Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

administered by those who should be ordained in the manner which he had proposed, and without the "Episcopal succession;" the other declares that the administration of ordinances by such, would be "nugatory and invalid." He puts these words into the mouth of a communicant: "Let it be, therefore, thy supreme care, O my soul, to receive the blessed sacrament of the body and blood of thy Saviour, only from the hands of those who derive their authority by regular transmission from Christ," &c. In another place he says, that "none can possess authority to administer the sacraments but those who have received a commission from the Bishops of the Church." Indeed the sentiment runs through his books, which he seems to have written on purpose to inculcate it.

܂

There is likewise some difference between the Bishop and the Priest as to their notion of the "body of Christ." The one has no scruple to call other denominations "fellow Christians;"-the other does not extend his charity beyond the Episcopal Church, except in cases of "ignorance, invincible prejudices, imperfect reasonings, and mistaken judgments ;”* and even in these, he seems unwilling to make any " allowance," but leaves it to God. His notion of "fellow Christians," and "the blessed company of all faithful people," will be seen in what he says on the Church and its unity. He has much more charity for the Heathen than for non-Episcopalians, as appears by his saying, “In every nation he that feareth God and worketh righteousness, is accepted of him. But where the - gospel is proclaimed, communion with the Church by the participation of its ordinances at the hands of the duly authorised Priesthood, is the indispensable condition of salvation." The tenderness of the Bishop is remarkable in accounting for the attachment of Episcopalians to their own mode of worship. "Perhaps," says he, "from education, but as they conceive, from its being most agreeable to reason and scripture," &c. He does not magisterially pronounce that they are right; but they conceive that they are; they have been educated in this opinion; and he is willing to make the same allowance for others. With the author of "A Companion for the Festivals," &c. no excuse is admitted for a departure from Episcopacy, except what approaches to profound ignorance, or downright idiocy. I shall now make some brief reflections upon the whole.

1. It may be said that Bishop White pleads only for " a temporary departure" from Episcopacy, and that in cases of "necessity." I answer, that his reasoning is as strong for a total as for a tempo

*What more charitable excuses can be made for the errors of men, than by assigning these errors to unavoidable ignorance, to invincible prejudices, or to those causes to which the greatest and the best of men are exposed, imperfect reasonings and mistaken judgments? Ed.

Why did the author of Miscellanies omit the sentence which immediately follows the above, in which unavoidable ignorance, and involuntary error, are admitted as excuses for separation from the duly authorised Priesthood of the Church?

Ed.

The author of Miscellanies here repeats the very candid remarks which he before made in his 21st number. Let the reader see there the note upon them, p. 122, 123...

Ed.

[ocr errors]

rary departure. How long is the departure to last? It will be an. swered, as long as the necessity. This may be for ever. The Bi shop was of opinion when he wrote, that it might be a considerable time. "Are the acknowledged ordinances of Christ's holy reli gion," says he, "to be suspended for years, perhaps as long as the present generation shall continue, out of delicacy to a disputed point, and that relating only to externals?" But, let me ask, of what advantage would Ministers be, ordained in the manner proposed by the Bishop, if, as the author so often referred to asserts, there would be no" duly authorized Priesthood," and the administration of ordinances by them would be inefficacious?" If it would be departing from the Bishop, violating the unity of the Church, and Interrupting the "uninterrupted succession?" Not to spend many words with my opponents; do they give up the notion that Epis copacy is of divine right, and do they contend for it on the same principles with Bishop White?" Do they admit the validity of Presbyterian ordination, and acknowledge that there are other true Churches besides their own? If so, all controversy, on my part, is at an end.

2. It is a happy circumstance for Episcopalians that Bishop White published his pamphlet, and that it is still to be found. They might otherwise be deemed the most intolerant sect which has ever existed. In justice to themselves they ought to have the pamphlet re-printed; for large as my extracts have been, there would be a superior advantage in reading the whole.

3. There is reason to lament that Episcopalians did not improve the opportunity which the revolution gave them. Had they formed the government of their Church on the plan recommended by Bishop White, and then invited non-Episcopalians to a friendly conference, some ground might have been found on which to meet. Even the idea of permanent presidents might have been listened to; but to insist upon the divine right of Episcopacy, and upon an order of Bishops having extraordinary powers, and uninterrupted succession from the Apostles, was to bar the door against all ac commodation.

4. I believe that Bishop White will say that I have not misrepre sented his meaning. If in any place I have been so unfortunate as to misunderstand him, I shall, upon the least notice, correct it; and if I find others misrepresenting him, I shall consider myself under obligation to defend him.

* Let us hear what the author of the pamphlet himself says on this point. "Surely with a man who believes there have been three orders from the beginning, the necessity of a temporary departure does not involve that of a final abrogation." See his letter signed " An Episcopalian." Ed. "A case of inevitable necessity" may be an exception to a general principle.

Ed.

Will the author of Miscellanies adopt Episcopacy on the principles of Bishop White, and admit that the Apostles constituted an order of the ministry with a supereminent commission, which has been handed down through succeeding ages?

Ed.

for

Ed.

What spirit does this charge display? To style a sect intolerant, exercising a privilege which they enjoy in common with other denomina tions, and maintaining the principles of their Church!

5. Should I continue to write, I shall examine the testimony of the Fathers; though I consider this as altogether unnecessary. They have been repeatedly examined by those who had the best opportunity, and they do not prove, in the early ages of Christianity, the existence of diocesan Bishops. The very utmost that can be drawn from them, is, that Presbyters were chosen to preside, either for a time, or permanently, in their ecclesiastical assemblies. The Episcopacy of the primitive Church was widely different from that established in the Churches of Rome and of England. I shall, however, cease for a time, and allow my opponents, if they be so inclined, to come up with me.

Let us see now what Bishop HOADLY, who cannot be suspected of partiality, says on this point. "Some other learned men see such manifest footsteps, in the highest antiquity, of the supereminency of one person in the Churches, that they are obliged to own it: but then they say that at first this was only a Prime-Presbyter, a President in the meeting of the Presbyters, not invested with any authority, properly so called, over them in their cures, but voluntarily chosen by them for the better management of their assemblies, &c. This hath been said by the learned Blondel, and others. But I fear this will be found only an evasion, in order to avoid his acknowledging such Bishops in the very first years after the Apostles, as he confesses to have been universally settled less than forty years after them. For,

"The instances in antiquity which be acknowledges to prove this, do indeed prove a great deal more. The Angels of the Churches in the Revelations, are persons to whom the care of those Churches was in a particular manner committed; and of whom an account of the miscarriages and defects in them, is in a particular manner required. These, he saith, were Prime-Presbyters, not Bishops: though it will be hard to give a reason, unless he will draw an argument from hence, that all parts of the Episcopal office are not here expressly attributed to them. And it will be hard likewise, to show, how a Prime-Presbyter, by being only chosen President of the College of Presbyters for the more orderly management of their jointcounsels, should become chargeable with the faults of their Churches, with which, according to this supposition, he had nothing to do. For it is ma nifest he could be no more accountable for any congregation but his own, than any of the other Presbyters, had he not the care of others committed to him in some peculiar manner. And this he could not have, if he were only Prime-Presbyter in the College. For as such he was only responsible for his own failings in his duty in that post: and as for other faults, an account of them should rather have been demanded of those Presbyters who were the teachers and governors of the particular congregations. But if a Prime-Presbyter were one whose duty it was to inspect and take care of those Churches, in which there were Presbyters also fixed, as, according to Blondel, he must have been; then it is evident that this Prime-Presbyter was in truth a Bishop with subject Presbyters under him. And since he freely grants that these Prime-Presbyters had the superintendency over many churches or congregations with their Presbyters; and was after such a manner responsible for them; and this by the constitution of the Apostles, or their disciples before the death of them all; what is this but to give them the dominion of a Bishop over their brethren? and what reason can be given why it should not be acknowledged that Episcopacy was settled in the churches in those early days? Especially considering that this PrimePresbyter remained in his office during his life. "Hoadly's Def. of Epis. Ord."

Ed.

6. The charges have been brought against me of having taken up a prejudice against the Episcopal Church, and of having written with bitterness. Nothing has ever occurred to excite my prejudices against that Church; and the writings of many of her Clergy are to me invaluable. I esteem their book of "Common Prayer;" and as to the Episcopalians in this State with whom I am acquainted, both Clergy and Laity, I have a high respect for them. Some of my expressions may have been too playful, and bordered on ridicule; but as to personal resentment, bitterness, I reject them, because I never felt them.-With the author who has been the occasion of my writing, my acquaintance is small. I know, however, enough to make me respect his talents and his virtues. As to my principal opponents, "A Layman" and "Cyprian," I wish that the former may soon become a good Priest, and the latter, in due time, a good Bishop. I have no objection to their preferring Episcopal ordination, provided that they will cease to assert it on divine right; for I think that this is untenable, offensive to their fellow Christians of other denominations, and injurious to themselves.

[Remarks, by the Editor, on the preceding Number.]

It is certainly the duty of every Episcopal Minister to enforce what his Church inculcates; that "Almighty God, by his holy Spirit instituted divers orders of Ministers in his Church;" that "it is evident unto all men diligently reading holy scripture and ancient authors," that these orders" are Bishops, Priests, and Deacons ;" and that "no man is to be esteemed a lawful Minister, who has not had Episcopal consecration or ordination." Prudence may be exerted in the manner in which this is done, but certainly cannot absolve him from the duty itself. To the charges of uncharitableness and intolerance which may be brought against him, let him reply in the language of one of the most able defenders of evangelical truth and primitive order that the present age has produced:* "As a Minister of the Church, it is my duty to speak of it as it is. I cannot alter the nature or form of it, to accommodate it to the case of those who are separated from it. Firmly persuaded with HoOKER, that Episcopacy is the primitive apostolical institution, I must consider obedience to it to be a matter of Christian obligation. Every endeavour, therefore, to persuade my fellow Christians to a conformity to that government which appears essential to the promotion of the object which God may be supposed to have had in view at its original institution, namely, that of preserving the unity of the Church in the bond of peace, appears to me to be one of the greatest acts of charity a Christian Minister can perform."" At the same time, with respect to those who are in an actual state of separation, we say with the Apostle, what have we to do to judge

* Rev. Charles Daubeny, now Archdeacon of Sarum. See the sixth letter of his " Appendix to his Guide," and the preface to the second edition of the "Guide to the Church."

them that are without; them that are without God judgeth;' they are in the hands of that all gracious and all merciful Being who judgeth righteous judgment; and to him we leave them."

How far the maintaining of Episcopacy may be "injurious" to Episcopalians in a worldly sense, is a consideration which ought to have no force on the conscience of her Ministers. But surely the author of Miscellanies does not mean to insinuate that Episcopa lians are to be, in any shape, the subjects of persecution for exercising a privilege possessed by all denominations, for maintaining tenets which have been handed down from the earliest ages of the Church; tenets which, in the opinion of one by no means partial to them, "have been from the beginning favourable to peace and good order."*

That the inculcating of Episcopacy has been injurious to the Episcopal Church in a spiritual sense, is contrary to fact. As a spiritual society, she has always flourished most, when her Ministers have not only faithfully inculcated her evangelical doctrine, and strictly adhered to her primitive worship, but have also maintained, with firm and prudent zeal, the Divine commission of the orders of her ministry. Ed.

[ocr errors]

For the Albany Centinel.

THE LAYMAN. No. IX.

HE question of Episcopacy, is a question of fact, to be determined by a sound interpretation of the sacred volume.

Let us attend to the situation of the Church while our Saviour was upon earth.

Let us attend to its situation under the government of the Apos tles, who were sent by the Son, as the Son had been sent by the Father.

Jesus Christ commissioned twelve and the seventy, but he gave them no authority to commission others. The high power of ordination was exercised by himself alone. Here, then, were three orders; our Saviour, the great Head of the Church, the twelve Apostles, and the seventy Disciples.

The twelve were superior to the seventy, both in dignity and power. They were superior in dignity. The Apostles are every where spoken of as the constant attendants of our Lord. We are expressly told that they were ordained, that they might be with Jesus, as well as that he might send them forth to preach. Mark iii. 14. The seventy were appointed simply to preach, and were sent before our Lord into the cities, "whither he himself would come," to prepare the people for his reception. The commission of the Apostles was much more general, directing them to preach the gospel to all the Jews.

Again The inauguration of the twelve was much more solemn than that of the seventy. In relation to the first, we find our Sa

* Smith's Wealth of Nations, Book v. chap. 1. Part iii. Art. 3.
X

« AnteriorContinuar »