Does the Protestant Episcopal Church teach the exclusive validity of episcopal orders?

Goode on Orders.

The Leonard Library

Wpdttfe College

Toronto

Shelf No
Register No ..... L

....-A.O^fr ..... 2. ......

/

THE PROTESTANT EPISCOPAL CHURCH

TXACH THE

EXCLUSIVE VALIDITY

or

EPISCOPAL ORDERS?

BT

THE KEY. WILLIAM GOODE, M.A.

PUBLISHED BT. THE

PROTESTANT EPISCOPAL SOCIETY FOR THE PROMOTION
OF EVANGELICAL KNOWLEDGE,

No. 3 BIBLE HOUSE, FOURTH AVE., NEW-YORK.

ADVERTISEMENT.

Is the year 1851, a member of the Tractarian party who had
Joined the Church of Rome, addressed a note, under a false name, to
the ArchbLshop of Canterbury, requesting an expression of his opin
ion on the subject discussed in the following tract.

The Archbishop's reply, in which he repudiated the notion of th«
exclusive validity of Episcopal orders, was immediately published,
with the view of bringing upon the writer the odium of the Tractarian
party.

This result of course followed ; and the Archbishop was assailed
with the rudeness and violence which so often mark the controversies
of parties conscious of their weakness.

The Archbishop, of course, could not reply to such assaults from
such a quarter ; but the cause of truth has derived this signal advan
tage from them : the calling out of the Rev. and learned William
Goode, author of the works on the Rule of Faith, Baptism, and the
Eucharist. Mr. Goode submitted, in the Christian Observer for No
vember, 1851, his " Vindication of the Doctrine of the Church of
England on the validity of the Orders of the Scotch and Foreign Non-
Episcopal Churches," which not only vindicated the Archbishop, but
placed upon impregnable ground before the public that whole class of
Churchmen, including, as Mr. Goode asserts, " at least seven tenths of
the Clergy of the English Church," and more than nineteen twen-

IV ADVERTISEMENT.

tieths of the Laity who agree with the Primate, many of whom,
though not doubting the truth of their position, were unaware of
the full extent of the proofs which support it.

It was at once perceived that unless this argument could be over
thrown, the cause of the High Church party, on the score of church
authority, was lost. His work was therefore attacked with still
greater asperity by the Bishop of Exeter, Archdeacon Churton, and
others deemed best qualified for the task ; to all of whom Mr.
Goode replied, substantiating every position he had taken by an array
of historical proofs which puts the question beyond the reach o
further candid dispute. In the course of the controversy, the fact
came out that the advocates of exclusiveness — even the most promi
nent of them, to whose claim to superior learning the world had
been accustomed to defer — were exceedingly ill-informed of the facts
which are decisive in the argument. This was candidly admitted by
Mr. Maskell, the Bishop of Exeter's Chaplain, who said that the facts
were new to him, that they were incontrovertible, and so contrary to
what he had been led to suppose from the positive assertions of hia
party, that, with his views, he could no longer, with any conscious
ness of integrity, remain in the Church. He therefore seceded to the
Church of Rome, declaring it impossible to deny that the authorities
of the Church were with not only the merely Protestant, but with
the "Evangelical" portion of it.

The following tract is a condensed statement of Mr. Goode's argu
ment, as contained in the works above referred to, with an introduc
tion, notes, and other original matter. Its plan has been submitted
to Mr. Goode, and meets his approval — although, of course, he is not
responsible for any thing here which is not found in the larger work
republished in this country in 1853.

C. W. A.

INTRODUCTION.

THIS tract is issued from the conviction that there can
be no end of controversy in the Episcopal Church so
long as the point which it discusses remains unsettled.
"Whatever compromises may l>e effected, they will be
only temporary, or as :i truce, so long as room is left
for candid minds to doubt whether the Church itself
does not teach the exclusive validity of its own orders.

In order to a clearer comprehension of the whole
subject, the following summary of points is submitted :

1. The doctrine of the Church of England and of
our own upon the question in debate being identical,
whatever settles it for one settles it for both.

2. The preface to the Ordinal says : " It is evident
unto all men diligently reading Holy Scripture and
ancient authors, that from the apostles' time there have
been these orders," etc.

3. While the Evangelical portion of the Episcopal
Church might not be prepared to pronounce upon the
diligence of those readers who have failed to see this,
it is evident to themselves, first, " from Holy Scripture,"
that the Church, as constituted by the apostles, had
officers who exercised substantially the same powers as

VI INTRODUCTION.

those exercised by our present bishops ; and, second,
from " ancient authors," it is evident to them that these
orders have been continued in the Church from the
apostles' time, and they accept these facts as adequate
to the purpose for which they were cited — namely, a
full authorization of an Episcopal ministry. But,

4. The theory of "apostolical succession" as known
in controversy, goes far beyond this, and raises Epis
copacy to a level with things positively commanded,
such as baptism and the Lord's supper ; so that without
it there can be no valid ministry and no valid sacra
ments, and no body of professed Christians which has
it not can form any part of that Church to which the
promises are made in Scripture. It holds farther that
any broken link in this personal and tactual succession
of bishops, whether known or unknown, would be fatal
to all Church character thereafter.

5. Those and those only who hold this theory are,
strictly speaking, High Churchmen, and it was to the
holders of it exclusively that the term was originally
applied.

6. The term is often used in a looser sense, and ap
plied to those who attach great importance to her
minor observances, and are rigid in their observance of
its rubrics and forms, but who, nevertheless, repudiate
altogether the notion of the exclusive validity of Epis
copal orders. In this larger but less accurate sense it
is sometimes employed by Mr. Goode, as when he
applies it to Cosin Bancroft and others, but in this re
print it is applied only to those who hold the theory of
" exclusive validity." It may also be added that the
definition given above is approved by Mr. Goode himself.

7. The " Low Church " view is, that Episcopacy has
apostolic precedent, but not apostolic command. Those

INTRODUCTION. vii

who accept this view take the precedent to be bimliut?
upon themselves, and think it should be held binding
by all. But (to use the language of the old divines)
they do not believe Episcopacy to be essential to the
beiny of a church, but only to its letter being. Had the
theory of the "apostolical succession" been true, with
all the consequences which flow from it, they think it
could not have been left without some divine command.

8. For the use of these terms, it is a sufficient reason
that it would be impossible to discuss the important
doctrines which they represent without them, or some
more cumbrous fonns of speech which, nevertheless,
must be made to mean precisely the same things. It is
important, also, in such discussions, to aim at exactness
of definition, not only for the more easy and certain
ascertainment of truth, but to prevent the parties
whose views are controverted from thinking them
selves misunderstood or wronged.

9. While the theory of the " apostolical succession "
was not universally held in the Church of Rome itself
before the Reformation, no trace of it is to be found in
the Church of England until the time of Archbishop
Laud, who was the first to introduce it. The attempt
to enforce it, with its associated political system, over
threw both the Church and the State, and finally proved
fatal to the house of Stuart, who were the blind votaries
of both.

10. Connected with the theory of the "apostolical
succession," and growing out of it, there is commonly
found a theory of regeneration and its related doctrines
incompatible with the doctrine of justification by faith ;
and hence results a system which is anti-evangelical —
generally in terms, and always in its tendencies and
spirit.

Vlll INTEODUCTIOX.

11. The theory of the " apostolical succession," with
its inevitable and often admitted consequences, brings
those who hold it into direct and irreconcilable conflict
with the facts of God's providence — such, for example,
as the fruits of the Spirit existing outside of this suc
cession for three hundred years without diminution of
amount or quality.

12. If the theory of the "apostolical succession" be
taught in Scripture, it justly unchurches a very large
proportion of Protestant Christendom. If it be held
by the Church of England, she also necessarily excom
municates all other Protestant churches so called — not
only those in Great Britain and Ireland, but all the
churches of the Reformation in Germany, Holland,
France, and Switzerland. But if the Bible does not
teach it, it is monstrous in men to invent it ; and if the
Church of England does not teach it, then those who
have propounded and pressed it as hers are responsible
for that uninterrupted succession of war wrhich it has
produced, not only between Episcopalians and all other
Protestants, but among Episcopalians themselves. The
holders of this theory are, moreover, as has been well
remarked, challenged by every law of consistency to
take their places as spectators, while those whom it casts
out of the Church and out of the covenant — such as
Luther and Baxter, Brainerd and Jonathan Edwards — -
are sent down alive into the pit.

13. It will not probably be contended that the great
mass of the people in the Episcopal Church are, or ever
have been, High Churchmen. It is certain that the pro
portion of those holding this extreme theory never has
been relatively so small, since the revolution of 1688, as
it is now ; and hence, from the ill-success of its advo
cates in teaching it even in their own Church, it might

INTRODUCTION'. IX

he supposed they would bo utterly discouraged, even
if they do not see by this time the impossibility of
making it a condition of all Christian progress.

14. There is a tendency in all independent churches
seeking to occupy the same ground, to magnify the
peculiarities which distinguish them, especially on the
part of tlu-ir officers, whose interests are more imme
diately connected with the favor with which those
peculiarities are received.

15. Uncharitableness is no less a sin in Episcopalians,
because they are themselves its victims at the hands of
others; and as a warning against those tempers and
condemnatory judgments to which extreme opinions
tend in the quarrels which they produce, let it be re
membered that it is in their reflex bearing alone that
such judgments become absolutely determinative. " It
is when taken in this light that every sentence tells ;
nor could eternal justice itself ask for evidence more
conclusive than that which is comprised in the de
liberately pronounced opinions which we form or assent
to when other men are judged. We decide, in each
instance, according to our own dispositions, principles,
and moral condition."

1C. High Churchism was the sin of the Puritans, who
equalled Laud in denominational intolerance. Presby
tery was of divine right, in the most exclusive sense.
Every thing but Presbytery was "Antichrist." But
having nothing in Scripture or history to sustain such a
theory, and no earthly interests conspiring to keep it up,
they soon fell a prey to the reactions which it produced.

1 7. If it be alleged that the theory of " exclusive
validity" is the safer theory for the conservation of
the Church, as more certainly insuring a devotion to its

JC INTRODUCTION.

interests, it is denied both on theoretical and historic
grounds ; for,

(1.) The safety of the Church of England, as a Pro
testant Church, must depend upon its being kept upon
the broad Protestant foundation on which the Reform
ers placed it. The danger results from narrowing the
base and elevating the structure after the manner of
the obelisks which are prostrated while the pyramids
remain.

(2.) Nearly every secession from the Church — as
tnany as forty to one — has been from the ranks of those
who held the theory of " apostolical succession " in the
most exclusive sense, while those repudiating this
theory have chiefly furnished the men whose labors
have given extension to the Church, promoted its
spiritual life, attached the masses of the people to it,
irrespective of merely eleemosynary establishments at
home, and exclusively those who have propagated it, in
connection with the Gospel, in heathen lands.

18. The Reformed Churches on the Continent being,
from their geographical position, most exposed in the
conflict with Rome, had a rightful claim to the sympathy
and cooperation of the Reformed Church of England,
which was providentially the best secured and most
powerful of them all.

19. This sympathy was extended, to the great benefit
of England herself, until the time of Laud. It was
reextended by the Church of the Commonwealth, not
only to the terror of the " bloody Piedmontese," but of
every papal throne in Europe. It was again withdrawn
at the Restoration, partially restored at the Revolution
of 1688, and now is but feebly felt, when the Protestant
interests of the Church of England itself demand that
it be vigorous and unremitted.

xi

20. The Episcopal Church, in its doctrine, discipline,
And worship, is firmly seated in the judgment and
affections of its Evangelical members, probably never
so much so as at present. This Church has an illustri
ous fxist — taken now in its totality, it is by far the most
powerful of the churches of the Reformation. Its
future, if faithful to its constitution, will be still more
illustrious in the work of evangelizing the world. In
this work it has capabilities sufficient to engross all the
powers of its members, without diminishing aught,
either in theory or in action, from what is being done
by other Christians in the same work.

21. In view of the whole state of the Christian in
terest and the signs of the times, it was never a ques
tion of such urgent practical importance as now — not
what peculiarities of the different Protestant churches,
as such, may be yielded, in order to their fusion into
one, but what are the dogmas and tempers in each
which produce discord and weakness among themselves,
needlessly alienate them from one another, and so pre
vent them from bearing down, with united force, upon
the very body of sin and death as exhibited in the
forms of Romanism, Rationalism, and Paganism.

THE DOCTRINE, ETC.

THE present question is simply this — whether it is
a doctrine of the Church of England that Episcopal
ordination is a sine qua non to constitute a valid
Christian ministry? In order to a true answer we
must examine

I. The Articles and other formularies ichich relate to it
taken in tfieir literal sense.

II. The opinions of those ivho drew up these standards,
as ascertained ly their oilier u-ritings, to be taken as
guides to the sense in which they intended those stand
ards to be received, as also tJie opinions of the leading
divines of t/ie Church onward for a hundred years.

III. The PRACTICE of the Church for a similar period,
a-i a furOier guide to the true interpretation of Hie
standards.

I. The Articles and other formularies. The 23d Ar
ticle reads as follows : " It is not lawful for any man
to take upon him the office of public preaching or
ministering the sacraments in the congregation, before
he be lawfully called and sent to execute the same ;
and those we ought to judge lawfully called and sent
which be chosen and called to this work by men who
have public authority given unto them in Vie congrc-

]4 THE AETICLES AND OTHEE FORMULARIES.

gation to call and send ministers into the Lord's vine
yard."

It must be observed how carefully this is worded,
so as not to limit a lawful ministry to those who have
Episcopal ordination, and it is hardly possible for one
acquainted with the circumstances of the times in
which it was written to read it and not see that this
carefulness was for the very purpose of not excluding
the ministry of the Foreign Non-Episcopal Churches.

But a more authentic interpretation of this Article
can hardly be conceived than that given by Thomas
Rogers, chaplain to Archbishop Bancroft, in his Ex
position of the Articles, published in 1607, as "perused,
and by the lawful authority of the Church of England
allowed to be public," and which the Archbishop or
dered all the parishes in his province to supply them
selves with. He deduces from the Article the six fol
lowing propositions :

" 1. None publicly may preach but such as thereunto are author
ized. 2. They must not be silent who by office are bound to preach.
3. The sacraments may not be administered in the congregation but
by a lawful minister. 4. There is a lawful ministry in the Church.
6. They are lawful ministers which be ordained by men lawfully ap
pointed to the calling and sending forth of ministers. 6. Before min
isters are to be ordained, they are to be chosen and called."

And then, proceeding to point out the testimonies
we have in favor of the truth of these propositions, he
observes upon each, as he comes to it, that the For
eign Eeformed Churches maintain it. On the first,
" All this is acknowledged by the Eeformed Church
es;" referring to the Helvetic, Bohemic, French, and

THE ARTICLES AND OTHER FORMULARIES. 15

other Confessions. On the second : "Hereunto bear
witness all the Churches of God which be purged
from superstition and errors;" referring to the same
Confessions. On the third : " Ilereunto do the
Churches of God subscribe ;" referring to the same
Confessions. On the fourth: "A truth also approved
by the Churches ;" referring to the same Confessions.
On the fifth : "So testify with us the true Churches
elsewhere in the world;" referring to the same Con
fessions. On the sixth: " And this do the Churches
Protestant by their Confessions approve ;" referring
to the same Confessions.*

And this is not only a testimony as to the meaning
of the Article, but as to the light in which the For
eign Non-Episcopal Churches were then regarded by
the authorities of our Church, even by Archbishop
Bancroft.

Proceeding to a later period, we find Bishop Bur-
net thus commenting on this Article :

"If a company of Christians find the public worship where they
live to be so defiled that they can not with a good conscience join in
it, and if they do not know of any place to which they can conveni
ently go, where they may worship God purely and in a regular way ;
if, I say, such a bodv, finding some that have been ordained, though
to the lower functions, should submit itself entirely to their conduct,
or finding none of those, should by a common consent desire some of
their own number to minister to them in holy things, and should
upon that beginning grow up to a regulated constitution, though we
are very sure that this is quite out of all rule, and could not be done

• "The Faith, Doctrine, and Religion, Ac., expressed in 39 Articles, Ac. ; the
•aid Articles analysed Into propositions, and the propositions proTed to be agree
able both to the written word of God and to tht extant Con/e-ssions of all tht
neighbor Churches Chrittianly reformed." 1607. 4to.

16 THE AETICLES AND OTHEE FOEMULAEIES.

without a very great sin, unless the necessity were great and appar
ent ; yet if the necessity is real and not feigned, this is not con
demned or annulled by the Article ; for when this grows to a consti
tution, and when it was begun by the consent of a Body, who are
supposed to have an authority in such an extraordinary case, whatever
some hotter spirits have thought of this since that time, yet we are
very sure, that not only those who penned the Articles, but the Body
of this Church for above half an age after, did, notwithstanding those
irregularities, acknowledge the Foreign Churches, so constituted, to be
true Churches as to all the essentials of a Church, though they had
been at first irregularly formed, and continued still to be in an im
perfect state. And therefore the general words in which this part of
the Article is framed, seem to have been designed on purpose not to
exclude them." (Burnet's Exposition of the XXXIX. Articles, 6th
ed. 1746.)

And Professor Hey justly remarks, that the ex
pression, "who have public authority given unto
them in the congregation," " seems to leave the man
ner of giving the power of ordaining quite free : it
seems as if any religious society might, consistently
with this Article, appoint officers, with power of or
dination, by election, representation, or lot; as if,
therefore, the right to ordain did not depend upon
any uninterrupted succession" (Lectures in Divinity,
2d ed. 1822, vol. iv. p. 166.)

The same view is taken of the meaning of this Ar
ticle by Bishop Tomline, ordinarily considered a suffi
ciently high churchman. (Expos, of Art. ed. 1799, p.
376.)

It is quite clear that the words of the Article do
not maintain the necessity of Episcopal ordination ;
and consequently, as the object of the Article is to
show the doctrine of the Church of England on the

THE ARTICLES AND OTHER FORMULARIES. 17

subject, it can not be said that the Church of England
' maintains it. No one, therefore, has a right to put
forth such a doctrine as the doctrine of the Church of
England.

This is the only place in which our Church touches
the question of ordination in the abstract ; and we see
that it is carefully worded, so as to be consistent with
the constitution of the Foreign Reformed Churches.
AVe shall see hereafter whether the contemporary in
terpretation of the Article does not entirely accord
witli that given above.

The PREFACE TO THE ORDIXATIOX SERVICE reads
as follows :

" It is evident unto all men, diligently reading Holy Scripture and
ancient Authors, that, from the Apostles' time, there have been these
Orders of Ministers in Christ's Church — Bishops, Priests, and Dea
cons. Which Offices were evermore had in such reverend Estimation,
that no man might presume to execute any of them, except lie were
first called, tried, examined, and known to have such qualities as arc
requisite for the same ; and also by public Prayer, with Imposition of
Hands, were approved and admitted thereunto by lawful Authority.
And therefore to the intent that these Orders may be continued, and
reverently used and esteemed in this Church, no man shall be ac
counted or taken to be a lawful Bishop, Priest, or Deacon, in this
Church, or suffered to execute any of the said Functions, except he
be called, tried, examined, and admitted thereunto, according to the
form hereafter following, or hath had Episcopal Consecration or Or
dination."

Much stress is laid upon this Preface, and it is quo
ted as the Church's declaration of the invalidity of
Non-Episcopal orders. But it is not pretended that
the language itself contains any such declaration. It
is an inference. Such a notion it is said must have

18 THE ARTICLES AND OTHER FORMULARIES.

been in the minds of the framers. Yet it has been
shown again and again that no such notion could by
any possibility have been in the minds of the framers,
insomuch that we can not suppress our amazement
that intelligent controversialists should continue to
quote it. The first part is the simple statement of a
fact, without intent on the part of the authors to pass
upon other forms of government, but as giving a suf
ficient warrant for their own.

The second part, " or hath had Episcopal consecra
tion," etc., was not added until a hundred years after,
that is to say in 1661, by the Laudean party under
Charles II. But even this goes no further than to
make Episcopal orders necessary for serving in an
Episcopal Church, (which is manifestly proper,) those
having only Presbyterian orders having previously .
ministered in the Church of England. That the
Laudean divines did personally entertain these exclu
sive views is certain, but it is equally certain that
they could have procured no judgment to be passed
by the legislature upon the character of the Foreign
Churches or the validity of their orders, nor does it
appear that they attempted it.

We are therefore unable to understand the follow
ing remarks in a note in the Bishop of London's (the
late Bishop Blomfield's) sermons on the Church.
His Lordship says :

" Our Reformers, in the Book of Consecration, approved in the
36th Article, insist strongly on the necessity of Episcopal ordination,
a point which, as Bishop Sanderson says, ' has been constantly and
uniformly maintained by our best writers, and by all the sober, or
derly, and orthodox sons of the Church ;' but they do not presume

THE ARTICLES AND OTHER FORMULARIES. 19

to Bay that it is impossible, under any circumstances, for a Church to
exist without it. We may, however, set their formal approval of the
Consecration Book against the private opinions of Archbishop Cran-
mer, in his answers to the ninth question concerning church govern
ment." (P. 62.)

Now the simple fact is, that there is not one word
about " the necessity of Episcopal ordination" in that
book, as drawn up by the Reformers, and sanctioned
by the Article. The words that relate to that point
were not inserted in the book until the review in the
time of Charles II., and then refer only to the minis
try of the Church of England. They do not declare
the necessity of Episcopal ordination to any valid
ministry ; nor (we think) does Bishop Sanderson.
Consequently, the last observation falls to the ground ;
and we may observe, that "the private opinions of
Archbishop Cranmer" on the point, as sho\vn in his
Answers (not to the ninth, but) to the tenth and
eleventh Questions on Church Government, were
shared with him, sufficiently for our present purpose, by
many others of the leading divines of his day.

But still farther; by the 55th Canon of 1604, all
our clergy are required, in the bidding prayer before,
or rather in the commencement of the sermon, to pray
for " the Church of Scotland." Now the Church of
Scotland, at the time this canon was passed, was Pres
byterian, as it now is. And, consequently, the very
men who are now protesting against the recognition
of any ordinations as valid but Episcopal, and con
tending that it is the doctrine of our Church that there
is no such thing as a valid ministry but through an
apostolically descended episcopate, are by canon

20 KEFOEMEKS AND LEADING DIVINES.

bound solemnly to recognize in their prayers every
Sunday the existence of a valid ministry without any
such ordination. For a prayer for the Presbyterian
" Church of Scotland" clearly involves such a recog
nition.

Some of her majesty's predecessors have occasion
ally ordered this canon to be observed. It would be
but a fair return (though we are far from desiring it)
for the remarks in which certain parties are often in
dulging themselves, that they should be favored with
a similar order. They are very fond of appealing to
rubrics and canons, when they suit their purpose ;
and none, we will venture to say, would be more un
willing, consistently and impartially, to carry them out
into practice.*

II. We come now to the ground taken on this sub
ject by our early divines. This, in the absence of
any definite statement on the subject in our Formula
ries, is clearly the best indication we can have of the
mind of our Church respecting it, and of the meaning
of any indirect notices touching it in our authoritative
documents. *

Let us first hear what Mr. Keble himself is com
pelled to admit on this point. Thus he writes :

" Since the Episcopal succession had been so carefully retained in
the Church of England, and so much anxiety evinced to render both
her Liturgy and Ordination services strictly conformable to the rules
and doctrines of antiquity, it might have been expected, that the de
fenders of the English hierarchy against the first Puritans should take
the highest ground, and challenge for the bishops the same unreserv-

* For a further examination of the doctrine of the Article see Appendix A.

REFORMERS AND LEADING DIVINES. 21

cd submission, on the same plea of exclusive apostolic prerogative,
which their adversaries feared not to insist on for their ciders and
deacons. It is notorious, however, that such was not in general the
line preferred [it was never adopted, a8 is confessed presently] by
Jewel, Whitgift, Bishop Cooper, and others, to whom the manage
ment of that controversy was intrusted during the early part of Eliza
beth's reign. They do not expressly disavow, bat they carefully
shun, that unreserved appeal to Christian antiquity, in which one
would have thought they must have discerned the very strength of '
their cause to lie. It is enough, with them, to show that the govern- ;
ment by archbishops and bishops i.s ancient and allowable; they «
never venture to urge its exclusive claim, or to connect the succession
with the validity of the holy sacraments ; and yet it is obvious, that
such a course of argument alone (supposing it borne out by facts)
could fully meet all the exigencies of the case. It must have occur
red to the learned writers above mentioned, since it was the received
doctrine of the Church down to their days; and if they had disap
proved it, as some theologians of no small renown have since done, it
seems unlikely that they should have passed it over without some ex
press avowal of dissent ; considering that they always wrote with an
eye to the pretensions of Rome also, which popular opinion had in a
great degree nn'xed up with this doctrine of apostolical succession."
. . . . " Farther, it is obvious that those divines in particular
who had been instrumental but a little before in the second change
of the Liturgy in King Edward's time, must have felt themselves in
pome measure restrained from pressing with its entire force the-cccle-
piastical tradition on church government and orders, inasmuch as in
the aforesaid revision they had given up altogether the same tradi
tion, regarding certain very material points in the celebration, if not

in the doctrine, of the holy Eucharist It should seem

that those who were responsible for these omissions must have A- It
themselves precluded, ever after, from urging the necessity of Epis
copacy, or of any thing else, on the ground of uniform Church tradi-
tion."»

Such a passage as this presents many topics for re
mark ; and we may observe, in passing, that the doc-

• Keblo'i Pref. to llookcr, pp. llx.— IxiU

22 REFORMERS AND LEADING DIVINES.

trine of the necessity of Episcopacy seems to be con
fessedly rested on tradition. But the object for which
we have quoted it, is to show the difficulties in which
Mr. Keble confessedly finds himself involved in deal
ing with the views of our early divines on this sub
ject. He admits, that they "never venture to urgo
the exclusive claim of the government by archbishops
and bishops, or to connect the succession with the va
lidity of the holy sacraments." But then it is hinted
that they may have held it, because they have ner
given an " express avowal of dissent" from it.

Now we hope our readers have too good an opinion
of the honesty and fair dealing of those venerable
men, not to feel assured, that, if they had held the
doctrine of the absolute necessity of the Episcopa1
form of church government, they would have said so.
Can we suppose that, in the midst of that intimate
intercourse and communion they maintained with th
Foreign Non-Episcopal Churches, they would never
have admonished them of the fatal effect which their
want of the Episcopal form of church government
entailed upon their ministrations ? Would they hav>
acknowledged their ministers in the way they did, as
fellow-laborers in the Church of Christ ?

But in fact we shall find, from their own words,
that they c?o, virtually at least, if not more expressly,
disavow the doctrine advocated by Mr. Keble and hi
party. There was no necessity, at a time when no
one in our Church thought of upholding such a doc
trine, for them to write formally and expressly against
it. But they do disavow such a notion, writing in a
way irreconcilable with their holding it. And we

REFORMERS AND LEADING DIVIDES. 23

must add further, that it will be found that the authors
whom Mr. Keble quotes as having first advocated
his exclusive doctrine in our Church, bear "witness
against it.

Having thus seen how much our opponents are
compelled to concede, let us proceed to consider the
following testimonies :

And we may notice, first, that even in the time of
Henry VIIL, at the very dawn of the Eeformation,
the bishops and clergy of our Church put forth a
document containing the very doctrine on which the
validity of Presbyterian ordinations has been chiefly
rested, namely, the parity of bishops and presbyters,
with respect to the ministerial powers, essentially and
by right belonging to them. In the Institution of a
Christian ^fan1 put forth by the bishops and clergy
in 1537, we read as follows :

"As touching the sacrament of holy orders, we think it convenient
that all bishops and preachers shall instruct and teach the people
committed unto their spiritual charge, first, how that Christ and His
apostles did institute and ordain, in the New Testament, that besides
the civil powers and governance of kings and princes, (which is called
potestas gladii, the power of the sword,) there should also be con
tinually in the Church militant certain other ministers or officers,
which should have special power, authority, and commission, under
Christ, to preach and teach the word of God unto His people ; to dis
pense and administer the sacraments of God unto them," etc. etc.

"That this office, this power and authority, was committed and
given by Christ and His apostles unto certain persons only, that is to
say, unto priests or bishops, whom they did elect, call, and admit
thereunto, by their prayer and imposition of their hands."

And, speaking of " the Sacrament of Orders" to be
administered by the bishop, it observes, when noticing

24 REFORMERS AND LEADING DIVINES.

the various orders in the Church of Eome : " Ths
truth is, that in the New Testament there is no mention
made of any degrees or distinctions in orders, but only of
deacons or ministers, and of priests or bishops" And
throughout, when speaking of the jurisdiction and
other privileges belonging to the ministry, it speaks
of them as belonging to " priests and bishops."

Again, in the revision of this work set forth by the
king in 1543, entitled A Necessary Doctrine and Eru
dition for any Christian Man, in the chapter on "the
Sacrament of Orders," priests and bishops are spoken
of as of the same order. For after having spoken of
Timothy being "ordered and consecrated priest" by
St. Paul, and remarked, " whereby it appeareth that
St. Paul did consecrate and order priests and bishops
by the imposition of his hands ; and as the apostles
themselves, in the beginning of the Church, did order
priests and bishops, so they appointed and willed the
other bishops after them to do the like, as St. Paul
manifestly showeth, in his Epistle to Titus, saying,
etc., and to Timothy, etc. ;" it subjoins, shortly after:
" Of these two orders only, that is to say, priests and
deacons, Scripture maketh express mention, and how
they were conferred of the apostles by prayer and
imposition of their hands."*

Now this view certainly goes far to remove the
difficulty as to recognizing the validity of Presbterian
ordination in the absence of bishops ; and this view
we see was entertained by the leading bishops and
clergy in this country at the very dawn of the Ke-

* See Formularies of Faith, etc. pp. 101, 105, 278, 281. Oxford, 1825.

REFORMERS AND LEADING DIVINES. 25

formation; and those who are at all acquainted with
Ecclesiastical history, know that this view had long
been advocated by many of the divines of the Church
of Koine, especially among the scholastic divines, in
cluding their great founder, Peter Lombard, the Mas
ter of the Sentences.

Our opponents are fond of speaking of these early
documents, published at the very dawn of the Ke-
fornmtion, as authoritative proofs of the doctrine of
our Church. The above extracts may perhaps show
them, that, however pleasant the first taste may be,
there arc some sours mixed up with the Komish sweets
which these works contain; and if they will have the
one, they must be satisfied to take the other.

We decline, for the sake of a momentary gain, to
make any such illegitimate use of these documents.
But this we do say, that if even then the Tractarian
doctrine of Episcopacy was not held by our Church,
much less is it conceivable that it was held after the
current of our theology had taken a course so much
more decidedly Protestant, and our divines were re
cognizing the ministers of the Foreign Non-Episcopal
Churches as their colleagues in the ministry. In these
extracts, we see the views on this subject with which
our divines commenced the work of Information; and
it will hardly be urged that, when they went forward
on every other point, they retrograded in this.

But we have still stronger testimony to the views

of the leading divines of the English Church at this

period. In the autumn of 15-10, certain questions

were proposed by the king to the chief bishops and

2

26 REFORMERS AND LEADING DIVINES.

divines of the day,* of which the tenth was this :
"Whether bishops or priests were first? and if the
priests were first, then the priest made the bishop."
With the wording of this question we have nothing
to do, and should certainly be sorry to be made
answerable for it ; but our object is to see what views
were elicited in the answers. Now to this question
the Archbishop of Canterbury (Cranmer) replied:
11 The bishops and priests were at one time, and were
not two things, but both one office in the beginning
of Christ's religion." The Archbishop of York (Lee)
says : " The name of a bishop is not properly a name
of order, but a name of office, signifying an overseer.
And although the inferior shepherds have also care
to oversee their flock, yet, forsomuch as the bishop's
charge is also to oversee the shepherds, the name of
overseer is given to the bishops, and not to the other ;
and as they be in degree higher, so in their consecra
tion we find difference even from the primitive Church.'
The Bishop of London (Bonner) says: "I think the
bishops were first, and yet I think it is not of import
ance, whether the priest then made the bishop, or else the
bishop the priest; considering (after the sentence of St.
Jerome) that in the beginning of the Church there
was none (or, if it were, very small) difference between
a bishop and a priest, especially touching the signifi
cation." The Bishop of St. David's, (Barlow,) and
the Bishop elect of Westminster, (Thirlby,) held that
bishops and priests "at the beginning were all one"

* These questions and answers are given by Burnet, in his History of the, R&»
formation, and Oallyer, in his JScolesiastioal History.

REFORMERS AND LKADIN'G IHVIN'FS.

Dr. Robertson, in his answer, says: " Xec opinor
absurdum es>e, ut sacerdos episcopum. consecret, si
episcopus haberi non potest/' Dr. Cox (afterwards
Bishop of Klv) savs: '• Although by Scripture (as St-
Ilieroine saith) priests and bishops be one, and there
fore the one not before the other, yet bishops, us they
be now, were after priests, and therefore made of
priests." Dr. Redmavn, the learned Master of Trinity
College, Cambridge, says: "They be of like begin
ning, and at the beginning were both one, as St.
Ilieroine and other old authors show by the Scripture^
whereof one made another indifferently." Dr. Edge-
worth savs : '• That the priests in the primitive Church
made bishops, I think no inconvenience, (as Jerome
saith, in an J'Jpixt. ad JZcagrium.) Kven like as sol
diers should ehoose one among themselves to be their
captain ; so did priests ehoose one of themselves to
be their bishop, for consideration of his learning,
gravitv, and good living, &e., and also for to avoid
schisms among themselves by them, that some might
not draw people one way, and others another way, if
thev lacked one Head among them.'' With respect to
the other answers, which are from the Bishops of
Rochester (Heath) and Carlisle, (Aldrich,) and Drs.
Day, Oglethorp, Symmons, Tresham, and Coren, it is
difficult to judge what the views of the writers would
have been on the point we are now considering.

All the leading divines, therefore, whose testimonies
we have just quoted, were of opinion that bishops and
priests were, properly and strictly speaking, of the
same orcfer, though differing in degree.

28 REFORMERS AND LEADING DIVINES.

Nay, more ; we find by the answers to the next
question, that, even at that time, some were prepared
to take the next step, and grant to presbyters, under
some circumstances, the power to ordain presbyters ;
and that most of tkem replied uncertainly to the ques
tion. The question was this: "Whether a bishop
hath authority to make a priest by the Scripture or
no ? And whether any oilier but only a bishop can make
a priest?" The reply of Cranmer, Archbishop of
Canterbury, goes much beyond what we should wish
to plead for, and is as follows : "A bishop may make
a priest by the Scripture, and so may princes and
governors also, and that by the authority of God com
mitted to them, and the people also by their election :
for as we read that bishops have done it, so Christian
emperors and princes usually have done it ; and the
people, before Christian princes were, commonly did
elect their bishops and priests." The answers given
by the rest to the latter part of the question were to
the following effect. Dr. Cox (made in 1559 Bishop
of Ely) and Dr. Tresham openly admit, that, in a case
of necessity, others may ordain besides bishops. The
Archbishop of York says, " That any other than
bishops or priests may make a priest, we neither find
in Scripture nor out of Scripture ;" clearly implying
that priests may make a priest. The Bishops of
Rochester and Carlisle, the Bishop elect of West
minster, and Drs. Redmayn, Symmons, Robertson,
Leighton, Curren, Edge worth, and Oglethorp, reply
only, that they have never read that others besides
bishops assumed the power of ordaining. The Bishop
of London and Dr. Day give no reply to this part of

REFORMERS AXD LEADING DIVIXES. 29

the question. So that not one ventures to determine
definitively that the power of ordination belongs ex
clusively to bishops.

Such was the doctrine of the leading divines of our
Church at this period on the subject. AVe may there-
lore safely leave it to the reader to determine, whether,
when in 1549 they put forth the Ordinal, with a Pre
face in which they speak of the "three orders'' of the
Christian ministry, they meant to assert, that the
Episcopal and Priestly orders were so completely two
distinct orders, that the special duties for the perform
ance of which bishops had been set apart could under
no circumstances be performed by priests; and were
not rather using the word "order" in a large and
general sense ; especially when we find that the Ser
vices never apply the word onl'-r or onferiity to the
making of bishops, but only in the case of deacons
and priests, and speak of the consecration of bishops;
and that most of our early divines, as, for instance,
the most distinguished among the earliest defenders
of our Church against the Puritans, Archbishop
Whitgift, held (as we shall show presently) that
bishops and priests are, strictly speaking, of the
same order.*

* The Bishop of Exeter admits that the Schoolmen Peter Lombard and others
did hold Bishops and Priests to be of the same order, but it was that they might
magnify the sacraments, and he quotes St. Thomas as follows) : '• Order may be
taken in two ways--in one as it is a sacrament ; and then, as has been said be
fore, all order Is ordained ad Euchari*ti<9 Sacramentum ; wherefore, since
the bidhop has here no superior power to the priest's, quantum ad fine, Episco
pate Is not an Order. But Order may be considered in another way, that Is, as
it is a certain office, in respect to certain sacred acts ; and so, as the bishop has
• power In hierarchical acts, in respect to the mystical Body [the Church] supe
rior to the priest, the Episcopate will be an Order : and i; is iu UiLs waj that 1)1-

30 REFORMERS AND LEADING DIVINES.

Let us proceed to the divines of Queen Elizabeth's
reign, when our Formularies were finally constituted
and established as (with a few exceptions) they now
stand.

Unfortunately, the question now at issue was not
so brought into controversy at that period as to ena
ble us to find many direct testimonies upon the sub
ject ; for no one but a professed Romanist dreamed of
throwing a doubt upon the validity of the Orders of
the divines of the Foreign Non-Episcopal Churches.
"We are therefore thrown upon their incidental notices
of the matter. But even where the witness is not di
rect, it is sufficiently plain to indicate the doctrine
held. And, in fact, the ground then taken on this
subject by our leading divines was much lower than
what the lowest of the (so-called) Low Churchmen of
modern times have ordinarily maintained ; for they
expressly defend the position, that the form of church
government adopted is a matter of indifference, left to
the free choice of each Church for itself.

We give the precedence, as the order of time de
mands, to the learned Bishop of Exeter, Dr. Alley,
who in his Preelections upon 1 Peter, read publicly in
St. Paul's, in 1560, says :

"What difference is between a bishop and a priest, S. Hierome,
writing ad Titum, doth declare, whose words be these, ' Idem est er-

onysius, and even the Master himself [iv. Dist. 24, s. i. m. iii.] speaks of it as an
Order." " And here," says Mr. Goode, " is just the very species of language to
which I referred as Jield l>y some of the Scholastic divines ; attributing the
superiority of the £ishop, not to his having superior powers so far as his OR
DERS were concerned, but only so far as concerned the OFFICE bestowed upon
Ti/im ; that is, the official duties h( had to perform."

REFORMERS AN*I» LEADING DIVINES. 31

go presbyter, qui eplscopus,' ic. ; a priest, therefore, is the same that
a bishop is, &c."

And having given Jerome's words in full, lie adds:

u These words are alleged, that it may appear priests among the,
elders to have been even the same that bishops were. But it grew by
little and little that the whole charge and cure should be appointed to
one bishop within his precinct, that the seeds of dissension might ut
terly be rooted out." (Alley's Poor J/ci/t's Library^ 1M ed. 1571,
torn. i. fol. yi, %.)

It could hardly be doubted, then, by one who held
this, that if the circumstances of the Church required
it, Presbyterian ordination would be valid

About the same period, namely, in 15<>3, we have
a much stronger testimony from Dr. Pilkington, then
Bishop of Durham :

" Vet remains one doubt unanswered in these few words, when he
says, that 'the government of the Church was committed to bishops,'
as though they had received a larger and higher commission from
God of doctrine and discipline than other lower priests or ministers
have, and thereby might challenge a greater prerogative. But this
is to be understood, that the privileges and superiorities, which bishops
have above other ministers, are rather granted by men fur maintaining
of better order and quietness in commonwealths, than commanded by
Go<l in JJis irord. Ministers have better knowledge and utterance
some than other, but their ministry is of equal dignity, God's com
mission and commandment is like and indifferent to all, priest, bishop,
r.rchbishop, prelate, by what name soever he be called. ... St.
Paul calls the elders of Ephesus together, and says, ' the Holy Ghost
made them bishops to rule the Church of God.' (Acts l!0.) He writes
also to the bishops of I'hilippos, meaning the ministers. . . . St
Jerome, in his commentary on the first chapter Ad. Tit., says that 'a
bishop and a priest is all one.' ... A bishop is a name of office,
labor, and pains." (Confut. of an Addition. Works, ed. Park Soc.
pp. 493, 4'J4.)

32 KEFORMERS AND LEADIXG DIVINES.

Both these were among the Bishops who settled our
Articles, on the accession of Queen Elizabeth.

Our next witness shall be Bishop Jewel, of whose
standing in our Church it is unnecessary to add a
word. On the parity of order in priests and bishops,
he says :

" Is it so horrible a neresy, as he [Harding] maketh it, to say, that
by the Scriptures of God a bishop and a priest are all one ? or knovv-
eth he how far, and unto whom, he reacheth the name of an heretic ?
Verily Chrysostom saith : ' Between a bishop and a priest in a man
ner there is no difference.' (In 1 Tim. horn. 11.) S. Hierome saith.
. . . ' The apostle plainly teacheth us, that priests and bishops be
all one.' (ad. Evagr.) S. Augustine saith : 'What is a bishop but
the first priest ; that is to say, the highest priest ?' (In Qucest, N. et
V. Test. q. 101.) So saith S. Ambrose: ' There is but one consecra
tion (ordinatio) of priest and bishop ; for both of them are priests, but
the bishop is the first.' (In 1 Tim. c. 3.) All these and other more
holy Fathers, together with St. Paul the apostle, for thus saying, by
M. Harding's advice, must be liolden for heretics." (Def. of Apol.
Pt. ii. c. 9. div. i. Works, p. 202. See also Pt. ii. c. iii. div. i. p. 85.)

But there is a passage in his writings still more
strongly bearing on the point in question. Harding
had charged our Church with deriving its orders from
apostate bishops, etc. Jewel replies :

" Therefore we neither have bishops without church, nor church
without bishops. Neither doth the Church of England this day de
pend of them whom you often call apostates, as if our Church were
no Church without them. . . . If there were not one, neither of
them nor of us left alive, yet would not therefore the whole Church of
England flee to Lovaine. Tertullian saith : ' And we being laymen,
are we not priests ? It is written, Christ hath made us both a king
dom and priests unto God his Father. The authority of the Church,
and the honor by the assembly, or council of order sanctified of God,
hath made a difference between the lay and the clergy. Where as
there is no assembly of ecclesiastical order, the priest being there

REFORMERS ANTD LEADING DATIVES. 33

alone (without the company of other priests) doth both minister the
oblation and also baptize. Yea, and be there but three together, and
though they be laymen, yet is there a church. For every man liveth
of his own faith.'" (Def. of Apol. Ft. ii. c. v. div. i. p. Iii9.)

It is needless to point out how much this passage
implies.

We proceed to Archbishop "Whitgift.

And first, as to the parity of order in bishops and
priests, he speaks thus :

"Every bishop is a priest, but every priest hath not the name and
title of a bishop, in that meaning that Jerome in this place [Ad
Evagr.~\ taketh the name of a bishop. . . . Neither shall you
find this word rpiscopu.1 commonly used but for that priest that is in
degree over and above the rest, notwithstanding epifcopus be oftentimes
called presbyter, because presbyter is tlie more general name.'1 (I)?f.
of Answ. to Adm. 1574, fol. p. 383.)

"Although Ilierome confess, that by Scripture presbyter and epis-
copns is all one, (AS IN DKKD THEY UK quoad minus(erium,)\vt doth he
acknowledge a superiority of the bishop before the minister. . . .
Therefore no doubt this is Jerome's mind, that a bishop in degree and
dignity is above the minister, though he be one and the self-same with
him in the office of ministering the word and sacraments." (Ib. pp.
384, 385.)

Secondly, as to the form of government to be fol
lowed in the Church. His adversary Cartwright, like
the great body of the Puritans, contended for the ex
clusive admissibility of the platform of church gov
ernment he advocated ; and, like Archdeacon Deni-
son, maintained that "matters of discipline and kind
of government are matters necessary to salvation and
of faith." And this is WhitgifVs reply :

' / "I confess that in a church collected together in one place, and at \
' liberty, government is necessary in the second kind »f necessity ; but — \

34 REFORMERS AND LEADING DIVINES.

that any one kind of government is so necessary that without it the
Church can not be saved, or that it may not be altered into some other
kind thought to be more expedient, I utterly deny, and the reasons that
move me so to do be these. The first is, because I find no one cer
tain and perfect kind of government prescribed or commanded in the
Scriptures to the Church of Christ, which no doubt should have been
done, if it had been a matter necessary unto the salvation of the
Church. Secondly, because the essential notes of the Church be these
only ; the true preaching of the word of God, and the right administra
tion of the sacraments : for (as Master Calvin saith, in his book against
the Anabaptists) : ' This honor is meet to be given to the word of
God, and to His sacraments, that wheresoever we see the word of
God truly preached, and God according to the same truly worshipped,
and the sacraments without superstition administered, there we may
without all controversy conclude the Church of God to be :' and a lit
tle after : ' So much we must esteem the word of God and His sacra
ments, that wheresoever we find them to be, there we may certainly
know the Church of God to be, although in the common life of men
many faults and errors be found.' The same is the opinion of other
godly and learned writers and the judgment of the Reformed Churches, '
as appeareth by their Confessions. So that notwithstanding govern
ment, or some kind of government, may be a part of the Church,
touching the outward form and perfection of it, yet is it not such a
part of the essence and being, but that it may be the Church of
Christ without this or that kind of government, and therefore the
kind of government of the Church is not necessary unto salvation."
(Ib. p. 81.)

" / deny that the Scriptures do . . . set down any one certain form
and kind of government of the Church to be perpetual for all times, per-
and places without alteration." (Ib. p. 84.)

And speaking of the platform of church, govern
ment contended for by Cartwright, he says :

"Yet would I not have any man to think that I condemn any
churches ivhere this government is lawfully and without danger received',
only I have regard to whole kingdoms, especially this realm, where it
can not but be dangerous." (Ib. p. 658.)

REFORMERS AND LEADING DIVINES. 35

In Tract 17, c. iv. lie undertakes expressly to prove,\
" Tliat tliere is no one certain kind of government in /
the Church which must of necessity be perpetually /
observed/' (Ib. p. 608.) And he remarks in it:

" It is plain that any one certain form or kind of external govern
ment perpetually to be observed, is no where in the Scripture prescribed
to the Church ; but the charge thereof is left to the Christian magis
trate, so that nothing be done contrary to the word of God." (Ib. p.
659.)

The equality of bishops and presbyters jure divino,
was also expressly maintained at this period by the
learned Dr. W. Whitaker, Keg. Prof, of Div. at Cam
bridge. Among other remarks on the subject, he
says, referring to Jerome's words in his Commentary
on Titus, e. i. :

"Si Episcopi consuetudine non dispositwne Dominica presbyteris ma-
jores eunt, turn humano non divino jure totum hoc discrimen con-
stat." (lif.fp. ad Camp, dffens. adv. J. Duratwn. lib. vi. Op. torn, i
p. 140.)

And to the reference of his opponent to Jerome's
Epistle to Evagrius, showing that the power of ordi
nation had been placed in the hands of the bishop, he
replies :

" Quod autem afters ex eadem Epistola, ad humanam non divinam
constitutionem pertinet. Etsi enitn ortu suo iidern erant &mbo, posted
tamen (inquit Hieronymus) unus elcctus e&t, qui cateris proeponeretur ;
atquc hide natum est illud episcopi ac presbyteri discrimen." (Ibid.)

Of course, then, that which owed its origin to hu
man appointment might, by the same authority, in

any individual church, be laid aside.

-

36 REFORMERS AND LEADING DI FINES.

Our next witness shall be HOOKER, in himself a
host. And when our readers have perused the ex
tracts we are about to give from his writings, they will
be able to judge of the honesty with which his name
has been used in favor of the exclusive doctrine of
the Tractarians, both in their Catenas and in their re
cent onslaught on the Archbishop of Canterbury.

" Now whereas hereupon (he observes) some do infer that no ordi
nation can stand, but only such as is made by bishops which have
had their ordination likewise by other bishops before them, till we
come to the very Apostles of Christ themselves ; in which respect it
was demanded of Beza at Poissie, ' By what authority he could ad
minister the holy sacraments, &c.' [Our readers will observe the in
stance cited, the very case now in question between the Archbishop
and his assailants.] ... To this we answer, that there may be
sometimes very just and sufficient reason TO ALLOW ORDINATION MADE
WITHOUT A BISHOP. The whole Church visible being the true original
subject of all power, it hath not ordinarily allowed any other than
bishops alone to ordain ; howbeit, as the ordinary course is ordinarily
in all things to be observed, so it may be, in some cases, not unne
cessary that we decline from the ordinary ways. Men may be extra
ordinarily, yet allowably, two ways admitted unto spiritual functions in
the Church. One is, when God Himself doth of Himself raise up any.
. . . Another . . . when the exigence of necessity doth con
strain to leave the usual ways of the Church, which otherwise we
would \ullingly keep." (Ecd. Pol. vii. 14. See also iii. 11.)

Here is a direct assertion of the validity of such
orders as those of Beza.

And in a former passage of the same book, he dis
tinctly admits the power of the Church at large to
take away the Episcopal form of government from the
Church, and says :

"Let them [that is, bishops'] continually bear in mind, that it is rather
the force of custom, whereby the Church, having so long found it good to

REFORMERS AND LEADING DIVINES. 37

continue under the regiment of her virtuous bishops, doth still uphold,
maintain, and honor Dunn in that respect, than that any such true ami
heavenly law can be showed by the evidence whereof it may of a truth
appear, that the ford himself hath appointed presbyters forever to It
under the regiment of bishops ;" adding, that " their authority" is " a
sword which the Church hath poicer to take from them." (Ib. vii. 5.
See also i. 14 and iii. 10.)

And, therefore, though lie admits the office and
superiority of bishops to be of Apostolical institution
and takes much higher ground on the subject than
most of his contemporaries, yet all that he expressly
undertakes to prove on the subject is, that such supe
riority is "a tiling allowable, lawful, ami good." (76.
vii. 8.)

We will take the testimony of Hadrian Saravia ;
of whom Mr. Keble writes thus :

"Saravia is a distinct and independent testimony to the doctrine

of exclusive [the Italics arc ours] divine right in bishops

And since Saravia was afterwards in familiar intercourse with Hooker,
and his confidential adviser when writing on nearly the same subjects,
we may with reason use the recorded opinions of the one for inter
preting what might seem otherwise ambiguous in the other." (Pref.
to Hooker, p. Ixvii.)

Now certainly Hadrian Saravia took very high
ground in his defense of Episcopacy, maintaining that
the Episcopal authority was of Divine institution and
Apostolical tradition, and was taught as well by the
word of God as the universal consent of all Churches;*
yet in the same work he speaks thus :

• EpUcopaJem authoritatem Divinas Institutionii et Apostollcae tradltionii ess«
defcndo, et id tain Verbo Dei quam universal! omnium Ecclesiarum consensu (toccri.
(Dtfen*. Tract, dt die. J/iniatr. EC. gradibut: In Epi«t. dtdicat. Op. 1611.)

38 REFORMERS AND LEADING DIVINES.

** In our fathers' memory Luther, Bucer, (Ecolampadius, and others,
had no other calling lhan that which they had received in the Church
of Home ; and when it happened to them to be called before Caesar,
no question respecting their calling could ever be justly raised ; and
if it had been, they had an answer ready more fit in my judgment
than that which was made at the Conference at Poissy. . . . For
although all who had assembled there before the king had not the
same kind of ordination, and some were ordained by bishops of the
Church of Rome, others by the Reformed Churches, none of them
ought to have been asha)ned of his ordination. They might, so far as
I can see, without any danger, have professed that they had been
ordained and called, some by bishops of the Church of Rome, others
by orthodox presbyters, in the order received in the Churches of Christ,
after an examination of their morals and doctrine, and with the au
thority of the magistrate and consent of the people, with the impo
sition of hands and prayer. Although I am of opinion that ordina
tions of ministers of the Church properly belong to bishops, yet
necessity causes that when they are wanting and can not be had,
orthodox presbyters can in case of necessity ordain a presbyter ; which
thing, although it is not in accordance with the order received from
the times of the Apostles, yet is excused by the necessity of the case,
which causes that in such a state of things a presbyter may be a bishop.
Moreover, although the act is out of the usual order, the calling, is
not to be considered extraordinary." [And then, having remarked
that no one ought to receive orders from an heretical bishop, and
that the Romish bishops were all heretics, he adds :] "This also is
true, that in such a state of confusion in the Church, when all the
bishops fall away from the true worship of God unto idolatry, without
any violation of the government of the Church, the whole authority
of the Episcopal ecclesiastical government is devolved upon the pious
and orthodox presbyters, so that a presbyter clearly may ordain pres
byters. . . . There is one God, one Lord Jesus Christ, one Church,
one Baptism, one Ministry. The difference there is between presby
ters and pastors of the Church of Christ consists in the authority of
Ecclesiastical government. And this is not violated, when the higher
orders being in any way removed, those who are of the lowest grade
alone remain, with whom, consequently, the whole power of the keys
of the Church then resides. . . . But where all the bishop* are
become impious heretics, the orthodox presbyters are freed from their

REFORMERS AND LEADING DIVINES. 39

Jurisdiction, and ought to vindicate to themselves the power of the
kevs which they have received in their ordination. ... I cer
tainly know not by what necessity Master Beza should have been
compelled to resort to an extraordinary calling. For I do not think
that either fit, or Nicholas Galaxius, or any other that mat/ have been
then present, not ordained by Romish bishops, took upon themselves
the ministry of the Word without a legitimate calling received in the
Churches of Christ."*

Nor did lie hold that the Foreign Non-Episcopal
Churches were hound to seek Episcopacy from some
Reformed Episcopal Church, f«»r he says: "If they
call in the aid of our men, and wish to use their advice,
thev can ; hut if they do not, they ought not to arro
gate to themselves any authority over them and their
churches, but to rejoice, and congratulate them upon
their conversion, and oiler them communion, (off'erre
societatcm.)"^

So that here again we have a direct testimony in
favor of the validity of the ordination of the Foreign
Non-Episcopal Churches.

Let us take next the testimony of Dr. John Bridges,
then (1587) Dean of Salisbury, afterwards Bishop of
Oxford. He, as we shall see, agrees with Archbishop
Whitgift, that the form of church government is a
matter left to the discretion of each church. He
speaks of it, indeed, in language which we can not
reconcile with the respect we feel due to the primitive
form of church government; but yet he was one of
the most able and distinguished prelates of that period.

* Defens. Tract, dr clir. Ministr. Er. gradibm, Ac. ch. II. pp. 82, 38. We tram
late from the Latin,
t lb. p. 13.

40 REFORMERS AND LEADING DIVINES.

With respect to the question of order in the case of
bishops and priests, he expressly maintains that bishops
are superiors, " not in the office of their order, yet in the
office of their dignity;" (Defense of the Government
Established in the Church of England, 1587, 4to, p. 287;)
and he speaks of the Episcopal state as " a high call
ing, not so much of superior dignity, as of superior
charge in governing of God's Church." (Ib. p. 288.)

And on the subject of the Episcopal government
of the Church — opposing the notion of the Puritans,
against whom he was writing, that one certain form
only was allowable — he writes thus :

" If now, on the other side, this be not a matter of necessity, but
such as may be varied, being but a form and manner of Ecclesiastical
government, as the observation of this feast and these fasts were of
accustomed order, not of necessity ; then, so long as it is used hi
moderate sort, without tyranay or pride, nor any thing contrary to
the proportion of faith and godliness of life necessarily maintained
thereby, (for otherwise, if those fasts or this feast had been used to
be kept superstitiously, it had been so far forth to be condemned,)
there is no reason why we should break the bond of peace, and make
such trouble in the Church of God, to reject the government that in
the nature thereof is as much indifferent as the solemnizing this or that
day the memorial of the Lord's resurrection. And yet we celebrate
the same on the Sunday only, as those bishops of Rome at that time
did. Which I hope we do without all offense, though we have no
precept in Scripture for it. And therefore, as Polycarpus and Ani-
cetus, differing in that point, notwithstanding did not violate the peace
and unity of the Church, so, according to Irenaeus's rule, while no
such excessive superiority is maintained of us, as the Pope since that
time hath usurped, but such as we find practised in the primitive
Church and in the very apostles' age, we ought neither to condemn, nor
speak, nor think evil of other good Churches that use another Ecclesi
astical government than we do ; neither ought they to do the like of
ours. Not that every person in one and the same Church should use

REFORMERS AND LEADING DIVINES. *

this liberty of difference, without controlment and restraint of the
superior in that Church wherein lie liveth. For, though it were lawful
for one Church to differ from another, being not so tied to uniformity,
as to unity; yet is it nut meet for one Church to differ from itself;
but to be both in unity, and be ruled also by uniformity. Especially
where law binds them to obedience." (//>. pp. 319, 3iiO.)

Another of the most able prelates of our Church, and
defender of it against the Puritans, was Dr. Thomas
Cooper, Bishop, first of Lincoln, and afterwards of
Winchester. In the year ir>s<)? he published an
Admonition to the People of England^ in answer to the
attacks of the Puritan party. And thus he defends
in this work the form of church government estab
lished in this country :

" AM touching the government of the Church of England, now de
fended by the bishop-, tliis I say : When <n>d restored the doctrine
of the <Jospel more sincerely and more abundantly than ever before,
under that pood young prince, King Edward VI. . . . by con-
Bent of all the States of this land, this manner of government that
now is used was by law confirmed as good and godly. ... As
for this question of church government, I mean not at this time to
stand much on it. ... Duly this I desire, that they will lay
down out of the v*ord of God some just proofs, and a direct coin
inandinent, that there should be in all ayes and states of the Church
of Christ one only form of outward government." (Ed. Loud.
1847, pp. 61-C..1}.)

So that, far from maintaining the necessity of the
Episcopal form of church government, he, on the con
trary, challenges his opponents to prove that any
particular form of church government is necessary.
And he adds :

" Surgly, as grave learned men as most that have written in tfifa
time .... do make good proof of this proposition. ThaJ.

42 REFORMERS AND LEADING DIVINES.

one form of church government is not necessary in all times and
places of the Church, and that their Senate or Segniorie is not con
venient under a Christian magistrate."

And after pointing out the different forms of
church government that prevailed in the Foreign
Non-Episcopal Churches, he says :

"All those churches in which the Gospel in these days, after great
darkness, was first renewed, and the learned men whom God sent to
instruct them, I doubt not but have been directed by the Spirit of
God to retain this liberty, that in external government and other
outward orders, they might choose such as they thought in wisdom
and godliness to be most convenient for the state of their country
and disposition of the people. Why, then, should this liberty that
other countries have used under any color be wrested from us /"' ^fb.
p. -66.)

" The reason that moveth us not to like of this platform of gov
ernment is, that when we, on the one part, consider the things that
are required to be redressed, and on the other the state of our coun- -
try, people, and common weal, we see evidently, that to plant those
things in this Church will draw with it so many and so great altera
tions of the state of government and of the laws, as the attempting
thereof might bring rather the overthrow of the Gospel among us,
the end that is desired." (Ib. p. 67.)

This of course disposes of the doctrine of our op
ponents, root and branch.

We will add but one more authority for the reign
of Queen Elizabeth. We began with the Bishop of
Exeter ; we will end with one of whose high au
thority as the proper expounder of the doctrine of
our Church we have lately heard much — the Dean
of the Arches. We beg the attention of our oppo
nents to the following statement of the very learned
and able Dean of the Arches in 1584, Dr. Richard
Cosin. It occurs ir his answer, "published by au-

REPOKMEK0 AND LEADING DIVINES. 43

thority," to a Puritan work, entitled An Abstract on
Certain Acts of Parliament. lie is opposing the no
tion that " a set Ibnii" of "external policy of disci
pline and ceremonies" is " set down in Scripture,"
and he says :

u Are all the churches of Denmark, Sweveland, Poland, Germany,
Ilhetia, Vallis, Tellina, the nine cantons of Switzerland reformed,
with their confederates of Geneva, of France, of the Low Countries,
and of Scotland, in all points, either of substance or of circum
stance, disciplinated alike ? Nay, they neither are, can be, nor yet
need so to be ; seeing it can not be proved, that any net and exact
particular form thereof is recommended unto us by the word of GW.1'
(Answer to an Abstract, etc., 158-1, 4to. p. 58.)

Such are the statements of some of the best au
thorities for the doctrine of our Church in the time
of Queen Elizabeth, in whose reign our Articles and
Formularies were settled (with slight exceptions) in
their present form. Ami we now challenge t/ie Arrh-
b chop's assailants to produce tfieir authorities for tltc
same period. Can they bring even one for their doc
trine? We do not believe it. And upon the testi
monies of this period, be it remembered, must rest
the proof of the original and genuine doctrine of our
Reformed Protestant Church. That there was a de
clension from that doctrine afterwards, in many of
our divines, is freely confessed. But that proves
nothing. It can neither alter nor add to the doctrine
of our Church, as laid down in her Formularies
drawn up in the time of the divines from whom we
have been quoting. And we shall give presently a
series of testimonies, from their times to our own,
showing that their view has, in the main, been held

44

REFORMERS AND LEADING DIVINES.

by a large proportion of our greatest divines ever
since ; and farther, that even the highest among our
eminent High Church divines (as they are called)
have never advocated the extreme notions main
tained by the Tractarians, and were not, therefore,
High Churchmen.*

The ground taken by our early divines, as shown
by the testimonies above given, was that the Episco
pal form of church government is the best and the
most Scriptural, and comes recommended to us by the
practice of the Church even from the times of the
Apostles, but has not been authoritatively laid down
by Christ or his Apostles as of indispensable obliga
tion, and therefore is not binding upon all Churches.

They did not oppose the early Nonconformists on
the ground of the absolute necessity of the Episco-.
pal form of Church government, still less of a suc
cession of bishops consecrated by bishops, to consti
tute a Church. They left such notions to the Ro
manists. But they found fault with them, as throw
ing a well-constituted Church into confusion and dis
order, as causing needless schisms and divisions, and
as sinfully disobeying the ordinances of the Supreme
Power in the State, which had established a Christ
ian Church agreeable to Holy Scripture and Apos
tolic practice. The high-flown claims of our Tracta-
rian High Churchmen to the exclusive admissibility of
one system of Church government, were the weapons,

* The only authorities quoted by the Bishop of Exeter as holding the doctrine
of exclusive validity in the reign of Elizabeth, are Hooker and Bishop Bilaon.
The true testimony of Hooker is given above, and it can be shown from Bilson
tluvt this particular question was not before his mind at all. He says that bishops
only can ordain in the Church of England. Elizabeth died in 1C03.

THE PRACTICE OP THE CHURCH. 45

not of the divines of our Church, but of their oppo
nents, the Puritans. The Genevan platform of
Church government was with the Puritans that
which alone was conformable to the word of (Jod.
Every other, but especially the Prelatical, was to be
eschewed as an abomination. And, as to the power
of the civil ruler in religious matters, they spoke of
it — much as the Tractarians now speak of it ; except
that under Elizabeth they muttered in the dark what
under Victoria is proclaimed in the market-place.*
Thus it is that extremes meet.

III. The PRACTICE OF oi*K Cirt'RCH for many
years after the Reformation entirely refutes the no
tion that she holds the ordinations of the Scotch and
Foreign Non-Episcopal Churches to be invalid ; lor,
until the period <>f the Restoration, ministers of tliose
Ckurdws uvre admitted to the cure nf souk in our
Church without any fresh ordination.

In 1582 (April (1) a license was granted by the
Vicar-General of the Archbishop of Canterbury
(Grindal) to a minister of the name of John Morri
son, who had only Scotch orders, in the following
terms :

* Hence we may remark, by the way, that when we are considering the events
of that period, an<l the apparent (and to some extent real) absence of those prin
ciples of toleration now so happily established among us, it n ist not be forgotten,
hat the object of the early Nonconformists was, not the me .• toleration of their
own system, but the utter subversion of the system of chu ch government then
established by Die consent of the sovereign, the clergy, an< the people, and the
substitution of their own in its stead. This was notoriously nd confessedly their
aim ; and this it was which infused lo much wrath and bitte less into the contro-
rersles of the period.

[Die Nonconformists after Uie Restoration, sucli as Baxter and his school, did
not take thto jrouud.— ED.]

46 THE PRACTICE OF THE CHURCH.

" Since you, the aforesaid John Morrison, about five years past,
in the town of Garvet, in the county of Lothian, of the kingdom of
Scotland, were admitted and ordained to sacred orders and the
holy ministry, by the imposition of hands, according to the laudable
form, and rite of the Reformed Church of Scotland ; and since the
congregation of that county of Lothian is conformable to the ortho
dox faith and sincere religion now received in this realm of England,
and established by public authority ; we, therefore, as much as lies
in us, and as by right we may, approving and ratifying the form of
your ordination and preferment (prccfectionis] done in such manner
aforesaid, grant to you a license and faculty, with the consent and
express command of the most reverend Father in Christ the Lord
Edmund, by the Divine providence Archbishop of Canterbury, to us
signified, that in such orders by you taken you may, and have power,
in any convenient places in and throughout the whole province of
Canterbury, to celebrate divine offices, to minister the sacraments, etc.,
as much as in us lies, and we may de jure, and as far as the laws of
the kingdom do allow, etc." (Strype's Life of Grindal, Bk. 2, c. xiii.
p. 271; or Oxf. ed. p. 402.)

To tins we need only add tlie testimony of Bishop
Cosin, confessedly (as the phrase goes) a High Church
man. He says, in an admirable letter on this subject,
written from Paris, Feb. 7, 1650, from which we
shall presently give a large extract :

" Therefore, if at any time a minister so ordained in these French
Churches came to incorporate himself in ours, and to receive a pub
lic charge or cure of souls among us in the Church of England, (as I
have known some of them to have so done of late, and can instance in
many other before my time,) our bishops did not reordain him before
they admitted him to his charge, as they must have done, if his former
ordination here in France had been void, NOR DID OUR LAWS REQUIRE

MORE OF HIM THAN TO DECLARE HIS PUBLIC CONSENT TO THE RELIGION
RECEIVED AMONGST US, AND TO SUBSCRIBE THE ARTICLES ESTABLISHED."

(Letter to Mr. Cordel, in Basire's "Account of Bishop Cosin," an
nexed to his " Funeral Sermon ;" and also in Bishop Fleetwood's
Judgment of the Church of England in the case of Lay Baptism,
2d ed. Lond. 1712, p. 52.)

THE PRACTICE OP THE CnURCFT. 4 i

And the same testimony is borne by Bishop Fleet-
wood, who suvs that this was ''certainly her practice
[that is, of our Church] during the reigns of King
James and King Charles I. and to the year I »>».>!.
We had manv ministers from Scotland, from France,
and the Low Countries, who were ordained by pres
byters only, and not bishops, and they were insti
tuted into benefices with cure . . . and yet were
never reordaincd, but only subscribed the Articles/'
(Judy in. of Church of Eng. in cct^c of Lay J3aptismt
1712. Svo. pt. ii. \Vork*, p. r>f>2.)

If these cases do not prove, that at least our
Church has never disowned the validity of the ordi
nations of the Scotch and Foreign Non-Episcopal
Churches, and that her j tract ice till the Restoration
was to recognize their validity, nothing would do so.
For Dr. Cosin, who must have been well acquainted
with the matter, (having filled important posts in the
Church since the year l(ii(>, and been librarian to
Bishop Overal, and domestic chaplain to Bishop
Neale,) speaks of it, not as a custom with some, onlv,
but as the practice of " the bishops'' generally, and
sanctioned by the law.

The last sentence in the extract from Dr. Cosin, no
doubt refers to the Act 13 Eliz. c. 12, in which it
was enacted, that anv professing to be a priest or
minister of God's word and sacraments, who had been
ordained by any other form than that authorized by
Edward VI. and Queen Elizabeth, should be called
upon to declare his assent and subscribe to the Arti
cles of religion. The parties more particularly in the

48 THE PRACTICE OF THE CHURCH.

eye of the framers of the Act were probably those
ordained by the Romish form, but the application of
the clause was of course general.

True, as we have already observed, after the Re
storation this was altered. The Act of Uniformity
13, 14 Car. II. c. 4 §§ 13, 14, requires that all admit
ted to any "ecclesiastical promotion or dignity what
soever" in our Church, or to administer the Lord's
Supper, should have had "Episcopal ordination."
And a clause of a similar kind was added in the
Preface to the Ordination Services ; the words, " or
hath had formerly Episcopal consecration or ordina
tion," being inserted at that time.

Bat this could not affect the doctrine of our
Church as previously laid down in the Articles. The
Article declaring the doctrine of our Church on the
subject of admission to the ministerial office remained
the same as it was when ministers of the Foreign
Non-Episcopal Churches were freely permitted to
minister in our churches. But the Episcopal form
of church government being established in our
Church, it was very reasonably required by the Act,
that all who held any " promotion" in it should have
received Episcopal ordination, and this especially at
I time when the benefices of the Church had been
filled by men attached to the Presbyterian form of
church government, and the Episcopalian ministers
ejected from them. The state of things at the time
shows the object which the Act had in view, as no
attempt had been made previouly to get such a law
passed against the admission of ministers of Non-
Episcopal Churches. And in the very next section

THE PRACTICE OF THE CHURCH. 49

of the Act (§ 15) we find a recognition of those com
munities as ''the Foreign Reformed Churches."
The fact that our Church requires all who hold oflicc
in her communion to be ordained according to that
form of church government which she has chosen to
follow, proves nothing as to her doctrine on the al-
stract question of the validity of the Orders of Noi>
Episcopal Cl lurches.

Once more • if it were the case that our Church
held all but Episcopal ordinations to be invalid, and
that only those who have been ordained by bishops
are entitled to preach the word and administer both
the sacraments, the whole Bench of Bishops have
been for more than a century, if not at the present
moment, involved in the guilt of acting directly con
trary to the doctrine of the Church ; for the mission
aries sent out as ordained ministers by the Society
for the Propagation of the Gospel, which is under the
especial direction of the Bench of Bishops, used to be
for the most part only in Lutheran orders ; and if
the practice has been given up, its discontinuance
must be of very recent date.

On these grounds, then, namely, the witness of our
early divines, the statements of our Formularies, and
the practice of our Church, we maintain, without
hesitation, that our Church docs not hold the doctrine
of the exclusive validity of Episcopal Orders.

We admit that, in that great alteration that gradu
ally took place subsequently to the reign of Eliza
beth, in the tone of the doctrine practically held* in
our Church by many of her divines, there was a
great change on this point as well as others.
3

50 THE PRACTICE OF THE CHURCH.

We find Lord Bacon complaining, just at the close
of the reign of Elizabeth, that some of the clergy
denied the validity of the Orders conferred in the
Foreign Non-Episcopal Churches. He says : " Some
indiscreet persons have been bold in open preaching
to use dishonorable and derogatory speech and cen
sure of the Churches abroad ; and that so for, as
as some of our men, as I have heard, ordained in
foreign parts, have been pronounced to be no law
ful ministers." (Advertisement touch, the Controv. of
Hie Church of Eng. ; Works, ii. 514, ed. 1819.)

This is another proof that men so ordained were
allowed by public authority to minister in our
Church ; and also, no doubt, a proof that there had
then arisen a school of divines among us that denied
the validity of their Orders. But whatever might,
be the case with some hot-headed men in our
Church, we do not find the more eminent divines even
of that new school taking such ground. The utmost
length to which they go, is to leave the question of
the validity of such ordinations doubtful, and decline
the determination of it ; always, as far as we can re
collect, protesting against their having any notion of
denying to the Foreign Non-Episcopal Churches the
character and essential privileges of Churches of
Christ, however imperfectly constituted they might
consider them to be.

Bishop Andrews, for instance, might perhaps have
felt a difficulty with respect to much that our earlier
divines had written upon the subject; but, neverthe-
ess, he says, when speaking on the subject of the

THE PRACTICE OP THE CHURCH. 51

proper form of government for the Church, in his
Letters, in 1GIS, to Du Moulin:

" And yet, though our government l>e by Divine right, it follows
not, either that there is 4 no salvation,' or that ' a Church ran not
stand without it.' He must needs be stone blind, that sees not
Churches standing without it : he must needs be made of iron, ami
hard-hearted, that denies them salvation. We are not made of that
metal; we arc none of those ironsides; we put a wide difference be
twixt them. Somewhat may be wanting that is of Divine right, (at
least in the external government,) and yet salvation may be had.
This is not to damn anv thing, to j>rrfer a better thing
bfforc it : this is not to damn your Church, to recall it to another
form, that all antiquity was better pleased with, that is, to ours: and
this, when (lod shall grant the opportunity, and your estate may
Dear it." (.sV«v>«// fott. to Dit Moulin. See HV«/.<w. Christ. 1 nut it.
vol. iii. p. 239.)

After him, Archbishop Bramhall took the highest
ground among the eminent divines of that day in
favor of Episcopacy ; but, nevertheless, was far from
pronouncing all but Episcopal Orders invalid.
Writing, in 1(143, against the Separatists, (as the Dis
senters were then called,) he says :

" In a difference of ways, every pious and peaceable Christian, out
of Ins discretion and care of his own salvation, will inquire which irj
' fin tutixsima' — ' the safest way.' .... And seeing there is
required to the essence of a Church — first, a pastor; secondly, a
flock; thirdlv, a subordination of this flock to this pastor — where we
are not sure that there is right ordination, what assurance have we
that there is a Church? [But then he immediately adds] I write not
this to preJHilae our neighbor Churches. I dare not limit the extra
ordinary operation of God's Spirit, where ordinary means are want
ing without the default of the persons. He gave His people manna
for food whilst they were in the wilderness. Necessity is a strong
plea. Many Protestant Churches lived under kings and bishops of
another communion ; others had particular reasons why they could

52 THE PRACTICE OF THE CHURCH.

not continue or introduce bishops ; but it is not so with us.
. . . . But the chief reason is, because I DO NOT MAKE THIS WAY

TO BE SIMPLY NECESSARY, BUT ONLY SHOW WHAT IS SAFEST, where SO

many Christians are of another mind. I know that there is great dif
ference between a VALID and a REGULAR ordination ; and what some
choice divines do write of case of necessity, and for my part am apt
to believe that God looks upon His people in mercy, with all their
prejudices ; and that there is a great latitude left to particular
churches in the constitution of their ecclesiastical regiment, accord
ing to the exigence of time, and place, and persons, so as order
and his own institution be observed." (Serpent-Salve, § 25. Works,
Oxf. ed. vol. iii. pp. 475, 476.)

Again, in another subsequent work, (written about
1659,) he writes :

" I can not assent to his minor proposition, that either all or any
considerable part of the Episcopal divines in England do unchurch
either all or the most part of the Protestant Churches. No man is
hurt but by himself. They unchurch none at all, but leave them to
stand or fall to their own Master. They do not unchurch the Swed
ish, Danish, Bohemian Churches, and many other Churches in Po-
Ionia, Hungaria, and those parts of the world which have an ordi
nary uninterrupted succession of pastors, some by the names of
Bishops, others under the name of Seniors, unto this day. (I
meddle not with the Socinians.) They unchurch not the Lutheran
Churches in Germany, who both assert Episcopacy in their confes
sions, and havo actual superintendents in their practice, and would
have bishops, name and thing, if it were in their power. Let him
not mistake himself; those Churches which he is so tender of,
though they be better known to us by reason of their vicinity, are
so far from being ' all or the most part of the Protestant Churches,'
that, being all put together, they amount not to so great a proportion
as the Britannic Churches alone. And if one secluded out of them
all those who want an ordinary succession without their own faults,
out of invincible ignorance of necessity, and all those who desire to
have an ordinary succession, either explicitly or implicitly, they will
be reduced to a little flock indeed. But let him set his heart at rest.
i will remove this scruple out of his mind, that he may sleep securely

THE PRACTICE OF THE CHUltlll. 53

npon both oars. Episcopal divines do not deny THOSE CHURCHES to
be true Churches wherein salvation may be luul. We advise them, as
it is our duty, to bo circumspect for themselves, and not to put it to
more question, whether they have Ordination or not, or desert the
general practice of the Universal Church for nothing, when they
may clear it if they please. Their ca.se is not the same with those
who labor under invincible necessity. . . . Episcopal divines
will readily subscribe to the determination of the learned Bishop of
Winchester [Andrews] in his Answer to the Second K pintle, of ^fo!i-
n<xus [quoting the passage we have given above.] This mistake
proceedeth from not distinguishing between the true nature and es
sence of a Church, which ice do readily grant them, and the integrity
and perfection of a Church, which we can not grant them without
swerving from the judgment of the Catholic Church." ( \'indi<: of
himself awl the Episcopal Clergy, c. :\ ; Work*, vol. Hi. pp. 517,
518. See also his Replication to the Bishop of Chalcedon, Ansic. to
Pref. § 1 ; HWw, iii., itf, lit') ; and c. 1, g ± Ib. Gi>, 7U.)

Aiul here we must not omit to notice, in passing,
(what this last extract indicates, and is fullv eon-
iinned elsewhere in his Works,) that there is another
material dillerence in his views from those of our
modern Tractarians, namely, that what he specially
contends for, is a succession of pastors, not necessa
rily bishops consecrated l>y bishops, and that out of
these pastors one should be appointed as president
over the rest ; and, therefore, he speaks favorably of
the Lutheran Churches. He says, elsewhere, ex
pressly, of "most" of the Protestant Churches "in
High Germany," " all these have their bishops or su
perintendents, which is all oiv> ;" . . . " three
parts of four of the Protestant Churches have either
bishops or superintendents, which is attone" (Serpent-
Sal ue ; Works, iii. 480, 435.) He does not, therefore,
insist so much upon a succession of bishops conse-

THE PRACTICE OF THE £HUKCH.

crated by bishops, as upon the adoption of the Epis
copal form of government. But this by the way.

We may judge, then, from these passages ®f
Bishop Andrews and Archbishop Bramhall, what
would have been the feelings of the most eminent
even of our High Church divines respecting the lan
guage adopted on this subject by the Tractarian
school.

We will now add a few of the numerous testimo
nies that could be given from the writings of our
most celebrated divines, since the close of Queen
Elizabeth's reign to the present day, showing the
light in which they regarded the Orders of the Scotch
and Foreign Non-Episcopal Churches.

Of Archbishop Bancroft's opinion we may form
some judgment from the countenance he gave to the
work of his chaplain, Rogers, on the XXXIX. Arti
cles, already quoted. But, indirectly, we have a still
more express testimony of his judgment on the sub-
'ject, as well as of several of his brother bishops, in
the following passage in Archbishop Spotiswood's
History of Scotland. The Archbishop relates that
when, in 1610, a regular episcopate was about to be
conferred upon the Church of Scotland, by the con
secration of three Scottish clergymen (of whom
Spotiswood himself was one) as bishops of that
Church, by the Bishops of London, Ely, and Bath,
at the chapel of London-House :

"A question in the mean time was moved by Dr. Andrews,
Bishop of Ely, touching the consecration of the Scottish bishops,
who, as he said, ' must first be ordained presbyters as having re-

THE PRACTICE OF THE CHL'UCH. 55

CPived no ordination from a bishop.' The Archbishop of Canter,
bury, Dr. Bancroft, who was by, maintained, ' that thereof there
was no necessity, seeing where bishops could not be had, the ordina
tion given by the presbyters must be esteemed lawful ; otherwise,
that it might be doubted if there were any lawful vocation in most
of the Reformed Churches.' This applauded to by the other
bishops, Ely acquiesced ; and at the day and in the place appointed
the three Scottish bishops were consecrated." (tfj>otiatroo<rs Hint,
of Church and State of Scotland, 4th ed. 1077, fol. p. 61-1.)

Next, let us hear Archbishop Usher's judgment,
given at the latter end of his life :

*' I have ever declared my opinion to be, that cpixcoj>ns et presby
ter tjradu tantuin dijferunt iion online, and consequently that iu
places where bishops can not be had, the ordination by presbyters
stand* (h valid ; yet, on the other side, holding as I do that a bishop
hath superiority in degree above a presbyter, you may easily judge
that the ordination made by such presbyters as have severed them
selves from those bishops unto whom they had sworn canonical
obedience, can not possibly, by me, be excused from being sehisma-
tical. And howsoever 1 must needs think that the Churches which
have no bishops are thereby become very much defective in their
government, and that the Churches in France, who living under a
Popish power, can not do what they would, are more excusable iu
this defect than the Low Countries, that live under a free State, yet,
for the testifying my communion with these Churches, (which I do
love and honor as true members of the Church universal,) I do pro
fess that, with like affection, I should receive the blessed sacrament
at the hands of the Dutch ministers, if I were in Holland, as I
should do at the hands of the French ministers if I were in Chareu-
tone." (Judgment of the late Archbishop of Armagh^ etc. By X.
Bernard. Loud. 1G57, 8vo, pp. \-l~>-\-11.)

No one probably will question the high ralue
whieh Bishop Hall had for Episcopacy, manifested in
his Treatise on the subject. Yet, in a Discourse ad
dressed to the Clergy of his Diocese as Bishop of

56 THE PRACTICE OF THE CHURCH.

Norwich, when speaking of the differences between
the Church of England and the Non-Episcopal
Churches abroad, he writes thus :

" Blessed be God, there is no difference in any essential matter be
twixt the Church of England and her sisters of the Keformation.
We accord in every point of Christian doctrine without the least va
riation ; their public Confessions and ours are sufficient convictions
to the world of our full and absolute agreement. The only differ
ence is, in the form of outward administration ; wherein also we
are so far agreed, as that we all profess this form not to be essential
to the being of a Church, though much importing the well or better
being of it, according to our several apprehensions thereof; and
that we do all retain a reverence and loving opinion of each other in
our own several ways ; not seeing any reason why so poor a diversity
should work any alienation of affection in us one towards another."
(TJie Peacemaker, § 6, published hi 1647. Works, by Pratt, vol. viii.
p. 56.)

So also our learned Bishop Davenant :

" In a disordered Church, where all the bishops have fallen into
heresy or idolatry, where they have refused to ordain orthodox min
isters, where they have considered those only who are associates of
their faction and error to be worthy of holy orders, if orthodox
presbyters (for the preservation of the Church) are compelled to or
dain other presbyters, I could not venture to pronounce such ordi
nations useless and invalid." And this he proceeds to apply to the
case of certain Protestant Churches. (Determ. queest, etc. Cant.
1634, fol., q. 42, p. 191.)

And in his Letter to Mr. Dury, on promoting
peace among the Protestant Churches, he says :

" Moreover, I doubt not at all but that the Saxon and Helvetian
Churches, and others which either consent with these, or those, ac
knowledge themselves to have, and to desire to retain, brotherly
communion with the English, Scottish, Irish, and other Foreign Re
formed Churches. Surely, as concerning us, although we consent

THE PRACTICE OF THE CHURCU. 57

not with them in all points nnd title of controversial divinity, yet wo
acknowledge them brethren in Christ, and protest ourselves to have a
brotherly ttnd holy communion with them." (Prefixed to his Exhort,
to broth, comm. beticixt the Protestant Churches. Loud. 1641. 12mo,
p. 33. Sec also the Treatise following it.)

One of the most eminent and able divines of our
Church was Bishop Morton, of the seventeenth cen
tury, bishop successively of Chester, Litchiield, and
Durham. And thus he speaks:

" Where the bishops degenerate into wolves, there the presbyters
regain their ancient right of ordaining, (comecrarnli.) I call it an.
cicnt, because that the Episcopate and the Presbytcrate are, jure
dii'ino, the same, is laid down by Marsilius, Gratian, etc.'' (Apol.
Cathol. pt. 1, lib. 1, c. 21. Kd. lid, Lond. 16UG, 8vo, p. 7-1.)

Another able prelate of our Church at this period,
and a strenuous defender of Episcopacy, was Dr.
George Downham. But in a sermon on this subject,
after having undertaken to show the jus divinuni of
Episcopacy in the sense of being an apostolical insti
tution, he guards himself against being supposed to
take the ground which the Puritans took in behalf
of their platform of church government, namely, that
because it was to be found in the Scriptures, there
fore it was "perpetually and unchangeably neces
sary in all Churches," remarking :

" Although we be well assured that the form of government by
bishops is the best, as having not only the warrant of Scripture for
the fint institution, but also the perpetual practice of the Church
from the Apostles' time to our age for the continuance of it ; not
withstanding, we doubt not, but where this may not be had, others
may be admitted ; neither do we deny but that silver is good,
though gold be better." (Serin, at Consecr. of Bp. of Bath and
Wdls. 1608, 4to, p. 95.)

3*

58

THE PRACTICE OF THE CHURCH.

And in his Defence of this sermon, referring to this
passage, he says :

" Which objection and answer I inserted of purpose into the ser
mon, to preserve the credit of those Reformed Churches where the
Presbyterian discipline is established, and that they might not be ex
posed or left naked to the obloquies of the Papists." (Def. of Serm.
etc. 1611, 4to, lib. 4, c. 7, pp. 145, 146.)

And expressly, on the point of ordination, he

says :

" Thus have I reported the judgment of the ancient Church as.
cribing the ordinary right of ordination to bishops, but yet, not so
appropriating it unto them as that extraordinarily and in case of
necessity it might not be lawful for presbyters to ordain ; and much
less teaching (as the Papists imagine) absolutely a nullity in the ordi
nation which is not performed by a bishop. For suppose a Church
(the state of some Reformed Churches) either altogether destitute
of a bishop, or pestered with such as the Popish prelates are,
heretical and idolatwous, by whom no orthodoxal ministers might
hope to be ordained, we need not doubt but that the ancient
Fathers would, in such a case of necessity, have allowed ordination
without a bishop, though not as regular, according to the rules of
ordinary church government, yet as effectual and as justifiable in
the want of a bishop." (Serin, pp. 42, 43.)

Lord Bacon, though a layman, may fairly claim a
place among our witnesses. We have already no
ticed his rebuke of some of the hot spirits of his day
for their language on the subject ; but let us hear the
impartial testimony of such a mind as his on the
general question :

"For the second point, that there should be but one form of dis
cipline in all Churches, and that imposed by necessity of a com
mandment and prescript out of the word of God ; it is a matter
volumes have been compiled of, and therefore can not receive a

THE PRACTICE OF THE CHURCH. 59

brief redargution. I, for my part, do confess, that in revolving the
Scriptures, I could never find 11113" such tiling : but that (!od had left
the like liberty to the Church government, a.s he had done to the
civil government ; to be varied according to time, and place, and ac
cidents, which nevertheless his high and divine providence doth
order and dispose. For all civil governments are restrained from
God unto the general grounds of justice and manners; but the
policies and forms of them are left free : so that monarchies and
kingdoms, senates and scignories, popular states and eommunalties,
are lawful, and where they are planted ought to be maintained invi
olate. So likewise in church mutters, the substance of doctrine is
immutable ; and so are the general rules of government ; but for
rites and ceremonies, and for the particular hierarchies, policies, and
discipline of churches, tlx-y be left at large. '' (\rt. CunsiJ. touch-
in<j Pacif. of Ckurch ; HVA'.s, ed. I8li', vol. ii. pp. 5^'.», 5oi>.)

Our next witness shall be one who was confessedly
one of the most able divines of his time, and ranks
high, we believe, with our opponents; we mean,
Dean Field.

Discussing the question, '; whether the power of
ordination be so essentially annexed to the order of
bishops, that none but bishops may in any case or
dain," he points out what is "implied in the calling
of ecclesiastical ministers," and that the bishop of a,
church is only that presbyter that is appointed to be
" specially pastor of the place, who for distinction
sake is named a bishop, to whom an eminent and
peerless power is given for the avoiding of schisms
and factions ;" and maintains that ''the power of ec
clesiastical or sacred order" a is equal and the same
in all those whom we call presbyters, that is, fatherly
guides of God's Church and people ; and that only
tor order's sake, and the preservation of peace, there-

60

THE PRACTICE OF THE CHURCH.

is a limitation of the use and exercise of the same ;
adding :

" Hereunto agree all the best learned amongst the Romanists
themselves, freely confessing that that wherein a bishop excelleth a
presbyter is not a distinct and higher order or power of order, but a
kind of dignity and office or employment only." " Hence it follow-
eth, that many things which in some cases presbyters may lawfully
do, are peculiarly reserved unto bishops, as Hierome noteth, rather
for the honor of their ministry than the necessity of any law.
And, therefore, we read, that presbyters, in some places, and at
some times, did impose hands and confirm such as were baptized,
which, when Gregory, bishop of Rome, would wholly have forbid
den, there was so great exception taken to him for it, that he left it
free again. And who knoweth not, that all presbyters, in cases of
necessity, may absolve and reconcile penitents, a thing in ordinary
course appropriated unto bishops ? And why not, by the same reason,
ordain presbyters and deacons in cases of like necessity ? For see
ing the cause why they are forbidden to do these acts, is, because to
bishops ordinarily the care of all churches is committed, and to them
in all reason the ordination of such as must serve in the Church per-
taineth that have the chief care of the Church, and have churches
wherein to employ them ; which only bishops have as long as they
retain their standing, and not presbyters, being but assistants to
bishops in their churches ; if they become enemies to God and true
religion, in case of such necessity, as the care and government of
the Church is devolved to the presbyters remaining Catholic and be
ing of a better spirit, so the duty of ordaining such as are to assist
or succeed them in the work of the ministry pertains to them like
wise.'1'' ..." Surely, the best learned in the Church of Rome
in former times durst not pronounce all ordinations of this nature to
be void. For not only Armachanus, a very learned and worthy
bishop, but as it appeareth by Alexander of Hales, many learned
men in his time, and before, were of opinion that, in some cases,
and at some times, presbyters may give orders, and that their ordi
nations are of force ; though to do so, not being urged by extreme
necessity, can not be excused from over-great boldness and presump
tion." (Of the Church, cd. 1628; lib. 3, c. 39, pp. 155-157. See
also ib. lib. 5, c. 27, p. 500.)

THE PRACTICE OF THE CHURCH. 61

Another most important witness on this subject is
Archdeacon Francis Mason, the eminent defender of
the Episcopate of the English Church against the
Romanists. In 16il, a tract written by him was
published, vindicating " tJie validity of the ordination
of Ov> ministers of Oie Informal Churches beyond the
seas;" being some papers originally intended by
him to form part of his celebrated Vindication of
the Church of Enyland, but for some reason omitted.
Its publication in this way has caused some (especi
ally Mason's translator, Lindsay,) to cast a suspicion
upon its genuineness ; but not only is it spoken of as
his by his contemporary, Dr. Bernard, Usher's chap
lain, (Judgment of the late Archbishop of Armagh,
1657, p. 133,) and first appeared in a Collection of
Tracts of which Usher was partly the author, but in a
letter of Dr. Ward (then Master of Sidney College,
Cambridge) to Usher, written shortly aitt-r the pub
lication of the iirst edition of Mason's work in 1613,
we find the following passages : " I pray you inform
me, what the specialties are which are omitted in Mr.
Mason's book. I would only know the heads."
And then returning to the subject at the close of the
letter, he says; " I had no leisure when I was with
you to inquire how Mr. Mason doth warrant the vo
cation and ordination of the ministers of the lie-
formed Churches in Foreign parts.7' (Parrs Life
and Letters of Usher, 1686, fol., p. 34.)

Xow in this tract Mason says :

The bishop " in his consecration receiveth a sacred office, an
eminency, a jurisdiction, a dignity, a degree of Ecclesiastical pre
eminence." "He hath no higher degree in respect of intentions or

62 THE PRACTICE OF THE CHURCH.

extension of the character ; but he hath a higher degree, that is, a
more excellent place in respect of authority and jurisdiction in
spiritual regiment. Whercfor seeing a presbyter is equal to a bishop
in the power of order, he hath equally intrinsical power to give or
ders." (Pp. 160, 261.)

The speaker for the Komanist, (for it is written in
the form of a dialogue,) making the precise objection
of the Tractarians, observes, " the preeminence of
bishops is jure divino ;" to which Orthodox answers
thus :

" First, if you mean by jure divino, that which is according to the
Scripture, then the preeminence of bishops is jure divino; for it
hath been already proved to be according to the Scripture. Se
condly, if by jure divino you mean the ordinance of God, in this
sense also it may be said to be jure divino. For it is an ordinance
of the apostle, whercunto they were directed by God's Spirit, even
by the spirit of prophecy, and consequently the ordinance of God.
But if by jure divino, you understand a law and commandment of
God, binding all Christian Churches, universally, perpetually, un-
cliangeably, and with such absolute necessity, that no other form of
regiment may in any case be admitted ; in this sense neither may we
grant it, nor yet can you prove it, to be jure divino." "The apos
tles, in their lifetime, ordained many bishops, and left a fair pattern
to posterity. The Church, following the commodiousness thereof,
embraced it in all ages through the Christian world." (Ib. p. 163.)

The Archdeacon then proceeds to defend the va
lidity of the ordinations in the Foreign Reformed
Churches, first on the ground of necessity / to which
the objector, after some discussion, ultimately re
plies : " Suppose that ordination might be devolved
to presbyters in case of necessity ; yet the necessity
ceasing, such extraordinary courses should likewise
cease. Why, then, do they continue their former
practice? Wl.y do they not now seek to receive

THE PRACTICE OF THE CHURCH. 63

their orders from Protestant bishops?" To which
* Orthodox replies, " The Churches of Germany need
not to seek to foreign bishops, because thry have sup> riu-
te tide tits or bishops amony tJieinselves. And as for ot/ter
placet which em/trace the discipline of Geneva, they also
have bishops in rjfect ;" which he proceeds to prove bv
showing that they have among them those who have
"the substance of the office." And lie concludes:
''Thus much concerning the ministers of other Ke-
formed Churches, wherein, if you will not believe us
disputing for fJf lutc/uliie^s of (heir callinff, yet you
must give us leave to believe God Himself from
heaven approving their ministry by pouring down a
blessing upon their labors.'' (Ib. pp. 173-170.)

Another eminent divine of our Church was Dr.
Crakanthorp ; and he likewise justifies the Foreign
Non-Episcopal Churches in this matter on the ground
of necessity ; and as it respects their not taking the
first opportunity of restoring the Episcopal form of
government, only remarks :

" Optamus quidcra ox aniino, ut cum lex ilia necessitatis jam
ablata sit, velint ot omncs Eecleshe ad priscum ct ab universal! Ec-
clfsia constantissimc observatum ordinein, ot ordinandi modum rc-
dirc ; clavos(jtic suaa Kpisoopis restituant : sedoptamus, non cngimus.
Jus ft imperium in enrum Ecclexias nee habemiis not, ncc desidera-
»«»«."' (De/ens. Ecclcs. Anglic. London, 1025, 4to. c. 41, § 12,
pp. 2tr,, 247.)

AVe must not forget also to notice the similar testi
mony of the learned Dr. "Willet, in his Synopsis
Papismi, of which the fifth edition was published in
1634, under the authority of the king's letters patent;

64 THE PRACTICE OF THE CHURCH.

but we must content ourselves with referring our
readers to the work. (See 5th Controv. q. 3, p. 276.)
But one of the most important testimonies as to
the doctrine of our Church and her most able divines
on this subject, is that of Bishop Cosin, to which we
have already referred. It occurs in a letter written
from Paris in 1650 to a Mr. Cordel, who scrupled to
communicate with the French Protestants. To the
objection of Mr. Cordel, that "they have no priests,"
Dr. Cosin thus replies :

" Though we may safely say and maintain it, that their ministers
are not so duly and rightly ordained as they should be by those pre
lates and bishops of the Church who since the apostles' time have
only had the ordinary power and authority to make and constitute a
priest, yet that, by reason of this defect, there is a total nullity in
their ordination, or that they be therefore no priests or ministers of
the Church at all, because they are ordained by those only who are no
more but priests and ministers among them ; for my part, I would be
loath to affirm and determine it against them. And these are my
reasons. First: I conceive that the power of ordination was re
strained to bishops rather by apostolical practice and the perpetual
custom and canons of the Church, than by any absolute precept that
either Christ or His apostles gave about it. Nor can I yet meet with
any convincing argument to set it upon a more high and divine insti
tution. From which customs and laws of the Universal Church
(therein following the example of the apostles) though I reckon it to
be a great presumption and fault for any particular Church to recede,
and may truly say that fieri non oportuit, (when the college of mere
presbyters shall ordain and make a priest,) yet I can not so peremp
torily say, that factum non valet, and pronounce the ordination to
be utterly void. For as in the case of baptism, we take just excep
tion against a layman or a woman that presumes to give it, and may
as justly punish them by the censures of the Church wherein they
live, for taking upon them to do that office, which was never com
mitted unto them ; yet, if once they have done it, we make not their
act and administration of baptism void ; nor presume we to iterate

THE PRACTICE OF THE CIH'RCM. 65

t1u sacrament after them ; so may it well be in the case of ordination
and tftc niininters of the Ii* funned Congregation* in France ; who
are liable to give an account both to (Jod and His Church in general
for taking upon them to exercise that power which by the. perpetual
practice and laws of His Church they were never permitted to exer
cise, and may justly be faulted for it, both by the verdict of all
others who are members of the Catholic Church, (as we are that ad
here to the laws of it more strictly and peaceably than they do,) and
by the censures of a lawful meeting or general council in that
Church, which at any time shall come to have authority over them.
And yet all this while, the act which they do, though it be disorderly
done, and the ordinations which they make, though they make them
unlawfully, xhnll not be altogether null and invalid, no more than
the act of baptizing before mentioned, or the act of consecrating
and administering the Kucharist by a priest that is suspended and re
strained from exercising his power and oftice in the Church.
Therefore, if at any time a minister so ordained in these French
Churches came to incorporate himself in ours, and to receive a pub
lic charge or cure of souls among us in the Church of England, (as I
have known some of them to have so done of late, and can instance
in many other before my time,) our bishops did not reordain him be
fore they admitted him to his charge, a.s they must have done, if his
former ordination here in France had been void. Nor did our laws
require more of him than to declare his public consent to the reli
gion received amongst us, and to subscribe the Articles established.
And I love not to be herein more wise or harder than our own
Church is, which, because it hath never publicly condemned and pro
nounced the ordinations of the other Reformed Churches to be void,
as it doth not those of the unreformed Churches, neither among the
Papists, (though I hear that the ministers here in France and Geneva
use so to do, who will not admit a Papist priest himself to exercise
the office of a minister among them till they have reordaincd him ;)
for my part, as to that particular, / dare not take upon me to con
demn or determine a nullity of their ou-n ordinations against them ;
though in the interim I take it to be utterly a fault among them, and
a ^reat presumption, deserving a great censure to be inflicted on
them, bv such a power of tho Church as may, by the grace of (lod,
be at any time duly gathered together hereafter against them, as well
for the amendment of manv other disorders and defects in their

66 THE PRACTICE OF THE CHURCH.

Church as for this particular inorderly ordination and defect of Epis
copacy amongst them. Besides that this their boldness, presump
tion, and novelty (in setting up themselves without any invincible
necessity that they had so to do, against the apostolical practice and
perpetual order of God's Church till their days) was always faulted,
and reserved for farther censure, in due time, which they have
justly merited. Secondly.* There have been both learned and emi
nent men, (as well in former ages as in this, and even among the Ro
man Catholics as well as Protestants,) who have held and maintained
it for good and passable divinity, that presbyters have the mtrinsical
power of ordination in actu prime ; though for the avoiding of
schism (as St. Hierom speaks) and preserving order and discipline
in the Church, they have been restrained ever since the first times,
and still are, (but where they take a liberty to themselves that was
never duly given them,) from exercising their power in actu se-
cundo ; and, therefore, that however their act of ordaining of other
presbyters shall be void, according to the strictness of the canon, (in
regard they were universally prohibited from executing that act, and
breaking the order and discipline of the Church,) yet that the
same act shall not be simply void in the nature of the thing, in re .
gard that the intrinsical power remained, when the exercise of it
was suspended and taken from them. Of this opinion and judgment
in old time were St. Hierom and his followers, alleged by Gratian,
dist. 93 ; and of later times, the Master of the Sentences, lib. iv.
dist. 24 ; Bonavent, ibid. 9, 3, art. 2 ; with other schoolmen, as Au-
reol. ibid. art. 2 ; and Anton, de Rosellis, De Potcst. Impcr. et
Papali, part iv. c. 18; and in this later age, not only Armachanus,
in Sum. ad qucest. art. 1, 11, c. 2, 3, etc., and c. 7, Alphons. a Cas
tro, (verb. Episcopus,) Mich. Medina, De sacr. horn. orig. lib. 1, c.
5, among the Roman Catholics ; but likewise Cassander in Consult.
art. 14, besides Melancthon, Clementius, [? Chemnitius,] Gerardus,
and Calixtus, amongst the Protestants ; and Bishop Jewel, (Def. 2,
p. c. 3, d. 1, etc. 9 div. 1 ;) Dr. Field, of the Church, lib. 3, c. 39;
Hooker, Eccles. Pol. lib. 3, § 3, ult., and Mason, among the divines
of our own Church. All which authors are of so great credit with
you and me, that though we are not altogether of their mind, yet we

* We hare taken the liberty of making the second reason commence here, (as
it evidently does,) instead of at the beginning of the previous sentence.

THE PliACTICE OF THE CIIUKCH. 67

would be loath to let the world see that we contradict them all, and
condemn their judgment openly; a.< needs we must, if we hold the
contrary, and say tlmt the ministers <>f the Reformed French
Churches, for icant of Episcopal ordination, have no order at nil."
[Our readers will observe here what the view of Ilishop Cosin was a^
to the sentiments of Jewel, Hooker, Field, and Masoti.J

Dr. Cosin adds several other reasons, with whicli,
however, we need not trouble our readers, except the
following:

" If the Church and kingdom of England have acknowledged them,
(as they did in admitting of them when they tied thither for refuge,
and placing them bv public authority in divers of the most eminent
cities among us, without prohibition to any of our own people to go
and communicate with them,) why should we, that are but private
persons, utterly disclaim their communion in their own country V"

And, therefore, he concludes that:

"Considering there is no prohibition of our Church against it, (as
there w a<jdiiist our communicating with the I\ipis(,t, and that well-
grounded upon the Scripture and will of (Jod,) I do not see but that
both you, and others that are with you, may (either in case of neccs-
sitv, when you can not have the sacrament among yourselves, or in
regard of declaring your unity in professing the same religion, which
you and they do) go otherwhiles to communicate reverently with
them of the French Church."*

Similar sentiments are expressed by him in a letter
published by Dr. R. Watson, (Loud. lt)S4, 8vo,) en
titled Dr. Chillis Opinion, when Dean of Peterborough^
and in exile, for communicating ratker with Geneva tJian
Ifomr ; and also in his last Will, inserted in the Pre
face to his Refjni Anylue Rdij. ct Q-ubem. Ecclcs.
Loud. 1729, 4to.

• The whole of this letter Is given by Daslre and Up. Fleetwood, (aa referred to
above.)

68 THE PRACTICE OF THE CHUECH.

It is almost unnecessary to refer to the Irenicum
of Bishop Stillingfleet, (first published by him in 1659,
and a second time in 1662;) where he maintains, in a
long and elaborate discussion of the question, that no
particular form of Church government is necessary,
and points out that " the stoutest champions for Epis
copacy" had acknowledged, " that ordination per
formed by presbyters in cases of necessity is valid ;"
"which," he adds, "doth evidently prove that Epis
copal government is not founded upon any unalter
able Divine right." (Ft. ii. c. 8.)

Thus also speaks Dean Sherlock :

" I do allow Episcopacy to be an Apostolical institution, and the
truly ancient and catholic government of the Church, of which more
hereafter ; but yet in this very book I prove industriously and at
large, that in case of necessity, when bishops can not be had, a church
may be a truly catholic church, and such as we may and ought to com
municate with, without bishops, in vindication of some Foreign Re
formed Churches who have none ; and therefore I do not make Epis
copacy so absolutely necessary to catholic communion as to unchurch
all churches which have it not." " The Church of England does not
deny but that, in case of necessity, the ordination of presbyters may
be valid." ( Vindic. of some Prot. Principles, &c., reprinted in Gib
son's Preserv. vol. iii. pp. 410, 432.)

So the excellent Dr. Claget :

" The Church of England doth not unchurch those parts of Chris
tendom that hold the unity of the faith." (See Brief Disc. cone, the
Notes of the Church, pp. 1G6-169.)

Even the non-juror Archbishop Sancroft, in some
Admonitions issued to the clergy of his Province in
1688, speaks in fraternal terms of the Foreign Re
formed Churches, exhorting his clergy — •

THE PRACTICE OP THE CHURCH. 69

"That they warmly anil most affectionately exhort them [that is,
*'our brethren the Protestant Dissenters"] to join with us in daily fer
vent prayer to the (rod of peace for the universal blc.sstd union of all
Keformed Churcheibothat hmneand abmad against our common ene
mies ; that all they, who do confess the holy name of our dear Lord,
and do agree in the truth of His holv word, may also meet in one
holy communion, and live in perfect unity ami godly love." (D' Oyly's
Life of Bancroft, i. S'J.'i ; or \Yilk. Cone. iv. GIU.)

For the sentiments of Arclibisliop Wake, to the
same effect, our readers mav consult some letters
(written in 1719) #i\vu in the 4th Append, to Mo-
sheinis Eccl*. llixt. translated by Maclaine, Cent, xviii.
Xo. xix.-xxii.; one of which is to "the pastors and
professors of Geneva/' whom he addresses as fratres
cfiarissimi ; and in another (Xo. xix) lie says:

" Ecclesias Reformataa etsi in aliquibus a nostra Anglicana dissen-
tientes, libenter amplcctor. Optarcm equidem regimen episcopale.
et ah iis omnibus fuisset retentum. . . . Interim absit
ut ego tarn ferrei pectoris sim, ut ob ejusmodi defectum (sic mihi
absque omni invidia appellare lieeat) aliquas earum a communione
nostra abseindendas credam ; aut, cum qtiibiisdam, fur ins is inter nos
scriptoribits, eas nulla vera ac valida sacramenta habere, adeoque vix
Christianos esse pronuntiem." (J/osfoj'm, bv Maclaine, vol. vi. p.
18 1, ed. 182G.) And in a letter to Father Courayer, dated July '.»,
17'24, he again expresses the same sentiments. (Jfoshcim, ib. p. 30,
Cent. xvii. § 2:?.)

Iii 17G4, we have Arclibisliop Seeker following
him in the same strain :

"Our inclination is to live in friendship with all the Protestant
Oinrchfs. We assist and protect those on the continent of Europe
as well as we are able. We show our regard to that of Scotland as
often as we have an opportunity." (Answ. to Mayhew, p. 68. Life
prefixed to Sermons, ed. 1770, p. Ixvi.)

70 THE PRACTICE OF THE CHURCH.

And, defending our Reformation, in one of his
sermons against the Eomanists, he says :

" Supposing we had even acted without, and separated from, our
Church governors, as our Protestant brethren abroad were forced to
do : was there not a cause ? When the word of God was hidden
from men . . . when Church authority, by supporting such things
as these, became inconsistent with the ends for which it was estab
lished, what remedy was there but to throw it off and form new estab
lishments ? If in these there were any irregularities, they were the faults
of those who forced men into them, and are of no consequence in com
parison with the reason that made a change necessary." (Serm. vol.
vi. pp. 400, 401.)

Still more strongly speaks the late Bishop Toni-
line :

" I readily acknowledge that there is no precept in the Xew Testa
ment which commands that every Church should be governed by
bishops. No Church can exist without some government ; but though
there must be rules and orders for the proper discharge of the offices
of public worship, though there must be fixed regulations concerning
the appointment of ministers ; and though a subordination among
them is expedient in the highest degree, yet it does not follow that
all these things must be precisely the same in every Christian coun
try ; they may vary with the other varying circumstances of human
society, with the extent of a country, the manners of its inhabitants,
the nature of Ha civil government, and many other peculiarities which
might be specified. As it has not pleased our Almighty Father to
prescribe any particular form of civil government for the security of
temporal comforts to His rational creatures, so neither has He pre
scribed any particular form of ecclesiastical polity as absolutely ne
cessary to the attainment of eternal happiness. ... As the
Scriptures do not prescribe any definite form of church government,
so they contain no directions concerning the establishment of a power
by which ministers are to be admitted to their sacred office." And
therefore, though he advocates Episcopal ordination as "instituted
by the apostles," he does not maintain it as necessary. (Ex^os. of
Art. 23, ed. 1799, pp. 396, 398.)

THE PRACTICE OF THE CIU'RCH. 71

We closs the list with tin; testimony of our late
respected Primate, Dr. llowley.

In a statement published bv his authority in 18-41,
the Foreign Protestant Non-Episcopal Churches are
spoken ui' as *; the less perfectly constituted of the
Protestant Churches of Europe." (Skitem. re#p. Jeru
salem Bishopric, p. f>.)

And in 1835, a letter was addressed by the same
Prelate, in the name of himself and his "brotfier li.Jt-
ops1 to "the Moderator of the Company of Pastors
at Geneva,'' expressing their '" hi'jh r> 'S)» ct for the
Protestant Churches on Hie Continent," and speaking of
the Genevan Information as a '' noble achievement,
which brought light out of darkness, and rescued your
Church from the shackles of Papal domination and
the tyrannical imposition of a corrupt faith, and a
superstitious ritual,1' wrought by '' illustrious men,
who, under tin' direction of Almighty God, were the
instruments of this happy deliverance," "an event
not less glorious to Geneva than conducive to the
success of the Reformation/' The whole letter lias
been so recently published in the public Journals,
that we need only give these short extracts.

Could it have been supposed, that, sixteen years
after, his successor in the Primacv was to be assailed
with a storm of vituperation, and even branded by
an Archdeacon of his Province as a heretic, for merely
saying that the Church of England does not deny
the validity of the Orders of such Churches?

But in those sixteen years a new school has sprung
up in our Church, chiefly composed of its younger
members, who having formed in their own minds,

72 THE PRACTICE OF THE CHURCH.

from their perusal of Romish and Tractarian works,
a Procrustean standard of ecclesiastical doctrine and
polity, are apparently endeavoring, in the total disre
gard of the manifest tenets of our Church, to force
upon it a position and character which its wh'ole his
tory repudiates. The right of private judgment has
rarely been exercised with more unbridled arrogance
than by those among us who professedly disown it.
Under the thin veil of high-sounding phrases, "the
Church," "Catholic consent," and such like, the Rom
ish dreams of hot-headed or prejudiced, and often
very ill-informed individuals, are urged upon the
public as indubitable verities, which it were a sin to
suppose that our Church does not hold ; and by which
all who differ from them, from the highest to the
lowest, are to be judged. We say deliberately, even
as to the heads of the party, very ill-informed indi
viduals ; and on this ground, that whatever may be
their learning in other respects, (and it is too often to
be seen principally in the trifles of the Church cere
monial,) they seem rather to avoid than examine those
sources of information which best show what the
doctrine of our Church really is, as was abundantly
proved in the Gorham case ; and palm upon our
Church views and doctrines which they have gathered
by their private judgment from antiquity.

But our space warns us that we must restrain our
pen. We deeply regret that our Church should be
continually suffering from these internal dissensions.
But we fear that, if she is still to remain a witness for
Protestant truth, a conflict awaits her, both from in
ternal and external foes, more severe than any she

THE PRACTICE OP THE CIICTJCH. 73

has jet encountered. Would that we could see a
more lively consciousness of this coming struggle
manifested among those, lay and clerical, who, under
God, must be the instruments for her preservation.
Few, however, seem to realize the true character of
the present times.

Meanwhile, no fear need be entertained that the
public discussion of Tractarian dogmas will show that
our Church has a leaning toward them. Just the
contrary will, we are convinced, be the case. And
we leave the Archbishop's assailants quietly to weigh
the testimonies given above, and judge for themselves
how much they are likely to gain by their recent out
break — an outbreak as unprecedented for its contempt
for constituted authorities as it is destitute of even
the shadow of an excuse for it.
4

APPENDIX A.

FURTHER illustrations and proofs are here given
from the replies which Mr. Goode made to the various
attacks'* upon his Vindication.

ON THE DOCTRINE OF THE ARTICLES.
(Reply to Bishop of Exeter.)

The 19th Article is " Of the Church," and stands
thus: "The visible Church of Christ is a congrega
tion of faithful men, in which the pure word of God
is preached, and the Sacraments be duly ministered
according to God's ordinance, in all things that of
necessity be requisite to the same."

From this the Bishop of Exeter deduces three posi
tions: First, that in any body professing to be a
Church of Christ, "the pure word of God" is to be
preached; a deduction which I shall not dispute.
Secondly, it must be "preached;" "THAT is," says his
Lordship, " publicly set forth for the instruction of
the people by persons duly empowered, or sent, for that
purpose ; for we know from St. Paul that the word
can not be 'preached' — that is, not merely recited or

* These attacks raised siile issues which showed the weakness of the cause
which they were raised to defend. To reproduce them would be a weariness to
the reader, and expose us to the charge of proving a second, third, and fourth
time what had been already made certain. The only points of any interest in the
various pamphlets are added in the extracts following.

APPENDIX. 75

taught, but proclaimed with assurance and authority—
except by those who are duly 'sent,' authorized by
Him whoso word they proclaim, K//^I-/C^- — men unto
whom God ' hath committed the word of reconcilia
tion.'" (P. 14.)

Now I beg to ask, where does his Lordship find all
this in the Article? The Article merely uses the word
"preached." Does his Lordship really suppose that
any one in search of truth will allow him to raise out
of this single word his whole doctrine of the sort of
commission necessary to qualify a man for preaching
the Gospel ? Has he forgotten that even laymen were
sometimes allowed to preach in the early Church, and
that in the presence of a bishop? Or, still more, has
he forgotten that "they which were scattered abroad,
upon the persecution that arose about Stephen, tra
velled as far as Phenice, and Cyprus, and Antioch,
j)rearhuifj ttie luord, etc. . . . And the hand of
the Lord was with them, and a great number believed
and turned unto the Lord?'' (Acts 11 : 19-21.) Or
(to mention no more) has he forgotten Apollos, who,
when "knowing only the baptism of John," and
therefore certainly not ordained by any apostle or
Christian bishop, "spake and taught diligently the
things of the Lord," which I suppose amounts to
preadiinrj; and after receiving farther instruction from
Aquila and Priscilla, "helped them much which had
believed through grace ; for he mightily convinced
the Jews, and that publicly, showing by the Scriptures
that Jesus was Christ?" (Acts 18 :" 21, etc.) All
these, it seems, knew nothing of the Bishop of Exe
ter's doctrine, that nobody might, or even coull,

76 APPENDIX.

" preach," but one specially ordained and publicly set
apart by Divine commission for the purpose.

Of course I am not here touching the question of
the necessity of an inward Divine call and qualifica
tion for being an ambassador of Christ, or of what
Apostolical practice teaches us to be proper for the
due appointment of a preacher of the Gospel in a
regularly constituted Church. All I wish now to
point attention to is the absurdity (for I can use no
milder term) of attempting to raise a whole system
of church government out of the single word
"preach."

His Lordship's third deduction is that, as the Arti
cle requires, that in a Church "the Sacraments be
duly ministered in all those things that of necessity
are requisite to the same," and the 25th Article says,
that sacraments are "effectual signs of grace, etc., by
which God doth work invisibly in us," etc. ; and a
Homily says, that " in them God embraceth us," etc. ;
"manifestly, therefore, among 'those things that of
necessity are requisite to the duly ministering the
same' must be authority from God, given to those who
minister them;" and it is added, that "our Church
has not left the point to be deduced by our sense of
what is right: it is expressly declared in the 26th
Article that they who minister the Sacraments ' do
not the same in their own name, but in Christ's, and
do minister by his commission and authority f " and
hence the consequence is deduced, that the Sacra
ments can only be " duly ministered" " by those who
have commission and authority from God given to
them for that purpose;" in other words, individuals

AIPEXDIX. 77

divinely commissioned "for that purpose/' Xow,
one single consideration annihilates the whole of this
argumentation; for if it were correct, lay-baptism
would be wholly invalid, which the Bishop we'll
knows is not the doctrine of our Church ; and tln-iv-
fore his third deduction is as groundless as his second.
The question, whether non-episcopally ordained min
isters may not be said to minister by Christ's commis
sion, and authority, is one that will more properly
come under consideration in reviewing the meaning

O O

of the 23d Article; to which the Bishop next directs
our attention.

This Article is entitled, "Of ministering in the
Congregation," and runs thus: "It is not lawful for
any man to take upon him the office of public preach
ing or ministering the Sacraments in the congregati< >n,
before he be lawfully called and sent to execute the
same. And those we ought to judge lawfully called
and sent, which be chosen and called to this work by
men who have public authority given unto them in
the congregation to call and send ministers into the
Lord's vineyard."

It is difficult to understand how any one can read
this Article, and not see how carefully it is worded
so as not to exclude from "lawful calling" the min
isters of the Foreign Protestant Churches. As Pro
fessor Key says, in his Commentary on the Article*,
the expression " who have public authority given
unto them in the congregation," " seems to leave the
manner of giving the power of ordaining quite free ;
it seems as if any religious society might, consistently
with this Article, appoint officers, with power of Or-

78 APPENDIX.

dination, by election, representation, or lot; as if,
therefore, the right to ordain did not depend upon
any uninterrupted succession.'1'' (Lect. in Div. vol. iv.
p. 166.) And when we recollect the nature of the
intercourse and communion that took place between
our Reformers and those Churches and their minis
ters, both at the time when these Articles were first
drawn up, in the reign of Edward VI., and at their
reestablishment in the reign of Elizabeth, there is
but one way of accounting for a long argumentation,
an effusion of ink covering EIGHTEEN pages, to prove
that by "men to whom public authority is given,"
etc., the Article "must mean Bishops" (!) and that
"our Church holds that the power of Ordination is in
Bishops only:' (! !) (P. 33.)

Further, of the 23d Article, the Bishop of Exeter
says that it asserts "the necessity of lawful mission
generally in the former of its two propositions — in
the latter, THE NECESSITY that this mission be mediately

from God, TRANSMITTED BY SUCCESSION FROM THOSE
WHO, AT THE FIRST, RECEIVED THE POWER OF THUS
GIVING IT IMMEDIATELY FROM OUR LORD HlMSELF."

(Pp. 19, 20.) Such is the doctrine which his Lord
ship has the courage to assert is laid down in the latter
part of the Article !

He says : " There are three several members of the
proposition which we are considering : I. That lawful
mission to the Christian ministry must be from God
by an outward call. II. That we must not look for
any outward call from God except mediately through
men. III. That it must be given through men who
have themselves received the power of transmitting

APPK.N'DIX.

it, publicly given to them by those who have them
selves publicly received the power of giving that
power from others similarly empowered; in other
words, in uninterrupted succession from the Apostles
themselves." (P. 20.)

Now here it is obvious, that his Lordship has drawn
from the Article propositions not contained in it.
The Article does nut touch the <[iiestion of the call
"from Clod;' but only that of the external call by
men. To assert, therefore, that the Article savs that
lawful mission must bo "from (ind bv an outward
call" is a direct and palpable misrepresentation of it.

And the Bishop's own authority, Bishop Pearson,
whom he so highly extols (p. 52) — and not without
reason — -might have shown him, and in the verv pas
sage to which he has referred us, his error in intro
ducing these words into the Article. For llishop
Pearson, treating of the mode of Ordination in the,
Church of England, says: "Ordinaria voeatio iit a
Deo et per homines. Qaatenus t.xt a Deo, est internn ;
quatenus est per homines, est externa," (Min'/r
Thcol IPX*, i. 201, 202.)

In defense of the third proposition, the Bishop ar
gues thus : That when the Article says that the per
sons through whom lawful mission must be given,
are " men who have public authority given unto them
in the congregation," it clearly means that this power
"is so given by God — puljlirZ in Ec<:l:si<i ; that is, in
some outward manner by which it shall be publicly
known in the Church to be given;'' the Divine Being
being represented, after the first bestowal of the power,
by a succession of representatives of those to whom

80 APPENDIX.

the power was first given. For, says the Bishop, " as
these [that is, modern Bishops who give power of mis
sion] must in like manner have received their power
of mission from others, who had received it in like
manner, the series must be carried backwards, until,
as we before said, it reaches the Apostles, whom our
Lord sent, ' as the Father had sent Him,' that is, with
power to send others." (P. 22.)

This is the foundation on which his whole argu
mentation rests; and it is clearly derived from his
ADDING words to the Article calculated to carry out
his own views. The Article clearly implies, that
there is power in a Church to authorize certain of its
members to call and appoint others to the office of
the ministry, which exactly meets the case of the
Foreign Protestant Churches. The words " authority
given unto them by God in the Congregation," are
very different from what we find in the Article.
They would imply that the Congregation, or Church,
had no voice in the matter, and could not authorize
any of their body to do any act of the kind. So that
the words which the Bishop has thus foisted into the
Article completely change the character of its doc
trine. They just determine what the Article has
studiously left open, and determine it in opposition
to the known sentiments of those who drew up the
Article. They make it necessary that the mission
should be given by some individual or individuals
specially, and individually, and publicly commis
sioned by God himself, apart from the Church, to be
stow it ; while the terms of the Article imply that
God has left sufficient power with the Church to act
in such a matter.

APPENDIX. 81

The Article is evidently drawn up so as to compre
hend t\ic Foreign Protestant Churches. It does not
pretend to define exactly what our own Church's par
ticular mode of calling and sending ministers is; but
it states the limits of what may be considered a lawful
calling. Most just and pertinent are the remarks of
Bishop Buriict, in his Exposition of this Article :

" If," lie says, "a company of Christians fuul the public worship
whore they live to be so defiled that they can not with a pood eon-
science join in it, and if they do not know of any place to which
thev can conveniently go, where they may worship (iod purely and
in a regular way : if, I say, such a Uody finding some that have been
ordained, though to the lower functions, should submit itself en
tirely to their conduct; or, finding none of those, should by <t com
mon consent desire some of (heir own number to Minister to (hem in
holi/ things, and should, upon that beginning, grow up to a regulated
constitution, though we are very sure that this is quite out of all rule,
and could not be done without a very great sin, unless the necessity
were great and apparent ; yet, if the necessity is real and not feigned,
this is not condemned or annulled by the Article ; for when this
grows to a constitution, and when it was begun by the consent of a
Body who are supposed to have an authority in such an oxtraordi-
narv case, whatever some hotter spirits have thought of this since
that time, >/et we (ire very sure, that not only those icho penned the
Articles, but the body »f this Church for above half an aye after,
did, notwithstanding those irregularities, acknowledge the F<>rei<jn
Churches so constituted to be true Churches as to all the essentials of
a Church, though they had been at first irregularly formed, and con
tinued still to be in an imperfect state. AND, THEREFORE, TUB

OKNKRAL WORDS IS WHICH THIS PART OK THK ARTICLE IS KRAMKI>,
SEEM TO HAVE BEEN DESIGNED ON PURPOSE NOT TO EXCLUDE THEM."

In fact, the Article requires nothing more as ne
cessary for lawful calling than what is required in the
Confessions of several of the Foreign Protestant
Non-Episcopal Churches ; as, for instance, the liol-

82 APPENDIX.

vetic, (Art. 16,) Bohemian, (c. 9,) and Belgic, (Art.
31.) And, therefore, the Bishop might just as well
attempt to fasten his doctrine upon the Confessions
of these Non-Episcopal Churches as upon that of
the Church of England.

And so completely opposed is Hooker to the
Bishop's interpretation of the Article, that he dis
tinctly intimates that there is no " heavenly law"
whereby it may appear, " that the Lord Himself hath
appointed presbyters forever to be under the regi
ment of Bishops," and that "their authority" is " a
sword which the Church liatli power to take from tliem"
(Eccl. Pol. vii. 5 ;) and expressly says that " the whole
Church visible" is "the true original subject of all
power ;" and that though " it hath not ordinarily AL
LOWED any other than Bishops alone to ordain, how-
beit, as the ordinary course is ordinarily in all things
to be observed, so it may be, in some cases, not un
necessary that we decline from the ordinary ways ;
and that "there may be sometimes very just and
sufficient reason to allow Ordination made without a
Bishop." (Ib. 14.)

But the 23d Article, says his Lordship, " leaves to
a subsequent Article, the 36th, to tell us who they
are to whom this power is given ;" the 36th Article
sanctioning the Ordinal. (P. 27.)

The Bishop then gives the passage thus : " To the
intent that these Orders should be continued and
reverently used and esteemed in the Church of Eng
land," "no man shall be accounted or taken to be a
lawful Bishop, Priest, or Deacon in the Church of
England, or suffered to execute any of the said func-

APPENDIX. 83

tions, except lie be called, tried, examined, and ad
mitted thereunto, according to the form hereafter
following, or hath formerly received Episcopal consecra
tion or ordination."

And in his Lordship's observations upon this
passage, he lays the greatest stress upon the conclud
ing words: u or hath lormerlv received Episcopal
consecration or ordination." Now these words, as
his Lordship well knows, were not inserted till the
revision of the Book in ItJill, bv the Laudian di
vines, who then had the upper hand. He knows
also, upon the testimony of Bishop Cosin and
others,* lying before him when he wrote, that, in the
previous period of our Church, persons having only
Presbvterian Orders were admitted to minister in our
Church, and that it was the general opinion of the
Bishops that there was nothing to prevent this.
Hence, not only was there evidence, that our Church
admitted the validity of the Orders of the Foreign
Protestant Churches, so far as those churches them
selves were concerned, but persons so ordained were
allowed to minister in our own Church. And the
insertion of those words in 1M1, requiring Episcopal
Ordination for tJiose who minister in our Church — ob
viously with a view to the Presbyterians, who, in the
civil war, had usurped the places of the Episcopalian
clergy — can not affect the doctrine of our Church on
the abstract question, whether the Foreign Protestant
Churches are destitute of any validly ordained pas
tors.

• Se« Doctrintt etc., pp. 20, 80.

84 APPENDIX.

The direction here given, as it stood both before
and after the Eeview in 1661, is strictly limited to
what is required " in the Church of England.'1'1 There
is a marked abstinence from any statement of the
necessity of Episcopal Orders for a valid ministry,
which it is impossible to conceive that our Keform-
ers would have observed, if they had held the Bishop
of Exeter's notions. And when we couple this with
their known conduct towards the Foreign Protestant
Churches, not the smallest doubt can be left upon
the mind of any reasonable inquirer after the truth
that they did not hold them.

But the Bishop supports his view by two argu
ments. The first is this. He says : " If persons from
Berlin and Geneva, calling themselves ministers of
Christ's Church, are really such ministers, it would
be a direct act of schism for our Church to reject
their ministry ; for all who are Christ's ministers at
all, are His ministers throughout His whole Church,"
(P. 30.) But what a mere cobweb is this ! Has not
a Church a right to say to those ministers who come
here from a Church under a different form of gov
ernment : " "We have laid down a rule which we con
sider most in accordance with Apostolical usage, re
quiring a certain mode of introduction to the minis
try among us, and we think it inexpedient to break
it by admitting others not so qualified?" Does it
follow from this, that our Church holds them to be
destitute of all right to exercise the ministerial office
any where? Where does his Lordship derive his
authority for denying to his Church such a pruden
tial mode of action, and shutting her up to the alter-

APPENDIX. 85

native of either admitting to hold office in her com
munion any minister of a Foreign Church, whatever
its form of government may be, or denying that
sucli a one has any right to exercise the ministerial
office to any body of Christians on the face of the
earth ? The fact is, that his Lordship has in this
point, as well as in his advocacy of the exclusive ad-
missibility of one form of Ecclesiastical government,
been following in the steps of the early Puritans.
His own words are almost identical with those of the
notorious Puritan T ravers to Archbishop Whitgift.
T ravers, to show that he had a right to be allowed to
minister in the Church of England, though having
only Presbyterian Orders, (and he could hardly be
said to have any,) urged, that, "the universal and
perpetual practice of all Christendom, in all places,
and in all ages, proveth the ministers lawfully made
in any Church of sound profession in faith, ought to
be acknowledged such in any other ;" he means, so
as to be allowed to minister in it. To which Arch
bishop Whitgift (who, as we know from his writings,
admitted th>>, V \\ADITY of the Orders of tJie Foreign Pro
testant CJiurdies, but held that " Hie lanjs of this realm
require that such as are to be allowed as ministers in,
tin's ChurcJi of England should be ordered l>y a Bixhop,
and subscribe to the Articles before him") replies to
the argument thus : " Excepting always such
Churches as allow of Presbytery, and practise it."
He considered that in such a case an Episcopal
Church might fairly object to one not ordained as she
required, acting as one of her own ministers. But
he did not deny the validity of Presbyterian Orders

86 APPENDIX.

in the abstract. In the same paper to which I am
now referring, he admits that Whittingham. " was or
dained minister by those which had authority in the
Church" in which he was ordained, though he held
such Orders not a sufficient qualification for minister
ing in the Church of England. (See Strypds Whit-
gift, App. bk. 3, n. 30.)

The second argument is this, that if any of the
ministers of Non-Episcopal Churches wish to be min
isters of the Church of England, " they must, as a
preliminary, renounce all claim at present to any
ministerial character whatsoever," and " present them
selves as lay candidates for holy orders ;" " and yet
for our Church thus to insist on their submitting to
be ordained anew, if they already have Orders,
would be, not merely an act of schism, but a manifest'
desecration of Christ 's ordinance, a most sinful rejection
of His commission" (Pp. 30, 31.)

High-sounding words these, no doubt, and very
characteristic of their author. But the question is,
"What truth is there in them ? None at all. There
is no such " renunciation" required. And the whole
notion about the "desecration of Christ's ordinance"
involved in such a step, is entirely opposed to the
views of our best divines of all parties. "What does
Archbishop Bramhall says in his Letters of Orders,
when ordaining one who had previously had only
Scotch Presbyterian Orders : " Nbn annihilates
priores ordines, (si quos habuit,) nee invaliditatem
eorundem deter minantes, multo minus omnes ordines
sacros Ecclesiarum Forinsecarum condemnantes, quos
proprio Judici relinquimus, sed SOLUMMODO SUP-

APPENDIX. R7

PLENTES, quicquid prius defuit per canoncs EcclesiuR
Anglicancc requisitum, et providentes paci Ecelesue,
ut schismatia tullatur occasio, et conscientiis fidelium
satisfiat, ncc ulli dubitent do ejus ordinatione, ant
actus sous presbyterialcs taiKpiam invalidos aversen-
tur." (Works, Oxi'. cd. vol. i. p. xxxvii.)

L -t his Lordship's friends determine which is the
best authority, the Bishop of Exeter or Archbishop
Bramhall.

l>ut, as this is an important point, I shall add some
further testimonies.

And, lirst, let us hear the opinion of Archbishop
Leighton, one whose learning as well as piety is un
questionable. \Vhcn consecrated Bishop, in 1»5()1,
by some of the English bishops, he was required by
them to submit to be lirst ordained Deacon and
Priest, on the ground partly of the Act of Uni
formity, and partly that, though it might be reasona
ble to allow Presbyterian Orders under some circum
stances, yet that his had been received from those
who were in a state of schism, and had without rea
son revolted from their bishops. And Leighton's
view on the subject is thus stated by his intimate
friend, Bishop Burnet : " Leighton did not stand
much upon it. lie did not, t/iink Orders given without
bishops were null and void. He thought the forms of
government were not settled by such positive laws as
were unalterable; but only by Apostolic practices,
which, as he thought, authorized Episcopacy as the
best form. Yet he did not think it necessary to the
being of a Church. But h>> thought (hat every Church
•migJit make such rules of Ordination as Oieij please*^

88 APPENDIX.

and that they might reordain all that came to them from
any other Charch ; and that the reordaining a priest or
dained in another Church imported no more but that they
received him into Orders according to their rules, and did
not infer the annulling the Orders he had formerly re
ceived" (Hist, of his Own Times, vol. i. p. 140.)

The testimony of Archbishop Leighton, therefore,
is directly against the Bishop on all the points of the
case.

But a still more important testimony perhaps than
even these is that of the learned Bingham, the au
thor of the Antiquities of the Christian Church. He
says, in his French Church's Apology for the Church of
England :

" Nor do I see what can be urged farther in this case, unless it be the
business of reordination, which some reckon so great a charge against
the Act of Uniformity ; because it obliges every beneficiary to receive
Episcopal ordination, according to the form and rites of the Church
of England. But what harm there is in this, I confess I never yet
could see ; and I am sure there is nothing in it contrary to the princi
ples or practice of Geneva, nor perhaps of the whole French Church.
For at Geneva it is their common practice, whenever they remove a
minister from one Church to another, to give him a new and solemn
ordination by imposition of hands and prayer. . . . Now, if it
be lawful, by the rules of the Church of Geneva, for a minister to
receive a new solemn ordination, when he is translated from one
Church to another ; why can not men in England consent to receive
a new ordination, when the law requires it, in order to settle them
selves regularly in any Church ? especially when it is for the sake of
peace and union, and to take off all manner of doubtfulness and scru
ples from the people. / dispute not now, whether their former ordina
tions were valid [this question, we see, he does not consider to affect
the point to be determined, namely, whether they could properly
submit to reordination] ; it is certain, they are not more valid than
those of Geneva ; r.or can they themselves think them more valid

APPENDIX. 89

than the ministers of Geneva think theirs; wherefore, if it be lawful
at Geneva for a minister to receive a new ordination, because the
laws require it, I do not see what can make it unlawful in England to
submit to the same thing, in compliance with the law, when men have
no other regular way to settle themselves in any cure ; let thtir opinion
of Vieir former ordination be what it will, WHICH COMES NOT INTO THK
PRKSKXT DISPUTE. For even supposing their former ordination [that is,
the Presbyterian in this country] to be valiii, I show they may submit
tf) a new ordination without sin; and if the will be peaceable, they
vwjht to ilo it, after the example of Geneva, rather than set up sep-
Arate meetings and preach against the will of their superiors, to the
disturbance of the peace of the Church." (Bingham's Works, vol.
ix. ed. 1845, pp. 2'JG, !iy7.)

APPENDIX B.

ON THE MEANING OF THE TERM "DIVINE
INSTITUTION."

(From reply to Mr. Harrington.}

IT would surely have been more unambiguous to
speak of the Apostolical institution of Episcopacy,
than to use the epithet Dii'ine. I am quite aware that
it has been frequently used, and also of the sense in
which it may be legitimately applied ; but I am also
aware, that whenever the matter has been contro
verted, it has been found necessary to point out two
or three senses in which the word " Divine" may bo
used, and (with very few exceptions) to admit that in
one only is it applicable to the origin of Episcopacy,
namely, as instituted by men divinely inspired ; and
in a formal definition of this kind, a vague phrase
ology is surely to be avoided. Now of the Apostoli-

90 APPENDIX.

cal institution of Episcopacy I make no doubt ; but
then I have equally little doubt of the Apostolical
institution of the practice of anointing the sick with
oil. And though I would not place the importance
of one on a par with the importance of the other, yet
if the mere fact of a thing having been Apostolically
instituted, renders its observance indispensably neces
sary in all ages and all parts of the Church of Christ,
the one of these is as indispensably necessary as the
other. And if this argument does not hold good,
then the argument of Mr. Harrington for the indis
pensable necessity of Episcopacy from this fact falls
to the ground.

APPENDIX C.

ON THE MEANING OF THE TERM ".

USED BY SOME OF OUR DIVINES AS ALONE JUSTI
FYING PRESBYTERIAN ORDINATION.

(Reply to Harrington.')

It is often said, that such and such Presbyterian
Churches might now, if they pleased, receive Epis
copacy from more than one Episcopal Church, and,
therefore, that they can not urge the plea of necessity.
But it is clear that the word necessity was not used
by them in this strict sense. I refer, in proof of this,
to the language of Saravia and Crakanthorp,* both
of them men in the highest repute with my oppo-

* See Doctrine, etc., pp. 22, 39.

APPENDIX. 01

nents ; and the latter of whom distinctly says, speak
ing of his wish that those Churches would avail them
selves of the opportunity they then possessed of ob
taining Episcopal Orders, " sed optamus, noncogimux:
jm ct imj)crium in corum Eccksias ncc habcmns nos, iv
d-'sidemmus" An<l this opportunity they have had
for more than two centuries just as much as at the
present day ; so that all the testimonies of our divines
since that period, such as Mason, Cosin, etc. etc., were
written under similar circumstances to those which
now exist.

It is clear, also, that when Saravia spoke of neces
sity, he was alluding to a necessity arising from the
corruption of the Bishops in any particular Church
for the sound presbyters of that Church to perpetuate
their order bv admitting others to it themselves,
though under ordinary circumstances they would have
had no right to do so. lie was contemplating each
Church as an independent community that had a right
to order its own affairs.

And when it is urged, that no necessity exists now
for the Foreign Reformed Churches lacking Episco
pacy, because certain Episcopal Churches would give
them Bishops, I am much inclined to doubt whether
even this could be proved, for there may be still many
impediments, some arising out of their relations to
the different States in which they are found, to their
reception of Episcopacy, whatever may be the willing
ness of other Churches to give it to them.

92 APPENDIX.

APPENDIX D.

ON THE MEANING OF THE TERM JUS DIVINUM.
(Reply to Bishop of Exeter.}

BISHOP SANDERSON" points out two different senses
of the phrase jus divinum, observing :

*' Sometimes it importeth a Divine precept (which is indeed the
primary and most proper signification) when it appeareth by some
clear, express, and peremptory command of God in His Word, to be
the will of God that the thing so commanded should be perpetually
and universally observed. Of which sort, setting aside the Articles
of the Creed, and the moral duties of the law, (which are not much
pertinent to the present inquiry,) there are, as I take it, very few
things that can be said to be of Divine positive right under the
New Testament. The preaching of the Gospel and administration
of the Sacraments are two ; which, when I have named, 1 think 1
have named all. But there is a secondary and more extended signi
fication of that term, which is also of frequent use among divines.
In which sense such things as, having no express command in the
Word, yet are found to have authority and warrant from the institu
tion, example, and approbation either of Christ Himself or His
Apostles ; and have (in regard of the importance and usefulness of
the things themselves) been held, by the consentient judgment of all
the Churches of Christ in the primitive and succeeding ages, needful
to be continued ; such things I say are (though not so properly as
the former, yet) usually and interpretative said to be of Divine
right. Of which sort I take the observation of the Lord's day, the
ordering the keys, the distinction of presbyters and deacons, and
some other things (not all perhaps of equal consequence) to be.
Unto Jus Divinum in that former acceptation, is required a Divine
precept ; in this latter, it sufficeth thereunto that a thing be of Apos
tolical institution or practice. Which ambiguity is the more to be

APPENDIX. 03

heeded, for that the observation thereof is of great use for the
avoiding of sundry mistakes, that through the ignorance or neglect
thereof daily happen to the engaging of mm in endless disputes,
and entangling their consciences in unnecessary scruples."

And having thus pointed out these two senses of
the term Jus Divinum, he proeeeds to show in what
manner the phrase is to be applied in the matter of
Episcopacy. And he says :

" Now that the government of the Churches of Christ by bishops
is of Divine right in that first and stricter sense, is an opinion at
least of great PROBABILITY, and such as may more easily and upon
better grounds be defended than confuted. . . . Yet because it
is both inexpedient to maintain a dispute where it needs not, and
needless to contend for more, where less will serve the turn ; I find
that our divines that have travailed most in this argument, where
they purposely treat of it, do rather choose to stand to the tenure of
Episcopacy c x Apoxtolica designatione, than to hold a contest upon
the title of Jut Divinum, no necessity requiring the same to be
done. They, therefore, that so speak of this government as estab
lished by Divine right, are not all of them necessarily so to be under
stood, as if they meant it in that first and stricter one. Sufficient it
is for the justification of the Church of England in the constitution
and government thereof, that it is (as certainly it is) of Divine right
in the latter and larger signification : that is to say, of Apostolical
institution and approbation ; exercised by the Apostles themselves,
and by other persons in their times, appointed and enabled thereunto
by them, according to the will of our Lord Jesus Christ, and by
virtue of the commission they had received from him."

So that all he ventures to say in favor of Episco
pacy being jure dirino in the strict sense of the
phrase — which alone would make it of absolute ne
cessity — is that it appears to him to be "an opinion
at least of great PROBABILITY ;" and he admits, that
our divines for the most part only contend for the
apostolical institution of Episcopacy.

94 APPENDIX.

He then remarks, that this latter view is " a part
of the established doctrine of the Church of Eng
land," (in which I entirely agree with him,) and that
it " hath been constantly and uniformly maintained
by our best writers, and by all the sober, orderly,
and orthodox sons of this Church." (Episcop. not
prejud. to Reg. Power, Lond. 1673, Sec. II. §§ 3-6.)

The latter is a somewhat large assertion, but no
doubt true of a great majority of such divines. But
then, as I have already abundantly shown, those
among them who held this view maintained also the
validity under some circumstances of Presbyterian
Ordinations.

APPENDIX E.

MOEALITY OF TRACTARIAN ISM.
(Introduction to Vindication.)

THERE is nothing more painful perhaps in the
whole Tractarian movement, than the frequent dis
regard to truth by which, throughout its course, it
has been characterized. Men entertaining Tractarian
views are in a false position in our Church, and conse
quently are continually driven into all sorts of incon
sistencies and offenses against truth. And no decla
matory asseverations of their doctrines being the
genuine doctrines of the Church of England can de
ceive any who give the slightest attention to the sub
ject, and desire to know the truth. They com-

APPENDIX. 95

mcnccd with a profession of slavish submission to
bishops ; and their doctrine demands it of them.
Their conduct is the very reverse, to a degree that
make us compare it with thankfulness with that of
the supposed undervaluers of the Episcopate, the, to
use the ordinary name, Evangelical body, towards
other prelates in past times. Their Catenas parade
with the most unblushing effrontery the names of
divines who have directly and clearly opposed their
views, as of advocates in their favor. The interpre
tation they arc compelled to give to our Articles and
Formularies (to say nothing of the veil of secresy
thrown over their practices) is such as to make the
more honest among their disciples writhe under the
consciousness of the duplicity of the course marked
out for them. This is not the mere accusation of an
opponent; it is the confession of those who have
belonged to them. Witness ^to refer to no other au-
thoritv) the pamphlet, not long since published, enti
tled The Morality of Tractarianism. Whenever they
have tried their ground before a public tribunal, they
have been utterly defeated. In the face of facts like
these, frothy declamations, protesting that they are
the true exponents of the doctrine of the Church of
England, will deceive none but those who wish to be
deceived.