Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

founded on divine appointment, but only as resting on the basis of expediency. In short, there is complete evidence, that the church of England stands alone in making bishops an order of clergy superior to presbyters; nay, that every other Protestant church on earth, has formally disclaimed the divine right of diocesan Episcopacy, and pronounced it to be a mere human invention.

Now is it credible, I ask, that a body of such men as the early reformers; men who to great learning, added the most exalted piety, zeal, and devotedness to the truth; men who counted not their lives dear to them that they might maintain what appeared to them the purity of faith and order in the church; is it credible that such men, living in different countries, influenced by different prejudices, all educated under the system of diocesan bishops, and all surrounded with ministers and people still warmly attached to this system: is it credible, I say, that such men, thus situated, should, when left free to examine the Scriptures and the early fathers on this subject, with almost perfect unanimity, agree in pronouncing prelacy to be a human invention, and ministerial parity to be the doctrine of Scripture, if the testimony in favour of this opinion had not been perfectly clear and conclusive? It is not credible. We may suppose Calvin and Beza to have embraced their opinions on this subject from prejudice, arising out of their situation; but that Luther, Melancthon, Ecolampadius, Bullinger, Bucer, Peter Martyr, and all the leading reformers on the continent of Europe, differently situated, and with different views on other points, should embrace the same opinion; that Cranmer, Grindal, and other prelates in Britain, though partaking in the highest honours of an Episcopal sys

tem, should entirely concur in that opinion; that all this illustrious body of men, scattered through the whole Protestant world, should agree in declaring ministerial parity to be the doctrine of Scripture and of the primitive church; and all this from mere prejudice, in direct opposition to Scripture and early history, is one of the most incredible suppositions that can be formed by the human mind.

I repeat again, the question before us is not to be decided by human opinion, or by the number or respectability of the advocates which appear on either side. We are not to be governed by the judgment of reformers, or by the practice of the churches which they planted. But so far as these considerations have any weight, they are unquestionably and strongly on the side of Presbyterian parity.

CHAPTER VIII.

CONCESSIONS OF EMINENT EPISCOPALIANS.

THE Concessions of opponents always carry with them peculiar weight. The opinions of Presbyterians, in this controversy, like the testimony of all men in their own favour, will of course be received with suspicion and allowance. But when decided and zealous Episcopalians; men who stand high as the defenders and the ornaments of Episcopacy; men whose prejudice and interest were all enlisted in the support of the Episcopal system; when these are found to have conceded the main points in this controversy, they give us advantages of the most decisive kind. Some instances of this sort, I shall now proceed to state.

When I exhibit Episcopal divines as making concessions in favour of our doctrine, none certainly will understand me as meaning to assert, that they were Presbyterians in principle. So far from this, the chief value of their concessions consists in being made by decided friends of Episcopacy. Neither will you understand me to assert, that none of these writers say any thing, in other parts of their works, inconsistent with these concessions. Few men who write and publish much are at all times so guarded as never to be inconsistent with themselves. 't is enough for me to know what language they employed, when they undertook professedly to state their opinions on the subject before us, and when they were called upon

by every motive to write with caution and precision. The reader will find most of these writers, differing among themselves; some taking higher ground, aud others lower. For this he is doubtless prepared, after being informed that there are three classes of Episcopalians, as stated in a former chapter.

Some of the concessions which might with propriety be here introduced, have been already exhibited in various parts of the foregoing chapters. It has been stated, that Mr. Dodwell frankly acknowledges that bishops, as an order superior to presbyters, are not to be found in the New Testament; that such an order had no existence till the beginning of the second century; that presbyters were the highest ecclesiastical officers left in commission by the apostles. On the other hand, Dr. Hammond, perhaps the ablest advocate of prelacy that ever lived, warmly contends, that in the days of the apostles there were none but bishops; the second grade of ministers, now styled presbyters, not having been appointed till after the close of the canon of Scripture. Now, if neither of these great men could find both bishops and presbyters, as different orders, in the New Testament; however ingeniously they endeavour to extricate themselves from the difficulty, it will amount, in the opinion of all the impartial, to a fundamental concession. In like manner you have seen, that the arguments drawn from the Episcopal character of Timothy and Titus; from the model of the Jewish priesthood; and from the angels of the Asiatic churches, have been formally abandoned, and pronounced to be of no value, by some of the ablest champions of Episcopacy. The same might be proved with respect to all the arguments which are derived rom Scripture in support of the Episcopal cause.

They have almost all of them been given up in turn by distinguished prelatists. But let us pass on to some more general concessions.

The Papists, before as well as since the reformation, have been the warmest advocates for prelacy that the church ever knew. Yet it would be easy to show, by a series of quotations, that many of the most learned men of that denomination, of different periods and nations, have held, and explicitly taught, that bishops and presbyters were the same in the primitive church; and that the difference between them, though deemed both useful and necessary, is only a human institution. But instead of a long list of authorities to establish this point, I shall content myself with producing four, the first two from Great Britain, and the others from the continent of Europe.

The judgment of the church of England on this subject, in the times of popery, we have in the canons of Elfrick, in the year 990, to Bishop Wolfin, in which bishops and presbyters are declared to be of the same order. To the same amount is the judgment of Anselme, archbishop of Canterbury, who died about the year 1109, and who was perhaps the most learned man of the age in which he lived. He explicitly tells us, that, "by the apostolic institution, all presbyters are bishops." See his Commentary on Titus and Philippians.

In the canon law we find the following decisive declaration "Bishop and presbyter were the same in the primitive church; presbyter being the name of the person's age, and bishop of his office. But there heing many of these in every church, they determined among themselves, for the preventing of schism, that one should be elected by themselves to be set ove

« AnteriorContinuar »