« ПредыдущаяПродолжить »
and read them to the examined. proposed protest was thereupon waived." "It is proper, at this point, to state the fact, that we expressed our willingness and desire to open the door, if it could be safely and conscientiously done, to Mr. Carey's admission to the ministry.
"The Bishop then asked if any presbyter had questions to put, when Dr. Anthon proposed question 1. to Mr. Carey. Drs. M'Vickar, Seabury, and Mr. Haight objected to the question on the ground of its being merely hypothetical in its character.' Mr. Carey expressed his willingness to answer. The answer was taken down in writing by Dr. Anthon, read to Mr. Carey, and assented to by him as correct.
"The following was the question proposed.
"Q. 1. Supposing entrance into the ministry of the Protestant Episcopal Church in this country were not open to you, would you, or would you not, have recourse, in such case, to the ministry of the Church of Rome?'
"Answer. Possibly I might, after due deliberation, but think that I should more likely remain in our own communion, as I have no special leaning towards the joining of theirs at present.'
Q. 2. Do you hold to, and receive the decrees of the Council of Trent?'
"His answer was, I do not deny that the decrees of the Council-'
"Mr. Carey had proceeded thus far in his reply, when, at the request of Drs. Seabury, Berrian, M'Vickar, and Mr. Haight, he declined repeating the words next in order, as Dr. Anthon desired, so as to allow him time to take down the full answer the advice being grounded upon the loss of time it would occasion to take down, in this manner, all the
"Dr. Smith here observed, Brethren, are we running a race against time? Are we not rather assembled to discharge a solemn duty to the Church, and not to consult our personal convenience? Ought we not to be willing, if necessary, to remain here till 12 o'clock to-night, and to assemble again to-morrow, and remain the entire day, if needful, so as to come to a just conclusion?'
"Mr. Carey finally expressed his willingness to repeat his answer to the question, which he did in the following words, which were taken down by Dr. Anthon. "Ans. I do not deny them-I would not positively affirm them.'
"The examination proceeded, on our part, to question 3.
"Q. 3. 'Do you, or do you not, deem the differences between the Protestant Episcopal Church and the Church of
Rome to be such as embrace points of faith?'
"To this Mr. Carey was understood to reply, If these differences be understood to be matters of doctrine, they would embrace points of faith; but if, as is believed, they are matters of opinion, they would not.'
"Q. 4. 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 28th Article of our Standards?'
"Mr. Carey prefaced his answer to this question by reading an extract from 'Taylor's Holy Living and Dying,' as expressive of his own views, which extract could not by us be taken down; and then more briefly gave his answer in the following words, recorded by Dr. Anthon, and acceded to by Mr. Carey.
"Ans. 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. 5. 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?'
"Ans., taken down by Dr. Smith. 'I consider it an funwarrantable act of discipline;' Mr. Carey subsequently preferring to substitute the word 'severe instead of unwarrantable.'
"Q. 6. 'On which Church do you believe the sin of schism rests in consequence of the English Reformation ?— the Church of England, and by consequence, the Protestant Episcopal Church of this country, or upon the Church of Rome?'
"Dr. Seabury objected to this question being put, on the ground that it was an historical question. Mr. Carey, under advisement, answered, 'It is an historical question.'
"The Bishop having decided that the question ought to be answered, Mr. Carey, in substance, replied, that in some respects schism rests on both sides.' 'He considered both churches in communion with the Church of Christ.'
"Q. 7. 'Is the Romish doctrine of Purgatory in any respects maintained by our Standards.'
"The Bishop here asked Dr. Anthon what view he entertained on the doctrine of Purgatory, as held by the Church of Rome; to which Dr. Anthon replied, 'that, with due respect to the chair, he
was not under examination.' The question being then addressed to Mr. Carey, he was understood to say, in reply, 'that he considered our Standards as condemning the doctrine popularly held to be the Roman doctrine.'
"Q. 8. Is there any countenance given in the doctrinal Standards of our Church for the idea that the departed can be benefited by the prayers of the faithful, or by the administration of the Holy Communion? And is not that idea condemned by Article 31 of our Church?' "As far as Mr. Carey's answer could be ascertained, it was to this effect : ' that he supposed that idea was not condemned in that Article; his opinion being, that the language of the Article was popular language, pointed at a popular opinion which was held against the Church of Rome.'
Q. 9. Do you, or do you not, fault the Church of Rome in pronouncing, as she does, the Books Apocryphal Holy Scripture?'
Ans. I do not, either to myself or any one else, attempt to prove a doctrine out of the Apocrypha.' 'The Holy Spirit may have spoken by the Apocrypha, and the Homily asserts the same thing.' The question was here renewed, and pressed in several different shapes by the Bishop. The answer elicited by his last question was to the following effect: 'I would not fault the Church of Rome for reading the Apocryphu for proof of doc. trine.'
"Q. 10. By Dr. Smith. 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?'
"Ans. "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.' Upon the question put by the Bishop, What those points were?' Mr. Carey was understood by us, to instance, among other points, the closer conformity to the ancient liturgies.' 'He held that, in a popular view, our liturgy was better than theirs in omitting metaphysical distinctions, and also in being in a tongue understood by the people.'
"Q. 11. What construction do you put upon the promise of conformity to the doctrines, discipline, and worship of the Protestant Episcopal Church?'
"Ans. He did not consider (as we understood Mr. Carey to say) the Arti
cles as binding our consciences in points of faith,' and read a passage from 'White's Memoirs of the Church,' (Convention of 1801), which he considered as maintaining the same opinion.
"He does not feel himself obliged to give his ex animo assent to the Thirty. nine Articles, as the assent is given in the English Church.'
"Previous to our putting to Mr. Carey our twelfth question, the following questions were put by us to him :
"Q. 1. Can you subscribe to the 22nd Article?'
"Ans. I could subscribe to it, considering it as referring to the popular doctrine of the Romish Church.'
"It was here objected to the candidate by Dr. Smith, that the change made in the Article disproved the idea of its referring to the popular doctrine. As the Article stood in the reign of Edward VI., it was styled 'the doctrine of the schoolmen;' but after its endorsement by the Council of Trent, it was styled the Romish doctrine."
"Touching the doctrine of the invocation of saints, mentioned in this Article, the question was asked by Dr. Smith, whether that doctrine had any warrant in Scripture.' He replied that it had not.' The question was farther put by Dr. S., whether it were right to introduce or observe the practice without any warranty from Scripture;' to which it was replied that it was not forbidden.' The examination was farther prosecuted by the Bishop, when the candidate, in reply to a question touching the lawfulness of the practice, was understood to say that he did not fault the Church of Rome, provided the invocation was confined to the 'ora pro nobis,' or intercessory form.'
"Q. 2. How do you understand the last clause of the 19th Article, viz., As the Church of Hierusalem, &c., have erred, so also the Church of Rome hath erred, not only in their living and manner of ceremonies, but also in matters of faith?'' The answer was substantially this: I understand the Article in an historical sense-as referring to the past, and not to the present state of the Church of Rome.' The last section of the Article he considered as directed against the abiding infallibility of the Church of Rome, as a particular branch of the Church universal.' The question was then pressed in another form, viz., 'Do you consider the Church of Rome now to be in error in matters of faith?'
"Dr. Seabury here repeatedly objected to the candidate's answering, and he accordingly declined answering. The
question, however, being pressed, and the Bishop deciding that it must be answered, the final reply was in the following words, taken down by Dr. Anthon : "Ans. 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.'
66 Q. 3. Do you, or do you not, receive the Articles of the Creed of Pius IV. ?'
"Ans. So far as they are repetitions of the decrees of the Council of Trent, I receive them.' These words were taken down by Dr. Anthon."
"Dr. M'Vickar, with some reservations, expressed himself as favourably impressed by Mr. Carey's examination. Dr. Berrian also expressed himself favourably. Dr. Anthon said that the results of the examination, to his mind, were altogether unfavourable to Mr. Carey; and added, that he might deem it necessary to make a communication the following day to the Bishop. Dr. Smith stated that, on the whole, the examination had been most unsatisfactory to himself, and most unfavourable to the candidate; and that, while he was not prepared to say that he would do so, he thought it probable that he would farther communicate with the Bishop tomorrow. Dr. Seabury said that he should esteem it a privilege to present the candidate for orders, as he had sustained his ordeal most nobly. Dr. Anthon then added, that, in the whole course of his ministry, he had never attended an examination conducted in a manner so painful, and in which so many impediments were thrown in the way of his arriving at a definite knowledge of the candidate's views. Messrs. Haight, Higbee, and Price expressed themselves satisfied; the latter gentleman was understood to say, that although he had objected to presenting the graduating class for orders, yet he now felt free to express his willingness to present Mr. Carey. The Bishop then said that he was not prepared to say that he would ordain Mr. Carey; that he should form his determination with care, and supplication for Divine guidance; and that, when formed, whatever it might be, it should be carried out, without regard to consequences-which he was willing to leave with God, and trusted that he should receive a kind construction of his motives."
"The effect of the examination as a whole, was the confirmation, strong and sure, of our [Dr. Smith and Dr. Anthon's] previous impressions as to his unsoundness; and how could it be otherwise? He deemed the differences be
CHRIST. OBSERV. No. 69.
tween us and Rome such as embraced no points of faith-doubted whether the Church of Rome or the Anglican Church were the more pure. - considered the Reformation from Rome unjustifiable, and followed by grievous and lamentable results, though not without others of an opposite character faulted not the Church of Rome for reading the Apocrypha for proof of doctrine-did not consider that we were bound to receive the Thirty-nine Articles of our Church in any close and rigid construction of the same-declared that he knew not how to answer the question, which had been repeatedly asked, Whether he considered the Church of Rome to be now in error in matters of faith?-was not prepared to pronounce the doctrine of transubstantiation an absurd or impossible doctrine; and regarded it, as taught within the last hundred years, as possibly meaning no more than we mean by the doctrine of the real presence-did not object to the Romish doctrine of purgatory, as defined by the Council of Trent. Thus far for the NEGATIVES: now for the AFFIRMATIVES. He believed that the state of the soul, after death, was one in which it could be benefited by the prayers of the faithful, and the sacrifice of the altar-regarded the denial of the cup to the laity as a severe act of discipline only-justified the invocation of saints-in one instance declared that he did not deny, but would not positively affirm, the decrees of the Council of Trent; in another, that he received the articles of the Creed of Pius IV. so far as they were repetitions of the decrees of that Council ! And what were the explanations, the record of which was deemed by one presbyter so important, and which weighed, it seems, with our diocesan, and six of our brethren, against such a mass of evidence as that presented in the examination, and here summed
up? To our apprehension, they
amounted virtually to nothing.
Insulated passages from individual authorities were quoted, the bearing of which was, in our view, questionable, and which, even if pertinent, could never sustain the candidate against the standards of the Church; nice, metaphysical, and cobweb distinctions-' distinctions without a difference'-scholastic subtleties, in connexion with the advice of a subtle polemic-refusal, under advisement, to answer plain and legitimate questions; and the answering them, at last, with ingenious and most guarded reserve! Could these have availed-ought they to have availed, against the direct and overwhelming evidence in the case? Were we not borne out, then, in protesting against the ordination of the candidate?"
The two protesting clergymen renewed their reclamation in a letter to the Bishop; which proved unavailing. As the last step, upon the Bishop's making the solemn appeal in the Ordination Service, "If there be any of you who knoweth any impediment or notable crime in any of these persons about to be presented to be ordered deacons, let him come forth in the name of God, and shew what the crime and impediment is;" Dr. Smith and Dr. Anthon stood forth and read a paper stating that there was "a most serious and weighty impediment" in Mr. Carey's holding sentiments not conformable to the doctrines of the Protestant Episcopal Church in these United States of America, and in too close conformity with those of the Church of Rome." The Bishop replied that "the accusation had been fully investigated, with the valuable aid and counsel of six of the worthiest, wisest, and most learned of the presbyters of this diocese;" and that it was decided there was no just cause for rejecting the candidate's application; and he was accordingly ordained.
We feel bold to express our conviction that no English or Irish Bishop would have ordained a young man after such a statement of opinions opposed in spirit and in letter to the Articles and other documents of our own and all Protestant churches, Episcopal or otherwise. But our Western friends seem to assert their favourite maxim of "going a-head" in ecclesiastical as well as secular matters; so that we have now, for the first time, as we fully believe, the case of a young man deliberately ordained after such an exposition of faith as
the above in a Bishop's examination-room. The circumstance has caused (as the French say) a 66 great sensation among the bishops, clergy, and laity of the United States Episcopal Church; and will probably lead to very painful consequences. Dr. Onderdonk has now ruled, that, in his diocese, the doctrines and opinions expressed in Tract 90, which the University of Oxford, and the Bishop of Oxford, concurred in condemning, shall be no impediment to the reception of holy orders. This step is an advance even upon Bishop Doane of New Jersey; and will lead to discussions both within and without the pale of the United States Episcopal Church, which may go far towards unhinging its whole framework. Is it that Satan, the adversary of souls, seeing the auspicious revival of piety and zeal which have, by God's blessing, gladdened the English, the Irish, and the American Episcopal churches, has continued, by his subtle machinations, to infuse false doctrines and to engender strife, in order to cripple their godly energies? If such be his machinations, we lament to add that they have not been without mischievous effect: and from indications which have reached us, we fear that this affair of Mr. Carey is but "the beginning of the end." May a merciful providence-may the allwise and gracious Head of his church I watch over this vine which he has planted in the far west, and protect its tender buds and hopeful blossoms, from the wasting blights and storms which threaten them.
MESMERISM SATANIC OR THE GIFT OF GOD, &c.
1. Mesmerism the Gift of God; in reply to "Satanic Agency and Mesmerism," a Sermon said to have been preached by the Rev. HUGH M'NEILE: in a letter to a friend by a BENEFICED CLERGY
2. The Great Physician; or, the connexion of diseases and remedies with the truths of Revelation. By JOHN GARDNER, Surgeon.
A FEW years ago most persons
influence, by which one human being can affect another in modes most extraordinary, without the intervention of the senses or the imagination; and he was duped by some artful mesmeric patients, who pretended to respond to his magical control.
We calmly say duped;
for Mr. Wakley laid bare some of the impositions, to the conviction of unprejudiced observers, though unhappily not of Dr. Elliotson. On one occasion, when the modern Mesmer set forth the pre-eminent virtues of nickel in exciting mesmeric action, and allowed Mr. Wakley to try its effects upon an artful young woman, whom the Doctor was wont to exhibit as his most susceptible magnetic patient, the wary coroner secretly slipped the wonder-working talisman into a friend's hand, and substituted for it a piece of Queen Victoria's vulgar copper coin, which it was found answered quite as well, the patient supposing it to be Dr. Elliotson's magical metal. On the other hand, when nickel was used, but the patient was made to suppose it to be a piece of lead, she refrained from
Dr. Elliotson, upon being privately informed of the substitution of the copper for the nickel, would not admit the fact till Dr. Wakley produced his witness, with the talisman in his pocket; and he then endeavoured to account for the circumstance by saying that the nickel must have rapidly impregnated Mr. Wakley's hand, or the piece of lead or copper, with its peculiar virtues; for it was impossible that the hopeful young lady could have exhibited such characteristic indications of mesmeric influence if she had not been duly nickelised. This is philosophy among men who account God's word foolishness.
But our object is not so much to detail the origin and growth of this unphilosophical delusion, as