« НазадПродовжити »
exhibit himself a spectacle of pity on the other. By attempting, indeed, to prove the charge, he will only inculpate himself more grievously. His only prudent as well as honourable course is that suggested to him by the Bishop of Chester, to repent and retract the calumny. “I rely with confidence,” says the Bishop, “upon your candour and love of truth for an open retractation of this unsupported calumny. You will, I am persuaded, exemplify the maxim of St. Francis of Sales, which you have quoted with approbation, that “a good Christian is never outdone in good manners.’” P. 16.
The Bishop afterwards notices the injustice done to Protestants throughout Mr. Butler's Letter, in imputing to them exclusively the use of injurious words in the conduct of the controversy with the Roman Catholics, and produces very satisfactory evidence to the contrary from a tract by the Rev. T. Baddeley, which is now distributed with great assiduity amongst the humbler classes of Protestants, (in Lancashire particularly) by the Clergy of the Church of Rome. And if the specimens which this tract affords are not sufficient for Mr. Butler, he is referred by the Bishop to the writings of that exemplary author, printer, and publisher, whom, without any disrespect, but rather in comE. to his three-fold qualifications, we may entitle the three
eaded Geryon of his party, Mr. William Eusebius Andrews.
This letter of the Bishop of Chester being simply a remonstrance to Mr. Butler, on his charge of prevarication brought against the Church of England, his Lordship does not immediately direct his attention to Mr. Butler's arguments. But there is one point which he notices as furnishing “a clue to the refutation of a great many of them.” It is the reference made by Mr. B. to the creed of Pius IV, as that summary of faith to which the Roman Catholics publicly give their assent without testriction or qualification. The last clause but one of which creed is as follows:
“I also profess and undoubtedly receive all other things delivered, defined and declared, by the sacred canons, and general councils, and particularly by the holy Council of Trent; and likewise I also condemn, reject, and anathematize, all things contrary thereto, and all heresies whatsoever condemned and anathematized by the Church.” P. 20.
This clause, it is urged by the Bishop, involves the Roman Catholics in the belief of the contradictory doctrines taught b
different councils, since the disciple of their Church is evidently pledged by it, to all things declared by the other general councils, as well as by that of Trent; and also requires of them, as true Roman Catholics, an acknowledgment of the power of their Church to depose kings and extirpate heretics— both these rights having been claimed for her, one by the Council of Trent, and the other by the fourth Lateran
Council. So that if Mr. B. “remains true to his own rule, he must avow his belief in some heretical as well as uncharitable doctrines.” . - -
Here, then, is another strait in which Mr. Butler has brought himself, and from which we rather think he will find it no less difficult to extricate himself than from his unfortunate prevaricating dilemma.
In concluding our remarks, we must express our concurrence with the Bishop of Chester in regarding Mr. B. as worthy of our thanks for having vented a calumny, which so plainly evinces the unalterably intolerant spirit of the Roman Catholic religion. At the same time, a more honourable return of thanks is due to his Lordship, for having interposed the shield of his own candour and dignity against the shafts of the common enemy of all Protestants; and especially from ourselves, for his protection of the great body of his humbler brethren in the ministry from a most unjustifiable and atrocious impeachment of their religious and moral character.
CORRESPONDENCE OF BISHOP ANDREWES AND DU MOULIN ON EPISCOPACY.
(Continued from page 174.)
DU MOULIN’S THIRD LETTER."
To the Right Reverend and worthy Prelate, the Lord Bishop of
I HAve received, my Lord, your letters, at once enriched with various erudition, full of good matter, and expressive of your kindness. For though you shew some emotion, yet the abundant mildness which you infuse into your reproofs, encourages me to hope, that no occasion has been furnished for lessening your regard for me, and that you will receive my plea with a willing ear. To me, indeed, it is both useful and honourable to be instructed o you : controversy with a man of your dignity and learning is what I have not the folly to desire. I did not even write with any view of drawing from you an answer: it is sufficient for me if you give my letter a favourable reception. Nor are my letters of such importance that they should give you any trouble, or call off your attention from weightier affairs. If, then, I have erred in any point, I am much indebted to my error for
'* The following words have been incorrectly printed in the previous letters:–Pontifi' cate, at p. 105, line 1, should have been Pontifical.—For immediately subsequent, p. 172 ine 7, read, next.-Instead of letter, p. 173, line 25, read, later ons.
VOL. VII, NO, IV. - k k
eliciting from you a reply so learned, so exact, not to be estimated by gold, and which will ever be to me, as long as I live, a most precious kelpinAtov. o seems to me, however, that you have not precisely understood my meaning in some passages of my first letter: you will excuse me, therefore, if I now endeavour to explain myself more at length. I said, first, that in the New Testament the names, Bishop and Presbyter, are used indiscriminately. Secondly, that the order of Bishop and of Presbyter is the same. Thirdly, that the distinction between Bishop and Presbyter is derived from ecclesiastical, and not from divine right. You wish that I had not said these things. You also adduce much to prove the contrary—and certainly with learning and accuracy; but a large portion of it is not applicable to me. To come to particulars. You do not deny my assertion that the names Bishop and Presbyter are indiscriminately used in the New Testament:—but to what does this tend you say. You suppose me forsooth tacitly to insinuate by this, that the things signified are not distinct; since no one would attack the name unless he were ill affected to the thing. You add, that in those very passages in which the Fathers inform us, that the terms were used in the same sense, they immediately apply a remedy, and proceed to say that afterwards a different practice obtained, and that the titles, like the functions, were, and continued to be, distinct. On this point I shall easily convince you that I did not intend to take an o: advantage of the undefined use of the words, for the purpose of confounding the functions. For in the same passage I apply immediately the same remedy against misinterpretation which, you justly observe, is applied by the Fathers, and subjoin the following sentence: “Immediately after the time of the Apostles, or even in their time, as ecclesiastical history testifies, it was settled that in one city one of the Presbyters should be entitled Bishop, and have pre-eminence over his colleagues, to avoid the confusion which is apt to arise from equality; and all Churches every where received this form of government.” These are precisely the words which I there added, and which entirely do away your suspicion. And is it probable that I should be ill affected to your Order, of which I never have spoken otherwise than honourably knowing as I do, that the reformation of the English Church and the subversion of Popery were owing, next to God and the King, chiefly to the learning and exertions of Bishops; some of whom were even crowned with martyrdom, and subscribed the Gospel with their blood—whose writings we possess, whose actions we remember, and whose zeal was in no wise inferior to that of the most eminent servants of God, whom France or Germany has produced. To deny this would argue a depraved folly, or an invidious detraction from the glory of God, or a dark stupidity groping in the day-light. I am desirous, therefore, that your suspicion should be banished; especially when I consider that Calvin and Beza, in whom some opiniated men pretend to find countenance for their own obstinacy, have written many epistles to Prelates of England, addressing them as faithful servants of God and deserving well of the Church. Nor have I the effrontery to think of condemning by my voice, those luminaries of the primitive Church, Ignatius, Polycarp, Cyprian, Augustine, Chrysostom, Basil, and the two Gregories, Nyssen and Nazianzen, all of them Bishops, as men not duly appointed, or as usurpers of an illicit function. With me the venerable antiquity of the first ages will ever have greater influence, than the upstart institution of any man. I come now to the second subject of your censure: I have asserted the Order of Bishop and Presbyter to be the same. You, on the contrary, think the Episcopal Order distinct from that of Presbyter, and support your opinion by many quotations from the Fathers who speak of the Ordination of Bishops. I dispute it not—it is the voice of antiquity. And, although the Roman Pontifical abstains from this expression, yet the ancient Roman Pontiffs made use of it. Leo I., in his eightyninth Epistle, which is addressed to the Bishops of the district of Vienna, directs that an improperly ordained Bishop be displaced; and frequently employs the same word in the course of his Epistle. But between order and degree you thus distinguish—that degree implies merely superiority, but that order is a power to perform some special act, and therefore that every order is a degree, but that the converse is not true. Justly.—For although many pay no regard to these distinctions of terms, yet it is best to use words with their signification defined, in order that things really differing may also be distinguished in name. But this is nothing against my argument. You ought to have considered the adversaries with whom I am concerned. I am arguing against the Papists, who hold seven orders— Ostiaries, Readers, Exorcists, Acolyths, Sub-deacons, Deacons, Priests, and with whom the Episcopal Order or Character is not accounted distinct from that of Priest or Presbyter. Arguing with these, could I use any other terms than those which are received by them 7 Could I treat with them of the Episcopal Order, which they do not acknowledge, or inveigh against them for not distinguishing the Episcopal Order from that of Presbyter, when even our own Churches make no such distinction? To have done this would have been to dispute rather with our own Church than with the Church of Rome. Why, again, should I have insisted so minutely on the distinction of the words, when it appears that every order is a degree, and that of Deacon is called a degree by St. Paul, (1 Tim. iii. 13.) and that a Bishop cannot be displaced from his order without falling from his degree ?' I pray you consider fully what I have said: “Every Bishop is a Presbyter and a Priest of the body of Christ; and of these the Church of Rome makes but one order." It surely is evident that I here assert, not what ought to be believed, but what is held by the Church of Rome. But here I must notice something which may produce a scruple. It is acknowledged by all parties that every Bishop is a Presbyter. Now a Presbyter is not a Deacon: wherefore a Bishop must differ from a Presbyter in some other respect than that in which a Presbyter differs from a Deacon. But a Presbyter differs from a Deacon in respect of k k 2
his order; wherefore it would appear that a Bishop does not differ from a Presbyter in order. Nor can I entirely assent to your definition: that order is a power to perform some special act. For a power to perform a special act is given to many unaccompanied with any order; as in the case of those who are delegated out of order to perform certain actions. Again: you maintain that there is no difference in the order of Archbishop and Bishop. But we find that an Archbishop possesses power to perform some special acts; as, for instance, to convoke a Synod, and to discharge other functions to which Bishops are not competent, and which under the papal system are not permitted even to Archbishops until they have received the archiepiscopal pall from the Pope. I submit it to your wise judgment whether it does not hence appear, that power to perform a special act may be conferred by means of degree alone without diversity of order. The third point remains—my assertion, that Episcopacy is derived from the most ancient ecclesiastical, and not from divine, right. You, on the other side, contend that it is of divine right, and to prove this, you produce numerous instances of Bishops who have received the Episcopate from the Apostles themselves—Mark, Timothy, Titus, Clement, Polycarp, and St. James himself, Bishop of Jerusalem. And you cite abundant testimony from the Fathers to that effect, with learning throughout and the evidence of ancient history. But what follows 2 If, say you, Bishops were constituted by the Apostles, it is evident that the Episcopal Order is of Apostolic and therefore of divine right. This is, indeed, to storm the citadel of the cause. But your axiom, that all matters of apostolic right are also of divine right, appears to me, permit me to say, to be subject to some exceptions. There were many points of ecclesiastical polity instituted by the Apostles, which the Church of England itself proclaims not to be of divine right by not observing them. St. Paul, in 1. Tim. v. directs that Deaconesses be appointed in the Church—this custom has long been obsolete. In 1 Cor. xiv. he directs that, in the same assembly, at the same hour, three or four shall prophesy, that is, as Ambrose understands the word, shall expound the Word of God, and that the rest shall judge of what they deliver—this practice also has ceased for a length of time. The apostolic precept concerning abstinence from blood and things strangled, was observed by the ancient Church for many centuries; of which we have the following testimony: Tertullian, Apologet. c. 9.—the Synod of Gangra, can. 2.-the Trullan Synod, can. 67. Of the same thing there is also frequent mention in the Councils of Worms and Arles. But Augustine (lib. 32. adv. Faust. c. 18.) says, that this observance was commonly disregarded among Christians, and that those who retained any scruples about it were derided b others. There is a precept, not of the Apostles, but of Christ himself, directing that the dust of the feet be shaken off as a testimony against those who reject the Gospel. But if, in the present age, any one were introducing Christianity among the Tartars or Chinese, would he be
bound to observe this practice against those who heeded not his doctrine?