LECT. XVI.] UNDENIABLE DOCTRINE OF ENGLISH CHURCH. 383 Chancellors, also, of whom Dr. Ridley says,' they "are equal or nearly equal in time, to bishops themselves; yea, chancellors are so necessary officers to bishops, that every bishop must of necessity have a chancellor"-and who, "as he is the oculus episcopi, ought to have an eye unto all parts of the diocese, and hath immediately under the ordinary, jurisdiction in all matters ecclesiastical within the same"-this chancellor may be nothing more than a layman.2 As to the words in the ordinal, which are quoted as demonstrative proof of a claim of divine right, Professor Wigglesworth observes, that "the words in the ordinal are too slender a foundation to build upon in the present case; especially if it be remembered who were the compilers of that book, and what reason we have to conclude that they were of the judgment THAT PRIESTS and BISHOPS ARE by GOD'S LAW ONE and THE SAME.” Sober remarks that the Church of England, and its whole episcopate, must trace up the original of its present constitutional existence, to the regal supremacy, as exercised by her majesty's progenitors, the kings and queens of England-commencing with the infamous Henry VIII. And that a divine right is out of the question, is made demonstratively plain by Sir Michael Foster, Kt., in his Examination of Bp. Gibson's Codex Juris.* Cranmer took out a license to make a metropolitan visitation," and a commission, also, during the king's pleasure, FOR CONFERRING ORDERS and the exercise of all other parts of archi-episcopal jurisdiction, in the name of the king." So also did Bonner take out his commission "TO ORDAIN WITHIN the DIOCESE of LONDON SUCH as he SHOULD JUDGE WORTHY of HOLY ORDERS," &c. That there is not an iota in the creed, or in the articles of this church, which fairly holds forth this odious and intolerant doctrine, is expressly admitted by the Oxford tractators themselves, who regard the formularies, as on this account, incomplete; and who devoutly long for an opportunity of reforming the church anew, and of branding with a fitting anathema, "this new heresy, which denies the holy catholic church (that is, the exclusive claims of the prelacy) the heresy of Hoadly and others like him;" and we may therefore safely rank the abettors of this 1) Ridley's View, &c. ed. 1662, p. 156. 2) 37 Henry viii. 17, in Foster's Exam. p. 38. 3) See in Dr. Chauncey's Appeal to the Public Answered, Boston, 1768, p. 8. 4) Eccl. Angl. ed. 3d, 1736 reprint, pp. 13-24, and p. 43. 5) P. 24. 6) Ibid, p. 23. 7) Oxf. Tr. vol. i. p. 300. "The name of Bishop Hoadly will probably be as long remembered as any on the list of British worthies; and will never be mentioned without veneration of the strength of his abilities, the liberality of his sentiments, and his enlightened zeal for civil liberty." Bp. White on the Case of the Episcopal Churches, 1782, p. 29. extra-ecclesia doctrine, under the third class of religious sects found in these sectarian days, as it is defined by these same tractators; viz. "those who hold more than the truth."1 The reformers, almost to a man, delivered sentiments most flatly contradictory to such an antichristian usurpation. Wickliffe "boldly declared that prelates were not to be found in the Bible at all." This, also, is asserted by the united voice of the framers of the articles, the book of orders and government of the Church of England, in the "Divine Institution of Bishops and Priests." "PRIESTS OR BISHOPS," say they, "had this office, power, and authority, committed unto them by Christ and his apostles."3 This was in 1537 or 1538. Cranmer affirms that bishops and priests were both one office. Up to the time of Charles the II. there was no difference, whatever, as has been stated, in the words by which bishops and presbyters were consecrated. "A considerable number of ministers were, in the reigns of Edward VI., and Queen Elizabeth, employed in the English establishment, who had only received presbyterian ordination in Holland, or at Geneva. Knox, the Scotch reformer; Whittingham, dean of Durham; the learned Wright, of Cambridge; Morrison, a Scotch divine; and Travers, chaplain to secretary Cecil, and lecturer to the Temple, are among the names which first occur to us. All the churches professing the gospel,' writes Travers to Lord Treasurer Burleigh, 'receive, likewise, to the exercise of the ministry among them, all such as have been lawfully called before, in any of the churches of our confession. And in the Church of England—the same hath been always observed unto this day.' "We know, also, that several of the foreign reformers were invited to England by Edward. Peter Matyr had the divinity chair given him at Oxford. Bucer had the same at Cambridge; while Ochinus and Fagius had canonries in English cathedrals. "The reformers,' says Neal, 'admitted the ordination of foreign churches by mere presbyters, till towards the middle of this reign, (Elizabeth,) when their validity began to be disputed and denied. "5 By several acts of parliament the ordinations of such as were 1) See ibid, p. 265. 2) Vaughan's Life of, vol. ii. p. 309. 3) Burnet's Hist. of Ref. Coll. of Rec. B. iii. Add. No. 5. 4) "Who knows not," asks Bp. McIlvaine, (Oxf. Div. p. 448,) "that in the question, what is the doctrine of the articles and homilies of the Anglican church, one plain testi mony from Cranmer and his colleagues, by whom those instruments were constructed, is worth all that could be collected from the writings of all the non-jurors of 1688, and of those their contemporaries, whom our Oxford divines are so fond of quoting?" 5) "Union," by Harris, p. 151. LECT. XVI.] THE PRACTICE OF THE EARLY ENGLISH CHURCH. 385 ordained by presbyters only, are ratified.' Thus, also, in the 13th of Elizabeth, cap. 12, it is enacted, "that every person under the degree of bishop, who doth, or shall pretend to be a priest, or minister of God's holy word and sacrament, by reason of any other form of institution, consecration, or ordering, (ordaining,) than the form set forth by parliament, SHALL DECLARE HIS ASSENT and SUBSCRIBE the ARTICLES," and on these conditions retain his orders and benefice. So also in 12th Caroli. cap. 17. By these acts, hundreds of ministers, who had no more than presbyterian ordination, or ordination by presbyters alone, WITHOUT the PRESENCE of ANY BISHOP, were confirmed, in their livings, as true ministers of the Church of England. "No bishop in Scotland, during my stay in that kingdom," says Bishop Burnet, "ever did so much as desire any of the presbyterians to be re-ordained." That this was the judgment of the Church of England, as late as the year 1609, will incontrovertibly appear from the unexceptionable testimony of Dr. Bernard, the friend and biographer of Archbishop Usher, as given in his collection of that reverend prelate's views, in his work entitled, "The Judgment of the late Archbishop of Armagh." "In a word," says he, "if the ordination of presbyters in such places where bishops cannot be had, were not valid, the late bishops of Scotland had a hard task to maintain themselves to be bishops, who were not priests, for their ordination was no other. And for this, a passage in the history of Scotland, wrote by the archbishop of St. Andrews, is observable, viz: that when the Scots bishops were to be consecrated by the bishops of London, Ely and Bath, here, at London house, ann. 1609; he saith, a question was moved by Dr. Andrews, bishop of Ely, touching the consecration of the Scottish bishops, who as he said, must be first ordained presbyters, as having received no ordination from a bishop. The archbishop of Canterbury, Dr. Bancroft, who was by, maintained, that thereof there was no necessity, seeing where bishops could not be had, the ordination given by 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 by the aforesaid three English bishops." Baxter, in his Five Disputations of Church Government, says, that "the English prelates maintained that protestant churches that had no bishops, were 1) See quoted in Powell, p. 77. 2) See Powell on Ap. Succ. p. 14, where may be seen the similar tes timony of Bishop Cosins, and Archbishop Grindal. 3) Lond. 1657, pp. 134, 135. true churches, and their ministers true ministers, and so of their administrations. This was so common with them, that I do not think a dissenting vote can be found, from the first reformation, till about the preparation for the Spanish match, or a little before." He then gives a long list of authors in proof.1 A catena patrum of the English fathers and divines, who have opposed the exclusive form of this doctrine,-which we denominate prelacy,-though they believed in episcopacy, more or less firmly, as a fact, but not as of fundamental importance, or of exclusive divine right; might easily be made out, and not 1) Lond. 1659, ch. v. page 178. This subject is thus presented by the Rev. J. Cumming, of the Scottish Church, Covent Garden, in his Apology for the Church of Scotland, (Lond. 1837, pp. 14, 15.) "In earlier times, the two churches recognized each other by ostensible acts. Such was the respect for Scottish orders among the bishops and reformers of the English Church at the reformation, and for a century afterwards, that nothing was more common than for a minister of the Scottish, or other reformed churches, to receive a license from the bishop of the diocese to exercise all the duties of a presbyter, under the superintendence of the ordinary. Strype remarks, in his Annals, 'that the ordination of foreign reformed churches was made valid, and those who had no other orders were made of like capacity with others to enjoy any place of ministry in England. Whittingham, dean of Durham, was objected to by Sandys, archbishop of York, whose orders were from the church of Rome, but a commission, consisting of several dignitaries, decided that his orders were good, and stated by the mouth of their president, "They could not in conscience agree to deprive him, or allow of the popish massing priests in our ministry, and to disallow of ministers made in a reformed church.'" Bancroft, archbp. of Canterbury, consecrated presbyters, ordained according to the forms of presbytery, to the offices of bishops, when James I. introduced an order of diocesan bishops into Scotland, and Burnet states, that presbyterial orders were almost universally recognized. To this day, "A striking illustration of the views entertained of presbyterial orders in the reign of James I. is found in the following fact: A Dr. DeLaune was presented to a living in the diocese of Norwich. The bishop (Overal) naturally asked him where he obtained his orders; he replied, from the presbytery of Leyden. The bishop refused to reordain, in these words: 'Re-ordination we must not admit, no more than re-baptization; but in case you find it doubtful whether you be a priest capable to receive a benefice among us or no, I will do the same office for you, if you desire it, that I should do for one that doubts of his baptism, according to the rule in the Book of Common Prayer, 'If thou beest not already,' &c.; yet, for my own part, if you will venture the orders that you have, I will give you institution.' Birch's Life of Tillotson, p. 184. That this doctrine of high-church prelacy received its first currency in modern times, from the sermon of Dr. Bancroft, in 1589, is evident from the fact, that the only contrary evidence offered by Mr. Soames, is the assumed position of Archbishop Whitgift, (Elizab. Rel. Hist. p. 381.) But as we have shown already, and will again, Whitgift stands upon the very opposite doctrine. See Neal, vol. i. p. 434, and Price's Hist. Nonconf. vol. i. p. 377. LECT. XVI.] THE TESTIMONY OF THE REV. J. E. RIDDLE. 387 like that delusive catalogue framed by the Oxford writers, and which is altogether beside the purpose.1 It may not, however, be out of place to add here a few more of the many testimonies, against this uncharitable doctrine, from some of the most eminent divines of the English church, with which our reading has supplied us.2 The Rev. J. E. Riddle, the author of several approved works, in his recent and valuable Compend of Ecclesiastical Chronology, thus speaks of the English church.3 "Well may we recognize our happiness in being members of a christian community, which teaches from the Bible, and not from tradition,-which proclaims apostolical truth, instead of boasting of apostolical succession,-which builds upon the sure word of God, instead of appealing to the forgeries and impostures of human fraud, or to the speculations of human imbecility and error,—and which is bound, by its own fundamental principles, to maintain the language of courtesy and respect, and to hold out the right hand of christian fellowship, towards all other churches in which the pure word of God is preached, and the sacraments are duly administered." So, also, in his large work on "Christian Antiquities," in his "Plea for Episcopacy, Charity and Peace," this author remarks, "We may reasonably believe that episcopacy is a divine institution; but we have no right to contend that it is the only system to which that honor is attached." Again, he says,— "Among the questions which may well be left open,-being such as will always receive different answers from different inquiries.—is this,-Did they (the apostles) in any way sanction the doctrines commonly connected with the theory of apostolic succession?" He goes on to give many reasons why they probably did not ; and then adds- "Whatever may become of apostolic succession as a theory or institute, it is IMPOSSIBLE at ALL events, to PROVE the FACT of SUCH SUCCESSION, OR TO TRACE IT DOWN THE STREAM OF TIME. In this case the fact 1) Of the forty-three extracts given in the Tracts for the Times, No. 74, as testimonies to the doctrine of the apostolical succession, there are not more than a dozen who do really testify to anything like the doctrfiine of the Tracts on that subject. 2) See many of them given in full in Dr. Miller on the Ministry, p. 139, &c. Powell on Ap. Succ. § vii.; Presb. Def. pp. 38-40; Neal's Puritans, vol. iii. pp. 284, 287, 352, 366, 372, and vol. i. pp. 217, 230, 261, 271, 395, 397, 419, 433. See facts in Prot. Dissent. Catech. pp. 27, 29; Bishop Hall's Wks. vol. viii. pp. 50, 51, 53-57; Bishop Davenant, as there referred to, and in Coleman, Christ. Antiq.; Jewell in Powell, p. 79; Brit. Ref. vol. vii. pp. 217-226, and pp. 26-30. 3) Eccles. Chron. Lond. 1840, pref. p. 9. 4) Lond. 1839, pp. 829. 8) Ibid, pp. 70, 71, 72. |