istry of the church. That this was the case, would appear from the fact, that Paul generally had two or more ministers in company with him, so that they could at any time act as a presbytery.1 But did not, it is asked, the apostles alone, to the exclusion of the elders, ordain the deacons, as recorded in the sixth chapter of Acts? To this we reply, that at this time there had not been any other ministers, or presbyters, set apart, by whom this duty could have been discharged. The apostles then took the first step towards introducing the regular organized form of the government of the church, and the question is, whether in that established form there is any recognition of an order of ordainers in distinction from an order of preachers. But, even in thus setting apart the order of deacons, and while thus showing, that in conferring ordination, the people could not, properly, unite, the apostles, nevertheless, acted as presbyters, and not as prelates. For they were all together. They constituted a presbytery. They took common oversight of the church of Jerusalem. And it was as a presbytery they exercised the power of ordination.2 § 2. The ordinations conferred by Timothy and Titus were presbyterial, nor is there provision made, in the epistles addressed to them, for any other than presbyterial ordination. The same conclusion must be drawn, also, from the recorded examples of Timothy and Titus. These individuals were specially deputed by the apostle, to visit the churches, to see that every thing was carried on in an orderly manner, and to ordain presbyters in every city. For this cause,' says Paul to Titus, (1: 5,) 'left I thee in Crete, that thou shouldest set in order the things that are wanting, and ordain elders (or presbyters) in every city, as I had appointed thee.' So, also, Timothy is enjoined to lay hands, suddenly, on no man.' 1 Tim. 5: 22. It is not to be denied, that Timothy and Titus were depu ted by the apostle, on an extraordinary embassy, arising out of the condition and circumstances of the infant church. But they performed this mission in that ministerial character which they already possessed. Titus was left in Crete, just as he was, without any additional consecration; and Timo 1) See 1 Thess. 1: 1, and 2 Thess. 2) See Boyse's Anct. Episcop. p. 1: 1; See Pierce's Vind. of Presb. 231. Ord. part ii. p. 79. 4 thy was sent to Ephesus with no other ordination, that we know of, than that which he had received from the hands of the presbytery. That they were neither of them prelates, we shall afterwards show, by a refutation of the grounds on which such a pretension has been based. We may, however, be permitted now to state, that they were both regarded, even subsequently to this mission, as evangelists. This must appear evident to any one who will consider that they were both required to be in perpetual motion, and were not permitted to remain fixed in any one place, as we shall have occasion to show. They accompanied the apostles on their journeys, and assisted them by preaching, visiting, and helping to settle officers in the churches, and had equal authority in different churches, as in Corinth and Thessalonica.3 Timothy, we know, is explicitly denominated an evangelist, (2 Tim. 4: 5,) and Titus may, therefore, quoad hoc, receive the same title, as he is characterized by the same duties, (2 Cor. 8: 23.) Such is the opinion of Dr. Willet, and of Stillingfleet, who says, 'and such were Timothy and Titus, notwithstanding all the opposition made against it, as will appear to any one who will take an impartial survey of the arguments on both sides;' of the Jesuit Salmero; of Mr. Jordan; of Mr. Thorndike; and of Saravia, who says, they were of the same rank with Mark, who, it is well known, was inferior to Barnabas, being his follower, and as it were, his disciple. But, if Timothy and Titus were evangelists, then they were presbyters, since evangelists were only presbyters, to whom, when they had no prospect of returning to any place, the apostles gave a commission to ordain ministers.' 10 They were denominated evangelists, not from their ministerial order, but from their ministerial work, which is thus described by Eusebius. These having merely laid the foundations of the faith, and ORDAINED OTHER PASTORS, (of course, implying that they were themselves of the pastoral or presbyterial order,) committed to them the cultivation of the churches newly planted; while they, themselves, supported by the grace and coöperation of God, proceeded to other The countries and nations. For, even then, many astonishing miracles of the divine Spirit were wrought by them.' work of an evangelist, as such, was thus altogether extraordinary and temporary; but, in his ordinary character and ministerial standing, he was no more than a pastor, or presbyter. The evangelists were comites et vicarii apostolorum, vice-apostles, who, like them, had curam vicariam omnium ecclesiarum, the vicarious charge of all the churches; and who, as Ambrose says, did evangelizare sine cathedra, that is, preach the gospel without any special charge.2 These evangelists, then, were extraordinarily endowed like the apostles, though in an inferior degree, and by the imposi tion of their hands. They acted not as fixed ministers.' 4 'It must be granted,' says Thorndike, 'that Timothy, as an evangelist, is no governor of churches.' 5 Evangelists, therefore, could not have been prelates, for it is an essential feature in the character of a prelate, that he is set over a church already existing, and requiring an overseer to rule its various elders and deacons; whereas, these evangelists went forth among the heathen to found infant churches, and, having ordained pastors over them, to go on to other regions." Such, undoubtedly, was the opinion of Eusebius, and such is the unavoidable dictate of common sense. These evangelists were still subject to the apostles, who retained 'the care of the churches in their own hands.' 7 Of course, they could not be apostles, nor, in any proper sense, successors of the apostles, since they labored with them and under them, and possessed no independent or apostolic power over the churches. They 'came short of the apostles,' says Thorndike, and of the measure and kind of those graces of miracles, language, and the like, that make an apostle.' These, then,' says Saravia, 'were the evangelists, and inferior to the twelve apostles; being assigned as deputies to commanders-in-chief, to act in their stead, with like authority.'9 8 It is truly pitiful to find christian men, in order to support 1) Hist. Eccles. lib. iii. c. 37. 2) See Jus. Div. Min. Evang. p. 68, part ii. See the same view of this office given by Saravia on the Priesthood, pp. 65, 67, 77-79, 83, 111; Thorndike's Prim. Govt. of the Ch. pp. 37-40; Essays on the Ch. p. 252; Sinclair's Vind. of the Ap. Succ. Lond. 1839, p. 20; Dr. Pusey's Ch. the Converter of the Heathen, Lond. 1839, Serm. II. p. 8; Bloomfield's N. T. on Eph. 4: 11; Dr. Hammond's 3) Thorndike, pp. 38, 39. 6) Essays on the Ch. P. 252. 9) Ibid, p. 78. The word apostle, in 2 Cor. 8: 23, 24, is used in its general sense of messenger, and does not refer to Titus. this prelatical hypothesis, warping and twisting scripture, or rather making it. Thus we are gravely told, that in 2 Cor. 8: 23, 24, where the apostle speaks of our brethren as the messengers of the churches,' he intended to say 'THE APOSTLES,' as if every church had as many apostles as they chose; and that, whereas he speaks of brethren distinct from his 'fellow-helper Titus,' he meant to refer to Luke and Titus, and to make apostles of these two.1 And yet Saravia refuses to reckon Mark and Luke' even among the seventy evangelists, because they were called to the ministry by man.' 2 Tertullian, too, expressly declares, that LUKE WAS NOT AN APOSTLE, but an apostolic man; not a master, but a disciple, and consequently less than a master.'3 Papias also makes Mark a follower of Peter only and it is well known, adds Saravia, that Mark was inferior to Barnabas, being his follower, and, as it were, disciple, and so of the same rank with Titus and Timotheus, that is, simple evangelists. Finally, Saravia enumerates among the presbyters whom the apostles and evangelists ordained, John, Mark, Titus, Luke, Timothy, Demas, Silvanus,' who were made ministers of the gospel by the hands of the presbytery.'6 Besides, even were we to rank Timothy and Titus with the apostles, we should do so only because of their extraordinary endowments, and consequent duties. But these were superadded to their ordinary ministerial character, and did not make or constitute them ministers. They characterized them as evangelists. It follows, therefore, that whatever superiority they enjoyed in consequence of these gifts, and this peculiar office, was wholly personal, and not ministerial. It could not be transferred to any who were not in like manner endowed. It could not, therefore, constitute the distinction of a permanent order of ministers in the church, but must have terminated with the cessation of these gifts. And thus we might even suppose, that, as evangelists, Timothy and Titus had a superior power to govern and ordain, and yet that this power, in its ordinary degree, belonged then, as it does now, to all presbyters. The apostles were superior to Timothy and Titus, and gave them only a part of their power and authority; but who will say they were a distinct and superior order? On the contrary, as we have seen, they were, in their ordinary standing, presbyters, and acted as such, and so, therefore, were 1) Oxford Tracts, vol. i. p. 230. 4) Euseb. Eccl. Hist. iii. Timothy and Titus.1 And, as if to leave no doubt on this matter, we find, that when Timothy is joined with the apostles in any epistle, St. Paul appropriates the title of apostle to himself, and never applies it to him. Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ, by the will of God, and Timothy, our brother!"2 56 It follows, then, that these evangelists were so called from their personal qualifications and duties, and not from their ministerial order, which is as much as to say, in English, that the gift of an evangelist may fall upon any rank of ordinary minister.' 3 It is thus plain, that, in order, they were presbyters. They are so arranged in the apostolic classification, in Eph. 4: 11. Christ, says Paul, gave first apostles; secondly, prophets, (whom we have seen were presbyters,) and evangelists.' But prophets and evangelists are identified by archbishop Potter as one and the same order, differently endowed and employed. Saravia labors to prove that they were of the number of the seventy, who are generally ranked by prelatists in the order of presbyters. Evangelists,' says Hooker, 'were presbyters of principal sufficiency,' and only different from other presbyters 'in not being settled in some charge.' 6 Dr. Hammond ranks them below presbyters, and therefore not among prelates. Thorndike asserts, that he (Timothy) was ordained deacon by the church at Ephesus, to give attendance on St. Paul in his travels, for which purpose his personal grace of evangelist was opportune.' Such, also, is the opinion of Mr. Sinclair. This, also, was the opinion of Ignatius, who expressly makes Timothy the deacon of Paul, meaning thereby that he was such as ministered a pure and blameless ministry.' Some of these opinions, it must be allowed, are very extravagant and groundless, but they very clearly prove that evangelists could not have been prelates, but that they must have been, in general, ministers of the word, or presbyters. At all events, it is demonstrable that they were not more than presbyters, nor superior to them in their order and rank as ordinary ministers of Jesus Christ. Pope Pius, it is certain, has expressly reckoned Timothy and Mark with the presbyters educated by the apostles.10 1) See Pierce's Vind. of Presb. Ord. part ii. p. 28, &c. 2) See 2 Cor. 1:1; 1 Cor. 1: 1; Col. 1: 1. 3) Thorndike, p. 39. See this also argued by the Episcopal author to whom he replies in Boyse's Anct. Episc. p. 299. 4) On Ch. Govt. pp. 92-94. 77, &c. 6) Eccl. Pol. b. v. § 78. vol. iii. pp. 390, 391. Hanbury's ed. 7) Dissert. 3, c. 6, in Baxter on Episc. p. 91. 8) As above, p. 175; On the Apost. Succ. p. 20. 9) Ep. to the Trallians. 10) Biblioth. Patr. tom. iii. p. 15; in Baxter on Episc. p. 105. |