Εικόνες σελίδας
PDF
Ηλεκτρ. έκδοση

single church now, I can discern no reason, after I have looked every way for it. Let something be assigned which will make an essential difference herein; otherwise they that judge such ordinations here, and in other reformed churches, to be nullities, will hereby declare all the ordinations in the ancient church for three or four hundred years, to be null and void, and must own the dismal consequences that ensue thereof. They that will have no ordinations but such as are performed by one who has many churches under him, maintain a novelty never known nor dreamt of in the ancient churches, while their state was tolerable. They may as well say the ancient church had never a bishop (if their interest did not hinder, all the reason they make use of in this case would lead them to it), as deny that a reformed pastor has no power to ordain, because he is not a bishop. He has Episcopal ordination, even such as the canons require, being set apart by two or three pastors at least, who are as truly diocesans as the ancient bishops, for some whole ages.

"130

2. It exposes also the futility of the doctrine of apostolical succession.

"The theory is, that each bishop, from the apostolic times, has received in his consecration a mysterious 'gift,' and also transmits to every priest in his ordination a mysterious 'gift,' indicated in the respective offices by the awful words, 'Receive the Holy Ghost;' that on this the right of priests to assume their functions, and the preternatural grace of the sacraments administered by them, depends; that bishops, once consecrated, instantly become a sort of Leyden jar of spiritual electricity, and are invested with the remarkable property of transmitting the 'gift' to others; that this has been the case from the primitive age till now; that this high gift has been incorruptibly

130 Primitive Episcopacy, pp. 182, 183. London, 1688.

transmitted through the hands of impure, profligate, heretical ecclesiastics, as ignorant and flagitious as any of their lay contemporaries; that, in fact, these 'gifts' are perfectly irrespective of the moral character and qualifications both of bishop and priest, and reside in equal integrity in a Bonner or a Cranmer,-a parson Adams or a parson Trulliber." 131

Now, we ask, have these countless multitudes of bishops all been episcopally ordained, scattered through the earth, as they were, from Britain to the remotest Indies; in cities, towns, villages, forts, military stations, monasteries, and what not? Can these mysterious 'gifts' and graces be so diffused abroad over the earth, and bandied about from hand to hand, without the hazard, amidst a thousand contingencies, that they may have fallen away, or lost their ethereal power? Has no graceless hypocrite crept in unawares among the Lord's anointed, and, with unholy hands, essayed these awful mysteries, transmitting, by uncanonized rites, this heavenly grace? Has no link been broken in this mysterious chain, stretching onward from the distant age of the apostles down to the present? Has no irregularity disturbed the succession, no taint of heresy marred the purity of its descent? Believe it who.can.132`

131 Edinburgh Rev., April, 1843, pp. 269, 270.

132We can imagine the perplexity of a presbyter thus cast in doubt as to whether or not he has ever had the invaluable 'gift' of apostolical succession conferred upon him. As that 'gift' is neither tangible nor visible, the subject neither of experience nor consciousness;-as it cannot be known by any 'effects' produced by it (for that mysterious efficacy which attends the administration of rites at its possessor's hands, is, like the gift which qualifies him to administer them, also invisible and intangible), he may imagine, unhappy man! that he has been 'regenerating' infants by baptism, when he has been simply sprinkling them with water. 'What is the matter?' the spectator of his distractions might ask. 'What have you lost?" 'Lost!' would be the reply; 'I fear I have lost my apostolical succession, or rather, my misery is, that I do not know and cannot tell whether I ever had it to lose!' It is of no use here to suggest the usual questions, 'When did you see it last? When were you last conscious of possessing it?'

3. It is fatal to the claims of the " one catholic and apostolic church" of high Episcopacy.

This holy catholic church, one and indivisible, deriving divine rights in regular succession from the apostles,— where, or what is it? Who this house of Aaron, that have kept, all the while, the sacred fire of the altar, borne up and defended the tabernacle of the Lord, and guarded thus from all profane intrusion the ark of the covenant? This royal priesthood, these that were, at first, created, and have always continued, wholly a right seed,-who, or what are they? What form of error, we seriously ask, what species of delusion, what tribe of schismatics, what creature of sin, has not, at some time, found a place within this same immaculate church, as a component part of this strange Episcopal unity, a unity only of chaos and infinite confusion? The whole system of high, exclusive Episcopacy is itself any thing but a semblance of that apostolic church to which it so proudly clings. In its doctrines, in its government, and in all the trumpery of its canons and its traditions, what has it now in common with the church, as she was in the days of the apostles? This "one, holy, catholic, and apostolic church" of prelacy,-like the famous ship of ancient Grecian story, which, by continued decay and repairs, came to be so changed at last that nothing of What a peculiar property is that, of which, though so invaluable,-nay, on which the whole efficacy of the Christian ministry depends,—a man has no positive evidence to show whether he ever had it or not! which, if ever conferred, was conferred without his knowledge; and which, if it could be taken away, would still leave him ignorant, not only when, where, and how the theft was committed, but whether it had ever been committed or not! The sympathizing friend might, probably, remind him, that as he was not sure he had ever had it, so, perhaps, he still had it without knowing it. 'Perhaps!' he would reply; 'but it is certainty I want.' 'Well,' it might be said, 'Mr. Gladstone assures you, that, on the most moderate computation, your chances are as 8000 to 1 that you have it!' 'Pish!' the distracted man would exclaim, 'what does Mr. Gladstone know about the matter?' And, truly, to that query we know not well what answer the friend could make."-Edinburgh Rev., p. 271.

the original remained, she has, indeed, still the same name; but all else, how changed! One by one, her every part has gone to decay, and given place to something else. And there she lies now at her moorings, with scarce a beam, or plank, or fragment of her shrouds remaining from the original and noble frame-work of her great Masterbuilder; and yet proudly claiming still an exclusive right to the honored name which she so much dishonors. This "catholic, apostolic church,"-pray, in what consists her identity with the church of the holy apostles?

"A real, living unity, and a well regulated liberty," says Riddle, "characterized the early constitution of the church. But liberty was afterwards sacrificed to unity; and this unity itself degenerated into a merely external, forced, and dead union, which became subservient to the purposes oppression, and to the growth of the hierarchy."

of

4. The original equality of bishops and presbyters continued to be acknowledged, from the rise of the Episcopal hierarchy down to the time of the Reformation.

The claims of prelatical Episcopacy were attacked in the fifth century with great spirit by Jerome, who denies the superiority of bishops, giving at the same time an explanation of the origin of this groundless distinction, widely different from that of divine right by apostolical authority. Several passages from this author have already been given under another head, to which we subjoin the following, with a translation, and an analysis by Dr. Mason.

"Thus he lays down doctrine and fact relative to the government of the church, in his commentary on Titus 1: 5. "That thou shouldest ordain presbyters in every city, as I had appointed thee,134 'What sort of presbyters ought to

133"Qui qualis Presbyter debeat ordinari, in consequentibus disserens hoc ait: Si qui est sine crimine, unius uxoris vir," et caetera: postea intulit, "Oportet. n. Episcopum sine crimine esse, tanquam Dei dispensatorem:" ldem est ergo Presbyter, qui et Episcopus, et antequam diaboli

be ordained he shows afterwards. If any be blameless, the husband of one wife, &c., and then adds, for a bishop must be blameless, as the steward of God, &c. A presbyter, therefore, is the same as a bishop: and before there were, by the instigation of the devil, parties in religion; and it was said among different people, I am of Paul, and I of Apollos, and I of Cephas, the churches were governed by the joint counsel of the presbyters. But afterwards, when every one accounted those whom he baptized as belonging to himself and not to Christ, it was decreed throughout the whole world that one, chosen from among the presbyters, should be put

instinctu, studia in religione fierent, et diceretur in populis: "Ego sum Pauli, ego Apollo, ego autem Cephae:" communi Presbyterorum consilio ecclesiae gubernabantur. Postquam vero unusquisque eos, quos baptizaverat, suos putabat esse, non Christi: in toto orbe decretum est, ut unus de Presbyteris electus superponeretur caeteris, ad quem omnis ecclesiae cura pertineret, et schismatum semina tollerentur. Putet aliquis non scripturarum, sed nostram, esse sententiam Episcopum et Presbyterum unum esse; et aliud aetatis, aliud esse nomen officii: relegat Apostoli ad Philippenses verba dicentis: Paulus et Timotheus servi Jesu Christi, omnibus sanctis in Christo Jesu, qui sunt Philippis, cum Episcopis et Diaconis, gratia vobis et pax, et reliqua. Philippi una est urbs Macedoniae, et certe in una civitate plures ut nuncupantur, Episcopi esse non poterant. Sed quia eosdem Episcopos illo tempore quos et Presbyteros appellabant, propterea indifferenter de Episcopis quasi de Presbyteris est locutus. Adhuc hoc alicui videatur ambiguum, nisi altero testimonio comprobetur. In Actibus Apostolorum scriptum est, quod cum venisset Apostolus Miletum, miserit Ephesum, et vocaverit Presbyteros ecclesiae ejusdem, quibus postea inter caetera sit locutus: attendite vobis et omni gregi in quo vos Spiritus Sanctus posuit Episcopos, pascere Ecclesiam Domini, quam acquisivit per sanguinem suum. Et hoc diligentius observate, quo modo unius civitatis Ephesi Presbyteros vocans, postea eosdem Episcopos dixerit. Haec propterea, ut ostenderemus apud veteres eosdem fuisse Presbyteros quos et Episcopos. Paulatim vero, ut dissensionum plantaria, evellerentur, ad unum omnem solicitudinem esse delatam.-Sicut ergo Presbyteri sciunt se ex ecclesiae consuetudine ei, qui sibi propositus fuerit, esse subjectos, ita Episcopi noverint se magis consuetudine quam dispositionis dominicae veritate, Presbyteris esse majores, HIERONYMI Com: in Tit., 1. 1. Opp., Tom. 4, p. 413, ed. Paris, 1693-1706. The same may be found in Rothe, p. 209.

« ΠροηγούμενηΣυνέχεια »