Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

induce their followers to believe that their ministerial authority is as great and as valid as that which is possessed by the episcopally ordained clergy, we must pronounce the remark which he has ventured to make in his work on the Waldenses and Albigenses and the validity of presbyterian ordination (p. 553, and note, p. 562,) most injudicious, and his apparent concession most dangerous.

In his reply to Mr. Crosthwaite he does not appear to have taken a more correct view of the matter; and though Mr. Crosthwaite has well done his work, still a few very material points seem to have escaped his notice.

The power given by the first bishops* (the apostles) to their successors was of the same character, as to the power of ordaining and governing the church or churches in their respective dioceses, as that which they themselves exercised. Thus St. Paul does not merely remind Timothy of the duty (quoad ordinem)† to lay hands suddenly on no man, but he expressly charges him how to administer his episcopal office (quoad disciplinam) as to discipline; "against an elder, receive not an accusation but before two or three witnesses." So likewise in his epistle to Titus, where the apostle, having declared that Titus was sent to Crete to ordain elders in every city,§ (and according to Eusebius there were one hundred,) charges him also to rebuke those sharply whom he had described in the preceding verse, and to reject a man that is an heretic after the first and second admonition.¶ These trusts which were committed to Timothy and Titus were surely given both quoad ordinem and quoad disciplinam; they shew that they were not given to them as presbyters, and thus as to those who, though of the same rank, were placed above their brethren, but as exercising duties which were appendant to the episcopal office, and as rulers placed over the church of God.**

The authority of the venerable Clement must always be received with respect; but when there is so great a discrepancy between the observations which he makes relative to the threefold character of the Jewish, and by analogy of the Christian, priesthood, and the quotation taken, it is thought, from Isaiah, lx. 17, did it never occur to Mr. Faber's mind that he ought to consult some competent authorities on the point before he drew so rash a conclusion? Why did he not refer to the Septuagint, where the words are, καὶ δώσω τοὺς ̓Αρχοντάς σου ἐν εἰρήνῃ καὶ τοὺς ἐπισκόπους σου ἐν δικαιοσύνη, or see what Hammond,++ no mean authority, said on the point? And here perhaps he will permit me to recommend to his attention the note on the point appended to the edition of the Patres Apostolici lately published by Mr. Jacobson, vol. i. pp. 146-148.

Under the peculiar circumstances of this marked disagreement in St. Clement, were there not other authorities of equal moment, and entitled to equal consideration, to which he could have referred? Why did he not consult the contemporary of Clement, the venerable

* Acts, i. 20.

§ Titus, i. 5.

+1 Tim. v. 22.
Titus, iii. 10, 11.

1 Tim. v. 19. Titus, i. 13. ** 1 Tim. iii. 4, 5. + In his Vindication of the Dissertation concerning Episcopacy.

Ignatius, the companion of the beloved John, who not only expressly named the three orders of the Christian priesthood,-bishops, presbyters, and deacons,-in nearly all his epistles,* but speaks of the bishops as of a class distinct from and superior to that of presbyters.

Thus, in his epistle to the Ephesians, § vi., he says, "Whomsoever the master of the house sends to be over his own household, we ought, in like manner, to receive him as we would do him that sent him. It is therefore evident, that we ought to look upon the bishop even as we would do upon the Lord himself."

His language to the Magnesians is even more express. Their bishop (Demas) was young, and he feared lest they should not treat him with the respect due to his sacred office. He exhorts them, therefore, "to yield all reverence to him, according to the power of God the father." "It will therefore behove you, with all sincerity, to obey your bishop, in honour of him whose pleasure it is that ye do so. Because he that does not do so deceives not the bishop whom he sees, but affronts him that is invisible.”—§ iii.

These quotations are sufficient, though others+ could be adduced, to prove the superior and distinct order of bishops over presbyters.

The question, therefore, does not rest upon this single passage of St. Clement, and the quotation which he has made from Isaiah, but upon the united testimony of the apostolic fathers as they accord with each other on these most material points-the distinct order of the priesthood, and the distinct duties of the bishops, both as to ordaining and governing the churches over which they were appointed to preside.

The validity of ordination depending upon the uninterrupted transmission of the commission first given by Christ the great head of the church, it must, I think, be allowed that the presbyterian ordination, which did not commence till the beginning of the sixteenth century, cannot be valid, for the following reasons:

First, because no person can convey or transmit to another that which he never received.

Second, because no power assumed at a late period can be valid; it is a novel innovation, it is not to be traced to the head from whence every delegated authority must be derived.

It is of consequence that these points should be distinctly stated, because the validity of baptism, the divinely appointed seal of the Christian covenant, of every sacrament, and indeed of every minis. terial act, depends upon the authority possessed by those who administer them. If, therefore, men should be found mockers before God, and not only assuming a power which they do not possess, but presuming to impart blessings to others which they have not the power to bestow, how do they make shipwreck of the souls of men, and how fearful the situation of those who foster so great an error!

[blocks in formation]

I am, &c., H. T. T.

Philad. § iv. 7. Smyr. § viii. 12.
Smyrn. § viii.

THE WALDENSES.

SIR,-Some of your readers may recollect that I lately suggested attention to the vernacular (as well as the Latin) notices of the Albigenses and Waldenses.

Requesting those who take interest in it to refer to what I then wrote, I will proceed to mention to you the Cansos de la Crozada contr els Eretges d'Albeges; Paris, 1837. The following passage adds fresh confirmation to the all-important point, that the Waldenses (whose pretension to be one of the two witnesses rests entirely on their having been rank heretics) were no heretics at all, but carefully distinguished from the heretics, even by their opponents. Dost thou know (say certain bishops to the pope)

"Que lo coms de Montfort remas en Carcasses
Per destruire los mals e qui mezes los bes,

E casses los eretges, els rotiers, els Valdres?"_

-p. 248.

"That the Earl of Montfort remained about Carcassonne
To destroy the bad and put the good in quiet,

And drive away the heretics, the trampers, and the Waldenses?

Here the heretics are distinguished from the zealots of Waldo's connexion; and the appellation given to the latter, Valdres, contains that consonant, d, which seems so fatal to the supposed name of Vallenses. I conceive that the rotiers were of no sect, but only bands of brigands and vagabonds to whom the disturbed state of the country gave rise.

It was decided (says another passage) that the cardinal, the abbot, &c.

[ocr errors]

66

per totas las terras anon prezicar patz,

E cassar los eretges e los ensabatatz."-p. 450.

[ocr errors]

should go to preach peace throughout the country, And chase the heretics and the unshod."

Here, again, the ecclesiastical authorities exonerate the ex-sabatati from the charge of heresy. But I perceive they write that word in a manner that might raise the very opposite idea-viz., insabatati. But the meaning is the same; and it is either the in privative, as inermis, or en put corruptly for ex, as ensample and (in this poem*) enansar, exaltare.

That the Albigenses were not truly Christians, and the Waldenses not protestants, and that the two were always widely and notoriously different, is, I believe, doubted by no one whose opinion can be at all worked upon by fact and argument. But since those "non movenda numina" upon whom we cannot hope to make an impression are reverenced by many people who have no means of inquiring for themselves, it is better to go on accumulating the evidences.

Berkshire, Jan. 15th.

Yours &c. A. H.

*It also gives instances of the converse, es—i. e., ex for en ―escaritz, enchèri, esfondrar, enfonçer, escendre, incendere.

PROTESTANT EPISCOPAL CHURCH IN PARIS FOR CELEBRATING THE WORSHIP OF THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND IN THE FRENCH LANGUAGE.

SIR,-There are many points in the reply of "A Presbyter" to my answer to his former letter which invite remark, both in the part relating to his former letter, and also in the latter part; but as the implied charge of irregularity, the only important point contained in his first letter, is abandoned, or at least left undefended, I am satisfied. My principal object in writing is to inform him and your readers, in reply to his statement on this subject, that M. Gourrier was "admitted to the priesthood" the latter end of December, and that by a bishop of the united church of England and Ireland. The latter part of his letter

I leave to answer itself, only requesting the reader to observe, that the principle assumed throughout it is, that Romanists and protestants are of "ONE FAITH," for such is the description given in the popish rule of discipline, with which he has favoured us, of those alluded to in it. And this rule he refers to, as shewing that the popish bishops are bound to give permission to "our clergy who go upon the Continent to minister to congregations of our own people resident there," to perform such ministrations; and that an endeavour ought to be made to obtain such permission. Respecting this, I feel it to be quite unnecessary to do more than call the reader's attention to it. It quite explains his former letter.

A few words, therefore, with respect to your notes on my reply to your statement-i. e., those containing injurious reflections, requiring an answer, and I take my leave of the subject.

For the first note, it is merely necessary to state, that it was written in the full consciousness that my name was not given in the first instance merely from the circumstance of your predecessor (supposed to be then the editor) needing no such information to satisfy him of the author; and that my name was given to the Editor immediately I found that it was not known to him. I leave it to your readers, then, to judge on which side the charge of incivility rests. In the second, you in substance tell your readers that he who says, take heed that you lead no one to suppose that episcopacy can present any impediment to the free propagation of pure religion, is to be justly suspected of supposing that episcopacy does stand in the way of his propagating what he considers as pure religion, and uses words almost identical with a dissenting manifesto, that says, that state establishments (what, by the way, has this to do with episcopacy?) "create serious impediments to the propagation of the gospel.' So that a

[ocr errors]

The first letter, intended for publication, may have been written under the impression that the Editor would be at no loss to know whence it came; but that the second, not intended for the Magazine, and only for the Editor, to complain of his not inserting the other, should still be anonymous merely on the same ground, can hardly be imagined. This affectation of candour, however, must be a little qualified by the Editor's stating, that his anonymous correspondent's name was not communicated in the frank manner which might be supposed, but “in confidence." The Editor really considered the communication in a light very different from that of a - civility.

warning, not to say anything that can affix an unworthy stigma upon episcopacy, is equivalent to abusing episcopacy.

In the third you say, "the tone in which another name was asked for will hardly allow the question to be thus referred to, as if the writer had really admitted that a more proper name might be given.” I beg to say that I "really admitted" nothing of the kind, but say, that the presbyter's quarrel about the name is a silly strife about words to no profit, but to the subverting of the hearers, to induce them to attach an idea of irregularity to the proceeding.

Your charge in a following note, of my having garbled your words, and charged you with inconsistency, is quite unwarranted. The inconsistency charged upon your statement is glaring and undeniable. You first allow that a presbyter's note seems to charge the subscribers to M. Gourrier's work "with encouraging an irregular proceeding," and then afterwards most inconsistently say, that "the name" was "THE matter brought into question." And you say, that "of the references to Athanasius and Epiphanius nothing need be said, for however they may bear upon the lawfulness or expediency of the thing, they are altogether irrelevant as to the name, which was the matter brought into question." You therefore pass over the references to Athanasius and Epiphanius as irrelevant, because they are irrelevant as to the name, when the point upon which you allow that they "may bear" is, beyond all comparison, the most important point in the matter-i.e., whether it is, as you grant the presbyter's note seems to charge it as being "an irregular proceeding."

In conclusion, I have only to beg the reader to observe that the implied charge of irregularity against the work is now (be the motive for so doing what it may) abandoned, or at least left undefended. I need not, therefore, add anything to the authorities adduced in my first letter in its defence. I am, Sir, your obedient servant,

ANOTHER PRESBYTER OF THE ENGLISH CHURCH.

P. S.-Your explanation of "the chair" illustration has, as I expected, just committed you to the absurdity, that no church can be properly called episcopal but that which is appropriated to the use of a bishop, for such is the case with a chair. Your question, therefore, whether I know what the word cathedral means (which I suppose I am as likely to do as the interrogator), may, with much greater justice, be retorted upon the person who asks the question.*

The Editor does not perceive how he has committed himself to any absurdity, and still thinks that a chair, and a church too, become episcopal by being placed under, and appropriated to, a bishop. Or, if his correspondent likes to lay a stress upon the word use, (which can only weigh much with those who think that if a bishop does not use a church as he uses a chair, he cannot use it all,) he is quite willing to say (though he doubts whether the language is quite correct) that it must be "appropriated to the use" of a bishop; meaning, of course, according to the nature and kind of the thing, and the use which bishops make of churches. In fact, so truly is a church made for the use of the bishop, even in the lowest sense of performing service there, that no man can regularly officiate in it, or use it for any purpose whatever, until the bishop has first used it at the consecration. This church, however, the Editor presumes, is not to be, even in this sense, used by a

« AnteriorContinuar »