Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

learning, talents, and zeal. I must then suppose that you have adopted those unanswerable "reasonings and authorities," otherwise you are not true to your cause. But seriously, Sir, it does not appear to me, nor to any Episcopalian that I have heard give an opinion upon your book, that you have said any thing that is unanswerable. I cannot but flatter myself that every thing you have said has been pretty well sifted, and that the result is a vast deal more chaff than wheat.

You next quote Bishop Burnet as a friend to parity of ministers; or, at least, that imparity is a matter left to human prudence." I acknowledge (says he) Bishop and Presbyter to be one and the same office, and so plead for no new office-bearer in the church.".

››Whatever Burnet may have been when he was a Professor in the college of Glasgow, at which time he wrote his vindication of the church of Scotland, certain it is, that he was afterwards an Episcopalian upon the ground of Apostolic and divine right. In examining the principles of the Reformers, I have produced several quotations which expressly maintain that doctrine. I will now give another from the Bishop's exposition of the thirty-nine Articles.* "Christ appointed a succession of pastors in different ranks, to be continued in his church for the work of the gospel, and that as the

Page 284.

Apostles settled the churches, they appointed different orders of Bishops, Priests and Deacons." There certainly is nothing for you to say after this. That Burnet, however, admitted a case of necessity is undoubtedly true. This has always been the salvo: The church is imperfect without Bishops; but where they cannot be had, men must submit to the privation, and do as well as they can, for necessity, says Burnet, has no law.**

That Tillotson, whom you introduce to our notice, was a very moderate churchman, is pretty well understood. If he had not been a sort of neutral man, it is probable that he would not have been nominated to the See of Canterbury by king William, who, you know, was a rigid Presbyterian. Tillotson was, I believe, as low with respect to the regimen, as the doctrines of the church. He was strongly suspected of Arianism and Universalism; and men of such principles care very little about church order, any farther than as it contributes to decency.

That Wake, Bingham, Prettyman, and Gisborne, assert the Apostolic institution of Episcopacy, the extracts you have given us fully prove. Bingham and Wake, particularly the former, are among its ablest advocates. Yet these four divines do not

Since I sent my manuscript to the press, I have found another testimony from Burnet. He says, "Whereas by divine institution, all Bishops were equal, both in order and jurisdiction," &c. Preface to Vind. Ord. Ch. of England.

consider it as essential to the very being of a church. When Christians can have it, they ought to have it; but when they cannot, necessity frees them from all blame. This appears to be the more common opinion of Episcopalians.

Lord King, whom you quote, wrote a book to prove that Congregational Episcopacy is an Apostolical institution. He was answered by Slater, a Presbyter of the church of England; and so completely was he refuted, that Lord King himself became sensible of his error, and acknowledged Slater's victory. This has always been confidently asserted. However this may be, it is certain, that his Lordship never made any reply, nor has any other person done it for him, that I have ever heard of. Indeed, Congregational Episcopacy has so little to be said in its favour, that no learning, nor ingenuity can give it the smallest degree of plausibility. It was never thought of till some years after the Reformation; and its weakness and novelty have been so completely exposed by Stilling fleet, Maurice, Bingham, and Slater, that it is astonishing to me that it should have been revived by Dr. Campbell, and maintained by yourself with only one point of difference. But, as I have already observed, the controversy, every now and then, must be revived; and our opponents, not being deficient in sagacity, see very clearly, that it will not do to take notice of the several triumphant answers that have been given, at different times, to their hypothesis. VOL. II.

M

You have given us, Sir, two or three extracts from a Bishop Crofts, whose name is so obscure, that not one of our clergy in this city have ever heard of him. All I know about him, is contained in a prefatory discourse to an examination of Burnet's Exposition of the thirty-nine Articles. The author says, "There was a pamphlet in King Charles the second's reign, called Naked Truth, that made a great deal of noise for a while, because it was supposed to be written by a Bishop, with whose station and character, the scope and design of it did very ill agree; which was to undermine the church, throw down its walls, and lay all open. What was principally aimed at, and zealously contended for, was liberty of thought and opinion; scarce allowing it to be fit to tye men up to any sort of doctrine by creeds or subscriptions; much less to confine men to any particular constitution, be it that of Episcopacy, or any other whatever."

"Whatever prospect the author of that book might have at the time he published it, the opposition which the project of a comprehension scored out in it, met with, at that time, quashed all hopes of it during that reign."

..It appears from this account, that Crofts was a man of very comprehensive principles, an enemy to all creeds and subscriptions, and disposed to let into the church, men of all principles, both as to doctrine and government. If doctrine was not regarded by such a man, certainly government

would not be. He was answered, I find, by Bishop Burnet, and some others.

As to Willet, Holland, Whitaker, Forbes, and Moreton, as I have not access to their works, I cannot say any thing to the quotations you have given us. They may be correct or not. I will admit them to be perfectly so. And then I ask, what do you infer from them? It must be either something, or nothing. Nothing, you will hardly avow. What then is the something? Is it, that it is prohable Episcopacy is a human institution, because these five men (or twenty times five, if you please) thought so? Of that inference, I know you would be ashamed. Well then, if it adds nothing to the probability of the opinion, the inference is, precisely-nothing. Thus, Sir, you have thrown away your time, and have made me throw away mine.

2

I have now shown, I think, with uncontrollable evidence, that the Reformers of the church of Eng land, and all her greatest and best writers, on the subject of ecclesiastical regimen, maintain the Apostolical and Divine right of Episcopacy. Yet, at the same time I acknowledge, that they do not consider it as essential to the very being of a church; but after making this concession, they insist upon it as necessary to a well organized, sound, and perfectly Apostolical church; and that a departure from it where it is, is an unjustifiable schism; except when a church imposes upon its members sinful terms of communion.

« AnteriorContinuar »