Page images
PDF
EPUB

his guard, prompted, and counselled, and even answered for, by some of the other presbyters present. It would be tedious to give here the whole account of the examination. It may suffice to say that, among

the questions and answers, were the following:

'Q. Do you, or do you not, believe the doctrine of Transubstantiation to be repugnant to Scripture, subversive of the nature of a sacrament, and giving occasion to superstition? If you do not, how can you, ex animo, subscribe the Twenty-eighth Article of our standards?

"A. I would answer in general language, that I do not hold that doctrine of Transubstantiation, which I suppose our Article condemns ; but that, at the same time, I conceive myself at liberty to confess ignorance on the mode of the Presence.

"Q. Do you, or do you not, regard the denial of the cup to the laity an unwarrantable change in a sacrament of Christ's own institution; or as to be regarded as a mere matter of discipline?

[ocr errors]

"A. I consider it an unwarrantable act of discipline.' Mr. Carey subsequently preferring to substitute the word "severe," instead of "unwarrantable."

As to "purgatory," "he considered our standards as condemning the doctrine popularly held to be the Roman doctrine;" but as to "the idea that the departed can be benefited by the prayers of the faithful, or by the administration of the Holy Communion," "he supposed that idea was not condemned in the Article" (Art. 31). He "would not fault the Church of Rome for reading the Apocrypha for proof of doctrine."

"Q. Can there be a doubt, that, in separating from the Church of Rome, the Church of England embraced more pure and scriptural views of doctrine and is not the Protestant Episcopal Church in this country at present more pure in doctrine than the Church of Rome?

:

"A. There can be a doubt, on the ground that the Church of England retained doctrinal errors, viz., the doctrines of Puritanism." "In some points, the Roman Missal was preferable to our Liturgy."

As to "invocation of saints," "he did not fault the Church of Rome, provided the invocation was confined to the 'ora pro nobis,' or intercessory form."

"Q. Do you consider the Church of Rome now to be in error in matters of faith?

"A. It is a difficult question, which I do not know how to answer; but I refer to my answer on the other question, touching my opinion of the Decrees of the Council of Trent.

"Q. Do you, or do you not, receive the Articles of the Creed of Pius IV.?

"A. So far as they are repetitions of the Decrees of the Council of Trent, I receive them."

At the close of the examination the document already referred to was produced, and the Bishop having decided that it could not be read, "the matter of that document, as far as it had been supposed to establish Mr. Carey's unsoundness in the faith, and conformity with

Rome, was then thrown into the form of interrogatories, which were addressed to the candidate in the very words of the document, which had been revised and altered by himself, so as to express his views, and assented to by him, as already stated. To those interrogatories Mr. Carey gave direct and categorical replies, each and every one of which showed that he deviated in no important particular from the doctrinal statements contained in the said document."

Incredible as it may seem, all the six presbyters who had been joined by the Bishop with Drs. Anthon and Smith, as Mr. Carey's examiners, expressed themselves satisfied. One of them (Dr. Seabury) "said he should esteem it a privilege to present the candidate for orders, as he had sustained his ordeal most nobly!" Drs. Anthon and Smith on the following morning lodged with the Bishop a solemn, written protest against his ordination: but, finding that the Bishop was about to ordain Mr. Carey on the very next day, they farther felt it to be their duty to attend the ordination, and, on the appeal being made publicly by the Bishop, "Brethren, if there be any of you who knoweth any impediment," &c., publicly to protest against his ordination, the "impediment" being, his "holding sentiments not conformable to the doctrines of the Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States of America, and in too close conformity with those of the Church of Rome." The Bishop at once overruled the objection, on the ground that the matter had already been enquired into and the charge disproved, and proceeded with the ordination.

Thus terminated this extraordinary case-a case which we may reasonably hope will be the means of bringing the whole subject before the consideration of the Convention of October next, and thereby, under God's blessing, painful and alarming as it is in itself, indirectly tend to cause vigorous steps to be taken for repressing the growth of the heresy.

Much obloquy has been thrown, by the friends of the Bishop, upon Drs. Anthon and Smith, for repeating their protest at the ordination. The Bishop insists upon it that all communications from his clergy on the subject ought to be made in private, and that they are not included in the word "people" used in the Rubric-evidently implying, that if their private protest to him is by him overruled, they are to bow in silence to his decision; and thus a bishop inclined to heretical views might screen himself from all interference on the part of those best able to warn the Church of the dangers to which her interests were exposed. The object of this claim on the part of the Bishop is obvious-namely, to keep matters secret, and make the Bishop sole judge. It is quite true that a private communication, in the first instance, is, in common courtesy, due to the Bishop, and was made in the case before us; and we may add, that, in ordinary cases, where essential points of faith were not concerned, it might well be left with the bishop to act according to his own discretion in the matter. But it is far otherwise in such a case as that before us, where the most important doctrines of Christianity are at stake. If a bishop is dis

posed to countenance views directly opposed to the principles of the Church of which he is a bishop, and ordain their propagators, in the face of remonstrances addressed to him by some of the most respectable of his clergy, it would be a suicidal species of Church discipline that should bind the remonstrating presbyters to silence. If private remonstrance has been useless, it is their duty to avail themselves of the opportunity given by the Church to all publicly to bring under the notice of the bishop the impediment that exists to the ordination. This is the legitimate way, under such circumstances, of bringing the matter fairly before the Church. And we must maintain, that when such a notice of impediment, or protest, or whatever it may be called, was thus publicly and solemnly offered to the Bishop, it was his duty to institute an enquiry into the case, in such a way as might show fully to the Church at large its true character. The reply is, that the case had been privately enquired into, and the Bishop satisfied. True: but what use is that to the Church at large? What proof does it afford to the Church that the Bishop is acting faithfully to his trust? If a charge of heresy is publicly brought against a man whom a bishop is about to ordain, is it sufficient for the bishop to say, I have privately examined him, and am satisfied? Is this a sufficient bar to any further allegation of unorthodoxy against him? We think not. We conceive that the only right or satisfactory mode of meeting the charge would be an investigation of it, conducted in such a way that the whole Church might be cognisant of the real state of the case; and for this reason, that the bishop himself is amenable to the supreme authority of the Church for the way in which he performs the duties of his office and if, under such circumstances, he had the power of determining the matter in secret, he would have the power of exercising irresponsibly the most sacred and important function attached to his office, for no proof could be given that he was altogether cognisant of the precise views entertained by the person ordained. And thus, a bishop inclined to heretical views might inundate the Church with improper persons. We, therefore, entirely agree with Mr. Duer, that the ordination should be suspended until the charge "has been proved to be groundless, by an enquiry solemn in its form, and judicial in its character." (P. 18.)

:

Had the previous examination been conducted in a more satisfactory way, and the questions and answers all been recorded, as Drs. A. and S. desired, there might have been some ground for the complaint made; though, even then, we are by no means sure that in such a case they would not have been, to say the least, perfectly justified in adopting the course they did. They were bound, with their view of the case, to take every proper opportunity of resisting the introduction of such a person into the ministry of the Church. The ultimate responsibility rested with the Bishop. It was for him to act as he judged best. No one denies his power of conferring orders in the face of such a protest, if so he thought fit; but still, as one responsible to the Church for what he did. But, on the other hand, there was a duty to

be performed by Drs. Anthon and Smith to the Church, in protesting against the ordination, and there ought to have been no attempt to throw a veil over the proceedings, so as to shield the Bishop from the consequences of the act, by having no record of what took place. It must be remembered that this was no ordinary or trivial case. As the protesters justly remark, "It covers this whole ground: Shall virtual conformity with Rome form, or not form, an impediment to ordination; and does not an ordination held in despite of such conformity furnish sad and melancholy proof of a growing indifference to those great principles for which, at the era of the Reformation, martyrs died, and a gradual assimilation to Rome, which promises, at no distant day, identity with her in faith, if not union in polity?" (P. 42.)

The simple fact is, that the Bishop has adopted (as is evident from his Address to the Convention) the Tractarian notion, that a bishop is the spiritual monarch and autocrat of his diocese; that his sic volo, sic jubeo, is the law both to the clergy and people, and that any opposition on the part of either to his declared will, is a direct act of disobedience to his lawful authority; that he holds his spiritual powers directly from God, and is responsible to God only for the way in which he exercises them. A more preposterous claim, in a Church whose bishops are bound, as well as the rest of the clergy, to a certain form of doctrine and discipline, and whose episcopal powers are confided to them only to be exercised in conformity with, and in favour of, that form, was never made.

Mr. Haight's pamphlet is a vain attempt to answer that of Drs. Anthon and Smith, and justify Mr. Carey's ordination. It only shows that the author has been thoroughly mystified by his Tractarian friends. The sum and substance of his defence is, that a person may receive the Decrees of the Council of Trent "in the literal sense of the terms," and yet not be "unsound in the faith." (See p. 9.) We will there, then, leave Mr. Haight and his defence.

The publication of the narrative of Drs. Anthon and Smith naturally caused a feeling of alarm throughout the whole American Church. One of the earliest public notices of it of importance was by the able, vigilant, and faithful Bishop of Ohio, in his Address to his Convention. "As a bishop of the Church of Christ," he says, "placed over a diocese which is confederate and in communion with the diocese of New York, under the canons of our General Convention, I most solemnly protest against the ordination of a candidate exhibiting the like state of mind being ever again allowed in the Protestant Episcopal Church in these United States." And as it respects the propriety of the public protest made at the ordination, he thus expressly vindicates it: " Enough has been granted, in my judgement, fully to justify that act, whatever may hereafter appear in defence of those who sanctioned the ordination. But here, in justification of my expressing, thus publicly and officially, my high sense of what the Church owes to those brethren for their faithfulness, let it be well observed, that, when they made their protest before the public congregation, they were exercising

[ocr errors]

a right which belonged to them, not as presbyters of the diocese of New York, but as members of the Church in general. The right of protest on such occasions is not diocesan, but universal. . . . . . The right, in their case, was no way impaired by their having made substantially the same protest in private before. A private protest and a public one are very different things. A protest in a vestry-room cannot supersede the right of protest before the assembled Church, amid the solemnities of the house of God. . . . . . It was a trying duty, but it was a duty. When I consider the whole matter in connexion with all the circumstances of the Church in these times, I feel that the whole Church owes a large debt of gratitude to those brethren for their faithful, noble, and painful stand for the purity of her ministry." The Bishop proceeds to notice another painful feature in the case, as it concerns the prospects of the true faith in their Church—namely, that the ordaining bishop is President of the Faculty of the General Theological Seminary in New York, and Professor of "the Nature, Ministry, and Polity of the Church;" and one of the clergy who assisted in the examination of Mr. Carey, and advised his being ordained, is Professor of Pastoral Theology in the same.

It is a gratifying fact, that the Convention of Ohio warmly responded to these sentiments of their bishop, and concluded their notice of them in the following words, which we would earnestly commend to the serious consideration of many among ourselves :- "STUDIED SILENCE

IN SUCH A CASE, ADOPTED AS AN EXPEDIENT TO PRESERVE THE PEACE OF THE CHURCH, IS A SACRIFICE OF ESSENTIAL PURITY TO THE MERE APPEARANCE OF UNITY. AND TO COVER UP IMPORTANT ERRORS FROM DREAD OF PRESENT COLLISIONS, IS TO CHERISH THE MATERIALS OF A SETTLED AND THOROUGH CORRUPTION, OR OF MORE VIOLENT AND DISRUPTIVE CONTENTION AT SOME FUTURE DAY."

The reader will be anxious to know what notice was taken of this extraordinary event, at the next meeting of the Convention of the Diocese of New York. Mr. Duer's pamphlet contains the excellent speech delivered by that gentleman, in seconding two very temperate resolutions, arising out of Mr. Carey's case, proposed by Judge Oakley on that occasion. At the end are also some extracts from the Bishop's Address to the Convention. We are sorry to find that the whole of his Address relating to the subject of Mr. Carey's ordination, shows that the issue of the matter must be, either the admission of doctrinal Romanists into the heart of the American Church, or some decisive steps on the part of the General Convention to prevent such ordinations for the future. Thus speaks the Bishop, with reference to Mr. C.'s ordination: "With a strengthened conviction of having acted justly and righteously in this matter, I deem it highly proper in itself, and peculiarly demanded by the trying circumstances in which the young brother concerned has been thrown, thus publicly to express my unshaken confidence in him, and to commend him to the confidence and affection of the Church." (Bishop's Address to the Convention.)

The Bishop objects to the course adopted by Drs. Anthon and Smith,

« PreviousContinue »