Page images
PDF
EPUB

it is apparent, that the former were protected by the edicts issued in favour of the Christians, while the latter were proscrib. ed by those issued for the expulsion of the Jews. Now as the security which the Nazarenes were enabled to give, consisted not merely in a renunciation of the secular objects of the Jews, but in the avowal of the spiritual views of the Christians; we deduce from this distinction a demonstrative proof of their opinions respecting the person of Christ. For, in the acknowledgment of Jesus as God, who was set down at the right hand of the Father, whose kingdom was not of this world, but "whose throne, as that of God, was for ever and ever,” consisted the security in which the Romans rested, that nothing was to be apprehended from the secular views of the Christians. With this acknowledgment Pilate expressed himself content previously to the destruction of Jerusalem *; and in it Domitian acquiesced, after it was reduced to a ruin under Vespasian and Titus +. As this acknowledgment, however, which was required, as a security, by the Romans, is a plenary confession of the Divinity of Christ, it places beyond a doubt, that the Christians, whether converts from the Jews or Gentiles, to whom the Romans afforded protection, in the reigns of Hadrian, Antoninus Pius, and Marcus Aurelius, were orthodox in their opinion of the Divinity of our Lord.

The application of this argument to the confirmation of Bishop Horsley's hypothesis, relative to the existence of orthodox Hebrew believers, in the Church of Ælia, which arose and flourished under those emperors, is now sufficiently obvious. As a synagogue of Judaisers, according to St. Epiphanius, existed at Jerusalem; it must consequently have consisted of oxthodox Hebrews, agreeably to what St. Jerome asserts: as no other Judaisers could have participated in the immunities which were granted by the Romans to the Christians, and denied by them to the Jews. Making allowance, therefore, for an inconsiderable error in point of circumstance, the assertion of Bishop Horsley is demonstrably true in point of fact, and supported by the testimony of Epiphanius and Jerome, to whom he appealed. For thus it is apparent, that an orthodox Church of Hebrew believers existed at Elia subsequent to the times of Hadrian; and, consequently, as the representative of the primitive Church of Jerusalem, they evince the faith of the first Christians to have embraced the catholic doctrine of the Divinity of Christ.

The length to which we have been drawn out in making these

* Luke xxiii. 1-4. John xviii. 37, 38. Conf. Tert. Apolog. cap. v. p. 6.

Euseb, Hist. Eccl, Lib. III. cap. xx. p, 110. 1. 16-24.

remarks,

[ocr errors]

remarks, has left us little room to enlarge as fully upon the tract of Mr. Robert Aspland as we could desire. In the various subjects through which it wanders, though there is little but the grossest errour aud misrepresentation, there is little however which merits a reply. The most offensive leavings of the controversial filth, which in two centuries has been accumulated by the dissenters, is here collected with zeal, and discharged in liberal vollies against the establishment. The Orders of the Ministry are treated as a solemn mockery; the Version of the Scriptures as a texture of errour; the legal Rights of the Church as a profane usurpation; the Form of Worship as a superstitious pageant; and the Confession of Faith as absurd and unscriptural form. It cannot be necessary, at this day, to repel the imbecile endeavours of the obscure and empty declaimer before us, in a formal chastisement of his calumnies, and refutation of his mistakes: when those old calumniators, Pierce and Towgood, who have been a thousand times refuted, are assigned their contributions to his aspersions, little remains behind which deserves a reply. The bare statement of his undertaking must sufficiently disclose the nature and extent of his talents and acquirements, and prove him a deserving member of that school whose pretences have been already characterised, in estimating the labours of Mr. Belsham and Mr. Jones. This charge we shall substantiate by a review of some of the most laboured and plausible parts of his work; which are devoted to an attack upon the Ministry, and to a formal defence of Blasphemy, Heresy, and Schism. As preliminary, however, to this undertaking, we subjoin the following remark, which, while it demonstrates the author's heart to be as wicked as his head is weak, will go a considerable way towards substantiating the charges which we have already urged.

"The Book of Sports, was a Declaration to encourage_recreations and sports upon the Lord's day, put out by James I. 1618. It was designed as a blow upon the Puritans, or Dissenters of the day; it being rightly judged, that there was no surer way of keeping conventicles empty, or of exposing them to danger, than by filling the ale-houses. This Declaration, which was at first drawn up by a Bishop, Moreton, was in 1633, at the instigation of Archbishop Laud, republished by the misguided Charles I. with a further injunction, that it should be made public " by order from the bishops, through all the parish churches of their several dioceses respectively." P. 17.

Shameless as is the calumny of two centuries old, which is thus charitably revived, it is not even honestly reported. The first part of this allegation is manufactured out of the following representation of Mr. James Pierce of notorious memory. Quoting Paget's Defence of Church Government, he observes, According

i

[ocr errors]

According to him, Dr. Moreton, Bishop of Chester, framed the directions for the first liberty granted to sports on the Lord's Day; at the same time he so eagerly prosecuted the nonconfirmists for ceremonies*." It is needless to observe how much truth should be expected from a witness so "eager" to do justice to the party which opposed him: yet even on the testimony of such a witness it appears that the " Declaration to encourage sports," was merely a "liberty granted to sports," on which the intolerance of puritanical zeal had intrenched. This is not the whole, but the bare insinuation, that "Bishop Moreton framed the directions for that liberty," is now transformed into an assertion that " he drew up the Declaration put out by James I." Yet even this shadow of authority produced against Bishop Moreton, does not exist for the base aspersion cast upon Archbishop Laud. The charge now urged as undoubted, is thus peremptorily denied by Dr. Nichols t; " But though hastening to my object, it must be observed by the way -that the Declaration did not pass by the advice of the Bishops; for Archbishop Laud who was chiefly branded with the imputation, himself most solemnly protested, that he neither promoted this matter by his authority or advice." And Mr. James Pierce who replied to this assertion, has by the assistance of an equivocation thus dexterously glided over the charge of calumny fastened on him without any mention of Archbishop Laud or Bishop Moreton, he uses a term which conveniently applied to the unfortunate Monarch and Prelate who fell victims to the fury of the lawless and vulgar rabble which seized upon the sovereign authority. "To promote these [sports] a Royal Declaration was put forth by the Church's Martyr, and all parochial ministers were required to publish it in their congregations." Alluding, however, in a subsequent page to the profanation of the Lord's Day," and speaking of "the writings of those who abet those proceedings," he subjoins, "I don't think it worth while to inquire, whether this were owing to Archbishop Laud's advice or not. "Tis certain, at that time, nothing hardly was done, which he was not acquainted with, or disapproved t." After this virtual confession of inability to substantiate the charge, extorted from an enemy, who lived when it might be brought home, if not founded in falsehood, and who has insulted the memory of that unfortu nate prelate with the most low and inhuman abuse; we need not inquire whether Mr. Robert Aspland's assertion rests its credi

* Pierce, Vind. of Dissent. p. 175.

+ Nichols, Vind. of Ch. of Engl. p. 35.
Pieree, ibid. p. 184.

bility upon the reporter's love of truth, or his attatchment to calumny.

The objections to the ministerial Orders open with the following profound observations:

"You evidently plume yourself upon your Holy Orders.Grant the genuineness and validity of your Orders, you must see they give you no authority out of your communion. Presbyterians and Methodists on the one side, and Roman Catholics, on the other smile at them; the former say that you can trace your pedigree to the apostles only by proving your kindred to the Church of Rome; the latter say, and they are the best judges of their own powers and intentions, that they neither gave, nor could give, their priests and bishops, who separated from them at the Reformation-any orders to give Orders." P. 9.

"The people know, if you have still to discover, that you have no 'exclusive' possession or gift; and that you use words which have lost their original meaning when you talk of giving and receiving the Holy Ghost. Miracles only can establish your legiti mate descent from the apostles; these you prudently leave to the elder Church of Rome; but without them, you stand in temporalities upon Acts of Parliament, in spiritualities, upon your talents and characters." P, 10.

[ocr errors]

It is difficult to determine, whether the learning exhibited in the former remark, or the ingenuity displayed in the subse quent, be chiefly entitled to our admiration. That Presbyterians who admit our bishops to be presbyters, and Methodists, who allow them to be bishops, should impeach the validity of our Orders, if taken, as appears, by conjecture, exhibits a rare talent at guessing. But that the Roman Catholics stand in the same predicament is we confess a still more fortunate discovery; as the very best defence of "the Validity of English Ordinations" is by a priest, who lived and died in the Romish communion*. But whether "the people know" that the Romanists, without disputing the power of our bishops, have merely combated the fact that it was derived to them by a regular ordination t; and that, even abandoning this ground, they acknowledged, under Queen Mary, during the primacy of Cardinal Pole, the orders conferred by our schismatical bishops; are points, which we readily grant the objector, we "have still to discover." The Unitarians, however, the Dissenters from the Dissenters, still make their objections; and propose miracles as the test of our spiritual authority. When they acquire sagacity enough to discover, whether this test evinces "a legitimate descent from thẻ

* P. Courayer. Dissert. sur la Valid. des Ordin, Angl. Brux. 1723. † Massuet. Dissert. Præv. in Iren. cap. cviii.

apostles,"

apostles," or, a direct mission from Heaven, we shall undertake to reply to their objections. Begging leave, in the mean while, to refer them for satisfaction on this point to the idolatrous Church of Rome; we shall borrow, from themselves, a proof of all that we are concerned in evincing.

One short sentence of the apostle Paul is with me" says Mr.. Robert Aspland," of more authority than the purest episcopal ordination, even though in the elder and superior Roman Catholic Church: the end of the commandment is charity out of a pure heart.'" P. 16, n.

May we now ask this Solomon of modern interpreters, on what authority he receives the book in which "this short sentence" is contained, as the work of the Apostle? When he has answered this question for us, he will possibly have acquired wit to perceive, that he has answered himself; and that the tradition of the Church, which he holds so very light, in impugning our Orders, is necessary to support the abortion of an argument, by which he has undertaken to oppose them; and that granting the received proofs of the authenticity of Scripture to have any weight, the certainty of the apostolical succession directly follows as a matter of necessary consequence. Without entering into a subject which would lead us very far from our object, we wish to abide by our fisrt declaration, that our adversaries shall be made to refute their own objections by the very proofs that they use to establish them. To those, therefore, who put us down with " a short sentence of Scripture," we in the mean time reply, that as we have one way for proving all matters of fact, which we leave our opponents to conjecture; we hold ourselves pledged to establish the apostolical succession by the same proofs, that they establish the apostolical writings.

The next objection respects no matter of fact; but a question of casuistry, on which we gladly seize this opportunity of speaking our sentiments, in order to clear up some difficulties which have given occasion to much slander and misrepresentation.

"The candidate for Orders, (according to the Office for the Ordination of Priests and Deacons) is asked by the ordaining Bishop, Whether he trusts that he is inwardly moved by the Holy Ghost to take upon him this office.' He declares as in God's presence, that he trusts he is so moved. Upon this Bishop Burnet observes, (Past. Care) Certainly, this answer, I trust I am so moved, ought well to be considered; for if any say, I trust so, who yet knows nothing of any such motion, and can give no account of it, he lies to the Holy Ghost." P. 10.

[ocr errors]

How far the terms motion and motive, which stand in the same relation to the verb move,' may be taken as synonimous on the

[ocr errors]

other

« PreviousContinue »