תמונות בעמוד
[ocr errors][ocr errors]

of the angels of the seven churches, of which he speaks as the only churches then in Asia.

That the jurisdiction of Timothy and Titus extended over more than one Christian assembly at Ephesus and in Crete; that by the apostle they were invested with authority over the presbyters as well as people of those assemblies; and that to them an exclusive right was given to ordain elders or presbyters in every city under their jurisdiction; are facts which no man has ventured to deny, and which no man can deny, who has read St. Paul's epistles to Timothy and Titus, and at the same time possesses common sense and honesty. Attempts have indeed been made to get rid of the inference from these facts, by representing the extensive authority with which Timothy and Titus were entrusted, as the authority, not of fixed governors of the churches over which they were to preside, but of Evangelists! This, however, cannot be admitted. We are not aware of a single instance in the New Testament, where an evangelist, as such, is represented as ordaining elders or even deacons; and it is certain that Timothy and Titus neither acted nor could act as evangelists at Ephesus or in Crete, except in a sense which, under that denomination, includes elders.

The word evangelist is unquestionably derived from the verb {uayyeaośw, which, according to an able critic" not prejudiced in behalf of a hierarchy, “ relates to the first intimation that is given to a

person or people, that is, when the subject may “ be properly called good news. Thus, in the Acts “ of the Apostles, it is frequently used for the first “publication of the Gospel in a city or village, or “ amongst a particular people.” But if this be essential to the radical import of the verb, of which indeed there can be no doubt, then it follows that an

Dr. Campbell, of Aberdeen,

evangelist, considered as a distinct character, could only be one, whether apostle, elder, deacon, or layman, who first carried the glad tidings of the Gospel to an individual or a people. Hence it is, that of the seven deacons not one is called an evangelist but Philip, because, though Stephen preached the Gospel as well and as ably as he, Philip is the only one of the number mentioned by St. Luke as having carried the glad tidings of the Gospel beyond the limits of Judea, within which these tidings were first told by Christ and his apostles. Hence too it follows, that those, whom St. Paul says that Christ, after his ascension, "gave as evangelists for the “ work of the ministry,” must have been men miraculously inspired with the knowlege of the Gospel, which cannot be said of Timothy or of Titus, and impelled by the same heavenly influence to communicate that knowlege to those to whom it was new. But in this sense Timothy and Titus could not be evangelists to the churches of Ephesus and Crete, because St. Paul himself had preached the Gospel in those churches before them, and had even ordained presbyters in the church of Ephesus.

It has indeed been said that ευαγγελίζομαι is occasionally used in the same sense with διδάσκω. . grant this for the sake of argument, though we are not aware of a single instance in which one of these verbs could be properly substituted for the other, still we must observe that the character of an evangelist, in this sense of the word, could give to Timothy no superiority over the elders of Ephesus, who were teachers as well as he, and enjoined by the apostle to “ feed the church of God, which he had pur“ chased with his own blood.” Timothy was indeed exhorted by St. Paul to “ do the work of an evan

gelist” at Ephesus; but the elders were in duty bound, as well as he, to do the work of evangelists; for in Ephesus there were then many people who had not heard of the Gospel, which every minister of VOL. VI,


If we


Christ is bound, as he has opportunity, to propagate among the heathens as well as to preach among Christians. Timothy was likewise exhorted, in the very same verse, to “ accomplish his deaconship”την διακονίαν σου πληροφόρησον; but it would surely be absurd to infer from such an exhortation that the overseer of the presbyters and people of Ephesus was himself nothing more than a deacon.

If it be thus evident that the bishops known in the first century by the titles of apostles or angels of the churches presided each over more than one Christian assembly, we need not pursue the argument through the second and third centuries, since it is on all hands agreed, that the powers of the bishops were not diminished as the boundaries of the church were enlarged. This would have been extremely absurd; though we see no evidence that, during the second and third centuries, the bishops in general either claimed or had the smallest inducement to claim any power or pre-eminence which they possessed not in the first. What the hierarchy was in the beginning of the second century is apparent from the epistles of Ignatius, and from the fragments of other primitive writers preserved by Eusebius, whilst the canons commonly called apostolical, with the writings of St. Cyprian and other fathers of the church, define the powers and privileges of each of the three orders in the third century in terms which cannot be mistaken. From these canons and writings it appears evident, that no bishop in that century, with the exception perhaps of Victor and Stephen, bishops of Rome, arrogated to himself any authority which was not committed to the angels of the Asiatic churches, and which Timothy and Titus were not enjoined to exercise in the churches of Ephesus and Crete.

The only thing else, in Dr. Mosheim's view of the constitution of the primitive church, which calls for animadversion, is the account which he gives of the

[ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors]

origin of chorepiscopi, and of deacons in the church of Jerusalem, before the ordination of the seven. recorded in the sixth chapter of the Acts of the Apostles.

There is no evidence of chorepiscopi being any where established in the first or second century, or in the beginning of the third. They are not mentioned in the apostolical canons, nor in the writings of Clement of Rome, Ignatius of Antioch, or even St. Cyprian. The first council that takes any notice of them is that of Ancyra, holden in 315, which prohibits them from ordaining priests and deacons. They are mentioned by the great council of Nice, which provides the place of a village-bishop or chorin episcopus for such of the Novatian bishops aś should abjure their schism, and be reconciled to the catholic church. But the fullest, as well as the most accurate and at the same time concise account, that is perhaps any where extant of the chorepiscopi, is in the tenth canon of the synod of Antioch, holden in the year 34), which decrees,

“ That village-bishops, though they have received episcopal ordination, shall yet keep within their “ bounds, and administer the affairs of the churches

subject to them, and be content with the manage“ ment of them, and ordain readers, and sub“ deacons, and exorcists, and content themselves “ with the power of promoting men to these offices, " and not dare to ordain a priest or deacon, without “ the consent of the bishop of the city to which they “ themselves and their districts are subject; and, if “ any one dare to transgress what has now been “ determined, he shall be deprived of the honor “ which he has. A village-bishop is made by the “ bishop of the city to which he is subject $.”

8 Τός εν ταις κώμαις, ή τάις χώράις, ή τες καλεμένες χωρεπισκόπος, ει και χειροθεσίαν ειεν επισκόπων ειληφότες, έδοξε τη αγια συνόδω ειδέναι τα εαυτών μέτρα, και διοικειν τας υποκειμενας αυτούς εκκλησίας, και τη τετων άρκεισθαι φροντίδα και κηδεμονία, καθίσταν δε αναγνώστας, και υποδιακόνος, και επορκίστας, και τη τύτων

From this canon it is evident that the chorepiscopi were bishops regularly ordained ; that they were chosen or nominated by the city-bishop, or diocesan, to take upon them part of his labor, and were in all things to be directed by him, when their duty was not expressly pointed out by any canon. They seem to have been introduced into the church toward the end of the third century, when the extent of some dioceses, the poverty of the bishops, and the occasional severity of persecution, rendered it difficult if not impossible for the diocesan to perform, as often as was proper, the various duties of his function; but those village-bishops appear to have sometimes acted very irregularly, by multiplying without reason the number of the inferior clergy, and therefore were soon laid aside. They were indeed retained for some time after the danger of persecution was over, and when the revenues of the city-bishop enabled him, without inconvenience, to visit every church under his jurisdiction; but, in 367, it was decreed by the council of Laodicea, that no more village-bishops or chorepiscopi should be ordained.

Though we see no evidence whatever that the young men, who carried away the dead bodies of Ananias and Sapphira, were such ministers of the church of Jerusalem, as Stephen and Philip and the other five, who were ordained at the same time with them by the apostles; yet we readily admit that the words veutepor and venvíoxou may signify the inferior ministers of the church, as well as the word aper BÚTEPOL signifies those of a higher order : we even readily adopt Dr. Mosheim's opinion, that the words weitwr and VEÚtepos (St. Luke xxii. 26.) vetepor and

[ocr errors]

αρκεισθαι προαγωγ» μήτε δε πρεσβύτερον, μήτε διακονον χειροτονέιν τολμάν, διχα τα εν τη πολει επισκόπο, η υπόκεινται αυτός τε και η χωρα. Ει δε τολμησειεν τις παραβήναι τα ορισθέντα, καθαιρεσθαι αυτόν, ης μετέχει τιμης. Χωρεπίσκοπον δε γινεσθαι υπο το της πολεως, η υποκειται, επισκοπό.

See the Canons of St, Basil, bishop of Cæsarea in Cappado. çia, canon 90.

« הקודםהמשך »