Page images
PDF
EPUB

spiritual character of the priesthood on any man or body of men, or take that character from any man or body of men, on whom it may have been conferred, whether by Bishops or Presbyters? But, if the legislature be competent to all this, by what mode of reasoning shall we in this age of liberal views and political economy, oppose the arguments of those men who labour incessantly to have the present Church establishment in this country overthrown, to make way for another, or of those politicians who would have all establishments abolished, and the Clergy of every Church, or pretended Church, which receives the Scriptures for its rule of faith, equally authorized by the Legislature, which, judging from the acts we have now specified, appears to consider itself as the fountain of all authority, spiritual as well as temporal ? As long as the Church shall be allowed to plead "the Divine institu❤ tion of Episcopacy, and, in order to a valid administration of the sa craments, the necessity of Episcopal orders, derived by uninterrupted succession from the Apostles," she will be able to assign a very sufficient reason for continuing her maintenance, as having a better claim to the privileges and immunities of a legal establishment than any of those religious societies whose members desire her overthrow. But, if all authority, spiritual as well as temporal, emanate from the State we know not by what arguments the mouths of her enemies can be stopped; since an Act of Parliament could, on this supposition, confer on a Presbyterian minister, or even on the teacher of an independent congregation, the very same character that we have hitherto supposed our Bishops to derive by succession from the Apostles.

Might it not, then, become the wisdom of the Legislature to révise all the Statutes to which we have alluded, and either to repeal or so to explain them, as to preserve the Church in due subordination to the State, without confounding those spiritual powers, which she derives from Christ alone, with those privileges which she enjoys merely on the legal establishment of religion in this part of the United Em pire? And might not the Convocation, in which there is now no reason to dread those heats and animosities which disgraced it in the reign of Queen Anne, be allowed to sit so long, at least, as to consider what 'alterations should be made in these Statutes? For, to use the words of a learned writer, who was certainly far from being a High Church, man, though by the alliance of the Church and State, no new regula tions can be made for Church government, but by the State's authority, yet, still there is reason that the Church should be previously consulted, which we may suppose well skilled, as in her proper business, to form and digest such new regulations, before they come under the consideration of the civil Legislature."

66

Far be it from us to wish that the gates of the Church of England should be thrown open to the influx of all strange Clergymen indis criminately, merely because they may have been rightly and canonically ordained in other churches; but surely they ought not to be so com❤ pletely shut against such clergymen as to prevent those who, on ex

* Warburton's Alliance between Church and State, book ii, chap. 4.

amination, should be found fully qualified, by their piety, learning, and virtuous lives, to discharge the duties of their office, from being received amongst us by such Bishops as might deem it expedient to receive them, on their taking all the oaths, and making all the subscriptions and declarations that are taken and made by our own clergy, and, on their producing legal evidence of their having been rightly ordained by a Bishop, who was himself canonically consecrated. For this purpose it has been suggested that, after repealing those statutes which, in fact, make a schism between the Church of England, and almost every other Church, one law should be enacted for the whole, prohibiting every clergyman ordained by a Bishop, whether of the Greek, Roman, Swedish, Scottish or Colonial Churches, from holding a living, or even from preaching in any of our dioceses, until he shall have undergone such an examination as he must have passed before he could have been ordained in England. This regulation would effectually prevent the influx of half educated men into this Church, an evil which Archbishop Moore declared it was his intention to obviate, when he inserted the most exceptionable part of the restraining clause into the Act for granting relief to Pastors, Ministers, and lay persons of the Episcopal Communion in Scotland. His Grace, it is said, afterwards frankly admitted that such a regulation would have been equally effectual with his clause, and in some respects less objectionable; and there can be no doubt that it would have placed the Scotch Episcopal Church in a more respectable point of view, and rendered her more capable of being useful than she can ever be, while clogged and restrained by the bill of 1792.

Craving indulgence for the length of these remarks, we now proceed to give a brief account of the union which took place soon after the repeal of the penal laws, between the indigenous clergy of the Scottish Episcopal Church, and those other ministers of English and Irish ordination who, at the period now mentioned, held charges in most of the principal towns north of the Tweed. The circumstances which led to the distinction just stated, have already been detailed. Suffice it to observe, therefore, that all the laws passed subsequently to the Revolution, had the effect of throwing into the back ground the clergy of the ancient establishment, and of encouraging such as were not suspected of entertaining their political attachments, nor subject to the restrictions and penalties which, from time to time, were directed against the former. The statutes of 1746 and 1748, in particular, which me naced with so many severe pains and disqualifications the Laity of the Episcopal Church, suggested to the higher and more wealthy class in that body, the expediency of inviting clergymen from England, whose ministrations they might attend without the hazard of offending the State, or incurring the deprivation of any political right. The persons so invited, from the circumstance of their having taken all the requisite oaths, were usually denominated qualified ministers, whilst the native elergy, who in general refused to abjure Princes, whom they regarded as the lawful heirs of an hereditary throne, were not less commonly known by the name of non-jurors.

The repeal of the penal laws, however, and the new character assumed in consequence of that repeal by the Episcopal Church in Scotland, as it removed the only plea upon which an apology could be urged for the anomalous predicament in which the qualified ministers and their flocks found themselves placed, so it naturally paved the way for their admission into the bosom of that Communion, from which many of the Laity had very reluctantly withdrawn. No sooner, accor dingly, was relief obtained by the act passed in 1792, than a disposition was manifested on both sides to affect an union between the two bodies of Episcopalians in the north. For a full detail of the conferences and correspondence to which this project gave occasion, we refer the reader to "Annals of Scottish Episcopacy," a work of considerable merit, and replete with information respecting the ecclesiastical affairs of that part of the kingdom during the last thirty years. It contains, in particular, several documents of the greatest value, from the hands of men, both lay and clerical, of the highest character for learning and talent, urging the expediency of a union, and pointing out the irregular and unchurchmanlike conduct of those who remained in a state of separation. The object of the writers to whom we now allude was to expose the absurd pretensions of such individuals in the outstanding congregations, as maintained that they were in some sort of federal union with the Church of England, and acknowledged the authority of her Bishops over them, as a part of their flock in a distant portion of their fold. Every man, indeed, lay or clerical, who knows any thing of the matter, is perfectly satisfied that the Ministers and people of the congregations now described, might as well own submis sion to the Grand Lama, or to the Patriarch of Constantinople, as to any Prelate on this side of the Tweed; for neither the law of the land, nor the practice of the English establishment allows either that such submission shall be received, or that any Episcopal jurisdiction shall be founded upon it. In proof of this assertion we give an extract from a speech pronounced by Bishop Horsley, on the bill already so often mentioned, for granting relief from the penalties inflicted upon the Scottish Episcopalians by the statutes of George the Second. Alluding to some observations which Lord Thurlow had thrown out, the Bishop said:

[ocr errors]

'My Lords, with respect to the interests of Episcopacy in Scotland, my opinion is unfortunately the very reverse of that of the noble and learned lord. The credit of Episcopacy will never be advanced by the scheme of supplying the Episcopal congregation in Scotland, with pastors of our ordination; and for this reason, my Lords, that it would be an imperfect crippled Episcopacy that would thus be upheld in Scotland. When a clergyman ordained by one of us, settles as a pastor of a congregation in Scotland, he is out of the reach of our authority. We have no authority there; we can have no authority there; the Legislature can give us no authority there. The attempt to introduce any thing of an authorized political Episcopacy in Scotland, would be a direct infringement of the union. My lords, as to the notion that clergymen should be originally ordained by us to the

ministry in Scotland, I agree with the noble Viscount that the thing would be contrary to all rule and order. No bishop who knows what he does ordain without a title; and a title must be a nomination to something certain in the diocese of the Bishop that ordains. My Lords, an appointment to an Episcopal congregation in Scotland, is no more a title to me, or to any Bishop of the English bench, or to any Bishop of the Irish bench, than an appointment to a church in Mesopotamia."

Lord Stowell, too, in writing to the late Sir William Forbes, of Edinburgh, expresses himself much to the same effect. Alluding to the Archbishop of Canterbury, he assures his correspondent that " he feels all sentiments of affection and respect for the Episcopal Church in Scotland which, you know, his lamented predecessor entertained, and will be ready to express it on all occasions. You will find him animated with the same spirit. His opinion concurs with mine that a minister of the Church of England can incur no disability in England by communicating with the sister Church, if that can be called a sister which, by the late acts of your respectable community, is become almost identically the same. It is quite impossible that any impro priety, either legal, (or as far as I may be allowed to judge) theological, can attach to an entire conformity to the Protestant Episcopal Church in Scotland, during a Clergyman's residence in that country. It is surprising how such a notion could have found its way into the minds of men in your country, as that the English Bishops aspired to any authority there. All that friendly and kind communication with our Episcopal brethren in Scotland can give, they may always command from the English Bishops. But authority or jurisdiction in Peru is not more out of their thoughts than in Scotland. They have all due respect for the established Church, acknowledge its increasing good offices to the Church of England, and are very ready to make a common cause against the fanatical enemies of establishments in both countries."

The question appears, indeed, so perfectly clear as not to admit the shadow of a doubt. An Episcopalian who acknowledges no Bishop is like a royalist who acknowledges no king. The very terms imply a contradiction. Such Ministers and congregations, therefore, as continue in a state of separation can, in fact, be viewed in no other light than that of Independents using the English Liturgy and Sacerdotal vestments. They are, the orders of their Clergymen excepted, in precisely the same situation as those dissenters in this country who make use of the book of Common Prayer in their worship, but have no connection whatever with the Church as an established society of Christians, are subject to no Episcopal jurisdiction, and receive no Episcopal ministrations; every Minister is the nominal head of his own flock; which is, at the same time, the only body of Christians on the face of the earth with which he is connected, in the relations of discipline or ecclesiastical polity. As far as his native Church is concerned, an English or Irish Clergyman in Scotland, who does not acknowledge the authority of the indigenous Bishops, might as well be in Mesopo

tamia or Peru; for refusing to submit himself to the spiritual rule of an Episcopal Church, rightly and canonically constituted, he shuts against himself, with his own hand, the only avenue by which he might obtain fellowship and communion with the visible body of Christ. In fact, there is no conscientious and well informed Churchman who does not at once perceive the necessity of submitting to those who are appointed by Apostolical authority and precept to have the rule over him; and we have learned, accordingly, that of those few Ministers of English ordination who, in Scotland, still remain in the schismatical state of mere Independents, the greater number lament their anomalous condition, and are even desirous to share with their brethren the disci pline of a regular Church. But they feel themselves compelled to yield to circumstances. Ignorant, self-willed members of their congregations insist upon continuing in this irregular, awkward situation; while the clergymen, depending upon them for their maintenance, find it expedient to yield. To pastors placed in these unfortunate circum stances we recommend a careful perusal of the following address, delivered by an English ordained clergyman and graduate of Oxford, to his congregation when on the eve of uniting with the Episcopal com munion in Scotland. We allude to the learned and highly respected Doctor Sandford, who has now been nearly twenty years Bishop of Edinburgh, and whose example had great weight in determining the conduct of many of his brethren, in the important matters to which these remarks bear a reference. After stating that the Bishops and Clergy of the Scottish Episcopal Church had at a convention lately holden, solemnly subscribed the thirty-nine Articles of the United Church of England and Ireland, and had by this act given the most decisive and satisfactory testimony of their agreement with that Church in doctrine and discipline, he declared that

"As an Episcopal clergyman officiating in this country, I think it my duty, under these circumstances, to make this submission, in order that the congregation attending my ministry may enjoy the advantages and the regularity arising from the superintendence of a Bishop, of which we have been hitherto deprived. That my congregation may be satisfied of the propriety of the motives which have determined my conduct in this matter, and of the benefits which they will derive from the union of our establishment with the Scottish Episcopal Church, I beg leave to submit to them the following considerations :

1. That the establishment of the English chapels, in their present situations, is extremely imperfect and anomalous. Our Clergy, in the first place, officiate without the licence of the Bishop in whose diocese they reside; an irregularity only to be justified by circumstances of the most unavoidable necessity. Our youth have no opportunity of being confirmed, and are, therefore, admitted to the Holy Communion without this edifying and apostolical preparation; an omission very greatly to be lamented. Our places of worship are not consecrated; and, in one word, our establishments possess nothing of the becoming order and regularity which flow from the spiritual government of a Bishop. We are Episcopalians depending on no ecclesiastical superior, which

« PreviousContinue »