Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

those that were ordained by Presbyters, it appears to me, that they act very inconsistently. For their Episcopacy is either a divine, or a human institution; there can be no medium. If a human, then it is not the primitive, Apostolical Episcopacy. If a divine institution, then it cannot admit ordination by mere Presbyters. I appeal to yourself, Sir, and to Dr. Mason, and Mr. McLeod, whether, if Episcopacy be a divine institution, and the power of ordaining be attached to Bishops, and to them only, it is not inconsistent to admit ordination by Presbyters? I am sure your two coadjutors argue pre cisely in the same manner, with respect to Presby- · terian ordination; and, I think, that it necessarily results from several of your own positions. You would all condemn ordination by lay-hands, and would not suffer a man ordained in that manner to

officiate among you. But why, Sir, do you act thus? Can you produce from scripture a passage which condemns lay ordination? Or can you produce an express precept for ordination by Presbyters? I am certain, that you would all answer, We cannot; but we can produce what is equivalent; that is, Apostolical practice; and as the Apostles acted under the influence of the Holy Ghost, in settling the constitution of the Christian church, their practice is a sure guide and warrant to us. This, I am persuaded, would be the answer from you, and the other named gentlemen, and from every consistent Presbyterian. Now, this is pre

[ocr errors]

cisely the manner in which we reason with respect to Episcopacy. You cannot, therefore, find fault with us for condemning Presbyterian ordination, without involving yourselves in the most palpable inconsistency. You say, lay ordination is invalid, because there is no warrant in scripture for it; consequently, the Moravians, and those English Episcopalians, who assert the Apostolic institution of Episcopacy, and yet admit, that ordination by Presbyters is valid, are grossly inconsistent with themselves. But, Sir, our church stands clear of this inconsistency. She declares the order of Bishops to be Apostolical and Divine; and, therefore, requires all who have been ordained by Presbyters to be Episcopally ordained, before she admits them to minister in holy things.

Another of your witnesses is, the Methodist church. You say, "In order to swell the list of Episcopal churches as much as possible, the Methadist church is frequently represented as such." Represented as such! Pray, Sir, by whom? You must mean, by us, if you mean any thing to your purpose. Sir, it is impossible that you should be, ignorant that we consider the Methodist Episcopacy as good for nothing. It is impossible that you should be ignorant, that our Bishops re-ordain all that come over from them to us. Several instances have occurred in this city. If even one of their Bishops were to conform to our church, he must submit to be ordained, first a Deacon, and then a VOL. II. H

Presbyter. This, Sir, you must certainly know. How is it then, that you can intimate, that we admit the Methodist Episcopacy, for the sake of swelling the list of Episcopal churches? No, Sir, we not only consider them as non-episcopal; but also as the most wanton schismatics that have ever disgraced the Christian church. For they agree with us in all doctrinal points, they admit the validity of our Episcopal orders, and they have a Liturgy, taken from ours, with no material alterations. They do not, I believe, often use it. Nor is this to be expected from a people so enthusiastic. Like the Pharisees of old, they say, and do not. They admit the propriety and expediency of a Liturgy, by establishing one; and they contradict and condemn themselves, by not using it.

[ocr errors]

You proceed, Sir, to observe of the Methodists, that "Mr. Wesley, the venerable founder of that church, when he undertook, a number of years ago, to digest a plan for its external organization, especially in the United States, formally avowed himself to be of the opinion with Lord Chancellor King, that Bishop and Presbyter, in the primitive church, were the same. And in perfect conformity with this belief, he himself, being only a Presbyter in the church of England, united with other Presbyters in ordaining Ministers for his new church. These Presbyters ordained the first Methodist Bishops, from whom all succeeding ordinations in that body have been derived."

All this, Sir, is perfectly correct. Mr. John Wesley did as you say; and that in direct opposition to his solemn subscriptions when he was ordained, to his repeated declarations through a long life, and to numerous, strong, and conclusive reasons, which he had published against separating from the church of England. But this is not all: John Wesley, as appears from the correspondence of Dr. Coke with Bishop White, was not satisfied with himself for the step which he had taken. Doubts about the validity of the orders of his new, fangled Bishops appear to me to have troubled his mind, as well as Dr. Coke's, who was one of those Bishops. Coke, therefore, writes to Bishop White, offering to give up their spurious Episcopacy, and to return to the bosom of the church, provided the Methodists could be indulged in some of their peculiarities. But their requisitions could not be complied with, and, of course, the whole fell to the ground. This transaction was an implicit acknowledgment of the invalidity of the Methodist Episcopacy. Upon these facts it may be expedient to make two or three reflections.

First. The whole conduct of John Wesley, as appears from the accounts of this transaction at Bristol, given us by Coke, Whitehead, and Charles Wesley, convinces me that John Wesley, at the very time that he thus abandoned Apostolic usage, was

* See a pamphlet lately published by the Rev. Mr. Kewley.

not satisfied with the correctness of his own conduct. Charles Wesley says, in his letter to Dr. Chandler, which has been published and republished in this country, that he was at his brother's elbow all the time, and that he did not give him the least hint of his intention. He was afraid of encountering his brother Charles's arguments against such a measure; for Charles was very primitive in his notions of Episcopacy. Another circumstance which convinces me that John Wesley's mind was not... quite at ease when he assumed the Episcopal character, is, that he was evidently persuaded to take that very unjustifiable step by Coke, and two or three others, and that it did not originate from himself. He appears to me to have yielded rather to impor tunity than to conviction. A third reason is, that he was evidently ashamed of the whole business; for the pretended consecration to the Episcopal office was not performed in public, but in a private room; thus realizing, as Charles Wesley says, " the Nag's-Head ordination, and robbing his friends of their boasting." The last reason for my conviction is, what I have already mentioned, that he afterwards wished to retrace his steps, and to undo, as far as he could, what he had done. Taking all these circumstances together, I am satisfied, that John Wesley acted from a doubting mind, if not absolutely in contradiction to his own conviction.

But, admitting that he was really convinced by Lord King; yet, I think, that Charles Wesley's ex

« AnteriorContinuar »