Abbildungen der Seite
PDF
EPUB

and it was evidently their duty to give holy orders, as they had themselves received them, to follow the example of their Divine Master. And this they actually did; under their ministrations were different grades, and we cannot reasonably doubt but that the Apostles, and their successors in office, ordained them. St. Paul writes to the Corinthians, "God hath set some in the Church, first Apostles, secondarily, prophets, thirdly, teachers;" and adds, "Are all Apostles? are all prophets? are all teachers?" If God has set three orders in the Church, I know not who is authorized to reduce them to one; or to say that "all are Apostles," having equal authority; or all prophets or Presbyters. Can we believe that the Deacons and the Bishops or elders ordained by Timothy and Titus were of the same grade? It is the united voice of all antiquity, that Deacons have a part, and the lowest part of the Christian ministry. The qualifications required for the office are essentially the same as for Presbyters. In speaking of their qualifications, St. Paul observes in conclusion, "They that have used the office of a Deacon, well, purchase to themselves a good degree;" thus more than intimating that the Deacons, who are faithful in that lower office, are entitled to advancement to a higher grade in the ministry.

That the Elders, in the Apostles' days called also Bishops, were a distinct order, no one denies. And that Timothy and Titus were of a higher grade, and had jurisdiction over the Elders and Deacons, and the power to ordain them-the same indeed as that which we now call Episcopal authority—seems to me too evident to admit of a doubt.

It is often affirmed, but has never been proved, that the ministers of Christ were at first all of one grade, and that the Bishops usurped the authority, which, it is acknowledged, they in the carly ages possessed. But this is absurd, and altogether incredi ble. It is absurd to suppose that those now called Bishops, made such a change. Because, if the government of the Church was left by the Apostles in the hands of Presbyters, they, the Presbyters, must have made the change.* On this supposition there were no Bishops to abuse power: the Presbyters usurped authority and made the change. If a thing so strange and so wicked was

* See a Sermon by the author, on 1 Peter iii. 15, published in the Gospel Advocate,

done at all, it was done by Presbyterians or Congregationalists. They who advance this position virtually say, that within one or two centuries at most, after the government was put into their hands, they all in every country agreed in changing it to what Christ never intended. They certainly do very little honor to that mode of Church government, by supposing it so defective and inefficient as to be so soon relinquished.

It must too, be difficult for us to believe, that, in the first three centuries men should have been ambitious of the Episcopate, when its worldly advantages were so small, and its sacrifices and perils so great. Martyrdom in those ages might almost be considered as annexed to a bishoprick. The general practice of the persecutor was to smite the Shepherd that the sheep might be scattered: the Bishop was usually the first led to tortures and to death. How can we, in reason, believe that under such circumstances, so great a change should be made in the government of the Church? that the holy martyrs of that time which truly "tried men's souls," should attempt, or desire to alter the institutions of Christ? And had such a change by some Churches been attempted, it seems morally impossible that it should have become general. And yet we are sure, from all ancient history, that Episcopacy was general from a very early period down to the Reformation. During the first fifteen centuries, it is not easy to name any one part of Christianity, in which all Christians were more generally united than in what we now call Episcopacy. Were we to admit that so great and material a change was made in our religion, without being recorded in history, we might well fear that other great changes were also made: that even the Scriptures were altered. If all the Churches would agree, in corrupting one part, why not in corrupting another part? In any part of the three first centuries, it would have been as difficult to produce such a change, as it would be in our day. And to me, certainly, such a change, so silent, so peaceable, and so general, without opposition, or any historical record, is a moral impossibility.

I have dwelt longer on this subject than I intended. Being about, the Lord permitting, to advance one to a higher grade in this ministry, I thought it might be satisfactory, and I hope not unprofitable, to the people present, to show briefly by what authority we do this, and who has given us this authority. Should there be any here who think differently on this point, they will

not, I trust, regret having heard what we think on a subject which so much concerns us all. Nothing will tend more to unite Christians in love, than candidly hearing from each other the hope that is in them. And, indeed, if differing denominations of Christians are ever brought to strive together for the faith of the Gospel, it will be by their first uniting in the government, (whatever they may decide it to be,) which God has set in his Church.

Much cause have we to bless God, that his promise of a Christian ministry has not failed; that these streams of his mercy have descended to us, and are watering this, our favored country.— Through his goodness, we are now here assembled for the interesting purpose of solemnly advancing to the order of the Priesthood, one who, as we trust, "has executed the office of a Deacon well, and purchased to himself" this higher degree in the sacred ministry. On occasions like this, did the primitive Christians fast and pray. With earnest solicitude and deep humiliation they besought God to pour his Spirit upon those who were appointed to this office and ministration. Did we duly reflect upon it, how momentous would appear the work which our hands now find to do! a work which so much concerns the honor of our Saviour, the prosperity of his Church, and the salvation of we know not how many immortal souls.

SERMON XXV.

RESPONSIBILITY OF THE GOSPEL MINISTRY.

By the Rev. ALEXANDER R. C. DALLAS, M. A.,

HEBREWS xiii. 17.

They watch for your souls, as they that must give account.

THE words of the text form part of the concluding admonition which St. Paul addresses to the Hebrews. In the beginning of the chapter he exhorts to the continuance of that brotherly love which our Lord had designated as the distinguishing characteristic of his disciples. In this exhortation he shortly includes excitements to hospitality, sympathy, chastity and contentment;and then in the seventh verse he calls attention to those, who, having preached the word of God, have had rule over, or (as in the margin) have been the guides of the Church; as being examples to the flock, whose faith is to be followed, considering how it has led them to finish their course with joy,-the faith in that Jesus Christ who is the same yesterday, and to-day, and forever.Having placed the people on this Rock of Ages, the immutable foundation of truth, both in doctrine and practice, he warns them against the danger of loosing from this safe and immovable rock, in order to launch into the unsteady ocean of divers and strange doctrines: and in the seventeenth verse he gives instructions concerning their duty to their living spiritual guides, as he had before referred to the example of those who had departed in the faith; but he repeats the former exhortation with greater force, as though he would thus point out the ministerial guidance as most surely directing the people to the safe rock. Obey them that guide you, or have the rule over you, and submit yourselves. To this the Apos

tle subjoins a motive of gratitude, as an additional excitement to obedience; for they watch over your souls, as they that must give account. While the more direct object of the sacred writer in this passage is to inculcate upon the people, a ready obedience to their spiritual guides, and a submission to the word of God, there is also conveyed in the expression a distinct statement of the duty of the ministers of Christ, very comprehensive in its nature, though condensed in its form; a statement which is in complete consistency with all that is to be gathered from other parts of Scripture concerning the ministerial office. "They watch for souls;" this is, their occupation. They do this, "as they that must give account;" this expresses the spirit in which the duty is to be fulfilled. It is a sentence uttered by the Holy Spirit of God through the mouth of one who illustrated its requirement by himself making full proof of his ministry, and becoming "all things to all men that he might by all means save some;" and who when " he was put in trust with the Gospel, spake not as pleasing men but God, which trieth our hearts." And thus it becomes a comprehensive index of ministerial fitness, which should be imprinted on the hearts of all to whom the like trust is committed.

A wide range of interesting meditation is opened to the mind by the references of this index: but it seems to me that the heart of a minister of Christ will especially dwell upon the latter portion of the sentence with a solemn alarm-a holy fear-which spreads its exciting influence so as to produce an active fulfillment of the duty stated in the former clause. The awful responsibility of the ministerial office is the excitement that God has been pleased to appoint as the legitimate personal motive, by which all the energy of human instrumentality, is applied to the great work of gathering God's people out of the world that lieth in wickedness, and making them "meet to be partakers of the inheritance of the saints in light." It is this point-the responsibility of those that "watch for souls"-which I purpose to dwell upon at the present moment, while addressing my brethren in the ministry, in order to bring to remembrance those things which may "stir up the gift of God" that is in us "by the putting on of hands." A minister should always measure the great need of the Gospel to others, by an experimental knowledge of the requirement of his own heart. And if this rule be important when he is addressing the people committed to his charge; how much more is it essenVOL. II.-36

« ZurückWeiter »