Oldalképek
PDF
ePub

siastical polity are universally allowed to be a work of masterly judgment, and deep erudition; they are frequently spoken of as containing the most rational and complete defense of the Church of England, and were recommended by King Charles I. (whose attachment to Episcopacy will not be doubted) as the best for fixing the principles of his children on those questions which had distracted the nation. This accomplished writer, after asserting with great zeal the authority of Episcopal government, makes the following exception: "When the exigence of necessity doth constrain to leave the usual ways of the Church, which otherwise we would willingly keep; when the Church must needs have some ordained, and neither hath, nor can have possibly a bishop to ordain; in case of such necessity the law of God hath oftentimes and may give place; and therefore, we are not, simply and without exception, to urge a lineal descent of power from the apostles by continued succession, in every effectual ordination."*

The same great man, speaking in another place of some churches not Episcopal, says: "This their defect and imperfection, I had rather lament in such a case than exaggerate; considering that men oftentimes, without any fault of their own, may be driven to want that kind of polity or regiment, which is best, and to content themselves with that which either the irremediable error of former times, or the necessity of the present, hath cast upon them."+

Had Mr. Hooker been asked to define "the exigence of necessity," could he have imagined any more urgent than the case in question? Or had he been inquired of concerning "the necessities of present times," could he have mentioned any in the cases to which he alludes (those of Scotland and Geneva) so strongly pleading for the liberty he allows, as those now existing in America?

The name of Bishop Hoadly will probably be as long remembered as any on the list of British worthies; and will never be mentioned without veneration of the strength of his abilities, the liberality of his sentiments, and his enlightened zeal for civil liberty. He has written in defense of Episcopal government with more argument and better temper than is commonly to be met with in controversial writings. This amiable prelate expresses himself as follows: "As to the credit of the reformed churches abroad, we think it no presumption, as we censure them not, who in a case of necessity went out of the ordinary method, so to expect they will not censure us for not approving such irregularities where there is no such necessity for them."‡ In another place he says: "For my own part I can not argue that Episcopacy is essential to a Christian church, because it is of Apostolical institution; and, on the other hand, I do argue that we are obliged to the utmost of our knowledge, to conform ourselves to the Apostolical model in all cases, unless in such where the imitation is impracticable, or would manifestly do more hurt than good to the Church of Christ; neither of which can possibly be affirmed in the ordinary state of the Church."§

* Ecclesiastical Polity, Book 7, Section 14.

+ Ecclesiastical Polity, Book 8, Section 11. Reasonableness of Conformity. Part I. § Defence of Episcopal Ordination. Conclusion.

What necessity was there of the "reformed churches abroad" equal to ours? Is not an immediate imitation of the ancient usage "impracticable”? Would not such a plan as has been proposed be conforming (as far as circumstances allow) to our ideas of "the Apostolic model "?

The character of Archbishop Usher for extensive learning and fervent piety is generally known; and is distinguished both by his great moderation on the subject of Episcopacy, and by the service it has received from his indefatigable researches. In a letter to Dr. Bernard, he writes thus: "In places where bishops can not be had, the ordination of presbyters stands valid."* What part of the Christian world could the learned primate have named, of which it could have been so properly said as it may be of ours, that ordination by bishops "can not be had"?

66

The great reformer and martyr, Archbishop Cranmer, was one of the first characters of the age in which he lived for learning, piety, and virtue; and is supposed to have done more than any other towards compiling the Liturgy of the Church of England. "His equal," says Dr. Warner, was never yet seen in the See of Canterbury; and I will take upon me to say that his superior never will." In the reign of Henry VIII., according to Bishop Burnet,† there were proposed by the king, to this great man, in conjunction with other learned divines, certain questions; among which are the two following, with the Archbishop's answers annexed:

Question. Whether, if it fortuned a prince Christian to conquer certain dominions of infidels, having none but the temporal learned men with him, it be defended by God's law, that he and they should preach the Word of God there or no, and also make and constitute priests there or no?

Answer. It is not against God's law; but contrariwise they ought indeed so to do; and there be histories that witness that some Christian princes and other laymen have done the same.

Question. Whether it be defended by God's law, that if it so fortuned that all the bishops and priests of a region were dead; and that the Word of God should remain there unpreached, and the sacraments of baptism and others unministered; that the king of that region should make bishops and priests to supply the same or no?

Answer. It is not forbidden by God's law.

The above may be offered as the opinions of not only Cranmer, but also of most of the eminent bishops and other clergy of that period; for whoever will attend to all the questions with the several answers as recorded by Burnet, will find that although the Archbishop seems singular in his sentiments as to the original institution of bishops and priests, they generally agree with him on the supposed occasions of necessity. On the former subject, the learned historian believes that Cranmer soon afterwards changed

Quoted from Neal's History.

+ History of the Reformation, anno 1540. Stilling fleet, with less appearance of authenticity, says it was in the reign of Edward VI.

History of the Reformation. Appendix to Vol. I.

his opinion; but, the reason assigned for that belief, if it be well founded,* does not extend to the purpose for which his authority is here cited.

Now every circumstance in the cases supposed makes the principle apply, with the greater force, to that now under consideration. If a Christian king may on an emergency constitute a bishop, much more may the whole body of the churches interested; especially when they interfere not thereby with the civil magistrate. If a prince would be justifiable in taking such a step, rather than have recourse to the spiritual authority of some neighboring and allied kingdoms, much more should we, who labor under peculiar political difficulties. If it were commendable on the mere hope of converting infidels to the Christian faith, it would be more so, for the purpose of maintaining the principles of Christian knowledge and practice, among those who are already of the number of its possessors. If a prince ought to do this from concern for the spiritual welfare of his subjects, much rather ought we, for that of ourselves and our children.

On the credit of the preceding names the author rests this the last part of his subject; and if his sentiments should meet with an unfavorable reception, he will find no small consolation from being in a company so respectable.

Perhaps, however, there would be little room for difference of sentiment among the well-informed, if the matter were generally taken up with seriousness and moderation, and were to rest on religious principles alone. But unhappily there are some, in whose ideas the existence of their church is so connected with that of the civil government of Britain, as to preclude their concurrence in any system, formed on a presumed and final separation of the two countries. Prejudices of this sort will admit of no conviction but such as may arise from future events; and are therefore no farther considered in this performance, than with a sincere sorrow, that any persons professing to be of the communion of the Church of England, should so far mistake the principles of that Church as to imagine them widely different from what form the religion of the Scriptures; which, as Bishop Sherlock observes, "stands clear of all disputes about the rights of princes and subjects; so that such disputes must be left to be decided by principles of natural equity and the constitution of the country."†

*The reason is, Cranmer's signing the book called "The Erudition of a Christian Man." This book has led some to believe that the Archbishop's principles on church government were unsettled at the time of its publication. That it contradicts itself on this subject, is certain; but this is owing not to Cranmer's inconsistency, but that of the King. In the answers of the former as given by Burnet, his sentiments seem fully fixed, and (perhaps) are reconcilable with the Episcop plan; according to the distinction taken between the APPROPRIATED and LARGER meanings of the word Bishop." As to "the erudition," Guthrie says, (History of England, vol. 8, page 597,) "The writings were modelled by the King as he wanted them to appear before the Parliament ad public;" and Dr. Warner says, (Book II.,) “It was more probably a declaration of the Kir religion, than of any other man's in the kingdom."

+ Vol. 4, Discourse 13th. The indefeasible right of kings is pretended to be founded on certain passages of Scripture. The author takes the liberty of referring to the very sensible sermon above quoted for an easy and natural explanation of the passages alluded to; whereby they are vindicated from a sense which makes the Gospel an engine of despotism and oppression, and which, however

VOL. VI.-8

As for those who are convinced that the "United States" have risen to an independent rank among the nations, or who even think that such may probably be the event of the war, they are loudly called on to adopt measures for the continuance of their churches, as they regard the public wor ship of God, the foundation of which is immutable; as they esteem the benefit of the sacraments, which were instituted by the Supreme Bishop of the Church; and as they are bound to obey the Scriptures which enjoin us "not to forsake the assembling of ourselves together, as the manner of some is."

More especially is this their duty if they entertain a peculiar preference for the principles and worship of their own communion, from a persuasion of their superior excellence. That the Church of England is a creature of the state, an engine of civil policy, and no otherwise to be maintained than by human laws, has been said by some, as a reason for their dissenting from her. If the same prejudice has been with others a reason for conformity, it is to be hoped they are comparatively few, and that the great majority of Episcopalians, believing that their faith and worship are rational and Scriptural, have no doubt of their being supported independent of state establishments; nay, it is presumed there are many, who, while they sincerely love their fellow-Christians of every denomination, knowing (as one of their prayers expresses) that the "body of Christ" comprehends "the blessed company of all faithful people," are more especially attached to their own mode of worship, perhaps from education, but as they conceive from its being most agreeable to reason and Scripture, and its most nearly resembling the pattern of the purest ages of the Church. On the consciences of such, above all others, may be pressed the obligation of adopting speedy and decisive measures to prevent their being scattered "like sheep without a shepherd," and to continue the use of that form of divine service, which they believe to be "worshiping the Lord in the beauty of holiness."

sincerely believed by some, is with others a mere trick of state. Although Bishop Sherlock's reputation in the Church of England is generally known, it may be proper to mention that his sermons are among the books formerly sent out by the honorable "Society for Propagating the Gospel," to be distributed by their missionaries.

LITERATURE OF THE QUARTER.

[THE pages falling under this general head are intended to give a fair and reliable exposition of the contents of such books published during the previous quarter, as it may be desirable to bring to the notice of the readers of the REVIEW. No books are accepted from publishers for this purpose, and no obligations, therefore, of a business kind are incurred; nor will the editors, in the discharge of this portion of their duties, permit themselves to be drawn by any influence from the line of independence and faithful criticism.]

RATIONAL COSMOLOGY; OR, THE ETERNAL PRINCIPLES AND NECESSARY LAWS OF THE UNIVERSE. By Laurens P. Hickok, D.D., Union College. New-York: D. Appleton & Co.

According to Dr. Hickok's philosophy there must be one eternal principle underlying or pervading the entire structure of the universe. The cosmos is a fact, a thing made, and made after a preconceived plan or archetypal ideal, which existed in the divine mind. This divine idea, or principle, is put into the fact, and becomes the law of its being. Thus, to use one of the author's illustrations, the steam-engine was not a fact until its principle had been first discovered. A thing made embodying this principle constitutes the steam-engine. And as any one who would understand the philosophy of the steam-engine must not only be acquainted with the laws which govern its action, but also with the principle which determines these laws, so whoever would understand the philosophy of the universe, must discover both the laws of the universe, and the eternal principle which determines these laws. The author does not profess to have attained this principle-the consummation of all science-in the present work; although he intimates that the human reason may, at some future day, completely apprehend it. He endeavors only to point out the "grand outlines" of the plan of creation, and thus to read her laws "not as mere arbitrary facts, but as the necessary result of a work rationally begun and wisely accomplished."

The fundamental proposition with which Dr. Hickok begins his investigations, is that "principles are truths prior to all facts;" that they "stand in immutable and eternal necessity;" that they, while unconditioned themselves, "condition all power." All facts are the embodiments of principles, and the object of true philosophy is to detect in the facts the principles according to which they are made, and which give law to their being. Now, by the perception of sense we can only know facts, by the logical understanding we can combine and compare these facts, and thus deduce other facts; in this way we may acquire that practical wisdom, which is known as good sense and good judgment, but we can never arrive at philosophy. We can only know that things are, without being able to see how they are, or why they are so, and not otherwise. These two faculties man shares, to some extent at least, with many orders of the brute creation, but he is also endowed with a higher faculty, no trace of which is found in the brute. This faculty is called by Dr. Hickok "the insight of reason;" it is this which is often able to

« ElőzőTovább »