صور الصفحة
PDF
النشر الإلكتروني

feem unequal, not to allow the fame force where there is the fame evidence; and therefore our church hath wifely and truly determined, that fince the Apostles' times there have been three orders, of bishops, priests, and deacons, and in a regular well-conftituted church are to continue to the world's end."*

"Episcopal government (fays Mr. CHILLINGWORTH, at the end of his demonstration) is acknowledged to have been received univerfally in the church presently after the times of the Apostles; between the Apoftles and this presently after there was not time enough for, nor poffibility of, fo great an alteration; and therefore there was no fuch alteration as was pretended." From whence it follows, "that epifcopacy, being confeffed to be fo ancient and catholic, must be alfo granted to be Apoftolic." E. D. "For fo great a change as between prefbyterian government and epifcopal could not poffibly have prevailed all the world over in a little time. Had epifcopal government been an aberration from, or a corruption of, the government left in the churches by the Apostles, it had been very strange that it should have been received in any one church fo fuddenly, or that it should have prevailed in all for many

Q.

Bishop STILLINGFLEET's Ordination Sermon, preached in 1684-5

ages after. Variaffe debuerat error ecclefiarum; quod autem apud omnes unum eft, non eft erratum, fed traditum.' Had the churches erred, they would have varied; what, therefore, is one and the fame among all, came not fure by error but by tradition. Thus TERTULLIAN argues, very probably, from the confent of the churches of his time; and that, in matter of opinion, much more subject to unobserved alteration. But that in the frame and fubftance of the neceffary government of the church, a thing always in use and practice, there should be fo fudden a change as prefently after the Apostles' times, and fo univerfally as received in all churches; this is clearly impoffible."*

The quotation which you have brought from Mr. GISBORNE, in page 12, begs the question, but proves nothing; the conclufion drawn from it must, therefore, be weighed accordingly. But to the queftion fubjoined to it, "where fhall a pure protestant church be found with bishops coming in fucceffion from the Apostles to the prefent day?" it may be answered, that a pure proteftant church, fo far as the conftitution of it is concerned, with bishops coming in fucceffion from the time of the Apostles to the present

*Vide CHILLINGWORTH'S Works, fol. p. 322.

day, is to be found in the church of England, in the epifcopal church of Scotland, and in that of Ireland. In STOWE'S Survey of London are to be found all the names of the bishops of London, from his time upwards, as far as our history reaches; and from STOWE'S time down to the present period the epifcopal fucceffion is easy to be ascertained. The objections against episcopal fucceffion, from the cafe of Archbishop SECKER, and the nonjurors, do not establish the point for which they have been brought. Schifmatical baptifm, admitting the baptifm of the Archbishop to have been of that kind, does not invalidate episcopal fucceffion. A bishop, duly confecrated, is a regular bishop; confequently, the facraments administered by him, and by thofe commiffioned by him, are valid facraments. Rules are made for general cafes; and whoever treats extreme cafes as if they were ordinary, or from one exception attempts to set aside a general conclufion, will ever involve himself in difficulties. Contending, as I do, on ground that cannot be fhaken, that if the baptifm of the excellent archbishop was, as you fuppose it to have been, it neither invalidated his epifcopal character with which he was regularly invested, nor of course any of the confecrations derived through him; I can

not but conclude it to be fufficiently proved, that there is no flaw in the epifcopal character of the respectable men now invested with it.

any of

In answer to what you fay, page 14, .. that in England, at this prefent hour, there are, or at least were within these few years, three claffes of bishops, all claiming what each thinks the best right to the fame bishopricks;" I have yet to add fome brief remarks.

The nonjurors, it is to be obferved, never did confecrate a bishop over any diocefe. On the contrary, they purposely abftained from fo doing, that no fresh difficulties might arife, to prevent the clofing of what they confidered to be a lamentable fchifm. In 1691 Archbishop SANCROFT was deprived. On the 9th of February, 1691-2, he appointed LLOYD, the deprived bishop of Norwich, his fubftitute, to tranfact all business incumbent on him, and with full powers to confecrate other bifhops. About a year after this event, the Archbishop recommended Dr. GEORGE HICKES, the deprived dean of Worcester, to be a bishop, with the fuffragan title of Thetford; as LLOYD of Norwich did Mr. THOMAS WAGSTAFFE, with the title of Ipfwich. In fubfequent confecrations, even fuffragan titles were, I believe,

among the nonjurors laid afide. Among the Papifts I understand they are still retained. But how do these uneffential circumftances, admitting them all in their utmost extent, affect the epifcopal character of any or of all these several claimants; or in any degree invalidate the epifcopal functions, which they respectively perform among thofe over whom they prefide? Are you to be reminded, (for I cannot suppose it neceffary to inform you) that what you call bishopricks, as now constituted and settled by the law of the land, relate chiefly, if not folely, to the temporal character of a bishop? The spiritual character of a bishop, and his particular local jurifdiction, have been, at different times and under different circumstances, separated from each other, without the confequent destruction of either. A man, at least as to all the fpiritual part of his character, the only part that our argument calls on us now to confider, may be a true bishop; whether he has or has not any particular district, over which he is authorifed to prefide. Such, in a theological sense, I conceive the nonjuring bifhops were, and Popish bifhops in this country actually are. The latter being also what is called titular bishops, may, if you please, be an abfurdity; but certainly it does not invalidate

« السابقةمتابعة »