Sidebilder
PDF
ePub

adopt: "One thing I find, and I find it more and more as I advance in years, and therefore more wary; there is often more in a thing than one sees at first. So I am well satisfied it is here; and for one, I stand by old land-marks."

Let us then, without fear or shame, ridicule, or banter, or the absurd imputation of vanity or ambition-let us introduce familiarly the use of the title bishop in that sense in which it has been given in Scripture, and ever used by our fathers, and by our present standards.

We will only add, as one additional reason, that to the use of this title of bishop in all our ecclesiastical proceedings and public references and advertisements, we are urged by the widespread unanimity with which our churches of every name, and in every land, are now reverting to this practice, and openly acting upon it. We had noted down many references to the common and designed use of this word in the works and periodicals of many different denominations, both in this country and in England; but the practice has now become so common, that any specification would be useless. The formal determination has been made by many bodies in this country to introduce this term into their customary proceedings. This has been done by some of the New-England Associations, by the Baptist denomination, by the Lutheran church, and by many Presbyterian bodies. It is now very common in Scotland; is under consideration among the Congregationalists; is, to some extent, supported by the Wesyelan body;* and has, as we were informed in Ireland, occupied the attention of the Congregational body in that country, by one of whose ministers we were requested to prepare this summary of our views upon the subject.

The adoption of the term bishop equally concerns all denominations, and if all unite in the practice, or even a considerable number, the term will come sufficiently into use to secure the ends in view. For ourselves, we regard the matter as of great practical moment; and while it can do no harm, it will, we think, accomplish much good. The use of the term we are not at liberty to abolish, if we could; and every reason forbids such a disuse of it, if it were allowable. Not only is it true, as we have said, that to many the common and apparently unquestioned use of the term authenticates the scriptural claims of prelatical bishops, but it is also true, (and to this closing remark we ask special attention,) that from this established use of the word even the most learned advocates of prelacy are in the constant habit of inferring the existence of such prelatical bishops in the early ages and writers of the Christian church. We have met with no writer on the Episcopal side of the ques*See Powel on the Apostolical Succession.

tion, not excluding the late, but now degraded Bishop Onderdonk, who does not pursue this most jesuitical and irrational mode of defence. Why they do so is very obvious, since this play upon words is THE ONLY possible pretence by which the earliest writers can be forced to speak like Episcopalians, or make out even three of the many orders which the prelacy has made essential to the church. But how they can do so, in common honesty, is another question, which is very far from being open to an easy explanation. When such writers are compelled to do so, they will assume great credit for candor by admitting that in Scripture the terms bishop and presbyter are synonymous. But instead of arguing from this established meaning of the word in interpreting the fathers,-until these fathers themselves teach us that a different interpretation had been adopted by them, however wrongly, they assume, on the contrary, that because at a late period in the history of the church the word bishop undoubtedly did mean an order claiming higher powers than presbyters, that therefore it must be understood in this sense in the very earliest of the fathers. But the same reasoning would justify the interpretation of the word bishop in this prelatical sense in the Scriptures, which they admit cannot be the case; and it would also justify all the other heresies and abuses which the Romish church bases upon the present conventional use of such words as priest, high-priest, altar, penance, confirmation, confess, &c.

The importance, therefore, of familiarizing the minds of men with the true and only proper meaning of the word bishopfor let it never be forgotten that this is a term which the Holy Ghost has thought fit himself to define and appropriate-must be apparent. With this meaning clearly before them, they will be prepared to read the early fathers, or passages from them, understandingly, and not through the medium of Episcopal bias and unrighteous prejudice; and they will not therefore be so ready, as thousands have been, to fall into the trap laid for them by crafty men, who lie in wait to deceive and ensnare souls into their dangerous and delusive system. And if at any time it is important, and our duty, to preserve men within the limits of that church which we believe to be most accordant to the pattern laid down in the mount; how much more is this the case now, when the distinction between low and high church Episcopalians has been openly discarded even by such organs as "The Episcopal Recorder;" when the low church party, represented by the Cecils, the Newtons, the Venns, and the Scotts, no longer exists in any avowed form or to any extent; when the lowest Episcopalians now to be found are "EVANGELICAL HIGH-CHURCHMEN;" (a contradiction, and an absurdity;) and when the only ambition now found among this party is to exalt

their denomination, and to reject as slanderous, all allusions to any difference or division or possible separation in the Episcopal church. The truth has now been openly and unquestionably sacrificed in that church to the claims of heretical unity and fictitious peace, and they who should be found coming out from a body now given over to the belief and approval of false and dangerous doctrines, are on the contrary found glorying in their shame.*

We rejoice, therefore, that in our place in the General Assembly of our church some years ago, we were permitted to give origin to the present extended movement on this subject, by the introduction and subsequent discussion of the following overture. "Whereas in the New Testament the term bishop is used synonymously with that of presbyter as descriptive of the ministerial office; whereas this term has come, by the ecclesiastical usage of a particular denomination, to be appropriated to an order of ministers claiming to be superior to, and distinct from, presbyters; and whereas from our reluctance-in consequence of its association with intolerance and civil jurisdiction-to employ this term in its original and proper signification, (as used in our standards,) this error has been countenanced and greatly promoted. Therefore resolved, that the General Assembly recommends to all its Synods and Presbyteries to employ the term bishop in their regular minutes, lists, and statistical tables; and to all ministers, elders, and church members, to introduce the use of the term, as the ordinary official title of ministers, on all proper occasions."

In allusion to these efforts, Mr. Lorimer, of Glasgow, in his Manual of Presbyterianism says:§ "Episcopalians obtain an undue advantage over their brethren in other communions, from the word "bishop" in the English language having come to describe the overseer, not of a congregation, but of the clergy. This is not, however, its original meaning. It simply signifies an "overseer." Presbyterians and Congregationalists are equally entitled to use it as Episcopalians, and to apply it to their ministers as "overseers" of the Christian people. Where met with in Scripture, Christians should always remember that it means nothing but the pastor and overseer of the congregation, and that the same is its meaning in the earliest period of the primitive church.

And in his work on the eldership, Mr. Lorimer adds:† "Perhaps it would tend to correct false impressions as to officers in the Presbyterian church, were the Presbyterians of this country to adopt the practice which is followed by their brethren in the

*Of course there are noble individual exceptions, but they are very much out of place, and impotent to stem the tide of evil.

Edinb. 1842, p. 29.

†Glasgow, 1841, p. 44.

United States of America, of using only Scriptural names when speaking of their ecclesiastical officers. Thus, in reporting members to the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church of America, ministers are styled bishops, and elders are denominated ruling elders. This restores the word bishop to its primitive Scripture meaning, and deprives our Episcopalian friends of an undue advantage which they possess, from the popular impression that there can be no bishops but diocesan bishops, such as govern the Church of England, owing to the word in common speech being appropriated to them. In the same way, the term elder would be speedily freed from absurd and unmerited reproach. More error is conveyed and perpetuated by incorrect names than many imagine. They exert an injurious influence even over minds which know better."

10-VOL IV.

NOTES.

NOTE A.

The following vindication of the order of the Free Church Assembly, on Elders and Deacons, is taken from The Free Church Magazine for August.

The Assembly's Act on Elders and Deacons.

Two objections may be, perhaps we should say, have been, urged against this Act, and we propose here shortly to consider them. The one is, that too much power is given to the Deacons; and the other that too much power is given to the Elders

The first objection is that too much power is given to the Deacons. On referring to Scripture, we find that the Deacon's office was established because of complaints that the poor were not sufficiently attended to, and the Deacons were appointed for the distribution of the alms of the church among such of the disciples as had need. "Look ye out among you," said the apostles, "seven men, whom we may appoint over this business." It is nowhere expressly stated that any portion of the ecclesiastical goods was to be administered by them, except that which was destined for the relief of the poor.-Acts 6: 1-4; 1 Tim. 3: 8-13. Now, the objection is, that the Act of Assembly gives the Deacon a much more extensive charge, and invests him with authority in the disposal of the whole of the church's patrimony, not only that which consists in alms for the poor, but also that which is designed for the support of the ministry, and for the erection and repair of our places of worship.

It is true that the Act in question does all this, and that in all temporal matters whatever, in the whole secular business of the congregation, it places the Deacon on a perfect equality with the Elder, so far as determining how the ecclesiastical goods are to be administered is concerned, and confers on him, moreover, an executive function, whereby he is to give effect to the resolution which the office-bearers at large have seen fit to adopt.

But we see not in this that there is any unwarrantable stretching of the Deacon's office so as to make it embrace objects and powers inconsistent with, or beyond its scriptural design. For it should be observed, that there were two reasons for the institution of the Deaconship. The one may be said to have been more peculiarly the people's reason; and the other, that of the apostles. The people's reason was, that the widows might not be neglected in the daily ministration; and the

« ForrigeFortsett »