Εικόνες σελίδας
PDF
Ηλεκτρ. έκδοση

to remain "without a church, without a ministry, and without sacraments," but for this act of the British Parliament!

The author of the tract "Reasons why I am a Churchman," says, "I am prepared to maintain and prove, what has been proved before, that there is no form of church government in the United States, which harmonizes so completely with our civil institutions as the government of the Protestant Episcopal Church." There are some men, we know, who can see in certain directions, just what they wish; and it may be very convenient for this writer in our Republican land, to see a close affinity between Episcopacy and Republicanism; yet the seeing of such a thing would have been dangerous under the reign of the Tudors and the Stuarts. With all the modifications to which the genius of our government has subjected Episcopacy, how much is it pervaded by the spirit of democracy? Each bishop is supreme ruler in his diocese. No church can be formed-no person admitted to holy orders -no one confirmed-no congregation can receive a pastor-no pastor can be dismissed, but at his pleasure. The "house of bishops" retain in their hands the government of the church, and have "a full veto upon the proceedings of the other house," that is, the general convention. Suppose that in each State of this Union, we had governors, ruling, not through popular election, but by Divine right transmitted by gubernatorial manipulations-that said governors could veto the appointment of all judges and justices, and that such could exercise no authority not of their conferring-that said governors gathered in a perpetual Senate, could veto every act of the people's representatives, degrading officers, and disfranchising citizens at their option that said governors were not only the sole judges and expounders of the law, but the sole executives independent of any supreme court or independent judiciary-and we ask, would such be a popular government, or would any people calling themselves free, endure such a superincumbent oligarchy for a year? Romanists have extolled their system as the best preservative of Republicanism, and Prelatists seem zealously engaged in the same fruitless task with reference to its twin sister, but

the age is becoming increasingly incapable of appreciat ing such logic.

If republicanism is desirable in the state, it is equally so in the church. Religion has a powerful influence on civil society, and if God has willed monarchy in the church, it is inferable that he wills it in the state. Shall the state be the sanctuary of freedom, and the church but the star chamber of prelatical servitude? We have seen within a few years, a bishop of the Empire State, refusing the convention the right of all deliberative bodies, that of deciding upon the qualifications of its own members. Bishop Onderdonk, having declared that he was the source of power, that it was not to be sought in the members but in the head, some sixty clergymen went in a procession to thank him for the vindication of his divine prerogatives, and falling on their knees, claimed his ghostly benediction! Of late, the thunders of the Western Diocese, excathedra, have been playing around the heads of New York Churchmen, for their assertion of the right of publishing works opposed to the reigning High Churchism of the times! In such developments we may see the indices "of things to come at large," should such a system come into the ascendant. Something else is needed to meet the growing wants of the world. The influence of Republican Puritanism broke the power of kings, made Engİand a Commonwealth, and conferred the freedom she It made us what we are. possesses. Puritanism," says Carlyle, "is now the most powerful thing under the sun." It is shaking thrones, and overturning dynasties. Prelacy is the product of Paganism and Judaism, and should be discarded as injurious to our spiritual and temporal well being.

SECTION II.

66.

THE CHRISTIAN MINISTRY NOT FOUNDED ON THE MODEL of the JewiSH PRIESTHOOD.

The advocates of Prelacy contend that "the priesthood of the law was typical of the priesthood of the gospel;" that "what Aaron, and his sons, and the Levites were in the temple, that bishops, priests, and deacons are in the

church." We are told that there were "three orders of officers in the Jewish Church, and in the Christian, there have always been three orders answering to these." The following reasons will exhibit the fallacy of this.

66

1. It is no where taught or implied in the scriptures. DR. HAWEIS, an Episcopalian well says, "If the unfounded idea, that bishops, priests, and deacons, were to succeed the high priest, priests, and Levites, were true, we must surely have found some intimation of it in the epistle to the Hebrews. That men of research, should broach such puerilities is surprising." The only passage relied upon, is, where Paul says the priests serve unto the example and shadow of heavenly things." But what was the example and shadow unto which they served? Not the priests, but the things to which they ministered, the tabernacle, its furniture and service, typifying the perfect sacrifice of Christ. As the high priest alone entered the inner sanctuary with the sprinkling of blood, so Christ hath appeared putting away sin by the sacrifice of himself." "Now the Son of God abideth a priest continually." Are diocesan bishops Christ's successors and representatives in this capacity? The thought is profane.

66

2. The likeness fails at all the points where it is needed. The high priest did not ordain the priests as do our bishops. Neither did he confirm the people or govern the church. The high priest, too, was consecrated by the priests, for not until one high priest died, was another eligible. In case that he was ceremonially defiled, the duties of his office were discharged by a common priest as his vicar, or deputy. In all this we see nothing favorable to high church pretensions. We can see very little resemblance between one high priest atoning for the Jewish people, and hundreds of bishops claiming to be his antitypes, and discharging entirely different functions. Our prelates will not claim to carry with them the oracles of God, or to have the exclusive right of entering into his presence. Instead of a resemblance, we find a perfect dissimilarity. If any thing, it proves too much. It affords a good basis for the blasphemous assumptions of the Man of Sin. We can see something for Popery, in his Holiness, (that was,) presiding over the church as did the high

priest over the Jewish economy, but nothing for gospel truth. In truth, the argument was the foundation of Popery. Says the amiable Edward VI., one of the most excellent of the nursing fathers of Episcopacy, "however the Papists say, that as under the old law there was a high priest, or a set bishop, of the Jews, so there ought now to be a HEAD or SUPREME Minister, among the Christians. To which I answer, that the priesthood of Aaron and Moses represented the supremacy of our Savior Christ, and not the Pope." Mosheim thus notes the rise of this Episcopal dogma. "The Christian doctors had the good fortune to persuade the people, that the ministers of the Christian church succeeded to the character, rights, and privileges of the Jewish priesthood, and this persuasion was a new source both of honor and profit to the sacred order. And, accordingly, the bishops considered themselves as invested with a rank and character similar to those of the high priest among the Jews, while the presbyters represented the priests, and the deacons the Levites. The notion, however, once introduced, produced its natural effects; and these effects were pernicious."

[ocr errors]

* # *

3. There is no priesthood under the Christian dispensation. If there is any, it is the royal one of the entire brotherhood. No sacrifices are now to be offered but what are common to all. All priestly offices and works have been discharged by Christ, and, therefore, is the "priesthood changed" for the simple ministry of reconcil iation. Neither in the Acts, nor Epistles, do we read of priests in the New Testament church. The book of Common Prayer in its " Office for the ordination of priests," and its directions of priestly acts, exhibits its Popish, rather than its Gospel origin. "Christianity," says Archbishop Whately, "is a religion without sacrifice, altar, priest, or temple." Yet how inadmissible is this, on the supposition, that the Mosaic priesthood was typical of the Christian? How inconceivable, that the title should have been given exclusively to the typical priests, to the shadow, and withheld from Gospel priests who are its substance? Why this studious silence of official designation? Evidently, it must be, to give no shadow of support to hierarchical supremacy. "It is a common mistake," says Archbishop

Stillingfleet, "to think that the ministers of the Gospel succeed by way of correspondence and analogy to the priests 5 under the law: which mistake has been the foundation, and original, of many errors." To this mistake, (if we may call it by no lighter name,) we may refer the doctrinal corruption, and priestly domination, which subsequently characterized the church. From the attempt to Judaize the Gospel, sprung the mass-offering priests of Popery, and the exclusive parasites of High Churchism. Mosheim, and other ecclesiastical historians, freely descant upon the rise and growth of this error, and its influence in developing the tyrannizing priestcraft of a perverted Christianity.

4. It is evident that the Christian ministry was founded on the platform of the Jewish synagogue. In the time of the Apostles, there were synagogues wherever there were Jews. They answered all the purposes of parish churches, and in them the Apostles preached the Gospel, and with their adherents performed the acts of religious worship. Hence the frequency of the announcement, "they went into the synagogue on the Sabbath day." "Paul and Barnabas went both into the synagogue.' "" "Therefore he disputed in the synagogue with the Jews." "And he reasoned in the synagogue every Sabbath," &c. In each of these places of worship there was a pastor, a bench of elders, and deacons. The first was called indifferently, minister, bishop, pastor, elder, ruler of the synagogue, and angel of the church. Associated with him were the presbyters or elders, as his counsellors in the worship and government of the establishment. The deacons were the collectors of alms and the superintendents of its pecuniary affairs. The elders received ordination at the hands of their associates.

The word synagogue and church have the same signification. See particularly, James ii: 2. "If there came into your assembly," &c., in the original, duvaywynv, synagogue. The mode of worship used in the synagogue, consisting of reading the scriptures, praying, and preaching, was adopted into the church, as were the titles of its officers. We might give a host of confirmatory testimony to this view, did our space permit, from the leading minds of all branches of the church. All these will unite with Arch

« ΠροηγούμενηΣυνέχεια »