tiation. God has promised to dwell in the hearts of His worshiping people; and Christ has expressly declared that where a few of them are gathered together in his name, there he is in the midst of them. We are sure, then, that Christ is, by his Spirit, among the people; but we have no assurance that he is on the table more than in any other part of the church. Our bodies are the temples of the Holy Ghost. But God has no visible representation on the earth, and forbids our making any ; His likeness is to be formed in our hearts.” [“More briefly, but in the same tone, he noticed the peculiarities in the other of the two churches, to which I have referred.”] “With sorrow I add,” (after having

noticed the pecuniary condition of the

parish,) “that I was pained and mortified at the strange derangement of the readingdesk and the communion-table, and at other exhibitions within the chancel, evidently corresponding with the idolatrous conceits of Christians in those corrupt ages of the church, which some affect to call imitive.” ". * * * Let us not look ack to Egypt, lest we perish in the wilderness.”—pp. 424–426.

The committee of the church thus pungently noticed, wrote a complaining letter to the Bishop. His answer exhibits the practices and changes which he condemned, and his views of them.

“There was then a very convenient reading-desk, and such a one is among the greatest conveniences in the performance of divine service. Since that time, I have observed that it is all torn away, and I believe cut to pieces; though this I will not affirm. Then, also, there was a communion-table, very suitable and in sight of the whole congregation. Since, I have seen instead an edifice, like a Popish altar, above a flight of many steps, very inconvenient for ministrations at the Lord's table; and there were too evidently indications of idolatrous reverence paid to it. I saw also a picture standing at the back of the altar, such as the Papists avowedly and very much worship. Pictures were introduced into churches about the 7th and 8th centuries. The more pious Christians opposed it strenuously, and foretold, what soon bappened, that they would be worshiped. i. the Madonna, and on what should be the communion-table, I saw flowers strewn;– and there too stood candles in the daytime: whether they are ever lighted in the day-time, I did not inquire. These, too, are among “the superstitious fooleries of the dark ages.'"

“Your minister wore such a dress as I had never before seen; and some of the trappings and other parade, I have reason to believe, were omitted on that occasion. But I saw enough to justify, in my own mind, what I have said on the subject." —pp. 443, 444.

In his “thoughts on church mat. ters,” he observes—

“It is often said that our articles are good and spiritual; but that our people depart from them. Is there no ground for this reproach

“It can not be denied that some of our people, our clergy especially, contendearnestly for things of little importance; while they say little, or speak lightly of the articles, which are the life, the vitals, of the church. They, that would judge him to be no churchman, who neglects to wear a surplice, or, in some mere ceremony, deviates from a rubric; while yet the themselves receive the Articles wit mental reservations, or construe them differently from their obvious sense, and evident meaning; in the language of our blessed Savior, “strain at a gnat, and swallow a camel." To be true and consistent friends of the church, we must maintain all its standards, and observe all its institutions, and contend most earn: estly for things of most importance: and nothing can be of more importance than the faith, by which alone we can hope to be justified, and the doctrines of eternal life, which we are to preach to mankind." —pp. 573, 574.

In the year 1826, a proposal was made at the triennial meeting of the Episcopal General Convention, by some of the bishops, to introduce certain “alterations in the Book of Common Prayer,” “chiefly for the purpose of removing the objections so generally made to the length of the morning service.” This proposal having been referred to the conventions of the several dioceses for their consideration, Bishop Griswold published a series of articles in the Episcopal Register, on the subject of an “improvement of the Liturgy,” in which he took ground against the proposed alterations because they were not sufficiently thorough. “He doubtless believed” says Dr. Stone, “the Liturgy sus. ceptible of improvement, and would have been willing to see it really

improved. But his object in this series of essays was in truth to prevent the specific alterations which had been proposed, by showing that if any thing were done, something more and other than had been recommended was desirable. In short, he would have the Liturgy either left untouched, or touched to better purpose than that which the convention had in view.” The italics in this quotation are ours. We should like to see this series of essays, and wish that the biographer had given some further account of the positions taken in them. We infer from the Bishop's evangelical sentiments, and from the fact that on account of those essays he was charged with “want of attachment to the Liturgy and the church,” that he wished such a reformation of the Liturgy as would conform it to evangelical doctrine. In the closing view of the Bishop's character, Dr. Stone remarks:

“After what has already been written, it is almost needless to add here, that Bishop Griswold was too thoroughly a Protestant to look, without growing apprehension, upon the theological tendencies of certain portions of our church, both in England and in America. He had been too good a student of the Bible, and, it may be added, of antiquity too, to feel a moment's hesitation on the question, what stand he ought to take in a controversy so pregnant with influences on our future religious and ecclesiastical destiny P He descried our coming dangers in this controversy more clearly than the mass of his own clergy and people; or than the mass of our clergy and people in general.”

“While he loved the church as truly Catholic, it may be said he loved her most for that great principle, on which, under Protestant auspices, she based herself at the Reformation ; the sufficiency of the Holy Scriptures as the sole rule of faith, and the only infallible guide in practice, to every man that honestly and earnestly seeks for the salvation which is in Christ Jesus.

“He often urged the ...} of the Bible upon every man, as being full of the Spirit of God; as evincing their own sufficiency, through the teachings of that Spirit, to guide #. inquiring mind to the Savior; and as demonstrating thus its Divine Author's intention, that it should be put, un

Wol. III. 31

sealed, into the hands of every one,—His own rich, free gift to the world. He held that these inspired Scriptures were God's storehouse of spiritual food for the life and health of the human family; and, like our ordinary food, to be kept accessible to every human soul. He rejected the dogma of an inspired oral tradition, co-ordinate in authority with the written Word, necessary to the true interpretation of that Word, and of right binding its interpretation on the conscience of every member of the church. He did not, indeed, reject aids to the interpretation of the Bible, whether those .. were ancient or modern ; but, he did refuse to consider any thing necessary as its infallible interpreter, save its own self-interso." light, and the teachings of that

oly One, by whom it was dictated. He taught that the Bible alone, of all things now accessible, “is given by inspiration of God;’ that its curses lie on every one, who adds to it, or takes from it; and that, when read by the honest mind, with the prayer of a devout heart, it is, in itself and to the full of all human needs, “profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction and for instruction in righteousness; that the man of God,' be he preacher, or be he reader, “may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.’

“Taking this view, as fundamental to the true system of theology, as going before all right views of particular doctrines, he ja it at the opening of his ministry, and on through all his subsei. ministrations. And yet, towards the close of his labors, he gave it even a marked prominence. When he saw the church of his affections, in this country as well as in England, drawn into peril by the labors of a school, who were avowedly seeking to un-protestantize her, by leading her back, through the labyrinth of tradition, first, to sacramental justification; then to the miracle-working powers of a sacrificing priesthood; and finally, to other prodigies of a night of superstition: when he contemplated changes like these, the effect of which, ohel reached, will be, to put Christ once more into awful distance, instead of keeping him near, the loved friend, the only, the unassociated Savior of the lost; and, at length, to conceal him again, as to all practical purposes, behind a dense cloud of saints canonized by man, of shrines glittering with the offerings of wealth, or of shows awful amidst the display of pomp: when he looked upon a system, which, in its fuller developments, does little more than make the church one of the kingdoms of this world; while it leaves the sinner to perish in his blindness, hugging a delusion, yet thinking it salvation: when he saw the fruits of the Reformation put amidst the peril of a re


turn even towards such a system as this, unsavory to his taste as was the work of controversy, he hesitated not to step forth in the service of our church, and, as one of her chief ministers, to do what he could for her safety. Though, when he begun the series of essays, to which I have referred, he had many other things in hand, yet, ere he finished it, it became his last work: and well did he achieve the task, which it imposed. His tract on the Reformation, written in his own clear style, full of the light of the Bible, and evincin the yet undimmed powers of his mind, demonstrates irrefutably the necessity and the glory of the great Reformation ; and shows incontestably that our church can never recede from the stand, which at that period she assumed, without proving at once false to herself and faithless to her Savior.”—pp. 454–457.

We are enabled also to add, that Bishop Griswold was, in the true sense of the word, Catholic.” He rejected the unchurching dogma which, alas ! many very inconsistently adopt who are evangelical in preaching, (i. e. they preach what are called the doctrines of grace,) and are Protestant in opposition to “Oxfordism.” Dr. Stone remarks on this point as follows:

“In the foregoing letters from Mr. Cornwall and Mr. Chase, so far as they express, or imply, apprehensions of daner from the o and prevalence of Socinian errors in New England, the Bishop deeply sympathized; but, if they were intended to deny the character and privileges of the church to other bodies of New England Christians, it is not probable that they met with any very cordial response from him. The Bishop was every inch an Episcopalian ; but he never thought that the church of Christ can not, in any sense, exist without Episcopacy, any more than he thought that the human body ceases to be a body, when it has lost its right hand, but has still head and heart united in right relations, and both of them sound, healthy and active. He saw and felt the dangers, to which other denominations are exposed; but he considered them Christian churches, and rejoiced in all the good, of which they were instruments. His feelings on this sub

"We have been informed by a Congregational pastor, who once preached in the vicinity of Bristol, that Bishop Griswold and he often held prayer-meetings together, in which they united their devotional exercises and their exhortations.

ject were, in his own peculiar way, expressed in connection with the following incident. As he was one day riding through Massachusetts in the progress of one of his episcopal visitations, and in company, I believe, with Mr. Strong of Greenfield, he passed many houses of worship belonging to the orthodox Con[..." Baptists and Methodists; ut not one belonging to Episcopalians. The fact elicited remark, in the course of which the Bishop observed : “As we have passed along, I have been thinking what the people of our State would do, if they could not find religion except by o: it in our church 2'''-p. 221.

In his “thoughts on church matters,” Bishop Griswold remarks:

“Some are unwilling to distribute the Bible without the Prayer-book; alleging as a reason, that the church of God should go with the word of God. This, however, implies that there is a church not to be found in the Bible.”—p. 577.

The following logical annihilation of Episcopal exclusiveness has of. ten proceeded from non-Episcopal authors. We are happy to be able to quote it from an American Episcopal bishop.

“Every person on earth, at the present or any previous time, is either baptized, or not baptized. If baptized, their baptism may have been more or less regular, and solemn; and attended with prayers more or less appropriate. This, however, does not make them more or less really baptized. Furthermore ; every baptized person is a member of the church, and in covenant with God. Baptism initiates into the church and into the covenant. Nothing else does, or can If a person be not baptized, neither confirmation, nor the Lord's Supper, nor, yet holy orders, can initiate and make him a member of the church. On this point, then, to hold that none but Episcopal baptism is valid, or true ; that none but this adunits into Christ's church, is to take a position fatal to our church itself. There are multitudes, who have been confirmed, and are communicants, and not a few who are, or have been, in holy orders, even among bishops; but who are not members of Christ's church, because they have never been Episcopally baptized. Besides, bishops thus situated have ordained inserior clergy, and probably, consecrated other bishops; when they were not members of the church themselves, and could not, on this theory, make others members. Thus, our whole stream of office and membership has been corrupt

[blocks in formation]

A few words respecting Bishop Griswold's intellectual character.

There is, if we mistake not, a common impression that Bishop Griswold was a good man, but rather moderate in mental endowments and attainments. No one can read his writings, or his Memoir, and retain that impression. He had from childhood an ardent thirst for, and an uncommon power of acquiring knowledge. He excelled in the talents of exactly ascertaining, and of accurately and luminously expressing the truth—talents which, industriously employed, as his eminently were, always make a superior man. Had his religious principle permitted him, amid the many calls to pastoral and episcopal labors, to devote any considerable part of his time to literary and theological pursuits, he would have been eminent as a scholar. As it was, be went further in the walks of scholarship than do most professional men. An anecdote which his biographer relates, illustrates this remark.

“The story of the Bishop's buying and reading La Place's Mecanique Celeste, I have every reason to believe, is strictly true. “ Notwithstanding the remark of one of the reviews, that there were but few men in England, who read La Place's book, Messrs. Wells and Lilly, at that time well known booksellers in Boston, had imported a copy of the work. For a time it laid on their counter with no other notice, save that now and then a customer would take it up, look at it, and lay it down. One day, however, a venerable, white-headed man came in, and happening to take up the work, appeared to becorne absorbed in its contents. At length, he asked the price of it, and, as the incident was related to me, bought it and quietly walked away. Mr. Wells, feeling a great curiosity to learn the name of the stranger, requested his clerk to follow him, and if possible ascertain who he was. His clerk did so, and soon saw him enter the house of Shubael Bell, Esq., then one of our distinguished laymen of Boston, re

siding in School street. On inquiring at the door, he learned that the person, whom he had followed, was none other than Bishop Griswold. Some time afterwards, Judge M. of Boston, an intimate friend of the Bishop, asked him “whether the account were true, and whether he read La Place 2'-' Yes,' replied the Bishop, “I have sometimes amused myself that way : but of late, finding mathematics in danger of interfering with my other duties, I have laid them aside.” This latter part of the account I had from Judge M. himself.”—pp. 106, 107.

We regret that we have not room to substantiate our opinion of Bishop Griswold's mental character by quotations from the Memoir. We are free to say that Bishop Griswold had no intellectual superior, if he had an equal, among his contemporaries or predecessors on the American Episcopal bench. But the crowning excellence of Bishop Griswold was his well balanced practical and eminent piety. No one can read his Memoir without the conviction that he was eminently a humble, prayerful, laborious, self-denying, spiritually minded Christian. On this point we should like to quote, but are compelled to omit the testimony of his biographer. We have thus endeavored to give a brief account, such as our limits permit, of one of those Episcopalians whom we delight to honor, and none the less because they are thorough Episcopalians. We make no apology for quoting so freely the language of Bishop Griswold, and of his biographer Dr. Stone. For it is doubtless better that they should speak on certain points for themselves than that we should speak of them, since it gives our readers the opportunity of “private judgment” respecting them. And we wish also to place the sentiments which we have quoted from these authors within reach of our readers: since few of them we presume will expect to possess so extended a memoir. We hardly need say to the readers of the New Englander, that though we have risen from the perusal of this memoir, honoring Bishop Griswold and his biographer for their Protestant and Catholic spirit, and for their evangelical views, and for the ability and zeal with which they proclaim and defend them; we have not fallen in love with “the distinctive principles of Episcopacy.” Indeed, this very volume contains ample materials wherewith to illustrate the inexpediency of the Episcopal form of church-government, and of a liturgical mode of worship. We might from its pages abundantly prove that the episcopal office is in that church an object of unhallowed ambition and party strife, dangerous to humility and fraternal unity and love ; that extraordinary grace is necessary to keep its incumbent from exercising a haughty and arbitrary lordship over God's heritage ; and that a minister or bishop who is truly evangelical, and adopts the measures for the increase of piety to which his principles and his zeal prompt him, and is Catholic in his sentiments and

feelings, is not only in “liturgical” and “rubrical” fetters, but also in the worse fetters of the suspicions and accusations of his brethren. The ambition, the plotting, the jealousies, the heart-burning, that are incident as we think to prelacy ; and the opposition to evangelical principles, zeal and measures, and the suspicions that over-cloud and withstand and oppress their advocates, which are incident as we think to a half reformed and half evangelical liturgy, very seriously restricted the usefulness, and afflicted the heart of the good Bishop Griswold. But we did not take up our pen for this purpose: and we are unwilling to diminish in the least the pleasant impression left from our survey of the character of Bishop Griswold and of the sentiments of his biographer, by turning our thoughts to less agreeable themes.

In conclusion, we express our ardent wish, that all the bishops of the Episcopal church may be like Bishop Griswold, and all her presbyters like Dr. Stone.


The mission to the Armenians of the Turkish empire, sustained by the American Board, is likely to be the object of the most intense interest. The seat of this mission is at Constantinople. First the ancient Byzantium, then the city of Constantine, and now the Ottoman es Stamboul, it ever has been and ever

* Windication of the Rev. Horatio Southgate. A Letter to the Members of the Protestant Episcopal Church, from Rev. Horatio Southgate, &c. New York, 1844.

Reply of the Missionaries at Constantinople to charges by Rev. Horatio Southgate. Boston, 1844. o to the Missionaries at Constanti. y Bishop Southgate. New York, 1845.

must be a point of high importance and of stirring associations. It was selected by Constantine as of all others the place marked out to be the capital of the Europeo-Asiatic empire, and the natural center of the Roman dominion. An evangelical mission to any class of its varied population would promise extensive and permanent results. But of the hundreds of thousands, who make up its motley and confused people—the Armenians are far the most interesting, and to the Christian, present the brightest promise. They are the commercial nation of the east—of course intelligent, enterprising and influen

« 上一頁繼續 »