Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

departing from it, on the principle of necessity alone. We cannot procure the Episcopal hierarchy without going to the church of Rome. Give us that hierarchy, purged from the supremacy and infallibility of the Pope, and we will embrace it as the richest blessing that heaven can bestow. Si qui erunt. Should any be found, so lost to all sense of duty, as to refuse obedience to it, we will disown them. There is no anathema of which they will not be deserving. We will subject them to the utmost severity of discipline. Such is the plain language of Calvin. But further" Hence we learn that here was not any equality among the ministers of the church, but that one was placed over the rest in authority and counsel."* Here the divine institution of superior and inferior grades of ministers is asserted in unqualified terms. Again." We deny not that we want a discipline such as the ancient church had; but can they (the papists) with justice accuse us of having overthrown the discipline of the church who are the only men who have destroyed it from the foundation, and who, when we endeavored to restore the same, have hitherto opposed that work? But as for doctrine, we are willing to be tried by the ancient church."+ What, now, sir, becomes of your rash assertion! Did Calvin believe in ministerial parity as the scriptural, and primitive doctrine? He expressly acknowledges the original institution of subordinate grades of ministers. He expressly acknowledges that his discipline was not that of the ancient church. He expressly speaks of his endeavors to restore the primitive discipline; ascribing their failure to Papal opposition.

But still further Calvin seriously proposed and endeav ored to unite Protestants into one body; making Episcopal government the bond of union. "They (the foreign Protestants) took such great joy and satisfaction in this good king, (Edward VI.) and his establishment of religion, that Bullinga, Calvin, and others, in a letter to him, offered to make him their defender, and to have Bishops in their churches, as there were in England; with a tender of their service to assist and unite together."

See how the followers of this distinguished reformer un derstood him! "Calvin himself honored all Bishops that

* Commentary on Titus, I, 5.

† Ad Sadoletum Responsio. Joan. Calv. Trac. p. 125. # Strype's memorials of Cranmer, p. 207.

were not subjects of the Pope, &c. such as were the PRELATES OF ENGLAND, CRANMER Archbishop of Canterbury, HOOPER, and others, We confess that the foundation of their charge is good and lawful, ESTABLISHED BY THE APOSTLES, according to the coMMAND OF CHRIST, in the churches which they founded." Mons. Daille.*

See how Beza, the colleague and successor of Calvin, expresses himself! "If there be any (which you shall hardly persuade me to believe) who reject the whole order of Episcopacy, God forbid that any man in his wits should assent to the madness of such men." In the same treatise, Beza speaks of the Episcopacy of the church of England as a singular blessing of God; praying that she may ever enjoy it. You represent Calvin and Beza as merely expressing an opinion that the Episcopal constitution of the church of England ought to be borne with until something more scriptural could be adopted. Most gross mistatement! These reformers lamented their want of Episcopacy as a great defect; they excused the defect as arising from necessity; they declared those, who would not reverently obey the Episcopal constitution, to be deserving of all anathemas; they acknowledged that the primitive and Apostolic institution of the ministry consisted of subordinate orders; they admitted, expressly, that their discipline was not that of the ancient church; they made repeated endeavors to obtain the Episcopal constitution, ascribing the failure of those endeavors to papal intrigue, and violence.

You ask "Did Calvin or Beza ever say, even in their most unguarded moments, that they considered Prelacy as an institution of Christ, or his Apostles?" Yes. "Hence we learn that there was not any equality among the ministers of the church, but that one was placed over the rest in authority and counsel." Comm. on Titus, ch. i. 5. "We deny not that we want a discipline such as the ancient church had." "When we endeavored to restore the ancient discipline, the Papists opposed that work." Ad Sadoletum responsio. You go on "Did they ever express a preference of this form of government to the Presbyterian form? Did they, in short, ever do more than acknowledge that Episcopacy might, in some cases, be useful and lawful?"+ Strange questions! They have been fully answered. I in

*Bingham's French churches' Apology for church of England. Letters, p. 235.

troduce them, here, merely, to shew the reader how boldly you can assert, and with what contempt, even in the sacred business of stating facts, you can treat the most express and unequivocal testimony.

I deny not that Calvin and Beza held, afterwards, a language more presbyterial. Their opinions and declarations were, for some time, however, strong and decided in favor of Episcopacy. At length, indeed, schism, and the pride of sect, either changed their sentiments or prevented their principles. In fact, the conduct of these men, in relation to the ministry of the Christian church, presents one of the most melancholy examples of the prevalence of pride, over virtue, and of the unhappy influence of schism, in blinding and infatuating the mind, that the history of human frailty has ever recorded.

To proceed-The Episcopal succession was preserved in Denmark and Sweden; the Popish Bishops, in those countries, being obliged, by the civil government, to submit to the reformation. Thus, wherever a choice existed, Episcopacy was retained. And would it have been retained if Presby. tery had been considered as the primitive and scriptural form of the ministry? No-It would have been ranked with the papal supremacy. It would have been denounced as the accursed offspring of ecclesiastical ambition.*

The other Lutheran churches, not being able, as they declared, to preserve the Episcopal succession, preserved, nevertheless, the forms of Episcopal government.

The testimony of the reformed church of Holland has been already spoken of in the account given of the proceed, ings of the synod of Dort. A century had elapsed since Luther began to preach! The reverence for Episcopacy, nevertheless, continues. So much so that the members of the synod lament the Presbyterial constitution of their society as a great defect; praying to God that it be speedily removed. This, too, in reply to a declaration of the English Bishops placing the Episcopal constitution of the ministry on the ground of DIVINE RIGHT. Will you, still, insult your readers by telling them that the whole body of the reformers, with scarcely any exceptions, believed in presbytery as the only scriptural system?" It is really difficult to know how to deal with a man who talks with such unprecedented rashness.

* Such is the language in which you express yourself-Let. p. 11,

I might pass on to the testimony of the French Protestant church, and occupy many sheets with extracts from the writings of its distinguished divines. So, too, of the church of Geneva. Nothing would be easier than to fill a volume in this way. But it is not my purpose to enter into so much detail.

The state of the fact is, shortly, this. When the reformation commenced the Episcopal constitution of the church was universal; there being no spot, even, in the Christian world, where it did not prevail. Episcopacy was never ranked, by the reformers, among the corruptions, or innovations, of the papacy. While they directed an unceasing effort against the latter, they treated the former with distinguished respect. Nay-They recognized it as an institution primitive and Apostolic; acknowledging, without reserve, their obligation to conform to it. Where the reformation was carried on with regularity, so as to leave its advocates at liberty to pursue an unembarrassed course, they adopted the Episcopal constitution; considering it as the original and scriptural form of the ministry. Such was the case in England, in Denmark, and in Sweden. Where the reformation was commenced by inferior officers, in opposition to the government under which they lived, and to the higher order of the clergy, Episcopacy was departed from, because it could not be procured.* But while the substance was

* Monsieur Du Bose, a divine of the French reformed church, speaking of the departure from Episcopacy, says-" Necessity hath obliged us to it; because reformation having been begun in this kingdom by the people, and by inferior churchmen, the places of Bishops remained filled with men of a contrary religion, so that we are constrained to content ourselves with ministers and elders as well as we could." Durell's "View," &c. Such was the universal language at the time of the reformation. Where Episcopacy could be retained, it was retained; and if the substance was not to be had, the form, nevertheless, was adhered to. And where, to use the apology of the reformers, necessity obliged to a total departure, it was still admitted to be an Apostolic institution, and the departure excused on the ground that nothing better could be done. Thus the Episcopal succession is preserved in the churches of England and Ireland; in the Episcopal church of Scotland; in the Lutheran churches of Sweden and Denmark; in the church of the united Brethren or Moravians; in some Protestant churches of Bohemia ; and in the Protestant Episcopal church of this country. The Lutheran churches of Germany are Episcopal in form, although they are destitute of the Episcopal succession. The reformers of Geneva, of the French protestant church, of the reform

[ocr errors]

lost, the form, in many instances was retained; and, to what quarter soever, we turn our attention, we find the reformers lamenting their sad estate in being left without the Episcopal constitution; pleading necessity as their excuse; praying that such necessity be speedily removed; declaring that they would use every effort to produce a change; and even going so far as to devise plans for the purpose of effecting it.

On the allowance made, by Episcopal divines, for cases of necessity, much mistatement and false reasoning have been founded.

Some suppose that where ordination by Bishops cannot, possibly, be had, ordination by Presbyters is valid.

Others think that Presbyterial ordination can never be valid, and that the only effect, which a case of necessity can have, is, in excusing the practice, in inducing God to dispense with the irregularity, and to accompany with his bles

ed church of Holland lamented deeply the necessity of their situa tion which precluded them from obtaining the Episcopal constitution. This, certainly, presents a strong view of the subject. The reformers, universally, either retaining Episcopacy; or deploring its loss. Did they, nevertheless, believe in ministerial parity as the doctrine of scripture, and of the primitive church? Had such been their opinion, they would have denounced Bishops as they denounced the Pope. They would have never ceased to represent Episcopacy as a corruption of apostolic simplicity, and as an invention of the adversary to destroy the church of Christ. Such, in later days, is the language of the Westminster divines; of the associate reformed church; in truth, of almost all Presbyterian societies, and of the greatest part of Presbyterian writers. Doct. M. himself adopts the same style. Ah! what a difference between these men and the original reformers! And what a difference, in some of the reformers, between their language at an earlier, and at a later period! The solution is easy. Irregular conduct, apologized for, at first, connects itself, at length, with human pride. This overbearing principle of our nature soon vanquishes all opposition: forcing even reason to acknowledge herself subdued.--Thus, the example being set, it is, at first, excused; then justified; and, finally, clothed with a divine sanction. How solemn a lesson to beware of innovating upon divine institutions! It cam scarcely fail of being followed by the most pernicious consequences. And the simple reason is that man hates to acknowledge his errors; his pride being much more likely to satisfy his understanding, than his understanding to subdue his pride. In saying this, I trust I give no just cause of offence. Great and good men are liable to the influence of which I speak; some of them, indeed, hav ing actually fallen under it.

« AnteriorContinuar »