« PoprzedniaDalej »
Robertsonus, etiam potestatem ministrandi sacramenta, et ordinandi ministros, concedunt illis. Eborascens. hanc prorsus protestatem denegat, Coren credit principem Divinitus illuminandum et consecrandum fore in episcopum interne, aut aliquem ex suis, Pauli exemplo. Simile habet Herefordensis et Carliolensis. Dayus nihil respondet de ordinandis Presbyteris in hæc necessitate.
Agreem. In the thirteenth ; concerning the first part, Whether laymen may preach and teach God's Word ? They do all agree in such a case, That not only they may, but they ought to teach. But in the second part, touching the constituting of priests of laymen, my lord of York and Dr. Edgeworth doth not agree with the other: they say, that laymen in no wise can make priests, or have such authority. The bishops of Duresm, St. David's, Westminster, Drs. Tresham, Cox, Leighton, Crayford, Symmonds, Redmayn, Robertson, say, that laymen in such cases, have authority to minister the sacraments, and to make priests. My lords of London, Carlisle, and Hereford, and Dr. Coren, think, that God, in such a case, would give the prince authority, call him inwardly, and illuminate him, or some of his, as he did St. Paul.
14th QUESTION. Whether it be forefended by God's law, that (if it so fortune, that all the bishops and priests of a region were dead, and that the Word of God should remain there unpreached, and the sacrament of baptism and others unministered) that the king of that region should make bishops and priests to supply the same, or no?
Archbishop of Canterbury. It is not forbidden by God's law.
: Archbishop of York. To the fourteenth ; in this case, as we have said in the next article afore, teaching of the Word of God may be used by any that can and would use it to the glory of God; and in this case also, the sacrament of baptism may be ministered by those that be no priests; which things also we have not of Scripture, yet the universal tradition and practice of the Church doth teach us : and
peradventure contract of matrimony might also be made, the solemnization thereof being only ordained by law positive, and not by any ground either of Scripture or of tradition ; although, for very urgent causes, the said solemnization is to be observed, when it may be observed; but that the princes may not make, that is, may not order priests nor bishops not before ordered to minister the other sacraments, the ministry whereof in Scripture is committed only to the apostles, and from them derived to their successors ; even from the primitive Church hitherto, and by none other used, we have answered in the thirteenth article.
Bishop of London. Ut supra, Quæst. 13.
Bishop of Rochester. Ut supra, Quæst. 13.
· Bishop of Carlisle. Not only it is given of God to supreme governors, kings and princes immediate under them, to see, cause and compel all their subjects, bishops, priests, with all others, to do truly and uprightly their bounden duties to God and to them, each one according to his calling: but also if it were so, that any where such lacked to do and fulfil that God would have done, right well they might, by the inward moving and calling of God, supply the same.
Dr. Day. To this case, as to the first, I answer, that if there could no bishops be had to order new priests there, by the prince's assignation and appointment; then the prince himself might ordain and constitute, with the consent of the congregation, both priests and ministers, to preach and baptize, and to do other functions in the Church.
Dr. Oglethorp. Si ab aliis regionibus sacerdotes haberi non poterint, opinor ipsum principem deputare posse etiam laicos ad hoc sacrum officium; sed omnia prius tentanda essent, ut supra.
Dr. Redmayn. To this, I think, may be answered, as to the last question before; howbeit the surest way, I think, were to send for some ministers of the Church dwelling in the next regions, if they might be conveniently had.
Dr. Edgeworth. Likewise as to the next question afore.
Dr. Symmonds. If the king be also a bishop, as it is possible, he may appoint bishops and priests to minister to his people: but hitherto, I have not read, that ever any Christian king made bishop or priest.
Dr. Tresham. I make the same answer as to the thirteenth question is made.
Dr. Leighton. To the fourteenth ; I suppose the affirmative to be true, in case · that there can no bishops nor priests be had forth of other countries conveniently.
Dr. Coren. In this case, I make answer as before, that God will never suffer his servants to lack that thing that is necessary; for there should either, from other parts, priests and bishops be called thither, or else God would call inwardly some of them that be in that region to be bishops and priests.
Con. Fatentur ut prius omnes, laicos posse docere. Eboracens. Symmons, Oglethorp negant posse ordinare Presbyteros, tamen concedit. Eboracens. baptizare et contrahere matrimonia, Edgeworth tantum baptizare posse : nam sufficere dicit ad salutem. Alii omnes eandem potestatem concedunt, quam prius. Roffens. non aliud respondet his duabus questionibus, quam quod necessitas non habeat legem.
Agreem. In the fourteenth, they agree for the most part as they did before, that laymen in this case may teach and minister the sacraments. My lord of York, Dr. Symmonds, and Oglethorp, say, they can make no priests, although Symmonds said, they might minister all sacraments in the question before. Yet my lord of York and Edgeworth do grant, that they may christen. The bishops of London, Rochester, and Dr. Crayford, say: that in such a case, Necessitas non habet legem, [necessity has no law.]”
The word “sacrament” having been mentioned in the above extract, it may be useful to give the following explanation of the term, from Hooker's Ecclesiast. Polit. 6 As often as we mention a sacrament, it is improperly understood ; for in the writings of the ancient fathers, all articles which are peculiar to Christian faith, all duties of religion, containing that which sense, or natural reason cannot of itself discern, are most commonly named sacraments; our restraint of the word to some few principal divine ceremonies, importeth in every such ceremony, two things, the substance of the ceremony itself, which is visible ; and besides that, somewhat else more secret, in reference whereunto we conceive that ceremony to be a sacrament.”
PROGRESS OF THE RECEPTION OF TRUTH. The following correspondence, addressed to a member of the Church in Philadelphia, exhibits the gradual reception of truth in so particular and natural a manner, that we believe it will be perused by our readers with considerable interest. The writer appears to be possessed of a candid and serious mind, and in the doubts and difficulties which he suggests, exhibits a degree of intelligence and sober reflection, which will make him a valuable acquisition to the society of the New Church.
22 September, 1817. Sir, In returning you my sincere thanks for the books you kindly sent me, I shall use the freedom to trouble you with a few thoughts relative to the all-important subject of which they treat.
In my childhood I was initiated into the precepts of the Christian religion, according to the strictest principles of Calvin. When I came to the years of reflection, I found upon examining my heart, that I was not sufficiently spiritually minded to warrant me to believe that I was of the number of the elect. The books I read told me I could do nothing of myself, and finding no sensible assistance from the spirit, I began to conclude, that I was one of those whose condemnation was recorded in the annals of eternity. About this time, I was forced from my country and obliged to serve in the navy, against those whom the British government was pleased to style its enemies. A long night of sorrow and despondency succeeded, in which five of the best years of my life, with all the knowledge, religious or natural, I had acquired, departed like a dream and left a dread vacuity be. hind. All the powers of my mind were paralyzed, and reason seemed tottering to its fall. Having at last made my escape from my enthralment, I returned to the fields of my youth. Reason returned with the dawn of happiness. But I was led away by the sophistical reasonings of a pretended friend, and began to doubt the truth of revelation. I thought that every thing must bend be. fore the shrine of selfish reason, and what I could not comprehend, I pronounced to be absurd. Providence threw in my way Dr. Watts's Treatise on the Mind, I read it and saw my folly in not making a distinction between what was contrary to natural reason, and what was above it. I changed my situation, chose religious companions, and endeavoured once more to adopt the principles in which I had been educated. But still the thought that God had selected only a few of the human race, as heirs of happiness, filled me with pain and apprehension; it broke in upon my studies, and soured all my enjoyments. I examined the scriptures, and though I found them full of expressions of love and good will to man, yet there were passages that gave colour to the creed, I had been taught to reverence, producing in my mind a gloomy uncertainty. A triplicity of persons in the Deity, was another source of uneasiness to me; I did not know how to worship a plurality of persons without entertaining, in spite of myself, the idea of three All-powerful, Independent Beings, or in other words, three Gods. I will not take up your time by rehearsing all my doubts and scruples : suffice it to say, that I had (not long previous to the time I had the pleasure of seeing you) formed the resolution to begin in humble sincerity to read the Scriptures from beginning to end, and take a note of such passages as inculcated doctrine, spiritual or moral, or offered precepts for the practical regulation of life, and on the result of this perusal, to form my creed and conduct. I made this resolution the more cheerfully from the consideration, that God is too good