejudices invincible?" Now may not the Quaker and the Socinian urge against the author of Miscellanies, the same charges of arrogance, of bigotry, and intolerance which he so frequently and charitably applies to the author of the "Companion for the Festivals," &c?

In regard to the different style of this book, and of the pamphlet, it may

"That the Apostles adopted any particular form, affords a presumption of its being the best, all circumstances at that time considered; but to make it unalterably binding, it must be shown enjoined in positive precept.* Bishop Hoadly clearly points out this distinction in his answer to Dr. Calamy. The latter having considered it as the sense of the Church, in the preface to the Ordinal, that the three orders were of Divine appointment, and urged it as a reason for non-conformity; the Bishop, with evident propriety, remarks, that the service pronounces no such thing; and that, therefore, Dr. Calamy created a difficulty where the Church had made none; there being "some difference," says he, " between these two sentences Bishops, Priests, and Deacons, are three distinct orders in the Church, by Divine appointment; and from the Apostles' time, there have been in Christ's Church, Bishops, Priests, and Deacons. The same distinction is accurately drawn, and fully proved by Stillingfleet, in the Irenicum.

"Now, if the form of Church government rests on no other

be proper to mention that their object was different. The design of the one was the elucidation and defence of the principles of the Church; the design of the other was to conciliate and to reconcile opposite opinions and prejudices, and to unite all parties in a plan which the author recom mended for the government of the Church, till the succession could be obtained. As the author of that pamphlet himself observes, in his first letter, in the subsequent pages, under the signature of an Episcopalian, “the statement of the Episcopalian opinion is introduced" (in his pamphlet) "not in an argumentative manner, but in reference to an object very different from that of the comparative merits of Episcopacy and Presbytery. To the purpose of the author of the pamphlet, it was sufficient that Episcopalians "thought" as he defines; whether they thought rightly or not on the question between them and the anti-Episcopalians." How uncandid then is the author of Miscellanies in the remarks which he makes concerning the author of the " Companion for the Festivals," &c.

Ed.

* See the last paragraph of the remarks at the end of this number. Ed. † Dr. Calamy appears to have understood the preface to the ordinal according to its natural and obvious meaning. The entire sentence, part of which only is quoted in the above passage, reads thus: "It is evident unto all men diligently reading Holy Scripture and ancient authors, that from the Apostles' times there have been these orders of Ministers in Christ's Church, Bishops, Priests, and Deacons." Now, suppose the Church had said, It is evident unto all men diligently reading Holy Scripture and ancient authors, that from the Apostles' times, the doctrine of the Trinity has been received in the Church; would not the natural interpretation of this sentence be, that the Church had always received a doctrine which was established in Holy Scripture, and supported by the testimony of ancient authors? Is it not common in every disputed point of theology, to endeavour to prove it in the first instance from Holy Scripture, and then to show, from the testimony of the primitive writers, that we have not mistaken the sense of Scripture? And in regard to all these points, is it not common to say that they are proved by Scripture and ancient authors, an expression always understood as equivalent to divine authority or appointment? The prayers, however, in the offices of ordination already quoted, put the sense of the Church, as to the divine appointment of BISHOPS, PRIESTS, and DEACONS, beyond all doubt. In regard to the sentiments of Bishop Hoadly, see the remarks at the end of this number. Ed.

« السابقةمتابعة »