Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

which is not disputed; but that there is such an officer as the High Priest was in the Jewish Church, and that this officer is the order of their Bishops. If they can do this they will have many High Priests. The Church of Rome is far more consistent. She has only one, as the Jewish nation had; and I verily believe, that if such an officer be now necessary, the Pope has the fairest claim of all others. Instead, then, of Presbyterians being charitably exhorted to come into the Episcopal Church, we had all better return to the Mother Church. The truth is, the Jewish nation were one Church, under one government, civil and ecclesiastical. Such an officer as the High Priest was then necessary, and could exist; but now, when the Church consists of all kindreds, tongues, and nations, it is impossible. The High Priest was a type of Jesus Christ, who, "by his own blood entered in once into the holy place;" and who "ever liveth to make intercession." If there be a visible head upon earth, the Pope, as has been said, is the man, and no other. These words, "No man taketh this honour unto himself but he that is called of God, as was Aaron," show only, that he who is an officer in the Church must derive his commission from divine institution. A Presbyterian Minister is a true Bishop, and is as much appointed by God as ever was Aaron.‡

Among the Jews the High Priesthood was by succession in the line of the first born of Aaron, and the rest of his posterity were Priests. Where is the resemblance of the Episcopal Aarons? Do Bishops beget Bishops, or even the second order of Priests? Do they resemble one another in their dress? Where are now the linen breeches, the embroidered girdle, the blue robe with seventy-two bells, the golden pomegranates, the golden ephod, the golden breast-plate with the engraved stones, the urim and thummim, &c.? Are lawn sleeves, black gowns, and surplices to be compared with these? The Episcopal Priests wear what is called a cassock; but it is not made of linen, and is more like petticoats than breeches.|| A Jewish High Priest might not marry a widow, while indulgence in this respect was granted to the other Priests. Is there any re striction among the Episcopal orders? A Jewish Priest could not be

* We have here another proof of the consistency of this author, and of the care and caution with which he writes. Does he not repeatedly assert, and constantly maintain, that all Ministers are on an equality? How then can there be three orders of the ministry? Ed.

† As Cyprian very properly observes in his fourth number, "Wherever there is a Bishop, Presbyters, Deacons, and a people; there is also the CHURCH OF CHRIST." The comparison then is to be made between a Bishop, Presbyters, and Deacons, who constitute the Priesthood of the Christian Church; and the High Priest, Priests, and Levites, the Priesthood of the Jewish Church.

Ed.

How can the Presbyterian Minister prove that he is "as much appointed by God as ever Aaron was?" Surely he does not receive his commission, as Aaron did, immediately from God; and as to receiving it through regular succession from those on whom it was originally conferred by the divine Head of the Church, this the miscellaneous author repeatedly disclaims and ridicules!

Ed.

What confidence can be placed in a writer, who, on sacred subjects, indulges in such low and indecent ridicule ! Ed.

consecrated, unless he was without bodily blemish. Has the "House of Bishops" in this country ordained an examination in this matter? The Roman Church is known to be careful; and, in the article of marriage, has arrived at greater perfection than the Apostle Paul, for he indulged a Bishop with one wife.

It is unnecessary to proceed in asking for the resemblance of the orders and their employments in the two Churches. Let me only remark, 1. That surplices were garments worn by the Jewish singers. 2. That the Levites were consecrated by the imposition of the hands of the children of Israel. 3. That the Kings of Israel directed the affairs both of Church and state. We read expressly of David making appointments and arrangements for the performance of divine worship, and of Josiah commanding the High Priest. I pray the reader to attend particularly to this remark. The government of the Church was constituted in a peculiar manner, and for a peculiar end. If then we follow the Jewish pattern, why not throughout? Why not have Kings as well as High Priests?* Why not have an alliance of Church and state? Why not the civil and ecclesiastical officers meet in the same council, or form one court as in ancient days? Here is the fundamental error of the Church of Rome and of the Church of England. The Pope is a temporal prince. The same person is both King and Priest. The King of England is the visible head of the Church established there. The High Priest and all the Priests are subordinate to him. The opinion is not without foundation, that the mitre and the crown are connected; nor is the proverb "no King, no Bishop" without meaning. In this country to copy after the constitution of the Church of England is unwise, and to defend this conduct, as has been done in the late publications of some Episcopal Ministers, deserves a harsher name than I shall give it. Hear the words of the Apostle: "But now after that you have known God, or rather are known of God, how turn ye against the weak and beggarly elements, whereunto ye desire again to be in bondage.”||

* Because God has appointed only Priests under the Christian dispensation. Ed.

† Because such an alliance is not necessary to the existence, nor, in all places or periods, to the prosperity of the Church. She subsisted, and even flourished for three hundred years, not only separate from the state, but persecuted by it.

Ed.

Are the mitre and the crown connected in Scotland? Does the esta-" blished Church there subscribe to the maxim "no Bishop, no King?" Do not presbyterianism and monarchy there consort together? Why does not the author of Miscellanies send, to his brother Presbyterians in Scotland, his solemn remonstrance against this unhallowed connection?

Ed.

The reasoning in this number is most profound indeed! Is the author of Miscellanies really ignorant of the nature of the types of scripture, or is he guilty of wilful misrepresentation? The Jewish Priesthood is not typical of the Christian, because the comparison will not in all respects hold good! So says this author, who pronounces his decisions with the authority of a "Master in Israel." Let us see now how his position will apply. The Lamb sacrificed in the Jewish Passover was a type of Jesus Christ, 'the true "Paschal Lamb." 66 Christ, our Passover, says the Apostle, is sacrificed for us." No, says the author of Miscellanies, the inspired Apos

For the Albany Centinel.

MISCELLANIES. No. XIV.

THE Apostle Paul, in 1 Tim. iv. 14. says, " Neglect not the gift

that is in thee, which was given thee by prophecy, with the laying on of the hands of the Presbytery." In 2 Tim. i. 6. he says, "Wherefore I put thee in remembrance, that thou stir up the gift of God which is in thee by the putting on of my hands." On these two texts the Episcopalians rely for a proof of their mode of ordination;* and the Presbyterians rely with equal confidence on them for a proof that their mode is the only scriptural one. Let the passages have a fair examination, in connection with some other parts of scripture.

I have avoided reading any commentator or writer, in order that my judgment might be free from bias. I desire to have no other object in view than truth, and I pray that the same Spirit who indited the word, may lead me into its real meaning.

+

In the first text the Greek words dia and meta are both used, the one translated by and the other with. "By prophecy, with the laying on," &c. In the second text, dia alone is found. "By the putting on," &c. Much depends on giving these words their due force.

The Episcopalians allege either that the Presbytery which ordained Timothy consisted of a number of Apostles, or that, if of Presbyters, they imposed hands with Paul, "not to convey authority, but merely to express approbation; and that," in the Church of England, the Presbyters lay on their hands with the Bishops in ordination, to denote their consent." The latter is their strong ground; for they cannot prove that this Presbytery was an assembly of Apostles ;† and if they could, the consequence would be,

tle is surely in an error; for who will presume to trace a resemblance in the most minute points between a Lamb and the Saviour of the world! How should the profane thank this sacred critic for the weapon with which he furnishes them, to turn the sacred writings into ridicule, and to destroy entirely all typical analogy! The reader, in perusing the numbers of the Miscellanies, will often have occasion to inquire, where are the good sense, the accuracy, the Christian moderation, the manly dignity, the honest candour that should characterise one who discusses an important religious topic? Surely the cause must be a bad one that cannot be defended but by weapons such as this author uses.

Ed.

* The Episcopalians do not rely on these two texts. They rely on the powers of ordination vested exclusively in Timothy and Titus, the Gover nors of the Churches of Ephesus and Crete. Let any man, dismissing all prejudices and preconceived opinions, and attending not to names, but to facts and persons, read the Epistles of St. Paul to Timothy and Titus, and see whether he does not vest them, as a distinct order from the other Ministers of the Church, with those powers which from them were handed down to their successors, called, after the Apostolic age, Bishops. Ed

† Neither can this author prove that this Presbytery was an assembly of Presbyters properly so called; for Presbytery, attending solely to the meaning of the word, denotes an assembly of old men; and, of course, may be vari

that the Apostles called themselves Presbyters, and acted only as such in the ordination of Timothy. If Apostles, why was it necessary + that more than one of them should lay on his hands?* Why does Paul particularize his own hands? Had not all the Apostles equal authority and power? Since then it is certain that there were more hands imposed than those of Paul, the conclusion is natural, that if Apostles, they considered themselves in this transaction only as Presbyters, and therefore all of them laid on hands. The argument then turns against Episcopalians, and in favour of Presbyterians.

I apprehend that the obvious interpretation of the texts, and the way in which they are easily reconciled is this; that the imposition of hands to which the Apostle refers in his second Epistle, was at a different time from the ordination of Timothy, or if at the same time, was for a different purpose. The setting Timothy apart, or giving him authority to exercise the office of a Minister in the Church, was "the laying on of the hands of the Presbytery;" the gifts of the Holy Ghost were conferred upon him "by the putting on" of Paul's hands. This I verily believe to be the true meaning. It is very immaterial whether Paul put his hands twice upon Timothy; once at his ordination, and again when the Holy Ghost was given him; or whether both purposes were answered at the same time. The latter seems the more probable of the two from the words in the first Epistle-" The gift which was given thee by prophecy, with the laying on of the hands of the Presbytery;" that is, together with, or at the time of thine ordination to the ministry. At least if this gift of prophecy was not conferred upon Timothy in the act of his ordination, it would appear to have been conferred immediately afterwards, by the imposition of Paul's hands alone. In this way the word meta has its just force. When it governs the genitive case, as in the place before us, it signifies together with, and may be thus translated. See Matt. ii. 3 and 11. "He was troubled, and all Jerusalem with him." They saw the young child with Mary his mother." In this sense it is used by the purest Greek writers. Take only one instance from Plato: "Geeras meta penias;" that is, old age with, or together with poverty.

A careful attention is to be paid to the word prophecy, by which is to be understood one of the miraculous gifts of the Spirit. σε Το another," says the Apostle," the working of miracles; to another prophecy; to another discerning of spirits." This is the gift which the Apostle exhorts Timothy to exercise, as well as all the extraordinary gifts of the Spirit, and which were conferred upon him when he was set apart to be an officer in the Church.

If any incline to think, that prophecy means here only authority to perform the ministerial office, and that this was conveyed by

ously applied. The absurdity and fallacy of the singular interpretation which this author gives of these texts, are so ably exposed by the Layman in his fifth number, that any observations here are unnecessary.

Ed.

As the Layman very properly observes, “One of them may have conveyed the sacerdotal authority, while the rest may have imposed hands to give additional solemnity to the transaction, and as an expression of eoncurrence in the selection of character."

Ed

"the laying on of the hands of the Presbytery," the word meta will bear them fully out. It signifies not only with, but by, by means of, and has the same sense as dia with the genitive case. It is thus used in Acts xiii. 17. "With an high arm brought he them out of it." Acts xiv. 27. "They rehearsed all that God had done with them." Who does not see that it signifies in these places by, and might have been thus translated? It could be shown that it is used in this way by Demosthenes, Thucydides, and Xenophon, who will surely be allowed to have understood Greek. The laying on of the hands of the Presbyters was more than concurrence, than aptrobation, or than consent. It was an actual conveyance of ministerial authority. So that in whatever way the text is explained, it does not serve the Episcopalians. To say that meta has never the same meaning with dia, and that it may not, on examples from the New Testament, and from the greatest Grecian orators and historians in the world, be construed as synonymous, is to show ignorance of the nature of the language.

I prefer, however, the interpretation which I have given, that by prophecy is meant an extraordinary gift, which was conferred upon Timothy at the time the Presbytery ordained him. This is the gift to which the Apostle refers in both texts. In his second Epistle, where he says, "by the putting on of my hands," he does not allude to the ordination at all. Let any one read the verses foregoing, and following the text, and he may see that ordination was not there intended. The Apostle had wholly a different object in view, as will be shown before this subject is dismissed. Indeed it appears to me, that he had the same object in view in both places, and the manner of the ordination is mentioned to show the time when the gift was conferred, and to bring to remembrance a very solemn transaction. If the words are not taken in this sense, we cannot collect from them that Paul was even present at the ordination of Timothy, which will be still worse and worse for the Episcopalians. If they have no other proof than his saying, that he put his hands on Timothy, it is not sufficient; because this was for a quite different purpose. Not to give them unnecessary trouble, I will admit, in the mean time, that he was present; that he presided at the ordination; that he laid on his hands as a Presbyter; and his fellow Presbyters laid on hands with him. This is exactly Presbyterian ordination. The subject will be continued in my next number.

I HAVE

For the Albany Centinel.

THE LAYMAN. No. IV.

HAVE said that the extracts from the works under examination are not given in such a manner as to present a fair view to the reader; and that the conclusion to which they are calculated to conduct him, is wide of the truth. The author of the Companion for the Altar, and of the Companion for the Festivals and Fasts, has only exercised that right of judgment which the Presbyterians take very good care to exercise themselves. It is not necessary to say any

« AnteriorContinuar »