ministers and elders. This mode of speaking is surely not Episcopal. The same historian tells us, that Waldo, (from whose name that of the Waldenses is said to be derived,) 66 upon his departure from "Lyons, came into Dauphiny, and thence, having erected some "churches, and laid the foundation of those which have been mi"raculously preserved there to this day, he went into Languedoc, "and left some notable pastors there, who set up and governed "those churches, which afterwards cost the pope and his clergy so "much pains to destroy." Now it is certain that Waldo himself was no prelate; neither can we suppose that the pastors whom he left in Languedoc were prelates. Yet these pastors set up and governed churches. In perfect coincidence with all this, is the testimony of Gillis, in his History of the Waldenses. This writer, like Perrin, was one of the pastors of that people, and therefore perfectly qualified to give an account of their peculiar doctrines and practices. He speaks familiarly of the pastors of their churches, in the Presbyterian style. He says, "These pastors, in their ordinary assem"blies, came together and held a synod once a year, and most "generally in the month of September, at which they examined "the students, and admitted them to the ministry." Chap. I. p. 12. In their Confession of Faith, which Gillis inserts at length, in the "addition" to his work, p. 490, and which he expressly informs us was the confession of the ancient as well as the modern Waldenses; in Article 31, they declare, " It is necessary for the "church to have pastors esteemed sufficiently learned, and exemplary in their conduct, as well to preach God's word, as to admi"nister the sacraments, and watch over the sheep of Jesus Christ, "together with the elders and deacons, according to the rules of "good and holy church discipline, and the practice of the primi❝tive church." Here is better testimony than Thuanus or Walsingham, than Mosheim or Allix. Here are the declarations of the Waldenses themselves. And I will venture to say that there is not a syllable in the above extracts which has the most distant appearance of * Part 1 Book 11. Chap. 9. prelacy. On the contrary, they all bear the most decisive indications of Presbyterian parity. But besides this, Bellarmine acknowledges that the Waldenses denied the divine right of prelacy. Medina, in the council of Trent, declared that the Waldenses were of the same mind with Aerius on this subject. And the learned Episcopalian, professor Raignolds, in his famous letter to Sir Francis Knollys, asserts, that the Waldenses, and all others who had distinguished themselves as opposers of popery, and as reformers of the church, for 500 years, prior to the seventeenth century, had uniformly taught that "all pastors, whether styled bishops CC or priests, have one and the same authority by the word of "God." In Dr. Bowden also insists, in opposition to my statement, that the Bohemian churches were episcopal, in his sense of the word. this, however, as in the former case, he is contradicted by the most unquestionable testimony. In their Confession, there is not only a profound silence as to any distinction or difference of degrees among pastors; but, what is more decisive, they place ordination, and excommunication, as well as preaching the gospel, not in the power of one, but in the hands of presbyters and brethren of the ministry. And in their Book of Order, or Discipline, p. 20, we have the following express words. "It is true, the Bohemians have "certain bishops, or superintendents, who are conspicuous for age "and gifts; and chosen by the suffrages of all the ministers, for "the keeping of order, and to see that all the rest do their office. "Four, or five, or six such have they, as need requires; and each "of these has his diocese. But the dignity of these above other "ministers, is not founded in the prerogative of honours or reve"nues, but of labours and cares for others. And, according to "the apostles' rules, a presbyter and bishop are one and the same thing." "But it is to be presumed that Dr. Bowden will not doubt a moment longer, when he is told, that even his own favourite highchurch historian, Dr. Heylin, explicitly grants that the Bohemian churches were not episcopal, either in principle or practice. In his History of the Presbyterians, p. 409, 410. there is the following decisive passage. "About the year 1400, we find a strong 66 party to be raised amongst the Bohemians, against some super❝stitions and corruptions in the church of Rome; occasioned, as "some say, by reading the works of Wickliffe, and by the diligence "of Picardus, a Fleming, as is affirmed by some others, from whom "they had the name of Picards. Cruelly persecuted by their own "kings, and publicly condemned in the council of Constance, they "continued constant, notwithstanding, to their own persuasions. "In this condition they remained till the preaching of Luther, and "the receiving of the Augustan Confession in most parts of the "empire, which gave them so much confidence as to purge them"selves from all former calumnies, by publishing a declaration of "their faith and doctrine; which they presented at Vienna to the "Archduke Ferdinand, about ten years before chosen king of Bo"hemia; together with a large apology prefixed before it. By "which Confession it appears that they ascribe no power to the "civil magistrate in the concernments of the church; that they "had fallen upon a way of ordaining ministers amongst themselves, without recourse unto the bishop, or any such superior "officer as a superintendent; and finally, that they retained the ። use of excommunication, and other ecclesiastical censures, for "the chastising of irregular and scandalous persons." As to the observations made by Dr. Bowden, and his clerical friend in Philadelphia, on the testimony of Thuanus, Enæas Sylvius, and Walsingham, respecting the Waldenses and the Bohemian Brethren, I consider them as unworthy of notice. It would be easy for me to show, that these writers really say what I ascribe to them; and that they are entitled to credit. It would also be easy to produce passages from Alphonso de Castro, Voetius, and other learned writers, who, in the most positive terms, give the same account of those celebrated witnesses for the truth. But it is unnecessary. The authority of their own historians and confessions of faith is paramount to every other.* Among the few gratifications which this controversy has afforded me, none of the least is, that it has led me to peruse, with particular care, the history and the confessions of the Waldenses, who are allowed, by all pro. testants, to have been the purest part of the Christian church during the dark ages. Their coincidence with our church, in almost all respects, both of doctrine and discipline, is really remarkable. Our Baptist brethren, among other advocates of error, have sometimes ventured to assert, with confidence, that the Waldenses were anti-pædobaptists. I take for granted that those who have made this assertion, never read the ancient confessions of that celebrated people. In those confessions, and other authentic documents concerning them, the pædobaptist doctrine is unequivocally and strongly maintained. Dr. Bowden does not deny that Wickliffe held the doctrine of Presbyterian parity. But in order to diminish the weight of this fact, he endeavours to destroy the character of that illustrious reformer, by repeating the accusations brought against him by some virulent papists. I must say that I expected more prudence, if not more consistency, from this gentleman. It is really astonishing to find a protestant divine so often obliged to avail himself of the arguments, the cavils, and even the violence of papists, in order to support his cause. But his attempt, in this instance, is as impotent as it is reprehensible. Wickliffe will continue to be hailed as the "morning star of the reformation," and noured as an eminent "witness for the truth," and that by the great body of learned and pious Episcopalians, as well as others,when the slanders with which his character has been aspersed shall have " gone the way of all such mis-begotten things." With respect to Tyndal, Lambert, Barnes, Hamilton, and other distinguished martyrs for the truth in Great Britain, before the time of Cranmer, it is notorious that they, with one voice, maintained the doctrine of Presbyterian parity. Dr. Bowden, indeed, denies this, with respect to Tyndal and Lambert, or rather endeavours to put an unnatural gloss on their language. It really surprises me that such an attempt should be made by a gentleman who professes to be acquainted with the history of the reformation in Britain. But Dr. Bowden seems to be most of all offended at my having asserted, that archbishop Cranmer, and the fathers of the reformation in England, generally, believed that bishop and presbyter were the same, by divine right; and that ministerial parity was the doctrine and practice of the primitive church. He denies this position with warmth and confidence; and insists that those venerable reformers were firm believers in the divine institution of prelacy. Mr. How takes the same ground, with even greater warmth, and with much acrimonious remark. On this point, my observations shall be few and short. Dr. Bowden, in many of his statements concerning the reformation in England, avowedly relies on the authority of Heylin and Collier. With respect to these writers, I think proper, once for all, to declare, that I place no reliance either on the candour or the truth of their representations. And of course that no alleged fact, which does not rest on some other testimony, will be acknow ledged by me. The learned and able editors of the Christian Observer, who, as was before observed, are warm Episcopalians, speak of these writers in the following manner: "Mr. Daubeny," say they," in many of his references to historical facts, and in the ❝ deductions made from them, professedly follows authorities of a "highly exceptionable nature. Every reader who is conversant "with the present subject of debate, knows how forcibly this "remark applies to the writings of Collier and Heylin. We "speak from a careful comparison of what they have written, with "the sources from which they drew, or might have drawn their "materials-when we affirm, that in all matters immediately "bearing upon the Calvinistic controversy, they are most unsafe "guides. Of Dr. Heylin, in particular, we have no hesitation in "saying, that we do not know of any author, ancient or modern, in "whose pages is to be found a larger portion of false reasonings, "incorrect statements, and palpable misrepresentations."* Bishop Burnet, in the preface to his History of the Reformation, declares, "Either Heylin was very ill informed, or very much led by his "passions; and being wrought on by most violent prejudices, 66 against some that were concerned in that time, delivers many "things in such a manner, and so strangely, that one would think "he had been secretly set on to it by those of the church of Rome. "In one thing he is not to be excused, that he never vouched any "authority for what he writ, which is not to be forgiven any who "write of transactions beyond their own time, and deliver new "things not known before. So that upon what grounds he wrote "a great deal of his book we can only conjecture, and many in "their guesses are not apt to be very favourable to him." Of the same wretched bigot and calumniator, Bishop Barlow uses this strong language" Peter Heylin's angry, and (to our church and truth) scandalous writings."+ I had stated that the Bishop's Book composed by Cranmer, and several other prelates, in 1537, and subscribed by nineteen bishops, and the lower house of convocation, expressly declared that in the New Testament, there is no mention made of any other ecclesiastical orders" than deacons or ministers, and presbyters or bishops." * Christ. Obs. Vol. III. p. 429. |
