صور الصفحة
PDF
النشر الإلكتروني

It certainly furnishes no light presumption of the weakness of the system into whose service it is forced. The question before us is of the highest moment; and all dissenters who can possibly find opportunity, are bound, by every principle of duty, to give it an attentive examination. It ill becomes our opponents to endeavour to put the thing off, by representing it as a matter of little importance, and by charging Episcopalians with narrowness and bigotry. This is the weak resource of men, conscious of the unsoundness of the ground on which they stand. We invite inquiry. Let the prin ciple for which we contend be examined; recollecting, always, that the institution which we maintain has been laid aside by a very trifling proportion of the Christian world; the dissenters from Epis copacy being confined to the western Church, in which Church they sprang up, but a few centuries ago, amount now to a most insignificant proportion of its numbers.

As to the charge of illiberality, let it be recollected that this comes from men who make the doctrine of absolute decrees almost fundamental to the system of the gospel, representing all who reject it as half Christians, whose hearts have not been brought to submit to the sovereignty of God. With much more truth might the rejection of Episcopacy be placed to a hatred of control, which disdains the idea of superiority, loving equality in the ministry because it is flattering to the pride of the human heart.

When the Apostles proclaimed the religion of Jesus, declaring that there was no other name given under heaven whereby man could be saved, might not the same charge of bigotry have been preferred against them? And may not Episcopalians contend for that system of government which the Apostles established, and which they never invested man with the power to change. While we maintain that Episcopacy is essential to the Church of Christ, and that those who have departed from it have no spiritual authority whatever, have no Ministers, and no ordinances, we presume not to judge of their motives, or to determine on their future condition. These we leave to the eternal Judge, who will deal justly and graciously with all men. Where the true faith is professed, and where. there is real sincerity of heart, we believe God will bestow his blessing. Indeed, in every nation, he who feareth God, and worketh righteousness, will be accepted of him. At the same time it is the duty of every man to enter the Church of Christ, and to conform to the divinely instituted government of that Church. Schism is still, in the language of the Apostle, a carnal sin. This is the only way in which charity on the one hand, can be reconciled with a sacred adherence to Christian truth on the other.

[ocr errors]

Do you ask us to give up Episcopacy? What reply will you make to the Quaker, who accuses you of bigotry in refusing to renounce the ordinances of Baptism and the Holy Supper, as essential parts of the Christian dispensation? Take back, then, your charge of illiberality, lest it recoil upon your own heads, and be employed to your own destruction. In fact, be assured it is not from what men term bigotry that you have to apprehend danger. No; it is a loose spirit, tending to the breaking down of all government, that threatens the Christian world with destruction. Lay preachers will prove your bane; and their presumption is the genuine result of

1

those loose principles on which your departure from Episcopacy is grounded. In truth, loose principles never fail to return, in time, to torment their inventors. There is as much right to officiate without any commission, as with one derived from an invalid authority; and the reasoning adopted by the advocates of parity leads directly to the conclusion, that all pretenders to a spiritual call may enter at once, without any outward commission, upon the administration of holy things. Thus is the office of the Priesthood laid open to ignorant and self-sufficient men, who bring religion into contempt, causing many to offend, and to fall from the faith.

There is a closer union than is generally imagined between schism and heresy. The Church is the pillar and ground of the truth. It is the candlestick, the doctrine being the light set in it. Without the light, the candlestick is indeed of little use; but the candlestick being taken away, the light is in perpetual danger of being thrown down and destroyed. What God has joined together, let no man put asunder. The government and the faith have been united by Christ, and they can never continue long in a sound state when separated from each other. The union of the government and the faith is the ordinance of Christ. Their separation has been the rash work of human hands.

I now leave the controversy. My object in the beginning was simply to correct the false views that might be presented by the Miscellaneous writer. This I trust I have done. It would take me a long while to go through the evidences of the divine institution of Episcopacy. Expecting to sail in a few days, for Europe, I am obliged to abandon the undertaking. But I feel perfectly easy in leaving it in the hands of Cyprian. He will do justice to the subject. A Layman of the Episcopal Church.

For the Albany Centinel.

CYPRIAN. No. VI.

LET us now leave the sacred records, and examine the proofs

which the early Fathers afford us of the existence of the Episcopal form of government in the primitive Church.

Here the advocates of parity find no countenance given to their principles. The early Fathers give their full, clear, and unequivo cal testimony in demonstration of the point which we wish to establish. So well aware, indeed, are our adversaries of the powerful aid which we derive from them, that they have been compelled, in self-defence, to resort to the very unjustifiable expedient of making an attempt to invalidate their authority, to diminish the weight of their testimony. When the writings of the Fathers give even the shadow of support to their preconceived opinions, then, truly, they are disposed to view them in the most favourable light. But no sooner are they discovered to contain any thing that militates against these opinions, than they are no longer considered as authentic-they are no longer worthy of credit.

The credibility of the early Fathers, as the reporters of matters of fact, cannot, without outraging the soundest principles of reasoning, be called in question. They are men of undoubted veracity. The same reasons that would induce us to reject their testimony, would operate with equal force towards the exclusion of all human testimony as a legitimate vehicle for the conveyance of truth. It is true, that in their writings are contained many false principles, many erroneous opinions, much illegitimate reasoning. But does this consideration tend, in the smallest degree, to diminish the force of their testimony as the relaters of matters of fact? Facts are simple and unambiguous in their nature. They cannot be misunderstood. In the relation of facts, the most illiterate are not subject to error or misapprehension. The early Fathers, then, as the reporters of facts, cannot be considered as liable to objection, although in matters of doctrine and opinion they are not always worthy of implicit faith.

But what can these objectors intend by attempting to assail the credibility of the Fathers? Do they not know that the same blow that will lessen our confidence in the testimony of the primitive Church, will proportionably weaken the foundation on which Christianity rests? Is it not upon the fidelity of the primitive Church that we must depend for the purity and integrity of the canon of scripture? Is it not upon her testimony that we must establish the divine institution of infant baptism? Is it not upon the usage of the primitive Church that we justify ourselves for the observation of the sabbath of the first day? Let these writers beware that they wound not Christianity in a vital part, by aiming a blow against the authority of the early Fathers.

It cannot, then, be questioned that the Fathers are credible reporters of matters of fact. This is all we demand as essential to the accomplishment of our present purpose. It is matter of fact that there existed in the primitive Church three distinct orders of the Priesthood, Bishops, Presbyters, and Deacons. Does the testimony of the primitive Fathers go towards the establishment of this point? If it does, it is no longer a subject that will admit of controversy.

Let us begin with the earliest writers. In them nothing seems to militate against Episcopacy; every thing contributes to the confirmation of it. The Miscellaneous writer has, indeed, with a degree of exultation and triumph, challenged us to produce the testimonies of Clemens Romanus and of Polycarp. What was the object he had in view, when he thus, with an air of defiance, made this demand of us? Did he wish to impress upon the minds of his readers the idea that Clemens and Polycarp furnish any materials towards rearing the superstructure of Presbyterian discipline? If he did, he was either disingenuous, or ignorant of their writings. They contain nothing that favours Presbyterian principles. They contain nothing that is at hostility to the Episcopal hierarchy. It is true, they contain very little that bears any relation to this subject. It is on this account that they are not mentioned by us in the investigation of it. Their silence, surely, will not operate as an argument in our favour or against us. It happens, however, that we have the sentiments of Polycarp enlisted on our side by this strong and conclusive cir

Y

cumstance. He recommends to the Churches, to which he writes, the Epistles of Ignatius. Now, in the Epistles of Ignatius, the three orders of Bishops, Presbyters, and Deacons, are distinctly and repeatedly mentioned as the standing officers of the Church. Polycarp, therefore, by recommending them to the Churches, gives his sanction to the doctrines inculcated in them-he gives his sanction to Episcopal principles.

I have said, that in the Epistles of Clemens Romanus and of Polycarp, there is nothing decisive to be met with on the subject of Church government. Nevertheless, even in them we find some indistinct intimations of the existence of the Episcopal discipline. What are we to think of that passage in Clemens, in which he says, "For the chief Priest has his proper services; to the Priests their proper place is appointed, and to the Levites appertain their proper ministries, and the Layman is confined within the bounds of what is commanded to Laymen." Here the intention of the author and the connection of the passage show that Clemens alludes to the orders of the ministry which existed in the Church of Christ. He, therefore, asserts three distinct orders. What are we to think of the place in which Clemens asserts that the "Apostles went about preaching through countries and cities, and appointed the first fruits of their conversions to be Bishops and Deacons," &c. in which he clearly proves that besides the Apostles, the highest order of Ministers, there were two more in subordination to them? These are passages in Clemens that are strikingly advantageous to our scheme.

In regard to Polycarp; besides that he virtually gives his assent to all that is contained in the Epistles of Ignatius, what will the advocates of parity say to the inscription of his Epistle which runs thus: "Polycarp, and the Presbyters that are with him, to the Church of God which is at Philippi." Does not this intimate his Episcopal pre-eminence? Does not this slight hint (and slight we are willing to admit it is) tend to corroborate that strong and conclusive evidence which we derive from the Revelations of St. John, and from the testimony of ancient writers, in proof that Polycarp was Bishop of Smyrna? Clemens Romanus and Polycarp, then, furnish our adversaries with no weapons with which to assail us. We acknowledge, that from their silence on this topic, we also can derive very little advantage from their testimony. But the fact is, we do not stand in need of their assistance on this point. Their attention was occupied by other subjects. On this account they have but slightly glanced at this; but for this omission of it by them, we are amply compensated in the full, the explicit, and the reiterated mention made of it by Ignatius.

Ignatius lived also in the Apostolic age. He suffered martyrdom a very few years after the death of St. John the Apostle. The Epis

tles that have been handed to us under his name, have all the marks of genuineness and authenticity. They have the same claims to credit as any of the productions of that early age of the Church. The testimony of Ignatius ought, with every candid reader, to be considered as sufficient of itself, if it be full and explicit, to determine this controversy. Let us, then, collect a few of the most striking passages of his Epistles that relate to this subject. To detail

the whole of what he has advanced on it, would be to transcribe almost the half of what he has written.

If IGNATIUS had written his Epistles in modern times, at a pe riod when this question was agitated, it would seem as if he could not have expressed himself in terms more definite, more unequivo cal and decisive. He frequently exhorts the people to yield obedi ence to their spiritual rulers, and the Presbyters and Deacons to be in subjection to their Bishop. In the Epistle to the Magnesians, he mentions Damas their Bishop, Bassus and Apolonius their Presbyters, and Sotion their Deacon. He praises Sotion, the Deacon, for his subjection to the Bishop and Presbyters, and exhorts them all to reverence their Bishop. In his Epistle to the Trallians, he speaks of their Bishop Polybius, and tells them, "that whilst they live in subjection to their Bishop as to Jesus Christ, they seem to live, not after the manner of men, but according to Jesus Christ." "Let nothing, says he, be done without the Bishop, even as ye now practise." Again. "Let all of you reverence the Deacons as the commandment of Jesus Christ, the Bishop as the Son of the Fa ther, and the Presbyters as the council of God and assembly of Apos tles. Without these no Church is named." In another place he says, "He that is within the altar is pure: But whosoever does any thing without the Bishop, the College of Presbyters, and the Deacons, his conscience is defiled." In his Epistle to the Ephesians, he thus expresses himself: "Whosoever is without the altar is deprived of the bread of God. Let us have a care of opposing the Bishop, that we may be subject to God." In his Epistle to the Philadelphians, he says, "Whosoever belongs to God, and Jesus Christ, is with the Bishop. Endeavour, therefore, to partake of one and the same eucharist, for there is but one flesh of Christ, and one cup in the union of his blood, and one altar; as there is one Bishop, with the College of Presbyters, and my fellow-servants the Deacons." In another place: "When I was with you," says he, "I cried out and spoke with a loud voice, Adhere to the Bishop, the College of Presbyters, and the Deacons." Again; "Do nothing without the Bishop.” “God, he tells them, will forgive the schisma ticks, if they repent and turn to the unity of God, and to the council of the Bishop." In his Epistle to the Church of Smyrna, he exhorts them thus: "Let all of you follow the Bishop, as Jesus Christ does the Father, and the college of Presbyters as the Apostles, and reverence the Deacons as the commandment of God." Again he says, "Let that eucharist be accounted valid which is ordered by the Bishop, or by one whom he appoints." "Without the Bishop it is lawful neither to baptize nor to celebrate the feast of charity." In his Epistle to Polycarp, Bishop of Smyrna, he tells them, "Let nothing be done without your approbation," &c. And afterwards, addressing the people of that place, he says, May my life be a ransom for those who are subject to the Bishop, Presbyters, and Deacons, and may I have my portion in God with them."

If these passages of Ignatius are not sufficient to decide this controversy, then I must confess myself inadequate to judge of the force of evidence that would be requisite to do it. Here we find expressly mentioned, the three distinct orders, Bishops, Presbyters, and Deacons. The Bishops are obviously considered as the su

« السابقةمتابعة »