Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

presbyters ordaining, than of their administering the Lord's supper."

The first reformers, under the reign of King Edward, according to Neal, in his history of the Puritans, "believed but two orders of churchmen in holy Scripture-bishops and deacons; and consequently, that bishops and priests [presbyters] were but different ranks or degrees of the same order." Acting on this principle, " they gave the right hand of fellowship to foreign churches, and to ministers who had not been ordained by bishops."

[ocr errors]

The doctrine of the divine right of bishops, from which that of the exclusive validity of their ordination proceeds, was first promulgated in a sermon preached Jan. 12, 1588 in the English by Dr. Bancroft. He first maintained that bishops are a distinct order from priests or presbyters, and have authority over them jure divino, and directly from God. This bold and novel assertion created a great sensation throughout the kingdom. It was a vast extension of the prerogatives of the bishops, by which the oppression of the Puritans was increased to an incalculable degree. "The greater part even of the prelatic party themselves were startled by the novelty of the doctrine; for none of the English reformers had ever regarded the bishops as anything else but a human institution, appointed for the more orderly government of the church; and they were not prepared at once to condemn as heretical all churches where that institution did not exist. Whitgift himself, perceiving the use which might be made of such a tenet said that the doctor's sermon had done much good,-though for his own part, he rather wished than believed it to be true."103 The doctrine was re-affirmed half a century later by Laud and his party;104 and from that time has been the favorite dogma of many in the Episcopal church.

Even at the present time the validity of presbyterian ordi

103 Hitherton's History of the Westminster, pp. 49, 50. 104 Hallam's Constitutional History, Vol. II. pp. 440—1.

nation is acknowledged by many in the Episcopal church. Not twenty years since, one of the principal conductors of the Christian Observer said to an American gentleman, "I have not for ten years seen the man who was so utterly foolish, as to claim any exclusive divine right for our ordination, or ordinances; or who hesitated to acknowledge other communions as churches of Christ."

And Goode also, who has written from Cambridge, with great ability against the Tractarians, says: "I admit that for the latter point [ordination by bishops alone, as successors of the apostles], there is not any Scripture proof; but we shall find here, as in other cases, that as the proof is not to be found in Scripture, so antiquity also is divided with respect to it; and moreover, that though it is the doctrine of our church, yet that it is held by her with an allowance for those who may differ from her on that point, and not as if the observance of it was requisite by divine command, and essential to the validity of all ordinations; though for the preservation of the full ecclesiastical regularity of her own orders, she has made it essential to the ministers of her own communion."105 In support of this opinion he proceeds to enumerate many of the authorities of the fathers given above.

Finally, we add the following extract, not again from an "irreverent dissenter,”—to use the flippant cant of one of the Tractarians,—but from a devoted son of their own church, a distinguished layman of England, who has written with great ability and good effect, against the doctrines of Puseyism and the high church party.

"It is no part of my plan to trace the origin or course of departure from the system of church government in the apostolical times, as it lies before us in all its simplicity. I admit -indeed, as the lawyers say, it is a part of my case-that some change was unavoidable; and I see nothing in the

105 Divine Rule, Vol. II. pp. 57, 58.

present constitution of the church of England that is incon sistent with the principle of the apostles. But to say that they are identical, is a mere abuse of words. Still less is it to be heard say without some impatience, that there is safety in her communion only as she has descended from the apostles, through all the changes and abominations that have intervened."106

After going through with a sketch of the historical argument in defence of his sentiments and citing many of the authorities given above, he proceeds:-"I am aware that in St. Jerome's time there existed generally, though by no means universally, this difference between the bishop and the presbyters, viz., that to the former was then confided the power of ordination. The transition from perfect equality to absolute superiority was not suddenly effected; it was the growth of time; not of years, but of centuries; the distinction of authority or office preceding that of order or degree in the church, and being introductory to it. With the former I have no concern, it being sufficient to show, that as a distinct and superior order in the church, Episcopacy, in the modern acceptation of the term, did not exist in the time of the apostles; and that, however expedient and desirable such an institution might be, it cannot plead the sanction of apostolic appointment or example. It may be difficult to fix the period exactly when the Episcopate was first recognized as a distinct order in the church, and when the consecration of bish

Clearly not, I think

ops, as such, came to be in general use. when St. Jerome wrote. Thus much at least is certain, viz. that the government of each church, including the ordination of ministers, was at first in the hands of the presbytery; that when one of that body was raised to the office of president, and on whom the title of bishop was conferred, it was simply by the election (co-optatio) of the other presbyters, whose appointment was final, requiring no confirmation or conse

106 Bowdler's Letters, pp. 32, 33.

cration at the hands of any other prelates; and that each church was essentially independent of every other.

"If then all this be so, there seems to be an end to the question; for under whatever circumstances the privilege of ordaining was afterwards committed to the bishop, he could of necessity receive no more than it was in their power to bestow, from whom he received it, who were co-ordinate presbyters, not superiors. At whatever period, therefore, it was adopted, and with whatever uniformity it might be continued, and whatever of value or even authority it might hence acquire; still as an apostolical institution it has none: there is a gap which never can be filled; or rather, the link by which the whole must be suspended is wanting and can never be supplied. There can be no apostolical succession of that which had no apostolical existence; whereas the averment to be of any avail must be, not only that it existed in the time of the apostles, but was so appointed by them as that there can be no true church without it."107

The right of presbyters, then, to ordain, is admitted by moderate Episcopalians even at the present time.108 It was maintained by the reformers generally, both in England, and on the continent. It was their undoubted prerogative in the early ages of the Christian church.

To sum up all that has been said-if presbyters and bishops are known by the same names, if they are required to possess the same qualifications, and if they are found actually discharging the same duties, then what higher evidence can we expect or desire of their equality and identity? This course of argumentation is precisely similar to that by which orthodoxy defends the supreme divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ, and his equality with the Father. And none perhaps more readily admit the validity of this mode of

107 Bowdler's Letters, pp. 48-50.

108 Comp. Whately's Kingdom of Christ, pp. 151, 212.

argument, when applied to this cardinal principle in the Christian system, than the members of the Episcopal communion. What is the argument for the oneness of Christ with the Father? Simply that he is called by the names, that he possesses the attributes, that he receives the honors and performs the works of the Father; and, therefore, is one with Him. If, then, this course of reasoning commands our assent in these profound mysteries, why not much more in the case under consideration? We confidently rest, in the conclusion of the learned Dr. Wilson, that "whatever misconstructions of the presbyterial office may have obtained, it is and always will be, the highest ordinary office in the Christian church; and no presbyter, who is officially such, can be less than a bishop, and authorized to instruct, govern, and administer, and ordain at least in conjunction with his co-presbyters of the same presbytery and council."

4. Bishops themselves, in their ministerial character, exercised only the jurisdiction, and performed merely the offices, of presbyters in the primitive church.

For the sake of argument, let us admit "that this office of bishop is disclosed to us in the Christian church in the very earliest records of history. Within ten years after the death of St. John, we find that the three orders of ministers were actually denominated bishop, priest and deacon; and to each was assigned the same office, together with nearly the same power and duty as appertain to them at the present day. Hear how Ignatius speaks to the Philadelphians: 'Attend to the bishop, and to the presbytery, and to the deacons.'"109 Such is the exultation with which Episcopalians appeal to Ignatius. It is indeed clear beyond a doubt, that this writer does speak of bishops, presbyters and deacons ; and that, in strains almost of profane adulation, he seeks to exalt the authority both of bishops and presbyters. But the

109 Bishop De Lancey's Faithful Bishop. Boston, 1843, p. 17.

« AnteriorContinuar »