Εικόνες σελίδας
PDF
Ηλεκτρ. έκδοση

ical, and nearly as Romanizing as the English. We have already dwelt somewhat upon this topic, and would simply add the corroborative testimony of the Episcopal Society for the promotion of Evangelical Knowledge. The New York Auxiliary says in its address to the public, "At present the stream of error, far too inadequately opposed, runs through every portion of our Church. Except to a limited extent we cannot check its flow. With a power which is difficult to resist, the press among us is subsidiary to the spread of a most perilous infection; and by our silence and want of organization, we LABEL THE POISON AS 'GOOD MEDICINE,' for our families and parishes." The stated object of this society is, "to prevent the silent and gradual disappearance of evangelical views of the Church." Rev. Dr. Stone in his sermon before it, asserts, "The true gospel is in danger of being lost to our children, and our children's children. This we believe in the depth of our soul's honesty." Most evidently, Apostolic purity of doctrine and piety, under the fostering influence of a religion of pride and form, are now, as they ever have been, exceedingly depressed; nor is it probable that a change for the better will ever occur, until the Popery of the formulary and the hierarchy, have been re-cast on the perfect model of God's Word.

Let the reader reflect, that the great object of the organization of the church, is the promotion of piety. To this every ordinance, rite, and arrangement, must be considered as subordinate. The recall of the affections from low and unworthy objects-the exercise of the conscience that it may be void of offence towards God and man-the undeviating submission of the will to the divine authority-and, in a word, the consecration of the mind's activities to the great ideas of God and Duty-are the objects contemplated as supreme in the mission of Christianity. From the most reverential observers of outward forms, God turns himself with complacency, to goodness, disinterestedness, purity, virtue, as the only desirable distinctions. For ages past, it has been the grand heresy to overlook this, to substitute in its place, the creed, the form, and the church. In Rome, in Greece, and in Oxford, the end has been lost sight of through an idolatrous

and improper use of the means; most of which could not even claim a scripture warrant. Christ has told us, that the hearing and doing of his words, made up the essence of religion, and placed men on a rock where no danger could shake their confidence. Ours is a practical age, looking more to the reality of things than their appearan ces; and in this we have a guarantee that the ecclesiasti cal follies of the past will not be again renewed. We may henceforth expect, that that which ministers the most effectually, no matter by what name it may be called, to vital piety and external excellence, will challenge the respect and practical application of mankind.

CONCLUSION.

We have thus far examined the character of Diocesan Episcopacy, and we have endeavored to show that it has no foundation in the New Testament scriptures-derives no support from the evidence of the purest antiquity, and that its ascendancy is fraught with evil to the interests of Christianity and Republican institutions. We have spoken plainly, but we trust not unkindly. To those who honestly prefer such a system as the most beneficial ecclesiastical order, yet without any idea of divine right, and divested of all exclusiveness and intolerance, we would manifest no hostility. It has pleased the Redeemer to suffer his church to be divided into different branches, and each may be essential in its place. The peculiarities of one denomination of Christians, may qualify it for usefulness where another would be inefficient. There is room for all-room for diversity, yet none for bigotry. The Episcopacy which we attack is the jure divino-the religion of life-imparting sacraments, claiming for itself all the blessings of salvation, and surrendering all beyond its little fold to "the uncovenanted mercies of God." We believe that this is the system of the Prayer Book, the ruling element of the English and American Episcopal churches; and, therefore, in our discussion of the subject, we have had reference to this alone. It is a system of at

tendant evil, giving a serpent to those who ask for bread, and fomenting schism and strife where there should be unity and love.

It unquestionably promotes schism. According to Jerome, the scheme was set up as a remedy for schism; and like all other attempts of man to improve upon the workmanship of God, the remedy has proved to be worse than the disease. It rudely sunders the spiritual bond uniting all believers to a common Savior and each other, and by the supreme importance which it attaches to Popish nonessentials, renders resistance a duty and compliance a sin. The most impartial and diligent students of Revelation, in the Episcopal church and out of it, have confessed that its peculiarities are not there discoverable; hence, when instead of leaving these matters to the prudent liberty of Christians, it exalts them into tests, and terms of communion, it becomes guilty of all the discords, and alienations accruing in the family of Christ. The concurrent harmony and co-operation of ministers,--the concord, confederacy, and intercommunion of believers holding the same fundamentals—becomes an impossibility. Wherever the system operates, in countries, in neighborhoods, in churches, in families, these deplorable results must follow.

The scheme is as unreasonable as schismatical. The dogma that there is a supernatural efficacy in sacerdotal ministrations, and that diocesan bishops are alone empowered to impart to others the sacred gift by significant manipulations, is neither taught in the Bible nor discoverable by reason. How the Holy Spirit can be imparted by unholy men-how a valid ministerial commission can be conveyed by those who were never themselves Christians -how it can be true in theory that the sacraments, Episcopally administered, are the only channels of salvation, while, incontrovertibly, thousands have, in fact, exhibited all the fruits of the Spirit and realized heavenly joy on earth having never thus received them-how such a system can be the very essential of Christianity, and yet have been deemed unworthy of direction, explanation, or notice, by the sacred writers-how, according to its advocates, it should have been even "faintly traced” in the

Bible, while opposed to its entire spirit and tenor-how it can be the only sphere of the divine operations and of Apostolic doctrine, and yet remarkable for the absence of revivals and the works of holiness-are questions not soluble by the deductions of logic, or cognizable in the domain of faith. No Locke could subject the scheme to the settled principles of rationality-no Davy analyze its discordant elements-and no Butler discourse upon its analogy to the course of nature and revealed religion.

Let us attempt an illustration. Yonder is a village containing three churches, a Presbyterian, an Episcopal, and a Roman Catholic. It is the Sabbath, the bells ring, and you enter into one of the churches to worship. The minister rises to pray independent of the aid of a tutelary lit urgy, and you feel that you are on holy ground-brought into the presence of the Invisible: your faith takes to itself wings, and your humility bows in adoration. He begins to preach, and he furnishes oracular demonstration of his commission in the outgoings of his soul. He rouses your conscience to reproof, opens your eyes to see, awakens the most ardent aspirations after a holier life; and standing near the burning throne, thrills you with fervid emotions, touches all the springs of your soul, and electrifies you with the glowing objects of the eternal state. You think not of questioning the validity of his ministry for you have experienced its power. He has proved himself God's messenger to your soul, and whether he received his commission from Geneva or Oxford, whether he was ordained like Martyn by a prelate, or like Timothy by the "laying on of the hands of the presbytery," you no interest to inquire.

feel

The afternoon service approaches, and you enter into another sanctuary. You at once perceive a difference in the service; the minister robed in a surplice reads the prayers for the people; it may be, well, perhaps, indifferently. After the occupation of the most of the time in such exercises, you perceive that he changes his place and dress; why, your reason is unable to determine, but robed in black, he addresses you as a preacher. The thoughts are common-place, the manner indifferent and spiritless, and after some fifteen or twenty minutes he con

cludes the effort; yourself and the congregation not being much improved by the service. Retiring from the assembly, you enter into conversation with a communicant of the church, and upon his learning where you worshipped in the morning, he expresses his surprise at your frequenting unauthorized assemblies, and listening to an invalid ministry. Not versed in Episcopal controversy, you ask explanations for such statements. He proceeds to satisfy your curiosity, and tells you that his minister is in the line of Christ's only commissioned ambassadors that he was ordained by Bishop Onderdonk-who was ordained by his bishop and two other diocesans-and these said diocesans by others preceding in an unbroken series running through the Anglican succession, the Romish prelates,-up through Evaristus, Clement, Anacletus, Linusthrough Timothy and Titus-the Angels of the seven churches and finally through Peter and Paul directly to Christ! You are surprised, your reason halts before difficulties; you cannot understand why the Presbyterian pastor ordained by a whole Presbytery of parochial bishops, is excluded from the ministerial succession; and why the Episcopal rector, whose head was only manipulated by one diocesan, and he perhaps none of the best, should be infallibly included. You perceive that the succession argument is as good on one side as on the other; and as Presbyterian ministers have always been ordained by others, and not by one, but by many at a time, and this on ad infinitum, you cannot see why Presbyterian ordination is not as good, or even better than Prelatical. You proceed to state your convictions of the different effects and pervading influences of the two services, and you are told that these are equivocal indications, nay, no evidences at all against the Episcopalian. You enquire into the results of the two ministries, especially into those of the Episcopal. You ask, what souls have been converted through these only valid administrations? and you receive no satisfaction. You are informed that there are frequent gatherings in the place for the promotion of Temperance, but that the rector rarely mingles in them, or speaks upon the subject. You inquire how efficiently he promotes good works? and you find that the works are few which

« ΠροηγούμενηΣυνέχεια »