Page images
PDF
EPUB

of obtaining it hereafter. But are the acknowledged ordinances of Christ's holy religion 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? It is submitted, how far such ideas encourage the suspicion of want of attachment to any particular Church, except so far as it is subservient to some civil system. All the obligations of conformity to the divine ordinances, all the arguments which prove the connection between public worship and the morals of a people, combine to urge the adopting some speedy measures to provide for the public ministry in these Churches.

"It would be to the greatest degree surprising, if the Church of England, acknowledged by all Protestant Churches to lay a sufficient stress on the essential doctrines and duties of the Gospel, should be found so immoderately attached to a matter of external order, as must, in some cases, be ruinous to her communion. But, far from this, it will not be difficult to prove, that a temporary departure from Episcopacy in the present instance would be warranted by her doctrines, by her practice, and by the principles on which Episcopal government is asserted."

The reader will find nothing here of divine right, and uninterrupted succession. Episcopacy is called a ceremony when compared with the administration of divine ordinances—a disputed hoint-a matter of external order; and the Bishop proves, as will be seen in further extracts, that a temporary departure from Epis copacy is warrantable, and often necessary. What then are we to think of the assertions of the author of “ Á Companion for the Festivals," &c. who was born a little before the Bishop in Pennsylvania wrote his pamphlet? He boldly declares, that "it is neces sary that the Episcopal succession, from the days of the Apostles, should be uninterrupted"—that "its interruption seems indeed morally impossible"-that" if Presbyters, or Deacons, or Laymen, should assume the power of ordination, the authority of the persons ordained by them would rest on human institution, and thereforein the Church, where a divine commission is necessary to the exercise of the Ministry, their acts would be nugatory and invalid”— that "the continuance of the commission, and, of course, the autho rity of the Priesthood, depends upon the continuance of the mode ap pointed to convey it"-yea, "that we can no more lay aside Episcopacy, and yet continue the Christian Priesthood, than we can alter the terms of salvation, and yet be in covenant with God." If this be true, then in vain did the Bishop propose ordination by Presbyters, in Vain think of "a temporary departure from Episcopacy," and worse than in vain did he attempt to prove his proposition. We shall see in the next number what he has to say for himself.

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

The remarks quoted in the above number from the Companion for the Festivals and Fasts may be true in general, and yet admit of an exception in a case of necessity, in which alone Bishop White thought

"of a temporary departure from Episcopacy." Let any person, throwing aside all prejudice and pre-conceived opinions, peruse the reasoning on the constitution of the Church in the Companion for the Festivals and Fasts, and the author of that work will not fear the result. He can indeed claim no merit for this reasoning. It has been repeatedly urged by those great masters in theology, who imbibed their opinions concerning the Christian Priesthood not in the school of Geneva, but in the school of the apostolic and primitive Church. At the feet of these Masters in Israel even the author of Miscellanies need not be ashamed to sit and learn.

It is in the power of the Editor however, to bring forward reasoning on this subject, which will probably have more weight than any that could be adduced from writers who are viewed with those prejudices that are too often excited against Churchmen.

Let the author of Miscellanies, and those who are influenced by his statements, candidly peruse the following extracts from two Discourses published by Dr. LATHROP, of West-Springfield, Massachusetts, an eminent Congregational Divine. The Discourses are entitled, "Christ's Warning to the Churches to beware of false Prophets," &c. and appear to be designed to guard the people of his Churches from the inroads of sectarian preachers. In the execution of this design he uses many of the illustrations, and advocates many of those tenets, against which the author of Miscellanies directs his keenest satire and invective.

In opposing the claims of unauthorised preachers of the gospel, he brings forward the case of Coral and his company, which was quoted with reprobation from the Companion for the Festivals, &c. by the author of Miscellanies. The following are the words of Dr. LATHROP at page 112 of his pamplet. "The Apostle Jude illustrates their character by comparing them to the ancient Corahites. They have perished in the gainsaying of Corah. The story alluded to is in the 16th chap. of Numbers. Corah and his companions took upon them to offer incense, and exercise the functions of the Priesthood. They murmured against the family of Aaron, which had been consecrated to this holy service. They said, 'Ye take too much upon you, seeing all the congregation are holy, and the Lord is among them: Wherefore lift ye up yourselves above the congregation? They called the standing order' of Ministers a tyranny, a usurpation of rights common to all the Lord's people. They pretended that every man who pleased might officiate in the Priesthood. Moses says, God hath brought you near to him, to do the service of the tabernacle, and do you seek the Priesthood also? Ye take too much upon you, ye sons of Levi. How their presumption issued, you well remember. Now the Apostle says, these false teachers, who crept into the Church unawares, were guilty of the gainsaying of Corah. They had assumed the sacred office like him, uncalled and unauthorised; were guilty of his presumption, and exposed to his condemnation."

Dr. Lathrop founds all his reasonings on the principle which the

* The Discourses of Dr. Lathrop here quoted, were printed at Northampton.

author of Miscellanies ridicules and disclaims, of regular uninterrupted succession. Dr. Lathrop indeed maintains that this succession is in the order of Elders. But all the objections which the author of Miscellanies urges against the doctrine of succession in the superior order of Bishops, will apply with much greater force to the doctrine of succession in the inferior and much more numerous order of Elders. And the arguments of Dr. Lathrop on the subject may therefore with propriety be urged against him.

Let the following extract from Dr. LATHROP'S appendix to his Discourses, p. 159, be attentively perused.

"But an objection will perhaps meet us from supposed necessity, or historical fact.

"Many centuries," it will be said, "have elapsed, since Christ commissioned his Apostles, and since they ordained their successors and how can we know, that the succession has been continued without interruption? And if there has been an interruption, then there was a time when ordination was taken up anew by pri vate Christians. What then are all present ordinations, traced to their origin, but lay-ordinations?"

"This objection may deserve an answer.

"The great question here must be, What is the institution of Christ and the apostolic usage? By these we must be governed, and these must not be set aside by imaginary necessity, or supposititious facts.

"The gospel history confirms the position which we have laid down. A ministry in the Church is undeniably instituted by Christintroduction to the ministry in the apostolic age was by prayer and the imposition of the hands of Elders-this usage was invariably, and without a single deviation, continued as long as the sacred history affords any light-the directions concerning ordinations are given to Bishops or Elders, and to them only—no provision is made for cases of necessity, or for the renewal of the ministry, if it should happen to cease. We have an express promise from Christ, that he will support his Church, and be with his Ministers always even to the end of the world. When we compare this promise with the institution of the ministry, and the mode of introduction which immediately followed, we think it can import no less, than that a regular ministry should never cease in the Church, nor any necessity occur for departing from the instituted manner of introduction. We have the institution, the promise and the apostolic practice in our favour; and what more do we need? The promise, so emphatically expressed, and so clearly interpreted by subsequent usage, must, we think, be understood as we have stated it.

"It is then by no means necessary, that by historical deduction, we should prove an uninterrupted succession; we have a right to presume it, until evidence appears to the contrary. If any say the succession has failed, the burthen of proof must lie wholly on them. Let them, from incontestible history, show us the time, place, and manner in which it terminated-who were the last Ministers in the line from the Apostles-who the first in the new line—who the Laymen that ordained them-and where was the scene of the transaction. Until we have this information, we rely on the promise of Christ, in the sense in which we understand it."

It is to be presumed, the Miscellaneous author, on reading the above, will exclaim, "No Episcopalian could reason more to the purpose." Dr. Lathrop, in the above passage, rests the succession, as the Episcopalians do, on the institution of Christ, and apostolic usage on the promise of Christ to his Apostles, to be with them always even to the end of the world. He even seems more unwilling than many Episcopalians are, to admit cases of necessity as an excuse for a departure from the succession. He denies that it is incumbent on those who possess the succession, to prove that it has been uninterrupted. The burthen of proof, he justly says, lies on those who deny the succession.

Dr. Lathrop also answers an objection often urged against the succession by the opponents of Episcopacy.

"But it will be asked, 'What if a number of Christians should be cast on a desolate coast or island, or should emigrate to a country secluded from intercourse with the Christian world, and should have among them no ordained Minister?' May they not ordain Ministers for themselves? May not Ministers thus ordained venture to officiate?

"But tell me first, where is this solitary island or coast this secluded country of Christians? Did you ever read of a colony of pious Christians emigrating to a new country, who forgot to take Ministers with them; or whom no Ministers would accompany or follow? If no such case has ever happened, or is ever likely to happen, it is not strange, that the Head of the Church has made no provision for it; nor is it necessary that we should undertake to remedy his omission." P. 161.

Dr. Lathrop goes on to refute the stale objection that the succes sion is broken because it passed through the corrupt Church of Rome. It is unnecessary, however, any further to quote his observations. They all tend to prove that an internal call to the ministry is not valid without a regular external commission from the Head of the Church.

Let it be remembered that Dr. Lathrop is not a High Church Divine; not surely one of those "fanatics" against whom the author of Miscellanies so often lifts his indignant arm; but a Congregational or Presbyterian Minister; standing high, in the State in which he resides, for talents, learning, and piety.

The reasonings of Dr. Lathrop are introduced, principally, to prove that Presbyterian Ministers can in no other way defend themselves from the encroachments of self-constituted teachers, than by the doctrine of the necessity of an external commission, derived by regular UNINTERRUPTED SUCCESSION from the divine Head of the Church, to the exercise of a valid ministry. And yet when they have recourse to this principle, they are confronted by the resistless testimony of scripture and ecclesiastical history, that this succession which commenced in the Apostles was continued in an order of Ministers superior to Elders, or Presbyters.

The DOCTRINE OF SUCCESSION must be the rallying point of all the advocates of a regular ministry. It is their sole defence against that levelling spirit, which, with the arm of a giant, would prostrate the Christian Priesthood. Ed.

For the Albany Centinel.

THE LAYMAN. No. VII.

[ocr errors]

IN pursuing the Miscellaneous writer, I have considered the ar

guments by which the advocates of parity defend their system, and the objections which they urge against the Episcopal Church. The ground on which Presbyterial ordination rests has been surveyed in all its parts. For, although the writer in question cannot be considered as arranging, in the most compact manner, the arguments generally relied upon in support of his system, or as presenting them in the way best calculated to make an impression upon the mind; yet, to do him justice, he has touched, in the course of his numbers, on the different modes of reasoning, and declarations of scripture upon which the most learned advocates of parity have been in the habit of placing their cause.

He threatens us, too, with convincing evidence from the history of the Church. This, however, can be nothing more than a threat. That man must indeed be bold who, after having diligently examined ecclesiastical annals, will venture to tell us that they yield even a semblance of support to the system of government which Calvin, against his own better judgment, introduced into the Church. No; if there be an historical fact more clearly attested than any other, it is that of the existence of distinct orders in the Christian Ministry, without a single exception, in any part of the world, from the Apostolic age, until the establishment of the system of parity, at Geneva, in the sixteenth century. And at that period the great founder of the principle justified himself upon the plea of necessity alone. It never entered into his head to set up Presbyterial gov ernment as “the only one prescribed in the word of God." He considered it as a system that nothing but the urgency of circumstances could render admissible, denouncing, with characteristic violence, all those who, having the Episcopal hierarchy in their power, should refuse to yield to it the most scrupulous obedience.

Such, also, was the language of many other illustrious reformers; and it was in the same way that the Hugonots of France, and the reformed Churches in Holland, and other parts of the world, de fended their conduct. I have mentioned this before; but it deserves to be repeated, and repeated; for it is of a nature to carry convic tion to every ingenuous mind, and ought to cover with confusion those bold critics who venture to tell us that Presbyterial government is the true one prescribed in the sacred volume. No; it is a modern invention. There is no trace of it, either in scripture or antiquity; and the first individual who undertook to broach the system was branded as a madman by the writers of the age. This individual was Aerius, of the fourth century, a man of unprincipled ambition. Disappointed in his project of becoming a Bishop, he Jaboured to excite commotion in the Church, advancing the novel principle of parity among the Ministers of the word, which drew upon him the severest reprehension from the great and pious men who flourished at that period. If Presbyterial government be of divine institution, can it be possible that all trace of it would have

« PreviousContinue »