« ZurückWeiter »
work, was closed, and indeed introductory to.the application to Parliament pending, by wbich the controversy was renewed. Mr. Dyer's Treatise against Subscription appeared many years afterwards. Some respectable clergymen were so im-. pressed with the impropriety of subscription, that they resigned their livings, and published reasons for their conduct. Among these, the names of Robertson, Jebb, Matty, Lindsey, and Disney, will be long remembered. Several others, indeed, resigned preferments held by the same tenure for similar reasons, without giving such reasons to the public, as Mr. Tyrwhitt, Mr. Wakefield, &c. and it has been said that many more reluctantly continue in their conformity, under the contest between their convictions and their inability from various causes to extricate themselves, but who will never repeat their subscriptions. The Rev. T. Lindsey, however, withdrew from the church, because he objected to the Trinity; professing to worship the Father only as one true God, to the exclusion of Jesus Christ and of the Holy Spirit, as objects of worship. See “ The Book of Common Prayer Reformed,” used at Essex Street chapel; a new edition of which has been lately published.
Attempts have been made to amend thae articles, the liturgy, and some things which related to the internal government of the church of England. Dr. Watson, the present bishop of Landaff, wrote
a Letter to the Archbishop of Canterbury, in the year 1781, in which he argues for the propriety of a more equal distribution of salary among the different orders of the clergy. But this plan, projected by the worthy prelate, together with the preceding proposals for reform by the authors of the Free and Candid Disquisitions, and of the Appeal to Reason and Candour, have been suffered to sink into oblivion. The church of England has produced a succession of eminent men. Among its ornaments are to be reckoned Usher, Hall, Taylor, Stilling fleet, Cudworth, Wilkins, Tillotson, Cumberland, Barrow, Burnet, Pearson, Hammond, Whitby, Clarke, Hoadley, Jortin, Secker, Horne, Lowth, and Warburton. In the Appendix to Mosheim's Ecclesiastical History, will be found a circumstantial account of the correspondence carried on in the year 1718, between Dr. William Wake, Archbishop of Canterbury, and certain doctors of the Sorbonne of Paris, relative to a project of union between the English and Gallican churches. Hooker's Ecclesiastical Polity, Pearson on the Creed, Burnet on the Thirty-nine Articles, and Bishop Prettyman's Elements of Theology*, are deemed the best defences of Episcopacy.
* Mr. William Friend, the celebrated mathematician, late of Cambridge, published a series of Letters to this prelate, by way of reply to certain passages in his Elements of Theology
In Scotland, and other parts, since the revolution, there existed a species of Episcopalians called Non-jurors, because being inflexibly attached to the Stuarts, who were then driven from the throne, they refused to take the oath of allegiance to the Brunswick family. On the decease, however, of the Pretender, whom the Non-jurors styled Prince Charles, and who died at Rome, 1788, they complied with the requisition of government, and now the distinction is abolished. An account of them will be found in Bishop Skinner's Ecclesiastical History.
The Reformation in England, began under the auspices of Henry the Eighth, was greatly checked by Mary, who proceeded like a fury to re-establish Popery. In her sanguinary reign were burnt one archbishop, four bishops, twentyone divines, eight gentlemen, one hundred and eighty-four artificers, and one hundred husbandmen, servants, and labourers; twenty-six wives, twenty widows, and nine virgins, two boys, and two infants !!! On the death of Mary, 1558, Elizabeth ascended the throne, repealed the laws which had been established in favour of Popery, and restored her supremacy. In these matters she wonderfully succeeded, since of 9,400 beneficed clergymen, about 120 only refused to comply with the Reformaiion. The establishinent of Protestantism in England underwent various fluc
tuations, till the glorious revolution under William, in 1688, placed it on a firm and permanent foundation. The family of the Stuarts were bitter enemies to the civil and religious liberties of their subjects, and violently attached to Popery. Dr. Goldsmith tells us, in his History of England, that James the Second, in endeavouring to convert his subjects to the Popish religion, descended .so low as Colonel Kirke. But that daring and unprincipled soldier assured his majesty that he was pre-engaged, for that if ever he did change his religion, he had promised the Emperor of Morocco, when quartered at Tangier, to turn Mahometan!
Mr. Gisborne, in his excellent Familiar Survey of the Christian Religion, has the following remarks on Church government :-" In every community or body of men, civil or ecclesiastical, some species of government is requisite for the good of the whole. Otherwise all is irregularity, and interminable confusion. How then in any particular country is the Christian church to be governed? Every separate congregation,' answers the Independent, 'is a sovereign church, amenable to no extrinsic jurisdiction, and entitled to no jurisdiction over other churches." " That mode of government,' replies the Presbyterian, 'is calculated to destroy union, cooperation, and concord among Christians. Al
congregations within the same, which agree in doctrine, ought to be under the general superintendence of a representative assembly, composed of their ministers and delegates. "Such a representative assembly,' returns the Episcopalian, • wants vigour and dispatch, and is perpetually open to tumult, and partiality, and faction. Di. vide the country into dioceses, and station a bishop in each, armed with sufficient authority, and restrained by adequate laws from abusing it. Such was the apostolic government of the church -such, perhaps,' he adds, was the government enjoined on succeeding ages.' .Away,' cries the Papist, with these treasonable discus. sions. The pope, the successor of St. Peter, is by divine right the only source of ecclesiastical power, the universal monarch of the universal church!'
r Writing as I am to Protestants, I may pags by the claim of the successor of St. Peter. But the concluding words of the Episcopalian are of prime importance. If Christ or his apostles enjoined the uniform adoption of Episcopacy, the question is decided. Did Christ then or his apostles deliver or indirectly convey such an injunction? This topic has been greatly controverted. The fact appears to be this--that our Saviour did not pronounce upon the subject; that the apo3- . tles uniformly established a bishop in every dis