Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

give you offence. We only claim that right of thinking for our selves, and of inculcating our opinions which we are in the constant habit of exercising. Why, then, may not our Church talk to the Presbyterians, as they would talk to the Quakers? This is all that is contended for. The Presbyterians have departed from the divinely instituted Priesthood. The Quakers have gone a step further, and discarded the Priesthood altogether. In truth, we cannot maintain the divine right of Episcopacy, and admit the validity of ordination by Presbyters. The two things are utterly inconsistent with each other. To condemn us, then, for questioning the right of Presbyters to ordain, is to attempt to terrify us into a renunciation of our principles. What is this but the very spirit of persecution? To admit the validity of Presbyterian ordination is to abjure our faith; for, we cannot admit it, and yet maintain the necessity of subordinate orders in the ministry, with distinct powers, the important prerogative of ordination being vested solely in the higher order. It is with real pain we find ourselves compelled to inculcate principles leading to the conclusion, that dissenters from Episcopacy are without authority from the Great Head of the Church. But we can never consent to give up the right of judgment, or of enforcing what we suppose to be taught by the sacred volume.

Let us follow the Presbyterians one step further, and see how they treat that Church, of whose want of charity, in persisting to think for herself, they so loudly complain. Take, as an example, the language of this very writer: "The Classical or Presbyterial form of Church Government is the true and only one which Christ hath prescribed in his word." "The custom of having diocesan Bishops is corrupt and injurious." All distinction and subordination in the ministry are declared, in confessions of faith that might be mentioned, to be unscriptural and antichristian. And this, permit me to add, has been the habitual language of dissenters, in every period of their history. What think you, then, of this loud charge against the Episcopal Church for denying the validity of Presbyterial ordination! The very men who thus reproach her hesitate not in representing her system of government as corrupt, as unscriptural, as antichristian. Indeed, indeed, this is singular conduct; presenting, certainly, one of the rarest specimens of contradiction that the annals of human inconsistency have ever exhibited. We will represent the Episcopal government as a corrupt and injurious innovation. We will set up our own system as the only one which is at all consistent with the revealed will of God; but, beware how you indulge in that liberty of speech which we exercise. Does not this look like intolerance of the most decided character? But I attribute not this disposition to the writer whom I oppose. I sincerely believe him to be free from the spirit of persecution, and I know not how to account for his conduct, but by referring it to the almost irresistible force of early habit and prepossession. To this we are all deeply subject; and, while it should excite us seriously to examine our opinions, and conscientiously to seek for truth, it should read to us, at the same time, a lesson of forbearance and humility.

The subject of this paper will be continued and concluded in my next address.

A Layman of the Episcopal Church

For the Albany Centinel.

MISCELLANIES. No. XIII.

THE arguments which the sect of Episcopalians attempt to draw

from scripture, in support of their Bishop, scarcely deserve an answer. They deal chiefly in assertions, without producing one substantial proof.

It is presumed "that the Christian Priesthood is the completion and perfection of the Jewish; and that as the latter subsisted under three orders, of High Priest, Priests, and Levites, so the former is constitued under three orders resembling these." It is asserted "that what Aaron and his sons and the Levites were in the temple, such are the Bishops, Presbyters, and Deacons in the Christian Church. These are appointed by God as those were, and therefore it can be no less sacrilege to usurp their office." Here is nothing but assertion of a very extraordinary nature. These are appointed, and those were appointed; but no proof is exhibited of these succeeding and resembling those. Nor is it said how far the model of the Jewish Church is to be followed, except in having three orders, and of their being appointed. No authority is quoted from the New Testament, no direction of Christ and his Apostles is mentioned.*

This loose and wonderful argument is answered, merely by saying that the whole Jewish dispensation was typical, and was completely fulfilled and abolished at the coming of Christ. "The hour cometh when ye shall neither in this mountain nor yet at Jerusalem worship the Father. The hour cometh and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth; for the Father seeketh such to worship him." The argument, however, being much relied upon by the Romish Church, and adopted by the Episcopalians, who have not dissented from her as to the article of orders and ordinations, there is a propriety in showing its absurdity. The Pope finds here his own dignity. Will any dare to dispute the title of one who is both type and antetype-who was typified by Aaron, the first High Priest among the Jews, and who was afterwards consecrated by Christ as his lawful successor? Will any one be so bold as to blame the splendour, pomp, and ceremonies of the Popish worship, or to blot one Saint or Holy day from the Calender, not excepting "Saint Michael and all Angels," or " All Saints Day," when the whole rests on such a firm foundation?

If the Episcopalians would prove any thing in their favour, they must show not that there are three orders in the Christian Church,

* The connection between the Jewish and the Christian Priesthood so generally acknowledged by Christian divines is ably explained and defended by the Layman in his eighth, and by Cyprian in his fourth number. Ed.

† How then was the Jewish Priesthood "fulfilled," but in the institution of the Christian; which is, as the author of the Companion for the Altar observes, "the completion and perfection of the Jewish," and resembles it in its three orders ? Ed.

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 restriction 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?t 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 established 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." "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 Governors 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

« AnteriorContinuar »