Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

will have it so," a Church officer, a grave man, or man of authority." At the same time Paul, as an Apostle, was superior not only to Timothy and Titus, but I verily believe to all the Patriarchs, Metropolitans, Archbishops, Bishops, &c. who ever existed either in the Romish or Protestant Episcopal Church. "Let this be remembered.”

As to the reflection on the author of " Miscellanies" for the neglect of the "use of means" in explaining scripture, let it only be said, that prayer and the reading of the New Testament are among the best means. O, that both Clergymen and Laymen devoted more time to these. Besides, the reader will see that commentators are not undervalued nor neglected.

The "Layman" speaks of " the uniform and uninterrupted testimony of the Church universal for fifteen hundred years," of " the decided and unequivocal evidence of primitive history," and of "the validity of Presbyterial ordination having been denied from its origin." These assertions, without any qualification, are extremely unwarrantable. He will permit me to recommend to him to read Mosheim's Ecclesiastical History, and Neal's History of the Puritans; or if he prefer a Bishop of his own Church, he may read Burnet's History of the Reformation.* Is it possible that there should be a necessity in the nineteenth century to give an account of the early rise and gradual progress of popery, to produce the sentiments and conduct of the best and most learned Bishops of the Church of England as to Presbyterian ordination, together with the statutes of the realm ?† A generous man would wish neither to

* Is it not astonishing that this author will refer to Bishop Burnet, who, in his History of the Reformation, vol. i. p. 366, expressly says, that to maintain that Bishops and Priests are not distinct orders, is to follow the schoolmen and canonists of the Church of Rome, the very dregs of popery? And in his exposition of the articles he says, that "Christ appointed a succession of Pastors, in different ranks; and as the Apostles settled_the Churches, they appointed different orders of Bishops, Priests, and Deacons." Burnet's Exp. Art. 25.

Ed.

It is a fact, capable of being satisfactorily proved, that "the best and most learned Bishops of the Church of England," whatever allowance they might be disposed to make for supposed cases of necessity, never admitted as a general truth the validity of Presbyterian ordination. On the contrary, they maintained with the Church in the preface to the ordination services, that no man was to be esteemed a lawful Bishop, Priest, or Deacon, who bad not EPISCOPAL consecration or ordination. Even Bishop Burnet, to whom the author of Miscellanies refers, expressly says, that Archbishop Cranmer changed the "singular opinions" which, at the commencement of the reformation, while his sentiments on many fundamental doctrines were unsettled and erroneous, he was disposed to entertain concerning the equality of power in Bishops and Presbyters. These are the words of Bishop Burnet: "In Cranmer's paper some singular notions of his about the nature of ecclesiastical offices will be found; but as they are delivered by him with all possible modesty, so they are not established as the doctrine of the Church, but laid aside as particular conceits of his own; and it seems that afterwards he changed his opinion. For he subscribed the book that was soon afterwards set out, which is directly contrary to those opinions set down in these papers." Burnet's Hist. vol. i. p. 289. Ed.

mislead his readers, nor to give his opponent unnecessary trouble. He would wish to contend by fair means and with lawful weapons. Perhaps the greatest disingenuity of this writer is an attempt to persuade his readers, that the author of " Miscellanies" had made an unprovoked and violent attack upon the Episcopal Church; whereas the fact is precisely the reverse. This work he has been labouring at in several former pieces; and in the late one he speaks of a "bitter newspaper attack." One would think, from the representation given, that passages quoted had been mutilated, that the books mentioned were intended only for the instruction of Episcopalians, that there was a design to deprive them of the right of judging for themselves, and that they were in danger of becoming an oppressed and persecuted sect.* All this would be pitiable in this free country, were it true. But nobody was meddling with their apostolic constitution and worship. It was expected that, like other sects, they would declare their sentiments, and practise accordingly. I never heard a person say that their ministry and their ordinances were not valid. It is their proclaiming themselves to be the only true Church, and condemning all others, in imperious and insolent language, which has given the offence. It is their reviving exploded doctrines about divine right and uninterrupted succession, and claiming an exclusive right to the administration of the word and ordinances, which has excited both opposition and contempt. While I express myself thus strongly, I solemnly declare that I have a high respect for Episcopalians, and would commune with them (did circumstances require it) as well as admit them to commune with me. I do not believe that the offensive sentiments are approved of by the denomination at large. Whoever will read with attention the works which have been referred to, and consider them in connection with what has been done by the Bishop of the Episcopal Church in this State-that he has re-baptised, and re-ordained, cannot justly pronounce any thing which has been written "bitter" or "vindictive." I know not what provocation Bishop Seabury had; but I know that he ought not to have indulged his resentment or his ridicule in a publication professedly written for the purpose of conciliation and union. The threat, with which the "Layman" concludes, towards the non-episcopalians in Connecticut, interests me little. If they have behaved ill, they deserve chastisement. I only plead that they may be shown mercy. CLEMENS.

*And surely if they are not allowed to maintain their principles, because those principles may in their consequences affect other denominations, they are "in danger of becoming an oppressed and persecuted sect." Ed.

† Why then does this very writer, towards the close of this address, warmly censure the Bishop in this State for ordaining those who had not been Episcopally ordained? Is it not evident that the "maintaining" Episcopal ordination, and "practising" accordingly, is what has called forth the invective and ridicule, the " opposition and contempt," of the author of Miscellanies?

Ed.

For the Albany Centinel.

POSTSCRIPT TO THE LAYMAN. No. VIII.*

SITUATED

UATED at a great distance from Albany,† it requires a num3 ber of days for the papers to reach me, and an equal number for my pieces to be conveyed to the Editors. I mention this in reference to the interval that has sometimes occurred between objections urged by the Miscellaneous writer, and the answers which I have furnished. The public may rest assured it has not been owing to any intrinsic difficulty in the objections themselves. They are all perfectly trite.

I have a word or two to say to Clemens.

He has been, indeed, "weak" in supposing that the only question relative to Timothy, growing out of the Episcopal controversy, is in reference to the manner of his ordination. It is very easy to see why the advocates of parity would exclude from view the situation of Timothy in the Church of Ephesus, since it carries absolute death to their cause. Is it an immaterial circumstance that Timothy ruled the whole Church of Ephesus, both Clergy and Laity, the Elders or Presbyters being subject to his spiritual jurisdiction? Is it an immaterial circumstance that Timothy alone exercised the power of ordaining Ministers, and thus of conveying the sacerdotal authority? What then becomes of the doctrine of parity? Destroyed, utterly destroyed. The Church of Ephesus, planted by St. Paul, and placed, by that Apostle, under the government of Timothy, was constructed upon a totally different principle. It had, in Timothy, a Bishop, possessing jurisdiction over the other Clergy, and exercising all the powers which are claimed for the Bishops of the Church Is it of no consequence that the ancients, who speak on the subject, unanimously represent Timothy as the first Bishop of Ephesus? What says Eusebius? "He was the first Bishop of the province or diocese of Ephesus." Eccl. Hist. Bib. iii. chap. 4. What says Chrysostom?" It is manifest Timothy was intrusted with a whole nation, viz. Asia." Hom. 15th in 1 Tim. v. 19. Theodoret calls him the Apostle of the Asiatics. The Apostolical constitutions expressly tell us that he was ordained Bishop of Ephesus by St. Paul; and in the council of Chalcedon, twenty-seven Bishops are said to have ceded him in the government of that Church. We are perfectly safe, then, so far as relates to Timothy, in resting our cause upon the situation which he occupied at Ephesus, and on the powers which he exercised there. The constitution of the Church of Ephesus was undeniably Episcopal. This part of the subject the advocates of parity do not choose to meddle with, running off constantly to the term Presbytery, that poor word being the chief basis of their cause.

now.

We next show that there is no proof of the ordination of Ti

This Postscript is here inserted separate from the number to which it was annexed, as it contains an answer to the remarks of Clemens. Ed. The Layınan removed from Albany after he had written his two first, numbers. Ed.

M

mothy being Presbyterial, and that the evidence of scripture, even on this point, is decidedly in favour of the Episcopal system. But we do not rely on the verses wherein St. Paul exhorts Timothy as to the gift that is in him, because the manner of the ordination of Timothy cannot be reduced from the evidence of scripture to absolute certainty. But in reference to the powers which Timothy possessed in the Church of Ephesus, and to the Episcopal constitution of that Church, there is not a shadow of doubt. On this we rest our cause, contenting ourselves, in relation to the manner of the ordination of Timothy, with showing that there is no evidence of its being Presbyterial, and that the testimony of scripture goes strongly, if not with certainty, to prove that it was Episcopal. Having a certain proof to rely on, we do not rely on another which, though strong, is, nevertheless, not absolutely certain. As an additional reason for this, the advocates of parity have no answer to make to the first of these proofs, while they evade the latter by dwelling upon names. It is in this point of view that the subject is placed in the Companion for the Festivals, and in the first address which I submitted to the public. The reader can turn to the pieces and judge for himself.

Clemens tells us that the Presbyters of Alexandria ordained their Bishops for two hundred years. All I have to say is, that the Presbyters of Alexandria never did ordain their Bishops. Why did not Clemens produce his proof? The reason is very plain. He was aware that it is utterly insufficient, and will not bear examination. As soon as he attempts to substantiate his assertion, it will be time enough to go into that part of the subject.

Clemens is not candid in relation to that part of my piece in which I observe that Episcopalians have never relied upon names. He would lead the reader to suppose that they do not rely upon pas sages of scripture. On these, indeed, the Episcopal cause is grounded. I said, and I repeat it, that the true question is as to the or ders of Ministers that were established in the Church, and that this question is to be determined, not by names or titles of office, but by the authorities exercised. It is upon names or titles of office that the advocates of parity rest their system. These are of general sig nification, and prove nothing on either side. But on this point I have already said enough, and more than enough.

I admitted that meta is sometimes used for dia; but I said, and I' appeal to every Greek scholar for the accuracy of it, that dia is a much more appropriate term than meta to express the cause of a thing; that dia emphatically denotes the instrumental cause, that meta emphatically denotes concurrence; and that although meta is sometimns used for dia, yet the above is the reigning sense of the words, and the reigning distinction between them. But suppose I admit all that Clemens says about dia and meta, of what avail will it be to his cause? Let him prove that the Presbytery spoken of in the first Epistle to Timothy were upon a level with the Elders of Ephesus. Let him prove that they were not Apostles. Until he does. this, he does nothing; and if he ventures upon the task, he will only give us the old story of names over again.

As to the passage in the Epistle to Titus, "For this cause left I thee in Crete, that thou shouldest set in order the things that are

wanting, and ordain Elders in every city, as I had appointed thee," I have only to say, that it clearly conveys the idea of Paul having ordained Titus to his office, and that such is the construction of the most judicious commentators. Add to this, that the united voice of primitive writers represents him as having been ordained by the Apostle Paul.

Clemens endeavours to make me contradict myself. "First the Presbytery consisted of Apostles, and afterwards they are changed into Presbyters."

It is not that I contradict myself, but that Clemens is disingenuous. Of this let the reader judge. My object is to prove that the passage in the first Epistle to Timothy does not support Presbyterial ordination. In order to this, I show first, that the Presbytery spoken of, according to all the rules of just reasoning, were Apostles; at all events, that it cannot be proved they were upon a level with the Elders of Ephesus, and that until this is proved, the cause of parity can receive no sort of support from the passage. This is my first ground. I then suppose, for the sake of argument, that they were nothing more than Presbyters, in the modern sense of the term, and show, even under this idea, that the passage makes nothing for the cause of parity, since Paul conveyed the authority, and the Presbytery merely expressed approbation. Is there any inconsistency here? Surely not. No mode of reasoning is more common or more natural.

66

As to the question of Clemens, “ If they were Apostles, where was the necessity of more than one laying on hands?" the answer is easy. One of them may have performed the act of ordination; that is, one of them may have conveyed the sacerdotal authority, while the rest may have imposed hands, to give additional solemnity to the transaction, and as an expression of concurrence in the selection of character.

For the Albany Centinel,

DETECTOR. No. I.

THE Episcopal Church is defended with such ability and zeal by

"A Layman," and by "Cyprian,” that its friends would probably not excuse me for attempting to share with these writers the honours of victory. The regular examination of the subject, however, which they proposed, may probably prevent them from noticing, for some time, the observations of a new assailant of the Episcopal cause. Mark the following singular assertion of a writer who comes for ward under the venerable name of "Clemens." "In the celebrated Church of Alexandria, Presbyters ordained their own Bishops for more than two hundred years, in the earliest ages of Christianity." In proof of this assertion, he refers to no authorities. He would lead his readers to believe that it is an indubitable and uni❤ versally acknowledged fact. But had this writer known, candour certainly required that he should have informed his readers, that

« AnteriorContinuar »