網頁圖片
PDF

style of Catholicity—and that he will represent it abroad. But is Catholicity the Gospel which is “the power of God unto salvation ?” Is this what Paul preached with such triumphant power P Are Dr. Milnor and Bishop McIlvaine willing to preach this Gospel by proxy to the oriental churches, that are now drunken even to death, with this very Catholicity ? Do they expect that it will awaken them from their sleep? These questions we will not answer. Let those ponder them who must answer them again, when they give account “as stewards of the mysteries of God.” But let us suppose this Gospel preached. How will it operate 2 What is the process of declaring it 2 What will be the result 2 We are a little curious to watch the working of this doctrine among the eastern Christians. Let us take it for granted, that Bishop Southgate makes good the claims of “the American church,” to be truly Christian and apostolic, notwithstanding, that as he “freely acknowledges” on p. 229 of his last book, “some things are wanting,” e.g. “unction in baptism, the sign of the cross in consecrating the eucharist, and especially prayers for the faithful dead.” Let us suppose that he convinces the Greek and Armenian patriarchs that his presence within their dioceses as a bishop is not against “Can. 22, of the council of Antioch, A. D. 341, confirmed by the council of Chalcedon, A. D. 451, Can. 1,” ” which orders: “Let not a bishop go into another city, not belonging to his jurisdiction, to ordain any one, or to constitute priests or deacons for places subject to another bishop,” &c. Let us suppose that he gets the sanction of the Greek patriarch, to teach his people, after promising not to teach “heresy or schism,” as the Patriarch understands them, who

* See Southgate's visit to the Syrian church, &c. p. 137. Wol. III. 34

is the only judge for his people, and especially after having promised according to his avowed principles,t not to distribute the translation of 1840, from the Hebrew into the Greek, published by the British and Foreign Bible Society, and prohibited by the Patriarch's bull of July 9, 1844. After all these preliminaries, he is allowed to teach the people, and what does he tell them 2 After this fashion. “My dear friend, you are a member of the body of Christ by baptism, and have the means of growth in grace by the valid sacraments. In some respects your church is superior to “her younger sister,' holding the Catholic doctrines of the ministry and sacraments with greater purity and steadfastness; but in other respects, you will allow me to say, somewhat her inferior, havin

neither knowledge nor piety. ; have come to you, by leave of your superiors, to tell you what you must do to be saved. You must have faith in Christ and the spirit of primitive love and good works, and seek the gift of the Holy Ghost.” “But my worthy friend, how shall I get this faith, and love and piety Po “You are already baptized, and a member of the body of Christ. You have only to pray and receive the sacraments in the right spirit.” “But what is the right spirit o’” “It is to feel that all this was designed to make you a good man, and to fast and pray and partake, desiring to be a good man at heart, and you shall grow in grace.” “Then the more fasts and feasts and ceremonies of the church I observe the better, if it be only with the right spirit?” “Yes, certainly.” “But all this is nothing new ; our bishops and priests have always taught this. And I have supposed myself growing in grace. When I have sinned, I have done penance, as the church prescribes. I have gone a pilgrim

ł Visit to the Syrian church, &c. pp. 179, 180.

age to the Holy Sepulcher, and caught the holy fire, to make myself better. What shall I do more ?” “Nothing, only do all this with the heart.” “But am I not a sinner * and must I not believe in Christ as my Savior And must I not be renewed in the inner man to enter heaven, as Messrs. Dwight and Goodell tell me 2" “Oh yes, but Christ died to provide for the pardon of those who should be united to his church by baptism, and the eucharist; and to believe in Christ, is to receive this as true, and act upon it. As to regeneration, you were born again when you were baptized —and to grow in grace, you must receive the sacraments, knowing that they are designed to make you a better man, praying that they may do it, and believing that they will; so shall you receive grace and be fitted for heaven.” The Greek, or Armenian, goes away rejoicing, that the learned and pious foreigner has pronounced him in the way to heaven, as he always thought he was, and resolving to redouble his ceremonies, as every Pharisee does, “in a better spirit,” but, trusting to the sacraments, and not to Christ—to his own good works in receiving them, and not to a free and full pardon offered to a guilty sinner. This may be the Gospel, and this may be the way to preach the Gospel. We do not make our paper “a theological essay” to affirm or deny, but we do affirm that to a Greek, or Armenian, it has no power, except to confirm them in the blind way. Its little light, and its partial truth, will be perverted to more confirmed formalism, and more certain death. This is not what the missionaries of the American Board are sent to proclaim, or what they teach. They preach Christ, the Savior of those who believe in him for themselves, and for those only. They preach Christ made a Savior—not as the man is united to him by baptism—but, by his own personal act;

himself repenting, and himself believing. The growth in grace, which they reveal, is to be attained not mainly by a mysterious union to him in the eurachist, but by strife against sin and an inward self-watchfulness, in which grace assists and triumphs. Of ceremonies, they teach that they are rotten and offensive, deceitful and damning, except when the heart is prepared to use them, and the heart goes with them ; that they are affecting and powerful symbols, when an intelligent faith looks through them to Christ; but as vehicles of grace, to the passive believer that they are almighty, are workers of death. If a Greek, or Armenian, asks Bishop Southgate, what is the standard of faith; he must answer, the Scriptures and the first councils. If he asks the missionary of the Board; he replies, the Scriptures alone. If the Greek or Armenian asks the former, whether this or that ceremony is right, he must do one of four things—he must say it is right, because the church commands it, and you must obey your head in all things, image worship, holy fire, and all, or be guilty of schism; or you must find out for yourself, by studying the Scriptures, and the decrees of the councils, and if you think it wrong, you must be guilty of heresy and schism, “from which, good Lord deliver us,” and I must be a disturber of the peace. Or he must say outright, it is wrong, and thus be guilty of “schism,” which is to him as “the sin of witchcraft”—or, he must practice the “doctrine of reserve,” or double dealing, in which his two pamphlets may turn out to be very important as an apprenticeship. If an Armenian goes to a missionary of the Board with such a question, he instructs him, if it be of any import; and bids him act by his conscience, and if his church punish him for non-compliance, to plead the Bible. He tells him that if he remains in his church because it is a church to him, and its indifferent ceremonies are spiritual to him, he must do it “ of faith”—but if he is thrust out or persecuted, he is not guilty of schism, but his church. We ask another question. What is the attitude which “the American church” holds to the oriental churches This question should have come sooner, we are well aware, for to talk of “the church,” or its delegate, as holding any relation to the people of these churches, except through their “heads,” is “a grand impertinence.” Before we answer it, we will raise another. What attitude do the missionaries of the Board, hold to these churches, or their organs ? We reply in a word—it is an attitude of entire indifference. Their mission is not to the heads of these churches, but to the people. They ask their countenance, if it will further their own purposes to secure it, but they do not wait for their permission to begin, nor regard their command to cease. In the Nestorian and Armenian churches, they are present as teachers of religion, in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, and on the authority of his word. They would convert the whole body as it is, so that the integrity of these churches may be preserved. If “the heads” shall oppose and persecute and divide, it is not their doing. The Episcopal church pursues a very different policy. It recognizes these churches, as true churches; and their heads as Christ's ministers. If it is said the missionaries of the Board do the same, we deny it, but if they did, it is a very different thing for them to do it, from what it is for the Episcopal church to do the same. In the view of the one, a church is a church as far as it fulfills the objects of a church. With the other, it can give authority to vanity and superstition, and convey the sacramental “grace, that bringeth salvation,” through anointed hypo

crites and debauchees. The theory of its missions is to secure the friendship of the heads of the churches; to convert the Greek patriarch, and lo, you have the church a plan, which reminds us of the recipe to dress a hare—“first catch a hare.” We wonder that they have not tried the same plan with the Pope, for if that old gentleman could be brought over to the primitive faith, what a splendid operation it would be, and what manifest advantages the Episcopal church has with the aforesaid Episcopal church at Rome, through its bishops, its liturgy, its fasts and feasts | To these Eastern churches seven of its bishops did address a letter, introducing Mr. Southgate, inviting to intercourse preliminary to mutual recognition and communion. In this letter several things are noticeable. First. It was not sent by the General Convention, nor the House of Bishops, and yet it represents the American church, and speaks in its name concerning a matter so significant as a union with the Greek patriarch, who sanctions image worship and issues bulls against the Bible. Here have we an illustration of “the reserved rights” of a bishop and his “Episcopal prerogative,” by virtue of the apostolic succession. Second. Its pleasant management of a difficult case. It inquires, “whether a mutual recognition can be effected as members of the catholic church of Christ on the basis of the Holy Scriptures and the first councils, including the Apostles' and Nicene creed,” &c. Of this a competent critic remarks: “I am disposed at once to ask, and I should suppose the Jacobite and Greek patriarch would also like to know, how many of the first councils the Episcopal bishops are ready to subscribe to, as being of equal authority with the Holy Scriptures 2 Do they go for the first seven, with the Greeks? Then they approve of image wor

ship and a multitude of other abominable things. Do they mean only the first four 2 But the Jacobites [and Armenians] reject the fourth, and of course would reject our American Episcopalians for receiving it. And if the latter declare that they receive only the first three, then surely they can expect to receive no quarter from the Greeks, who would anathematize them with the Jacobite and all the other Monophysite heretics.” Third. The following: “He will make it clearly understood that the American church has no ecclesiastical connection with the followers of Luther and Calvin, and takes no part in their plans and operations to diffuse the principles of their sects.” To interpret this passage in its natural signification, Mr. Southgate argues to be a sad sign of “hostility to Episcopal missions.” For ourselves, if it be an alternative to retain and use our common sense, or to be reputed hostile to Episcopal missions, we shall prefer the latter alternative, sad as it may be. Fourth. These bishops dare to recognize as branches of the church catholic—the Monophysites, who were excommunicated by the fourth general council, viz. the Nestorians, Armenians and Jacobites, contrary to Palmer and “the catholic” doctrine. Let it be looked to at Oxford. Again. The presiding bishop, in his instructions to Mr. Southgate in 1840, says: “You may further state to them, that many of those called Protestants, have rejected, and are still so opposed to Episcopacy and confirmation and the use of liturgies, that an intimate fellowship and connection with them is at present impracticable.” Of this Mr. Southgate says, (Reply, p. 17,) that this has been understood to warn the oriental churches against fellowship with non-Episcopal missionaries. We have never so understood it—but always in the sense for which he contends, as indirectly

inculcating it by holding up their own bright example of non-communion for imitation. In illustra. ting this last as the true meaning, he refers us to the passage that fol. lows, in which this impossibility of communion at home, has made it necessary to look out for sisters abroad, and impelled the American church to extend its hands after the fifteen millions of these corrupt and formal orientals—and two or three of them illegitimate sisters too, by reason of excommunication. But how beautiful is this, to be unable to commune with the churches of New England—bright with the examples of piety and rich with the gifts of the Spirit; but to be able and eager to unite with these “whited sepulchers,”—How beauti. ful I “Ye fools and blind, for whether is greater, the gift, or the altar which sanctifieth the gift f" Not only does “the church” put itself forth in this style in her formal communications with these churches, but her future representative, Bishop Southgate, has amply developed his own views in his recent volume on these churches. Let any man, not bitten with this mania of “Catholicity” and “church principles,” read this book and question if he can, whether its author be not more than half a Greek himself. His reverence for canons and councils, his mild constructions of ceremonies manifestly idolatrous, his gentle expostulations with the Pope for seeking to proselyte from these Eastern folds, his deference to these Bible-burning patriarchs and priests, and his silence concerning the labors of non-Episcopal missions, or his contemptuous predictions of their speedy discomfiture, all tell clearly and expressly what will be his modes of dealing with these churches and their heads. What will be the result 2 Will he make an impression on them : Will he persuade the bishops and patriarchs that they all need spirit. ual influences, and must let him take the office of imparting them P Will he What do they love the church for 2 Is it not for power and place and money P And will they by a new version put on the ceremonies and the sacraments, be persuaded that, though members of Christ's body, they are dead or but just alive And will they meekly submit to receive life from this newfledged bishop from their “younger sister of the west,” with two assistants, and an establishment of only one thousand pounds per annum ? It will be a new chapter in the history of conversions when this happens, and rich and powerful Pharisees are seen to be converted by the semi-Pharisaism of Catholicity. And what if they will not be converted 2 What if the Greek patriarch should add to his bull of July last against the Bible, another against Bishop Southgate 2—or what if, understanding the game better, he should keep him in waiting on fair promises, and like a skillful coquette, should appear to be almost gained and yet never be won 2 What will Mr. Southgate do o Do Why, he must do nothing, or commit the “sin of schism.” Such is the attitude of the American Episcopal church in respect to the oriental churches. Is it understood at home It seems to be understood differently, according to the different optics of the observer. “The Episcopal Protestant” speaks of this mission as follows: “Our own opinion is, that the Episcopal church from similar organization, does possess peculiar advantages in her efforts among oriental Christian bodies, and that if a missionary bishop and his presbyters, understanding and appreciating the Gospel and imbued with its spirit, should approach with trust in and prayer to Christ these benighted souls, they might be, with the divine blessing, most of all likely to enlist the sym

pathies of dignitaries, obtain a favorable hearing, win them to the truth, and ensure a co-operation in the work.” This we suppose to have been and still to be the opinion of the great body of those Episcopalians in this country, who are earnestly bent on the missionary work. To this view of the matter we have no objection—and if they will select a field for such operations in which they shall not conflict with missions already established, and which they love as well as we—and send to it a bishop and presbyters “understanding and appreciating the Gospel and imbued with its spirit,” we should be very glad to see the experiment of “their advantages” fairly put to the proof. Mr. Southgate says, this well expresses his own idea. We will not dispute with him. We only remark, that there may be considerable latitude of interpreting the phrase, “understanding and appreciating the Gospel.” For instance, the way in which “The Churchman” “understands and appreciates the Gospel,” is as follows: “We have never favored the sending of a missionary, in the proper sense of the word, to the Eastern churches; but we have always thought that it would be of mutual advantage to the pure Eastern churches and our own, to send a delegate who might establish a good understanding between them and us, and pave the way to the restoration of communion. We regard Mr. Southgate as occupying this position, and are therefore interested in his labors. We are under the impression that these churches bear on many points a more faithful and united testimony than ours to ancient Catholic truth, and that consequently an intercourse with them, may be beneficial to us as well as to them.” “This is manifestly the case as respects the constitution of the church and the ministry—a subject on which the loosest notions

« 上一頁繼續 »