Imágenes de páginas

the Church, first Apostles, &c.” The testimony of antiquity also proves that from the Seventy, those were generally selected who succeeded in any vacancy of the Apostolic office. Matthias, who succeeded Judas, is affirmed by Eusebius and Epiphanius to have been one of the Seventy. Philip is represented by these fathers of the Church, as succeeding St. Paul at Cæsarea; and Clement, St. Peter at Rome. Now, if these Elders and Presbyters succeeded by election to the Apostolic office, it is demonstrable that the offices must have been different, and the one superior to the other; for no man can succeed to an office which he had before, nor receive an accession of power and trust when he receives nothing with which he is not already invested.

6 So that here are plainly two sorts of Ecclesiastical officers, the one superior to the other, of our Saviour's own institution and appointment; and therefore if this institution be still valid, there must still be a Superiority and a Subordination between the Officers and Minister of his Church, and consequently the Government thereof must still be Episcopal, i. e. by some superior Officers, presiding and superintending over other inferior ones. I know it is objected, that this superiority of the Apostles over the Seventy was only in office, but not in power or jurisdiction ; but since it is the office that is the imme. diate subject of the power belonging to it, I would fain know whether superiority of office must not necessarily include superiority in power? for office without power is an empty name, that signifies nothing: and every de. gree of superiority of office must be accompanied with power to exert itself in acts of superiority, otherwise it will be utterly in vain and to no purpose ; so that either the superiority of the Apostolic office over other church

officers must be void and insignificant, or it must have a proportionable superiority of power over them, inseparably inherent in it. But it is further objected, that, supposing the Apostolate to be superior to the other Ecclesiastical orders in power, and office, yet it was but temporary; it being instituted by our Saviour in subservience to the present exigency and necessity of things, without any intention of deriving it down to the Church in a continued succession. To which I answer in short, that this is said without so much as a plausible colour of reason; both that our Saviour instituted this office, and that in his institution he never gave the least intimation to the world, that he intended it only for a certain season. Now, if men will presume to declare Christ's institutions temporary, without producing the least intimation of his will, that he so designed them, they may with the same warrant repeal all the institutions of Christianity; and even the two sacraments will lie as much at their mercy as the institution of the Apostolic order, which, unless they can prove it repealed by the same authority which establisted it, will be sufficient to prescribe to all ages and nations ; for the obligations of Divine Commands are dissolvable only by Divine Countermands, and for men to declare any Divine institution void, before God had so declared it, is to over-rule the will of God by their own arrogant presumptions."*

Second.—The advocates of Episcopacy contend that the Apostles, not only exercised in their own persons, that superiority over Presbyters or Elders, which they received with their office, but conveyed it down to their

• Scott's Christian Life, Vol. II, p. p. 391, 392:

successors ; which they consider as a convincing argument, that it was not a temporary expedient, but a permanent institution. They observe, that though the number of the Apostles during our Saviours's abode on earth was only twelve, and though the number continued fixed for some time after his Ascension to Heaven, yet when the boundaries of the Church were mightily extended by numerous converts in Gentile nations, they added to their number several other Apostles, to whom they committed the same office and dignity. The first was James, our Lord's near relation, and called his brother, who evidently was none of the twelve, and is reckoned apart from them by St. Paul, (1 Cor. xv. 5, 6, 7) and yet called by him an Apostle, (Gall. i. 19). The same person is by the concurrent testimony of all the Christian fathers, called the first Bishop of Jerusalem. St. Jerome, in his Comment on Isaiah, calls him the thirteenth Apostle, that is, the first that was made an Apostle after the twelve, being so called, from his possessing the power and dignity of Bishop of Jerusalem. In the first Council that was held there, we find the sen. tence he gave with respect to circumcision and other matters of dispute, was decisive. Afterwards we are told that, when Paul and his company were come to Jerusalem, the brethern received him gladly, and that the day following Paul went in with them unto James, and all the Elders were present.---Acts, xxi. 17, 18. “ Now, for what other reason should Paul go in unto James more especially, or upon what other account should all the Elders be present with James, but that he was a person of the greatest note and figure in the Church of Jerusalem ? and for the same reason, in all probability, St. Paul mentions James before Peter and John, discoursing of a meeting he had with them at Jerusalem, (Gal. ii. 9) because though Peter and John were two of the principal of the twelve Apostles, and St. James was not so much as one of that number, yet in the Church of Jerusalem, he had the priority of them both; now considering that St. James is called an Apostle, and considering the preference he had, in all these in. stances above the other Apostles at Jerusalem, it is at least highly probable that he was peculiarly the Apostle of the Church at Jerusalem. But if to all this evidence, we add the most early testimonies of Christian antiquity, we shall advance the probability to a demonstration; for by the unanimous consent of all Ecclesiastical wri. ters, St. James was the first Bishop of Jerusalem.”*

The second instance to which they point is that of Epaphroditus, who is styled the Apostle of the Philippians. “ But I supposed it necessasy to send to you Epaphroditus, my brother and companion in labour, and fellow soldier, but your Apostle."- Phil. ii. 25. Theodoret, upon the place, gives this reason why he was called the Apostle of the Philippians,—he was entrusted with Episcopal Government, as being their Bishop.

The third instance is that of Titus, and some others, not expressly named. “ Whether any do inquire of Titus, he is my partner and fellow helper concerning you: or our brethren be inquired of, they are the Apostles of the Churches.From this they argue that Titus was evidently invested with Apostolical, or Episcopal authority, over the Church of Crete, and possessed of a right to judge what things were wanting,

• Scott's Christian Life, p. p. 395, 396.



and to supply them, to judge what things required correction, and to reform them, which is a plain demonstration of his superiority in that Church. St. Paul also gives him authority to ordain Elders in every city. They argue that it is plain that there were Elders, or Presbyters in the Church of Crete, before Titus was left there by the Apostle, for St. Paul had formed Churches in several cities of that Island, and as to the constituting of Churches, Elders were necessary, it is as evident say they, that these Presbyters had po power to ordain Elders as Titus had, for upon the supposition that they possessed that power, what necessity could there be for the Apostle's leaving him with a new power to do that, which the Presbyters, already ordained, had sufficient power to do? If the Presbyters had the power of ordination, this new power of Titus must have been not only unnecessary, but mischievous; as it would have appeared to be an invasion of the power of the Presbytery, and rather have provoked strife and contention than been an expedient to produce peace and good order. They conclude their argument on this instance with the testimony of Eusebius, Theodoret, Chrysostom, Jerome, Ambrose, and several others of the fathers, and early Ecclesiastic writers, who all affirm that Titus was ordained by St. Paul, the first Bishop of Crete.

The fourth instance, say they, is Timothy, who evidently appears, by St. Paul's Epistles to him, to have been vested with Episcopal authority over Presbyters and Deacons; to take care that none should be admitted a Deacon, without sufficient trial; and none ordained an Elder, till he had acquitted himself well in the office of a Deacon (1 Tim. iii. 10, 13); to inspect their lives, to receive accusations, and to judge of their conduct (v. 19,

« AnteriorContinuar »