« 上一頁繼續 »
a rate. What Episcopalian clergyman has ever appeared on the platform at the anniversaries of our national benevolent institutions, without feeling that he deserved to be commended for his extraordinary liberality and condescension ; or indeed without making a parade of his “enlarged Christian kindness 2" At a religious anniversary a few years ago, an Episcopalian minister, (if we mistake not, an editor of the Recorder,) after expatiating to a fulsome extent upon his own love of Christian union and his efforts to promote it, concluded his address by expressing the belief that all Christians would be united as true churchmen in heaven. Probably he used the word “churchmen” in a spiritual sense; but he was understood to mean that the union of Christians would be consummated in heaven by a general conversion to Episcopacy. The next speaker, (a learned, eloquent and facetious divine of the Reformed Dutch church,) very promptly responded to the desire of his brother for the perfect union of believers, but did not feel so confident that they would be united under his favorite banner; he could not say that every saint in heaven would be a Reformed Dutchman. This witty turn made the one-sided union which Episcopalians are seeking appear extremely ludicrous. If union is to be purchased only by the sacrifice of our self-respect as ministers of Christ, if for the sake of it we must falsify history, and pay our tithe of adulation to that corrupt establishment across the water, which Episcopalians in this country cling to with such strange infatuation; if we may not even extol the religion of the Bible above the religion of forms, without having our words construed into a personal attack upon a bishop who may chance to grace the anniversary of a Bible society with his presence, then we are prepared to say that we desire no union upon such terms. If the ReWol. III. 19
corder and its friends are resolved to adhere to “church principles,” even though they come into collision with “evangelical principles,” if they have stronger affinities for Episcopacy than for the simple gospel, if they will unite with us in enterprises of benevolence only upon terms derogatory to us as ministers and churches of Christ, then we prefer to take our stand by the honest and consistent Churchman, and say “we understand each other, let us love one another—if we can " The editors of the Recorder expressed also their deep regret, that Mr. Barnes should have “injured so materially his own reputation,” and have sacrificed so many friends, even “in his own congregation,” by his rash “interference” with the concerns of “the church.” And really, when we saw what a tempest burst forth against him from the very quarter where we had looked for a calm consideration of his argument, when we heard what strenuous efforts were made to bring him into disrepute, when we found that even the Princeton Reviewers would not acknowledge that “a good thing” had at last “come out of Nazareth,” we began to tremble lest the man who had survived the veto of a Synod and the “schism” of a General Assembly, had at last forfeited his “reputation” forever, by what?— simply asking evangelical Episcopalians upon what ground they stood in respect to him and his non-episcopal brethren / How could he have been so regardless of a “reputation” which it had cost him so much to obtain It was not long, however, before we were relieved from all apprehension concerning Mr. Barnes. He again appeared before the public in a pamphlet of 143 pages, called a “reply to the remarks of the Episcopal Recorder.” We regard this pamphlet as the master production of a master mind. It fully sustains the “high reputation” of its author “as a scholar, as a gentleman,” and as a logician. It is written in the same spirit of mildness and candor which characterized the first production, but it evinces deeper research, and greater skill and power in the argument. We do not wonder that Mr. Barnes announced that with him this reply should be “final” on the subject. It is final. It must settle the questions in dispute, if it is possible ever to settle them by argument. We have no room for extended extracts from this “reply;” nor is it necessary to make them, since the pamphlet has been widely circulated and may be easily obtained by all our readers. Yet we can not refrain from giving an outline of the argument, with one or two “specimens” of the spirit in which it is conducted. Mr. Barnes first gives some “general reasons for examining Episcopacy at the present time.” These are the following. “ (1.) The general attitude which the Episcopal church has been understood to assume in reference to other denominations of Christians.” “(2.) Recent developments in the Epis
copal church, have forced the inquiry on the community.” “(3.) The character, aims, and zeal of the party which is opposed to the Oxford developments, are such as in themselves tend strongly to secure the sympathy of all evangelical Christians.” “(4.) The influence of Episcopacy in the church, has been at no time either negative or unimportant.”
Then follows an enumeration of “particular reasons for inquiring into the position of the evangelical party.” These are as follows.
“(1.) The claims of the high church party, so far as other denominations are concerned, have not been disavowed by them.”
“(2.) The low church party are in the habit of re-baptizing the members received from other churches.”
“(3.) The same thing exists in regard to re-ordination.”
“(4.) So far as the low church have expressed themselves on the points at issue between the high church and other Protestants, they have identified themselves with the #.
The fifth reason we give-entire.
“ (5.) One other thing has been apparent also among low churchmen. They have evinced great and commendable zeal against the views of the Oxford writers, and the aims of the high church party. But on the signal injustice publicly done to a large portion of the Protestant world, in denying that they have a valid ministry and valid ordinances, we have heard from them no note of remonstrance. At these extraordinary claims, they express no grief. When a Papist is admitted to their ministry without being re-ordained, and a Presbyterian or Methodist neophyte is on the same day ordained as a deacon, after having exercised the office of the ministry for years, there is no expression of disapprobation. Is it of the nature of an attack ;' is it “persecution' in these circumstances to examine the subject of Episcopacy as it is actually before the public, even in its best form 2 Are other denominations to be regarded as aggressors when they kindly but firmly lift up the voice of remonstrance against the position, which their professedly Protes. tant brethren choose to take against them 2 It may be a mere logomachy to endeavor to ascertain from what quarter the ‘attack' really comes, and it may be safely left to the public to determine. Whether to hold up all other ministers of the gospel as ‘impostors; to re-baptize those who are proselytes from other denominations, or to maintain that they are not to be re-baptized because the baptism of ‘laymen,' and “women,' and ‘boys,' and “heretics,' or any ‘wicked wretch whatever,’ is valid; to re-ordain all ministers from other denominations ercept Papists; to affirm that the ministers of other denominations are all laymen, exercising their functions ‘according to a human instead of a divine institution,' be or be not of the nature of an “attack,' may not be a matter worth contending about. The thing itself has an importance which demands investigation, whoever is the aggressor.’”—pp. 24, 25.
Mr. Barnes next speaks of “the manner in which it was to be presumed the inquiry would be met.” He shows that the candor and courtesy which he had exhibited, entitled him to expect similar treatment in return. Then follows an exhibition of “the manner in which the inquiry has been actually met.” And here Mr. B. displays such true dignity of character, with so much of the amenity of a true Christian, that we shall transcribe the passage as the highest testimonial which we can furnish to his worth.
“To my friends and theirs, it has been a matter of surprise to observe the method which the editors have thought proper to adopt in their reply. The controversy, so far as they are concerned, seems to have become personal, and the attention is diverted from the argument to the man. There are two classes of charges or epithets which they have seen proper to employ. Of the former class are such as these : “Ignorance and misapprehension;' ‘misrepresentation of facts;’ “unjust assaults;’ “extreme misrepresentations;" hostile spirit;’ ‘virulence;’ ‘rudeness;' ‘the exceeding injustice and misrepresentation of the book ;’ ‘indelicacy and want of good breeding;' very empty assertions;’ an “unprovoked and unnecessary assault;’ ‘mis-statements." The editors speak of themselves as ‘insulted,' (that is, by this publication, and by the manner in which it is received in the community,) and shut out of respectful and decorous reception among those who are accustomed to meet on occasions when Christians meet for the purpose of united efforts to spread the gospel.
“The other charges are of a more serious character. They relate not to a deficiency of knowledge, or to a necessity of instruction in the rules of etiquette, but to the heart. They pertain to the moral and religious character, and embody express accusations of a determined and willful disregard of the truth, and of a purpose even to invent and falsify in order to vilify the Episcopal church. The editors speak of ‘the peculiar exhibition which he has made of ignorance of the facts in the case, and unconcern for their existence;' they say that “Mr. Barnes could not revile the it. of the church adequately without volunt ARY misrepresentations ;' that ‘ these two sentences (quoted from p. 34 of the Tract,) contain nothing less than two deliberate acts of injustice, deliberately framed for the mere purpose of inventing increased reproach;' that ‘..Mr. Barnes' determination for the result he desired of complete vilification of the Prayer Book, would not have allowed him this reference.’ In speaking of the argument which I had submitted on confirmation, the editors indulge themselves in the following language : “With what honesty then can Mr. Barnes occupy eleven pages of his book in the deliberate framing of a contrary statement, when a simple reference to our known laws would have exhibited to him the truth at once 2' There is here exhibited, just as there is throughout the whole book, the determination to vilify and destroy not the part arowedly the object, but the church to whic they belong. There is no “inquiry' into Jacts, from one end of the publication to the other, but a succession of unfounded assertions, and imputations EQUALLY DEstiference from them with me—of any ef. fort to draw away my people from my ministry, or in any manner to injure my reputation, or to embarrass me in my work. I have never felt the slightest hesitation to dismiss any one of my members who preferred that communion; nor have I supposed they have had any reluctance to dismiss those to unite with my church who have preferred the Presbyterian mode of worship. The interchange of members, if the phrase may be employed, has been to me of a pleasant character. I have honorable testimonials and recommendations from the Episcopal church in my possession; and in the passing from one church to another, there has been no such disparity of numbers as to cause on my part even momentary jealousy. I have always supposed, that from numerous causes, there are those in a community who would prefer the Episcopal mode of worship to the Presbyterian, and who, perhaps, wonld be more edified in such a communion ; and on the other hand, I have supposed that there were those who would prefer the Presbyterian to the Episcopal, the Methodist, or the Baptist. This is a land of freedom. Every man has a right to select his mode of worship; every minister will find his proper level in the estimation of the community; every one who is worthy of public confidence will find those who will be willing to sit under his ministry; and thus far in life, I for one at least, have had no reason to ...'. that the public have not shown me all the respect which is my due. “The public will excuse the reference to these personal matters. They would not have been troubled with it, if the course of the Recorder had not seemed to demand it. I shall make no further allusion of this kind.”—pp. 32–37.
tuTE or proof AND Truth. So again the editors say, “In reply to such perfectly unfounded statements, we his; know what to say—the charge seems so volun. TARILY UN true, from a man who professes to have examined the book.’ “These are certainly very grave charges against a minister of the gospel, and should not have been hastily made. The community will not expect me to reply to them. ... I may be “ignorant,' and if so, it would have been very easy to show me wherein; I may have ‘misapprehended' some things, and it would have been easy to have shown me the truth; but to “mis...! voluntarily, for the purpose of vilifying ;’ ‘ deliberately to frame that which is designed to increase reproach;’ to “ have no concern for the existence of facts,' and to make statements which even seem to be “voluntarily untrue,' is not my character; nor will the declaration of the editors of the Episcopal Recorder satisf this community that it is. They will themselves regret the use of this language on calm reflection, and I shall hasten to forget it as soon as possible. Such language contributes nothing to the discovery of truth, or to the value of an argument. I put these unhappy expressions on record here, not for the purpose of replying to them, but to do all in my power to prevent their use hereafter. They shall not be remembered by me in the argument, or in my private intercourse with Episcopalians. The end of discussion is truth; and that end will be best reached by clear argument, kind words, and courteous deportment. The atmosphere in which truth resides is clear and serene, in a region elevated far above the mists of prejudice and passion, and to be reached only by a vigorous effort to rise above them. “No pleasure,” says Lord Bacon, “is comparable to the standing upon the vantage-ground of truth: (a hill not to be commanded, and where the air is always clear and serene;) and to see the errors, and wanderings, and mists, and tempests, in the vale below; so always that this rospect be with pity, and not with swelling or pride.' I used kind words, and shall continue to do so. Hitherto I have had no occasion to notice any thing else among those with whom I have had intercourse in the Episcopal church, and I shall give occasion for no other in any thing that l have to say. So far as personal intercourse is concerned between me and Episcopalians, every thing has been of the kindest character; and so far as I am concerned, nothing shall provoke me to depart from what I have adopted as the rule of my life in my intercourse with all classes of men. Hitherto I have experienced no want of this on the part of Episcopalians. As a minister, I have had no reason to complain of any inter
Before entering upon the body of his argument, Mr. Barnes corrects a misapprehension on the part of the Recorder, respecting one of his criticisms upon the Liturgy. The misapprehension affords such a perfect illustration of the spirit of the Recorder, and the correction is made with such Attic grace, that our readers will excuse us for introducing another quotation. “Correction of a Misapprehension.—Before proceeding to notice the main subjects of the argument, there is one statement in my Tract, in itself of little imortance, which, having been misappreended, I could wish had been otherwise.
It occurs on p. 33, and is introduced by the Editors in the following manner:—
“‘But could not Mr. Barnes revile the Liturgy of the Church adequately, without yoluntary misrepresentations *—p. 33, he says, “There is not even permission given to the minister to select and read a portion of Scripture that shall have any relation to the subject of his discourse. If his text should be, ‘God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son,' and the “lesson’ for that day should happen to be that chapter of the Book, of Chronicles which commences thus, “Adam, Sheth, Enosh, Mahalaleel, Jared, Henoch, Methuselah, Lamech,' all that the minister is to do is to say, ‘Here beginneth such a chapter,' and read on.” “On this the editors are pleased to make the following remarks:— “‘Mr. Barnes knew, for he professes to have accurately examined this Prayer Book, that no such lesson is appointed on any Sunday or week day throughout the whole year. And yet he can allow himself to make this deliberately false insinuation, for the purpose of casting an invented reproach upon a book, against which he can find so few real objections. The glory of the Prayer Book is the honor which it gives to the word of God,”— requiring no less than eight distinct portions of Holy Scripture to be read on every Sabbath and other day of public worship, selected with the most remarkable wisdom, to teach continually the great doctrines and truths of the Bible, while Presbyterian ministers, in many instances, read nothing of it, and Presbyterian congregations hear nothing of it, but the single text which has been selected as the subject for preaching, and in no instance is more than one single chapter or part of a chapter read during any occasion of their public worship. hich body will be found to have paid the most honor to the word of God, this with other facts may help to decide.’ “I would have avoided the occasion for these reflections, if I had supposed that such a construction would have been put on what I said, or that it was possible. But such an idea never occurred to me. I never meant to be understood as saying that the passage from Chronicles was among the “lessons' that were appointed to be read, nor do I now see that it is the fair construction of what I said. I designed merely to show that the minister was not at liberty, from the rules of the Prayer Book, to select the portion of Scripture to be read where his text occurred, or to select one that would be pertiment to his subject; and all that I wished to say was, that if his text was one that
* This is gravely urged as a reason for circulating the Prayer Book gratuitously. Why not distribute the Bible oft the same means?
t Some of them from the Apocrypha.
appertained to the richest truths of the fispel, the “lesson' that was to be read was prescribed, even though it might be as remote as possible from the subject of his discourse. I regret the occasion givon for the misconstruction of the passage in my Tract the more, because it was enonly unnecessary if I had designed to reset to a “lesson' actually appointed to be read, wbich would have illustrated the point before me. "There are numerous parts of the prewribed “lessons' in the Prayer Book, which would have been as pertinent to of purpose as the chapter from Chronitles, and among others the following, which is appointed to be read, would have answered my design just as well— ind my reference may be thus amended: There is not even permission given to the minister to select and rend a portion of Sripture that shall have any relation to the subject of discourse. If his text should be, ‘God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son,' and the 'lesson' for that day should happen to be that chapter of the Book of Nehemiah (x,) which commences thus, ‘Now those that were sealed were Nehemiah the Tirshatha, the son of Hachaliah, and Zidkijah, Seraiah, Azariah, Jeremiah, Pashur, Amafah, Malchijah, Hattush, Shebaniah, Malbeh, Harim, Meremoth, Obadiah, all that the minister is to do, is to say, “here *gnneth such a chapter,’ and read on.” Po. 37–39.
After these preliminaries, Mr. Barnes proceeds to enlarge upon and maintain the three leading positions in his first tract; viz. 1. That it * meter been possible permanently to connect the religion of forms with Erangelical religion. (N. E. Vol. II, p. 120.) 2. That the low church Mrty are compelled to use a liturgy which counteracts the effect of their oaching. (p. 125.) And 3. That there are no arrangements or pro
visions in the liturgy for promoting their peculiar and distinctive efforts, or which contemplate such efforts, (p. 133.) ---
These several positions he triumphantly establishes. The Recorder rejoined to this reply of Mr. Barnes; but though there was no improvement in its style of argument, there was a great improvement in its style of expression. The dialect of Billingsgate was exchanged for the lamguage of Christian courtesy. The explanation of this gratifying fact was given in the announcement that Rev. Dr. Tyng had withdrawn from the editorial corps; and a wish was intimated that he would carry on the controversy on his own responsibility. But whether Dr. Tyng has renounced the Evangelical party according to promise, or whether he thought that now the name of Mr. B. could no longer make his book worthy of notice, or whether he was silenced by argument, and felt unable to compete with candor, courtesy, and truth, silent he remains to this day! We commend Mr. Barnes' “Reply” to the attention of all Episcopalians. We invite them not only to read it, but to study it. If it is weak and false, they need not be afraid to read it; if it is true, they ought not to be afraid to read it.
We wish it understood, also, that though Mr. B. has avowed the paternity of the article which appeared in our columns, we are still responsible for its positions and ready to maintain them.