Page images

promise, we were entitled to one of the new Bishops ; we got neither, but are earnestly exhorted to support them. Things have come to a crisis. Delay is defeat." And another of their Newspapers echoed the same complaint and disappointment: “The working of the Domestic department has given High Church Bishops to Wisconsin, Arkansas, California, Nebraska, Minnesota, and Texas. Oregon is only claimed as doubtful.” Thus, the very missionary work of the Church, its sacrifices, and its glorious objects, sink down to a mere matter of traffic for the aggrandizement of a party. We leave such a motive to those who are capable of appreciating it. And now, when the Bishop of New York comes forward with a kind and gentle, but manly rebuke of open and repeated violations of the Law of the Church, he is taunted with infidelity to a virtual bargain with these men ! a bargain which, we know, he not only never made, but which we know him to be utterly incapable of making.

Dr. Tyng, in the course of his Letter, throws out the following singular challenge :

“For the facts of this ministry, (of near forty-five years), I ask the most thorough examination, as they have passed under the knowledge of my brethren, and in the midst of the various congregations of the people of Christ, which have been committed to me. Of my labors in teaching and edifying the people of my charge, in the Doctrines and worship prescribed, appointed, and received by the Protestant Episcopal Church, in its institutions, observances, distinctive principles, ordinances, and rites, I challenge, before the Great Head of the Church, an impartial scrutiny; being persuaded that, however infirm and incompetent in many things, I have never been a hypocrite, an idler, or a self-indulgent and perjured man, in the house of God.”

Now, we have no intention of taking up the gauntlet, which Dr. Tyng has so defiantly thrown down ; or of subjecting to an “impartial scrutiny,” the course of his protracted ministry, as he here invites us. We do recollect several way-marks of that ministry, which we thought at the time required explanation; and one or two of them are now before us; but we do not care to bring them into the present examination. It would be an odious labor; and, more than all, such things have nothing whatever to do with the present discussion. We re

mind Dr. Tyng, however, that men who live in glass-houses, should be somewhat careful in their choice of missiles.

“ O wad some power the giftie gie us

To see oursels as others see us !
It wad frae monie a blunder free us,

And foolish notion :
What airs in dress an' gait wad lea'e us,

And e'en Devotion!” There is, however, one reminiscence of Dr. Tyng's Ministry, of which his present Letter to Bishop Potter reminds us. In the year 1844, he was a candidate for the Episcopate of Pennsylvania. Upon a careful estimate, the addition of a few “High Church” votes was thought desirable.

Dr. Tyng preached the Sermon at the Special Convention of that year, . and as “ Union" was his theme then, and as " Union” is his theme now, we will place a few extracts from his Convention Sermon then, and from his Letter now to Bishop Potter, side by side. So far as mere argument is concerned, Dr. Tyng answers himself in the most effectual manner. The italics, &c., are our own. The formula is simply this :

DR. TYNG versus DR. TYNG.

DR. TYNG'S SERMON. “ This new scheme of excluding We have unitedly received, and unchurching all • non-Episco- and we earnestly adhere to, a Minpal Divines,' excluding ministers istry which, we unfeignedly beand licentiates of non-Episcopal lieve, Christ, our Lord, established bodies, not only from administer- for His Church; and which His ing the Sacraments, but also from Apostles, beyond all reasonable teaching within the fold, holding dispute, as it appears to us, mainthem to be incompetent,' I do not tained and transmitted, in opening believe the Lord hath command the privileges and blessings of this ed,' or that it is according to the Church to mankind. We unitedly Commandment of God;' and I believe it UNLAWFUL for us to certainly know that this Church subvert or annul an organization hath not received the same, but which the Lord hath constituted has rejected it, and resisted it, and as the Law of His house. We renounced it, always, on every could not, therefore, feel justified occasion on which individual per- in ministering under, or ACKNOWLsons in the Church have attempted EDGING any professed authority, to enforce it, or assume it, as which does not conform to this the doctrine and teaching of the Apostolic Standard, and derives Church."-p. 17.

itself from this Divine appoint

ment.”-pp. 11-12.* * Dr. Tyng's Sermon: A PLEA FOR UNION; At the Special Convention, in St. Andrews' Church. Philadelphia, Sept. 6. 1844. VOL. XVII,


“But this High Church inter- “It is because we are fully conpretation of Doctrine, Sacraments, vinced that our Church is, in its and Discipline, this Church had essential features, precisely that, never received; neither had the and is directly derived from that, Lord commanded it, in any infor- retaining and transmitting its conmation then given to me, nor in stituted powers and blessings conany further information which I ferred by Divine appointment, that have since been able to acquire. I we acknowledge in ourselves no regard it as a new doctrine, 'una- RIGHT, either to forsake its Comwares brought in, to spy out our munion, OR TO CONCEDE THE JUST liberty which we have in Christ CLAIMS OF ITS SCRIPTURAL MINJesus, and to bring us again into ISTRY, and its Divinely appointed bondage,' to which I must say: Sacraments. In these views of the We can ‘give place by subjection, importance and authority of our no, not for an hour, that the truth Church, we are perfectly united. of the Gospel may continue' in In declaring them, I speak the honthe Church.”—p. 16.

est and mature conviction and judgment, I am sure, of the clergy

who are here assembled.-p. 12. “ The American Church did not “ It is now a warfare with Episreceive this interpretation in her copacy, and by that name, (“from settlement of doctrine.

the multiplied Protestant denomiwas never, as a scheme of doc- nations around us, who renounce, trine, delivered to me. I have and not unfrequently, revile our not received it in the Church, or Episcopacy,') it has ceased to disfrom the Church. I have always tinguish between different theories considered it as among the “erro- of Episcopacy. It will grant neous and strange doctrines con- peace upon no terms, other than trary to God's Word,' which I an entire renunciation of the promised, the Lord being my claims which we make to a Scripbelper,' • with all faithful dili- tural Ministry, and of our derived gence, to banish and drive away right thereto, through appointed from the Church.' And I have Succession from the Apostles. always endeavoured, in fulfilment This is a point which we can of my promise, with .faithful dil- never, with a good conscience, igence always to Minister the yield. We are, therefore, left, I Doctrines and Sacraments, and fear, but little hope of toleration the Discipline of Christ, as the in this quarter. We believe ourLord hath commanded, and as selres contending for the faith in this Church hath received the the Ministry which the Lord estabsame, but not as Archbishops lished. And precious and desiraBancroft or Laud, or Bishop ble as is peace abroad to us, as Hobart, have assumed to be its to all Christians, we cannot make infallible interpreters.”—p. 18. shipwreck f faith and good con

science to obtain it. This resulting position of necessary separation from many Christians around, whom we higbly esteem, is much to be regretted. But it appears


inevitable ; and it is not we who have sought it, nor can the blame of it rest upon us.”—pp. 16–17.

• If we are ever to find and enjoy any thing like spiritual Union on earth, the promised gift of the Saviour to His disciples, past events have sufficiently proved that we are to seek for it, and to expect it now, with a reasonable prospect of success only within the limits of our own

Spiritual household."-p. 15. What effect such a remarkable Sermon as this would be likely to have upon the election of Dr. Tyng, or any other man, as a party Low-Church candidate for the Episcopate of Pennsylvania, it is not difficult to imagine. Dr. Tyng himself soon after left the Diocese, and removed to New York. We are certainly under obligation to him for putting into our hands the means of giving the best possible answer to his equally remarkable, and equally ill-judged Letter to the Bishop of New York.

Before leaving Dr. Tyng's Letter, we must call attention to his representation of the views of Bishop White, on this subject of the Christian Ministry. Dr. Tyng says :

“ The controversy concerning these things in our Church, has been wholly within the line and field of my own personal observation, and in all its leading facts thoroughly known to me, in that observation. In the earlier years of our Church history, there was no discussion or discrepancy upon this subject. Not one of our earlier bishops, from the English Consecration, assumed this High Church ground. Neither White, nor Madison, nor Bass, nor, so far as I have known or heard, Provost or Moore, professed to stand upon that platform." * “ Bishop White, who was personally friendly to each, and a lover of all good men, was eminently moderate in his utterances, but never, in his teachings or his conduct, sanctioned the claims of the High Churh scheme.”

On the contrary, Bishop White held in utter abhorrence the loose, low views of the Christian Ministry, which have lately been broached among us; and we affirm most confidently, and we are not uninformed upon this point, by a careful study of his writings, that there is not a word in Bishop Potter's Pas

toral which he would not have endorsed with all his heart, Bishop White says :

“ These Orders (of the Ministry), say we, three in number, were of Apostolic Institution, and existed universally in the Church, as now among us, until within a few ages of these later times." *

“ If the fact be as is stated—and we ought to be supposed sincere in the profession of it—is it not sufficiently important to induce us to adhere to, and not by any act to IMPLY the nullity of, what claims so high an origin?" +

“ Is it arrogant, is it unreasonable, in the Ministers of the Gospel, to assert the Divine institution of their office, as handed down from the Apostles; and to deny the propriety of every door to the Ministry of man's workmanship; whether it be that of popular Ordination, or the plea of an inward call? It cannot be." I

Dr. Tyng makes one representation of the opinion of Bishop White which deserves special attention. This representation would seem to cover one class of the irregularities of our own day. We know of no better way to settle this point, than to place Dr. Tyng and Bishop White side by side ; the reader can thus judge how far it is right to claim Bishop White as an authority for such ecclesiastical dishonesty :DR. TYNG'S STATEMENT.

BISHOP WHITE HIMSELF. “ This exclusive system had “Of all mistaken expedients for never ruled in Pennsylvania. I the increase of Union, there canwas received with a paternal kind- not be any one of them more deluness by Bishop White, which I sive than the prospect here concan never forget. To him I sub- templated; professed to be for the mitted personally the very ques- combining in Worship of bodies of tions which are now discussed : Christians now disjoined. Instead Shall I accept invitations to preach of this, it tends to the opposite efin churches which are not Episco- fect of dividing our Church, as pal? In what way shall I use our existing in its present form; and, forms of prayer on such occasions? into how many separate, and, perPreach for all who invite you, if haps, hostile communions, it is you can, and desire to do it. Em- impossible to foresee.”ş ploy the Prayer Book as much as you can usefully and consistently with their habits; was the substance of his replies. Thus I did probably in more than fifty cases in the Diocese of Pennsylvania."

* Conv. Ser., p. 22.
| Ord. Ser., 1825, pp. 13—14.

P. 8.

+ Gen. Theo. Sem. Address, 1828.
& Gen. Theol. Sem. Address, 1828. p. 10.

« PreviousContinue »