Page images
PDF
EPUB

Walo Messalinus of the celebrated Presbyterian; and cannot undertake with confidence to say that Dr. B. has misrepresented him also; but I strongly suspect this to be the case, and shall certainly require, after all that I have seen, better evidence of the contrary than his assertion. The learned Chamier and Du Moulin are also quoted by Dr. B. as making still more pointed and important concessions. But as he has not chosen to inform us where these concessions are to be found, I consider myself as liberated from all further obligation to notice them.* I am verily persuaded, however, that he has been deceived by the representation of others, and that he entirely mistakes the opinions of those writers.

After carefully reviewing all that Dr. Bowden has said on the rise and progress of prelacy, I only think it necessary to offer and illustrate a single additional remark. It is this. That the indiscriminate application of the titles bishop and presbyter, during the first and second, and occasionally, as Dr. B. himself acknowledges, in the third century, furnishes, in my view, a most powerful argument in support of ministerial parity, and that in a point of light which I have not hitherto stated. The use of terms is to express distinct ideas. The use of official titles is to express in single terms official rank and powers. Now it is conceded by Dr. Bowden, and by Episcopalians generally, that the titles bishop and presbyter were applied indiscriminately, in the days of the apostles, to designate the same order of clergy; and that both are most frequently applied, in the New Testament, to what they call the second order, or the pastors of single churches. They contend that the apostles themselves were, strictly speaking, the prelates of the apostolic church; and that the title of bishop was, in fact, then applied precisely as the Presbyterians now apply it, to every minister of the gospel who had a pastoral charge. This they all explicitly grant. But they insist that, in process of time, as the apostles died, the title of apostle was laid aside, and that of bishop began to take its place, and to be restricted to an order of clergy superior to pastors, and succeeding to the apostolic pre-eminence.

* It is really not a little extraordinary that Dr. Bowden, after all his promises to the contrary, should so frequently be guilty of this conduct.

But does not all this carry improbability on the very face of it? Is it likely that the inspired apostles, or men immediately taught by them, when the churches, for more than half a century, had been accustomed to employ a certain title to designate a particular class of ecclesiastical officers, would have adopted that very title to designate a totally different class, and that when all the riches of language were open to their selection? Can it be supposed, above all, that this would have been done in a case in which, if we believe our episcopal brethren, the distinction of orders has always been essential to the very being of the church? It cannot be supposed. Had their object been to produce confusion of ideas, and perpetual inconvenience in the expression of them, they could scarcely have adopted a more direct method to attain their end.

But, on the other hand, supposing prelacy not to have been an apostolic institution, but to have been brought in by human ambition, and that in a gradual and almost insensible manner, as we contend; then nothing is more natural than this indiscriminate use of official titles in early times. The most effectual way to disguise a new office, and to prevent the mass of the people from suspecting it of either encroachment or innovation, was to give it an old name. When, therefore, one of the pastors, in a city or district, began to assume pre-eminent honours and powers over his colleagues, instead of taking some new and high sounding title, it was an obvious dictate of policy to content himself with a title which was common to his brethren. This policy was accordingly adopted. The plain title of bishop, which was before given to all pastors, and to which the people had been long accustomed, was still the only one which the aspiring individual ventured to employ. But it obviously would not have served the purpose either of convenience or ambition to continue this community of title when a new order had arisen in the church. Some alteration of ecclesiastical language was necessary for the sake of being understood; and it was equally necessary that the alteration should be such as not to alarm or offend. The consequence was, that the ordinary pastors gradually dropped the title of bishop, leaving it to be the appropriate title of those who had succeeded in raising themselves above the rest, and consenting to be called presbyters or elders only.

When, therefore, our episcopal brethren grant, as they all do, that the titles of bishop and presbyter, in the days of the apostles,

were interchangeably applied to the same class of officers, and those ordinary pastors of the church; when they grant, as they also universally do, that the former of these titles was gradually disused by ordinary pastors and appropriated to prelates; and when they further concede, as they do with one voice, that the process of dropping this title on the part of the former, and appropriating it on the part of the latter, took up a period of more than a hundred years after the death of the apostles ;—I think no candid man can hesitate to conclude, that the necessity of this change in ecclesiastical titles, arose from the introduction of an order of officers before unknown in the church.

What confirms this reasoning is, that we certainly know facts of a similar kind to have taken place very early. Dr. Bowden himself asserts that although metropolitans existed, in fact, in the second century, yet that the use of this distinctive title, was but little known before the council of Nice, in the fourth century. It is certain that the title of pope was frequently applied to pastors in general, as early as the third century. We find Cyprian repeatedly called by this title, in the epistles addressed to him. It was not until a considerable time afterwards, that the Roman pontiff succeeded in appropriating to himself the title of THE pope, by way of eminence. These examples are exactly in point. A policy which we know to have been adopted in other cases, we have every reason to believe was adopted in that under consideration. In short, our doctrine concerning the rise and progress of prelacy is not only, in itself, natural and probable; but it is so remarkably confirmed by early history, and especially by a variety of minute facts incidentally recorded, that my only surprise is, how any candid mind can withstand the evidence in its favour.

30

LETTER X.

MISCELLANEOUS REMARKS.-CONCLUSION.

CHRISTIAN BRETHREN,

I HAVE now nearly completed my review of such parts of Dr. Bowden's volumes, and of Mr. How's pamphlet, as appear to me worthy of notice. I have, indeed, passed over many passages in both, which might justly have been made the objects of severe criticism; but which I considered as either of too little importance to demand animadversion, or so obviously erroneous, as to leave no unprejudiced reader of the least discernment in danger of being led astray by them. It only remains that I make a few miscellaneous remarks, and then close a controversy which I unfeignedly regret that there should ever have been a necessity of begin ning.

It was my intention to add another letter on the concessions of Episcopalians, for the purpose of vindicating and establishing what I had before advanced under this head ;* and also of presenting a

Dr. Bowden has made an insinuation with regard to one of the episcopal concessions cited in my work, of which it is proper to take notice. He says he has examined Jewel's Defence of his Apology, and cannot find the passage which I profess to quote from that work, in my seventh letter. He therefore infers that I have either taken the quotation at second hand, on the authority of some person who has blundered in the bu siness; or that my references are to a different edition from that which he has consulted. I can assure this learned professor, who has, it must be confessed, much reason to plume himself on the fairness and accuracy

1

number of additional concessions from the works of eminent episcopal writers. To fulfil the latter purpose, I had made a large collection of extracts from the works of Bishop Jewel, Bishop Andrews, Bishop Morton, Bishop Hall, Bishop Taylor, Bishop Burnet, Bishop Warburton, Dr. Jorton, and several other prelates and divines, all containing sentiments very different from those of Dr. Bowden and Mr. How, and making concessions of the most decisive kind. But having already drawn out this work to a length greatly beyond my original design, I am constrained to suppress the proposed letter, and to content myself with the episcopal concessions already laid before the public.

But really, independent of the fear of trespassing on the patience of my readers, there is little use in collecting testimony for such opponents as Dr. Bowden and Mr. How. However abundant and pointed it may be, they appear to find no difficulty in persuading themselves that it is of no value. The unceremonious manner in which Dr. B. rejects testimony is amusing. The testimony of Archbishop Grindal is set aside on the ground of his being "somewhat fanatically inclined," and "lax in his discipline." The testimony of Wickliffe, on the ground of his being supposed to have embraced error as to other points. The testimony of Dr. Raignolds is rejected, because, though a regular member of the Church of England, he was a Puritan at heart. The testimony of Archbishop Usher is pronounced to consist only in a scholastic distinction, which dull Presbyterians have not perceived; the difference between him and other Episcopalians being only verbal." That of Bishop Stillingfleet, upon the ground of the immaturity of a juvenile mind, the visionary speculations of which were corrected by age. That of Archbishop Tillotson, because he was a very moderate churchman,"-" a sort of neutral man," and withal "suspected of Arianism and Universalism." That of Bishop Croft, because his name is so obscure that not one of the Episcopal clergy of this city ever heard of him before; and because

[ocr errors]

of his quotations, that I possess a copy of the work from which my citation was made; that my edition is, like that which he professes to have consulted with so much care, (a folio, printed in 1570,) and that I am ready, whenever he will please to favour me with a visit, to show him the very words which I have quoted, in the very page referred to as containing them.

« EelmineJätka »