Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

A

her with the sin of schism, and denounces her members unless they come into the Episcopal Church. The preaching of "the pure doctrine of the Gospel, the pure administration of the sacraments," pass for nothing with the author of " A Companion for the Festivals," &c. without his Bishops, Priests and Deacons.* Congregationalists and Independents, Lutherans and Presbyterians, Methodists and Baptists, High Dutch and Low Dutch, all descriptions are mowed down by the huge scythe of this ecclesiastical giant.

For the Albany Centinel.

UMPIRE.

A WRITER, under the signature of " Cyprian," having under

taken to prove, from scripture, and the testimony of the primitive Church, that "the fortress of Episcopacy is erected upon the same rock on which Christianity itself is founded," I wish he would be as perspicuous, consistent, fair, concise, and deal as little in mere assertions, as possible. There seems to be a defect in all these things in what he has already written. Not to mention what he says about the words of our Lord to his disciples on the occasion of the request of the mother of Zebedee's children, and which he ought to review, let me instance only in what he says respecting the superiority of Titus over Presbyters. After repeatedly asserting in the strongest manner, that Paul had ordained Presbyters or Elders in Crete before he left Titus there, he confidently asks, "If there were Presbyters, and those Presbyters had the power of ordination, why was it necessary to leave Titus amongst them in order to perform a task that might as well have been accomplished without him?" It would be a more proper question to ask, Where was the necessity to leave Titus at all in Crete, since Elders had been already ordained?† "Cyprian" is not aware of the absurdity der the title of Angels,' addresses the Bishops of the seven Churches of Asia. Here is the "pattern" after which the American Episcopacy was "cast"-a "pattern" admired and enjoined by the venerable Ignatius, the disciple of St. John. Alas! that, in the present day, it should be a serious crime to vindicate a "sect" which has the Apostle Paul, that chosen vessel of the Saviour, the Apostle John, the beloved of his divine Master, and the holy martyr Ignatius for its illustrious founders. Alas! that in these latter ages the APOSTOLIC and PRIMITIVE " pattern" should be derided and rejected; should be displaced by the spurious "pattern" cast in the cent

century at Geneva.

Ed.

*It is the express design of the author of the " Companion for the Festivals," &c. to enforce the preaching of the "pure doctrine of the Gospel," and "the pure administration of the sacraments;" and, in order to this, he is desirous that the Gospel should be preached, and the sacraments administered by those who have received a regular commission. For surely to the pure administration of the sacraments valid authority is necessary. Ed. † Were there no new Elders necessary in Crete, for the purpose of ordaining whom Titus was left there by St. Paul?

N

Ed.

in making the Apostle "ordain Elders in every country in which he made proselytes-those who were absolutely necessary to transact the affairs of the Church during his absence, and then leaving Titus there that he might re-ordain them. Nor does he advert to the distinction of preaching and ruling Elders; the latter of whom are always ordained by a single Presbyterian Minister when a congrega tion is to be organized. To what does the argument of " Cyprian" amount? Paul left Titus in Crete that he should ordain Elders, and therefore Paul ordained Titus, (so the "Layman" says) gave him authority over both Clergy and Laity, constituted him a diocesan Bishop. This reasoning will not convince judicious and candid

men.

But it will be said, that the argument is this: Since Paul had ordained Elders in every city, if these had power to ordain others, there was no necessity to leave Titus there for that very purpose. It is answered, that the express words of Paul are, "that thou shouldest set in order the things that are wanting, and ordain Elders." Whether Paul had ordained Elders or not, there were some things wanting which Titus was to see performed according to directions given him by the Apostle. New congregations, probably, were to be organized; more officers were to be added to those already formed; and if these were only ruling Elders, they had no authority to ordain; or if a sufficient number there had authority, they were new in the office, and needed the special directions of the Apostle, by Titus, how they should proceed. There is proof that Titus was not fixed at Crete, and made "a supreme ru ler of the Church." He was to execute a particular business, which, when executed, his commission as to this ceased.*

In giving the testimony of the primitive writers, it is hoped that "Cyprian" will not miss Clemens, Romanus, and Polycarf. Their writings are the earliest which have been preserved, and are allowed to be authentic. It will be desirable too, if, in quoting the words of Jerome, he can give some more obvious and rational interpretation of them, than the author of " A Companion for the Festivals," &c. has done.

When he enters upon the doctrine of uninterrupted succession, it will be expected that he define it with precision, and bring satisfactory proof of its existence.† He must trace the Bishops of Rome up to the Apostles, and the English Bishops up to the Church of

* But why should Titus be sent to Crete with a "commission" to ordain, if the Elders or Presbyters at Crete possessed the power of ordination? Whether Titus afterwards changed his residence is of no consequence. The removal of a Bishop from one district or diocese to another does not invalidate his Episcopal authority.

Ed.

The reader is requested to peruse the following extract from the Companion for the Festivals and Fasts, which it is humbly presumed both defines the doctrine of uninterrupted succession and "proves its exis

tence."

As a divine commission is required to qualify any one to exercise the priestly office, there must be a succession of persons authorised from Christ to send others to act in his name, or there can be no authority in bis Church. For if that succession which conveys a divine commission for the ministry

Rome. Here will be an opportunity for him to show, if he can, that there never was any Presbyterian ordination before the days of Calvin.

A glance at the history of the reformation will be very necessary, in order to account for the difference of sentiment and conduct of many of the English Bishops then, from the sentiment and conduct of the Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States-why the former did not hold that Bishops were superior to Presbyters by divine right, and why they admitted the validity of Presbyterian ordination, while the latter strenuously contend for the one, and totally reject the other.

UMPIRE.

be once broken, people must either go into the ministry of their own accord, or be sent by those who received no power to send them. And it is surely evident that those persons cannot be called ministers of Christ, be consi dered as his ambassadors, be authorised to proclaim the testimony of his salvation, or to administer his sacraments, who never received a commission from him. As, therefore, it has been proved that a divine commission to exercise the ministry was to be conveyed through the order of Bishops, it is necessary that the Episcopal succession, from the days of the Apostles, should be uninterrupted.

The divine Head of the Church has pledged himself to preserve the succession of his ministry to the end of the world.' There is not the slightest evidence for believing that the succession has in fact been interrupted: its interruption seems indeed morally impossible. For it has been the universal practice of the Church, from the time of the Apostles to the present day, to receive none for Bishops who were not ordained by other Bishops. The consecration of Bishops was always a public solemn act, of which there were many witnesses; and in disputed cases it would be easy to discover whether a person claiming to be Bishop had received a proper commission. The received doctrine in every age of the Church, that no ordination was valid but that of Bishops, has been a constant guard upon the Episcopal succession. It is in the highest degree absurd, therefore, to suppose that any person could ever have been permitted to succeed to the Episcopal office who was not duly commissioned.

Nor does it invalidate this succession, that the divine commission to exercise the ministry has been sometimes conveyed through corrupt and wicked men ; since, in the language of our Church, in her twenty-sixth article: " Although in the visible Church the evil be ever mingled with the good, and sometime the evil have chief authority in the ministration of the word and sacraments; yet, forasmuch as they do not the same in their own name, bụt in Christ's, and do minister by his commission and authority, we may use their ministry, &c." Companion for the Festivals, &c. p. 32.

*This is all mere assertion.

Ed.

Ed.

For the Albany Centinel.

MISCELLANIES. No. XIX.

I HAD intended to have exposed the weakness of a few more of

the arguments used by the author of "A Companion for the Festivals," &c. in favour of Episcopacy, to have examined the testi. mony of the Fathers, and to have produced the sentiments and conduct of the first Reformers; but copious extracts from a pamphlet which has fallen into my hands will supersede, in a great measure, the necessity of these things. I refer to that published in the year 1782, by Dr. White, now Bishop of the Episcopal Church in Pennsylvania. It is entitled, "The Case of the Episcopal Churches in the United States considered." It is judicious, well written, soasonable, and bears evident marks of the prudence, liberality, and moderation which distinguish its amiable author.*

The Bishop, after giving a representation of the condition of the Episcopal Churches in this country, in consequence of the revolution, declares it to be his opinion," that their future continuance can be provided for only by voluntary associations for union and good government.' He then offers "the outlines of a frame of Church government." The plan is in general to divide the continent into smaller and larger districts; each of the smaller to elect 66 a general vestry or convention, consisting of a convenient number (the Minister to be one) from the vestry or congregation of each church, or of every two or more churches, according to their respective ability of supporting a Minister;" that "they should elect a Clergyman their permanent president, who, in conjunction with other Clergymen to be also appointed by the body, may exercise such powers as are purely spiritual, particularly that of admitting to the ministry." He proposes that the larger districts should be three, and to "consist of a convenient number of members, sent from each of the smaller districts severally within their bounds, equally composed of Clergy and laity, and voted for by those orders promiscuously; the presiding Clergyman to be always one, and these bodies to meet once in every year." He proposes further, a continental representative body, consisting of a convenient number from each of the larger districts, formed equally of

[ocr errors]

*It is very singular that the author of Miscellanies should shrink from the task of proving that the claims of Episcopacy are unfounded, and should appear willing to rest his cause on an Episcopal Divine, who, at a period of imminent danger to his Church, was anxious, until the Episcopal succession could be obtained, to adopt some plan of going on as well as possible without it. And even if this author could succeed in bringing a Bishop of the Church on his side, what would the victory avail him? Would it prove that the Episcopal Church does not maintain the divine in stitution of Episcopacy? An eminent Presbyterian Divine could be named, who was lately a Principal of one of the Colleges of Aberdeen, who favoured the Independent or Congregational form of Church government? Does his authority prove that the Church of Scotland does not maintain Presbyterian government? Ed.

Clergy and laity, and among the Clergy, formed equally of presid ing Ministers and others; to meet statedly once in three years." Such are the outlines of the plan which the Bishop recommends, and which he wished to see carried into immediate execution, without waiting for what is called the succession, and without depending upon any foreign Church whatever. It will be observed that he proposes ordination to be performed by a permanent president, elected by each of the smaller districts, in conjunction with other Clergymen, to be also appointed by the body. He afterwards explains the plan, and satisfactorily answers to every unprejudiced mind, all the objections which could be brought against it.

The Bishop, in speaking of their former connection with the Church of England, says, that " it subjected them to many inconveniences, such as sending to the distance of three thousand miles for ordination," &c. It is remarkable that he was subjected himself to this very inconvenience. He and Dr. Prevost went over to the Bishop of London to bring hither the succession.* The latter of these gentlemen, who supplied the former with some facts for his pamphlet, had never received any other baptism than what was administered to him by a Dutch Presbyter. The Bishop of London is known not to have refused him ordination on this account; nor to have refused to make Priests of several in this country, who never were otherwise baptised than by a Presbyterian Minister. How is it that the ordinance thus administered is valid in England, and invalid in the United States?† Both the gentlemen who were consecrated Bishops were convinced that there was no necessity for undertaking so long and dangerous a voyage; but that every purpose could be answered as well at home.‡ Bishop Seabury was more intent upon the succession, and early hunted it up somewhere in Scotland. Bishop White discovers a great deal of piety and good sense in the following paragraphs:

"The other part of the proposal," says he, "was an immediate execution of the plan, without waiting for the Episcopal succession. This is founded on the presumption that the worship of God, and the instruction and reformation of the people are the principal objects of ecclesiastical discipline; if so, to relinquish them from a scrupulous adherence to Episcopacy is sacrificing the substance to the ceremony.

"It will be said, we ought to continue as we are, with the hope

* It is very evident, from this circumstance, that Bishop White could not, as this author would make us believe, have thought the Episcopal succession unnecessary.

Ed.

Ed.

See the note at the close of Miscellanies, No. 12. p. 24. This is paying a very high compliment to the consistency and the sincerity of these gentlemen.

Ed.

The author of the Miscellanies here only exhibits one part of the proposal, and keeps back the other, which would have exhibited the author of the pamphlet as favourable to Episcopacy, and desirous of obtaining the succession. The reader will find this, and many other misrepresentations of this pamphlet in the numbers of the Miscellanies corrected in the letters which appear towards the conclusion of this controversy under the signature of An Episcopalian." And observations concerning the pamphlet also appear in Detector, No. 2. Ed.

« AnteriorContinuar »