PRINCETON, N. J. BX 5176 .G2 1890 Gallagher, Mason. The true episcopate Shelf. Digitized by the Internet Archive in 2015 https://archive.org/details/truehistoricepisOOgall THE TRUE HISTORIC EPISCOPATE. AS SEEN IN THE ORIGINAL CONSTITUTION OF THE Church of Alexandria. Efibcofal in Goverkmekt ; Succession through Presbtters ; A Primitive Eirekicon. BT REV. MASON GALLAGHER, Author of "True Churehmanship Vindicated;" "Regard Dne to tke Virgin Mary ; " " Duty and Necetsity of RevieioD ; " " The Protestant Kpiicopacy of the RcTolutionary Patriots, Lost and Restored. " lUTBODUCTION BT REV. JOHN McDowell leavitt, d. d., ll. d., PrafMior of Chorcb History in the Seminary of the Reformed Episcopal Chnrch, Philadelphia. PUBLISHERS : FUNK & WAGNALLS, N«W YOBK : LOWDOK : 18 & 20 Aetor Place. 44 Fleet Street. TOROBTO, CANADA : WILLIAM BRiaOS, 1890, Entered according to Act of Congrees, In the year 1890, by Mason Gallagher, In the Office of the Librarian of Congress, at Washington, D. O. QLo StniJcnta of imioimtB ; THIS V»HrMB 18 AFFECTIONATELY INSCRIBED ; WITH THE HOPE ANB PRATER THAT IT MAT AID IF ACQUIRING RIGHT ABD SOUND VIEWS W.TH RESPECT TO A SUBJECT •? GREAT importance; ONE, WHICH IS CLOSELY CONNECTED WITH THE PBOOKES8 OT THE UNITY OV THE CHURCH ; WITH COMFORT IN THE CHBI8TIAN FAITH ; WITH THE EXTENT OF PERSONAL INFLUENCE; AND, CONSEQUENTLY, WITH THE MEASURE OF SUCCES i IN THE WOPK OF THE MINISTRY OF TBB OOSPEL. "In the Reformed Episcopal Church we delivered our- selves from the bondage of an unchurching dogma, which compelled us to stand aloof from all fellowship with other branches of Christ's Church, ' holding the Head' and ' the faith once delivered to the saints.' ' ' We have overleaped these long years of estrangement, of separation, and have gone back to that golden age of Christian brotherhood and inter-communion. We firmly believe that this Reformed Episcopal Church is such a Church as essentially the Edwardian Reformers would have bequeathed to u«, if they had been permitted to complete their work. "A Church claiming no Divine prescription for her Eccle- siastical Polity ; an Episcopacy which abjures the pretension of being the Divinely appointed channel for the conveyance of the Holy Ghost in Ordination ; a ministry renouncing the name and offices of a Sacerdotal Caste ; a Liturgy thoroughly expurgated from all leaven of false teaching, yet holding fast all that was precious in the old. " Therefore, we believe that this Church of ours is a work in behalf of Christian Union, a step, at least, towards bring- ing into closer fellowship all the Churches of Protestant Christendom. The great barrier to union among Protestants is the unchurching dogma — while it is cherished and main- tained, there can be no reunion of Protestants. " Let this obstacle be removed. Let these Churches of the Reformation acknowledge, as their fathers did, three centuries ago, that they stand on an equality before God, with diverse polities and administrations, and yet equally owned and blessed of God, parts of one great whole — Christ's witnessing Church — and they are prepared for a closer union, which, though it may not reach to Organic Unity, will cement them into one great army of the Living God, to meet the mighty assault of the hosts of infidelity on one side, and superstition on the other." — Address of Bishop George D. Cummins, to Rev. Dr. A. R. Thompson, Fraternal Delegate of the Reformed Church to Ref. Epis, Council, 1875. (iv) INTRODUCTION. EccLESiASTiciSM fails at the test point of its argument. In neitlier Scripture or history is there proof that the Apostolate was perpet- uated in the Episcopate. This is a conclusion of those who draw their inferences not from their facts but their wishes. Ignatius men- tions bishops, presbyters and deacons, and from the titles it is supposed that these clergymen were related to each other then as now in the Greek, Latin and Anglican communions. Of this I have never found a trace of evidence. In monarchic Asia, Episcopal power ripened early, but in free Greece there was certainly no bishop in Corinth, when Clement, first of Apostolic Fathers, wrote his first Epistle. It ia reasonable to conclude that as an order, Episcopacy would attain its ambition at diffe- rent times, according to the genius and circum- stances of particular nations. (V) vi INTRODUCTION. What was probable as an historic deduction, in Jerome becomes a proved fact. He testifies that bishops and presbyters were one ift order, and that the precedence of the former was founded on custom, and not on constitution. This general .statement he supplements by a particular fact. Jerome informs us that the presbyters of the Church of Alexandria, elected and called their own bishop. The significance of this statement the Author of this book grasps with great power. His clear vision shows him the importance of the inevitable conclusion. With admirable industry and ability he illustrates the testimony of Je- rome, and collects about it the learning of ages. The proof he arrays is not only useful for his argument, but has great value for the informa- tion imparted. This book should be in the library of every clergyman and intelligent lay- man. It adds both to the Author's usefulness and reputation, although already widely and favorably known to the public. But the subject has another interest. It connects us with the great Church of Alex- andria. How wonderful the history of the city ! INTRODUCTION. vii The Macedonian hero laid its foundations. Here was the seat of the most famous ancient library. Here was a centre of Hebrew and Hellenic culture where the Septuagint had its birth. Afterwards it boasted the greatest Theological School of Christendom, was the home of Clement, and Origen, and the See of the immortal Athanasius. Long the light of Alexandria was brighter than that of Rome, or Constantinople. John McDowell Leavitt, Eef. Epis. Theo. Sem., Philadelphia. " The exclusiveness of the Apostolical Successioo lay on me like an iceberg. Its atmosphere was to me a chill. I was forced to admit the orders of the priest who wore his scapular to save him from lust, pestilence and purgatory, and to deny the orders of a Hall, a Storrs, a Simpson and a McCosh. . . . History showed me the Hierarchy ever fostering under its shadow ignorance and servitude 1 Apostolical Succession and priestly prerogative I You find them together. Priestly usurpations and superstitions are stifling Protestant- ism in the Anglican Church. I found reform a dream. Nothing was left but to be suppressed, or to withdraw." Dr. Leavitt's Address, N. Y., Oct. 20, 1889. viii INTRODUCTION. W"e append a few kind words from one who haa 80 greatly adorned the high Office to which, like some of old, he was elected almost by ac- clamation, and concerning which he haa bo wisely written. " I am glad that you have resolved to repub- lish your work on The Church of Alexandria. New witnesses have arisen. New defenders of the old Faith have drawn their swords, and your own wise arguments re-stated will find later and vigorous endorsement, from strong authority on the other side of the controversy. Hoping to see the completed work. I remain faithfully yours, John H. Vincent." " The Original Constitution of the Church of Alexandria, it is scarcely too much to say, is the most important question of Ante-Niceno Christianity." History of the Early Christian Church. Thomas Wimberly Mossman, Kector of Torrington, England. PREFACE TO ENLARGED EDITION. It will be seen that the present volume is a new edition of a former work, with a supple- ment, and a modified title. It will be observed moreover, that the writer in the mean time, has changed his Ecclesiastical relations. The first edition was dedicated to the Laity of the Protestant Episcopal Church- of which the author had been a minister for twenty-four years. It was there stated that " the errors and innovations of the Clerical body portended the disruption of our Church." Five years after, the disruption feared, oc- curred. A noble bishop had seen, that by the action of the Legislative Body of his Church, in repeatedly rejecting all remonstrances from those who would stay the progress of Roman and Ritualistic innovations, that there was no hope of reform from within. He had also ex- perienced a series of opprobrious attacks, almost universal, from the Press of his Communion, for (ix) X PREFACE TO ENLARGED EDITION. his act in communing at the Lord's table, with ministers and laymen of Non-Episcopal Churches from all Christian countries, at the meeting of the Evangelical Alliance in 1873. Here he received grace to take a step, which in moral grandeur and heroism, no Bishop since the Reformation has been enabled to equal, save the Seven Bishops who went to the tower, in their protest against a similar condition of Popery. This godly prelate re- signed his diocese, his emoluments, his in- fluence, and his comfort ; to go out and to re-establish in this land, the Protestant Episco- pal Church, as it was at first constituted by the Heroes of the American Revolution ; and as the Bishops of the Revolution of 1689 in England earnestly sought to Reform it. The deed was fully done, although the eflFort, with the constant unchristian assaults, and the incessant labors experienced, soon terminated the life of this fearless leader. Still, with the blessing of God, on the courage and sacrifices, and the rare liberality of a few, a truly Protes- tant Episcopal Church, with a Primitive min- istry ; a thoroughly Biblical, Evangelical, and PREFACE TO ENLARGED EDITION. xi elastic Liturgy ; a Democratic constitution suited to a free people ; offers itself as a safe and comfortable haven of refuge to those alarmed and disgusted at the inroads of Medisevalism, which has permeated and dominated the dear Church of their childhood. This Reformed Epis- copal Church, now completely furnished with a Seminary ; a Church Endowment ; an earnest, devoted, undaunted band of ministers and lay- men ; recently at its General Council, declared by vote, its opinion : " This Church recognizes the Episcopate as an Office, but not as an Order," thus planting itself on the sure ground of Scripture, and the Primitive Ordinance. One object of this Volume is to establish by an appeal to history, that the Church of Christ knew no other view, in the first two hundred years of its existence ; that a second ordination of a presbyter, who was to possess the sole power of ordination to the ministry, and that by divine appointment, is not narrated by any author of that period, whose works have reached us; that the succession mentioned was either a succession of sound doctrine, or, a succession of men in an office, similar in principle to that xii PREFACE TO ENLARGED EDITION. in the case of a Town Supervisor, the incum- bent having no riiore power to hand down his authority to his successors than any other ordi- nary Supervisor, or, as is seen in the succession of our Presidents, And this is the whole of it. It is only by misinierpreting or corrupting the language of the early writers, or by a sophistical train of reasoning, or from a superficial view, that any- thing in the form of a rational or satisfactory plea for the exclusive, continuous, tactual suc- cession theory, with respect to a distinct third order of Bishops by divine right, can be con- structed. That the leading lightsof all Protestant Churches, of all names and countries, assert the view here maintained is fully shown. Further examination would show that the leading de. lenders of the opposite, exclusive, hierarchical opinion, have been Bishops, who, contending for the emoluments and powers of their order ; unscripturally, unrighteously and gradually, seized upon, appropriated, and held with the connivance of the Imperial authority, from the Presbyters ; have necessarily been biassed in Preface to enlarged edition. xlil their judgment, and could not be expected to present a true and impartial view of the case. Hierarchical Domination was forced upon the Church of England in a manner similar to that of old, King James I, arranging with Laud and his subservient bishops, in return for their acknowledgment of the Divine Eight of the Monarchy, that they should hold their Episco- pal Office by a similar Divine, Exclusive Right. Thus, the rights of the people, and of the pres- byters, were similarly disregarded, by the adop- tion of the aristocratic principle of the Feudal System. The writer does not expect to influence the minds of those who have been moulded, as it were, in the forms of an exclusive, sacerdotal ritualistic system. The appeal to tradition and custom overrides, in too many of this class, the force of calm, judicial inquiry. We may apply in this case a remark of Mr. Lincoln, made on another subject, "That what had never been reasoned up, could not be reasoned down." But that some young men, in the Church, in which the writer served as minister for twenty- seven years, may be enabled to study the testi- Xiv PREFACE TO ENLARGED EDITION. mony here presented, and like himself be enabled at length to break through the surrounding mist of ecclesiastical delusion, and see the truth, and thereby derive comfort and peace and power; which cannot come from a false, unreasonable system; this is his hope and prayer, in sending forth these facts of history. THE OFFER OF AN HISTORIC EPISCOPATE. Again: the Church from which the writer came, has recently, through its House of Bishops, in the laudable line of Christian unity, pre- sented conditions ou which an imagined union may be effected. It presents a so-called Histo- ric Episcopate as the panacea. It offers this blessing on the imperative condition that all Non-Episcopal ministers shall renounce their former orders, supposing they have them, and shall submit to the laying on of the hands of Pro- testant Episcopal Bishops, and thereby receive for the first time, a valid commission. This is undoubtedly well meant, but will be regarded by some as partaking of a sublime audacity; inasmuch as the parties to receive this divine gift outnumber their proposed benefactors PREFACE TO ENLARGED EDITION. 5CV twenty-five to one; are fully their equals in mind, and attainments ; have no question but that they are validly and Scripturally commissioned ; are unable to see any connection in the records of history, of an Episcopal succession so-called, with the Primitive constitution of the Christian ministry ; and have beheld the Divine Benedic- tion on their labors, poured out as richly and as freely as upon the Protestant Episcopal Church; numerically, in far greater measure. Were it not that this order of men honestly entertain the idea that they possess this myste- rious, undefined spiritual power ; that they are accustomed to legislate with closed doors, and possess the prerogative of overriding the unani- mously expressed will of a distinct and lower house of Presbyters and laymen far more nu- merous ; a power possessed by no other body of Protestant men in any land; a system thor- oughly antagonistic to American Republican ideas ; and are necessarily affected by the con- tinuous use and contemplation of these exalted privileges ; we never would have witnessed this remarkable offer under such peculiar con- ditions. Human nature is unfitted for such Xvi fREFACE to ENLARGED EDITION. claims, and such prerogatives, and therefore the Master said to His disciples, " all ye are breth- ren, and he that is greatest among you let him be your minister." "For they had a strife among themselves which should be greatest." When we behold the founders of the so-called Apostolic succession, at the first Communion, in the Master's presence, contending for spiritual domination ; is it strange to witness so much of this same Spirit in the Church of after ages ? THE p. E. CHURCH CANNOT CONFER THE IMAGINARY GIFT. But there is another essential Fact in this connection. If there is such a thing as the Historic Episcopate, and it is of any value, the parties making this offer in the present case cannot deliver the goods. The Episcopal succession was obtained from England upon the adoption of a specific Con- stitution and Prayer Book. This Constitution and Prayer Book having been received in Eng- land, and approved of, the men elected were thereupon consecrated, in accordance therewith. Afterwards the principles of that Constitu- tion and Prayer Book were radically changed, PREFACE TO BNLAREGD EDITION. xvii in order to gratify a bishop consecrated in violation of English law by the Non-jurors, who, with all the clergymen who had elected him (for no layman knew aught of this secret conclave), was opposed to Washington, and the Cause for which he and the Continentals strug- gled and suffered. One of these radical changes of the original Constitution was iu the Fifth Article, where it reads : " the bishop shall be considered a mem- ber of the convention ex-officio." Nothing is said of a separate House, and at the first con- vention after his consecration, there was but one House, and Bishop White was President of it. After the admission of the High Church LoyaHsts, in 1789, a separate House of Bishops was formed, with power to negative all acts of the Lower House, unless passed by four-fifths of the body; but as ecclesiastical prerogatives are certain to grow, through the influence of the Divine right sentiment, even this check on the bishops was removed, and an absolute power of veto conferred upon the Body, thus estab- lishing a House of Spiritual Lords. Kadical Xviii PREFACE TO ENLARGED EDITION. changes had also been made in the Prayer Book, by a perverted Scoto-Romish Commu- nion Service* and a thoroughly Sacerdotal Institution Office, appended. The Church thus having radically changed the base on which it received the succession, it follows that they have lost the special gift, if one was conferred. For it has become a Body with principles diverse and antagonistic to those on which it was at first constituted. But the Reformed Episcopal Church, having returned to the original Constitution and Prayer Book, is re-established upon the same princi- ples upon which the Episcopate was received. Having recovered whatever there was of value in that gift, it alone possesses, and therefore alone can confer it. This subject is considered in a thorough, interesting and valuable volume, " What Do Reformed Episcopalians Believe?" the work of Bishop Charles E. Cheney, D. D., of Chicago, the first Bishop consecrated in the Reformed Episcopal Church. The writer has spoken with great plainness with respect to the ecclesiastical errors and delusions which he has here combatted. While PREFACE TO ENLARGED EDITION. xix he has suffered from being exposed iii his years of preparation for the ministry, to the influence of the exclusive sacerdotal system of Arch- bishop Laud, which has so greatly damaged the Church of Christ, and it has been the effort of years to be rid of these influences; still, his experience has enabled him to learn from an inside view, the full character of this insidious, seductive and blinding scheme. He has under- gone with others the distress of an ecclesiastical separation, painful but necessary, the result of this system. In this we follow noble examples. lie deeply regrets that so many worthy Chris- tians will voluntarily remain under an influence ecclesiastically malarious, when it is in their power to enjoy a more healthful and comfort- able spiritual region. He has endeavored to show in this volume the causes of the growth of error, and its necessary baleful effects in the Church of God. As a distinguished author remarked of Popery, he believes, that in like manner, Ritualism and Tractarianism, and kin- dred delusions, " are a poison which a healthful nature may overcome."- His earnest desire is that all Christians may know the truth, the XX PREFACE TO ENLARGED EDITIOK. whole truth, and nothing but the truth, and that the truth as it is iu Jesus, may set them free. May the Great Head of the Church grant Ilis blessing on this work, and enable it to dis- seminate Truth, to the advancement of His glory, the good of His Church, and the comfort and usefulness of His children ! An account in full, chronologically, of the changes made in the Prayer Book in England, by the extreme Church party, will be found in a tract, entitled " The Duty and Necessity of Revision;" the departures from the Church of the Revolution, in " The Protestant Episcopacy of the Revolutionary Patriots, Lost and Re- stored," both by the present writer, and to be obtained at the Reformed Episcopal Publication Rooms, 1604 Chestnut street, Philadelphia. Note. As an evidence of the deleterious effects of the influence of the Protestant Episco- pal General Theological Seminary, and of the spiritual malaria which environed it; four of the young men who recited in the class of the Author, soon bowed in allegiance before the Pope. Others since have passed through the Institution into the same servitude. PREFACE TO ENLARGED EDITION. xxi One of these same class-mates said to the writer, with respect to many he had left be- hind, " They call us Papists. They are simply Apists." He preferred the genuine article. He seemed full of contempt for the nonde- script, fantastic system through which he had passed. Maj' the Lord send the light of His Gospel upon all counected with this Institution, and niay those who come forth from it, be illuminated to know, and preuch simply " the truth as it is in Jesus," unobscured by *' the traditions and commandments of men!" Brooklyn, N. Y., June, 1890. * " Ours, now nearly a century in use, contains the Sacerdotal and Sacramental System in full. . . . Re- tains the form of the Memorial Sacrifice, and asserts the Apostolic Succession. Our office teaches not merely the Eeal Presence, but also the vital truth, that there is a true Oblation. . . . We have the full Canon with Oblation and Invocation added to the words of ' Institution and the Manual Acts. "We recovered it through the Church of Scotland. . . . The gain over the English Book in that one thing balances all the rest." Rev. Dr. Morgan Dix, Rector of Trinity Ch., N.Y., President of P. E. Gen. Conventions, 1886 and 1889. Lectures on th ^^k of Common Pr^^'er of 1349. " Snrelj, if the salt have not wholly lost its savour, some one in authority, some bishop or prelate will at length arise, and be large-hearted enough to say to his separated brethren of the family of God : There has been enough of strife, enough of division, henceforth let us be one in Christ. We do not ask for your submission, as we have done in the weary ages of controversy that are past. We ask for noth- ing, we wish for nothing save your unfeigned love. Your ministers we regard as ministers of Christ's, in accordance with their work for Him, though you may not call them by our name; and in you we gladly recognize the work and the fruits of the Spirit of grace, in just as full measure as we behold them among ourselves. "When this most joyful of days shall come, then shall the family of God be one on earth, even as it is one in heaven ; and then shall our Saviour's prayer for the fulfill- ment of which all loving hearts have ever been sighing, since the spirit of disunion parted them asunder, have its blessed accomplisLment — 'that they all may be one.'" Mossman's Pbeface. These words w/itten by this large-hearted and accom- plished Author, in the year 1873, were destined to meet with their fulfillment, in the action of Bishop Cummins before the close of that same memorable year, when, this godly Minis- ter, at the meeting of the Evangelical Alliance in New York, received grace and strength, in the interest of Christian Truth and Unity, to sever his ecclesiastical connections, and to found a Church based on the principles so eloquently and lovingly, above presented. (xxii) PREFACE. The principal object of this essay is to show that the Church of England, in publicly acknowl- edging the validity of a ministry without episco- pal ordination or consecration, for more than a century after the Reformation, and in the best period of her history, was sustained by the pre- cedent of the Primitive Church. The patriarchal Church of Alexandria is here proved to have been episcopal in government, while, at the same time, it was without episcopal consecration or succession for the space of two hundred years immediately succeeding the times of the Apostles. Ample proof is given that the English Re- formers, Compilers, and Revisers of our stand- ards, were cognizant of the fact, and reasoned and acted accordingly, (xxiii) xxiv PREFACE. The concessions of the ablest modern divines of the same Church are here presented. The Church of England is thus fully vindicated with respect to her deliberate action in the premises. Another important point is hereby established. According to the same primitive precedent, there is in the presbyterate an original, inherent power of perpetuating the ministry in all its functions, and therefore to be exercised when required, in conjunction with the laity, to remove abuses, and to purify the Church. Again, it will be seen that the doctrine of an indispensable, unbroken episcopal tactual succes- sion, asserted by the Romanists, was rejected by the Reformers and Revisers of our standards; and, moreover, that a large_ portion of the Primi- tive Church acted without respect to such a suc- cession. With the overthrow of this dogma is destroyed the structure of a human, officiating priesthood, with the system of Ritualism based upon it. The question is one of testimony, not of preju- dice or of mere individual opinion. Ample tes- timony, it is claimed, is here given to establish the statements above made. A candid examina- tion is asked, and little doubt is felt that there PREFACE. XXV will be but one decision, and that in favor of the positions here maintained. The falsity of the claim of the Church of Rome to the Primacy ; that she is the mother and mis- tress of churches, is here clearly seen. In posi- tion and learning, and consequently in influence, for the two first centuries, this Church was subor- dinate to the Church of Alexandria. Superiority, neither in learning nor zeal, but in wealth and temporal influence, gave the Church of Rome the precedence, whose kingdom for so many centuries has been manifestly of this world, not of heaven. Strange is it that the Romish writers cannot agree as to the order of the early bishops of that see; nor can they prove that for two centuries they received episcopal consecration. All such statements being based on assumptions and un- founded inferences, what becomes of that much lauded succession, upon which rests the whole* anti-scriptural system of doctrine and worship, by which so large a portion of Christendom has been so long deceived and shrouded in spiritual darkness ? The maintenance of the succession dogma by large numbers in our own communion strengthens Romanism by distracting the Prot- estant cause, and thus promotes schij^m among XXVI PREFACE. those holding the one scriptural faith, and the true apostolical doctrine. The argument for the general prevalence of moderate Episcopacy in primitive times is strengthened, not weakened, by the views here presented. With the Episcopacy which approved itself to Oanraer, Jewel, Usher, and Leighton, the writer is fully satisfied. He has seen nothing better in his own day. The pressing of extravagant claims, svipported neither by Scripture, history, reason, or a wise policy, has jeopardized the interests, checked the growth, and sadly impaired the reputation and influence of the truly noble heritage handed down to us by the Protestant Reformers of Eng- land. The effort to extend the system of Archbishop Laud in this free, intelligent land, has proved, as might have been expected, almost a complete failure ; and whatever hold our Church has upon the American people, is owing to their convic- tion, that this system is a false, and not a true presentation of Protestant Episcopacy ; that it is ephemeral, and will become, ere long, a discred- ited novelty. To any charge of a want of attachment to the PREFACE. xxvii Protestant Episcopal Church, the writer will only point to a service of near a quarter of a century in her ministry. He has no other answer to give. One of the phenomena of our Church, is the rapidity with which those newly received into our fold (and more than half our ministry have come from other communions) become sounder church- men, in their own estimation, than many who have labored a lifetime in her service. A late bishop, in one of our largest and most generally exclusive dioceses, stated to the writer, a few years since, that he had ascertained that but one fifth of his clergy had been reared in the Episcopal Church. In a communion so conglom- erate, is it strange that there is so little unity, harmony, and mutual cooperation, or, that men changing their inherited beliefs, and embracing the unscriptural and unreasonable tenets of the modern, exclusive, /?/re divino Episcopacy, should proceed to any extravagance, and even land at the true logical terminus of such a theory, the Church of Rome, the present home of four of the writer's classmates of the General Theological Seminary ? The late President Nott has wisely remarked : " Men who go over from one denomi- nation to another always stand up more than Xxviii PREFACE. straight^ and for two reasons : First, to satisfy their new friends tliat they have heartily renounced their former error; secondly, to convince their for- mer friends that they had good reasons for de- sertion." In view of the state of thiiigs in our Church, how singularly applicable are the words of the eminent Dr. Isaac Barrow, as quoted by Dr. Arnold, an equally eminent churchman : " A con- siderable cause of our divisions hath been the broaching scandalous names, and employing them to blast the reputation of worthy men, bespatter- ing and aspersing them with insinuations, etc. ; engines devised by spiteful, and applied by sim- ple people ; latitudinarians, rationalists, and I know not what other names intended for reproach, though imparting better signification than those dull detractors can, it seems, discern." From the fact that, for some time, the writer conscientiously and earnestly advocated the ex- clusive episcopal theory, he thinks that he enjoys a greater advantage in the discussion of this ques- tion. He has surveyed it from more than one direction. He has known by experience the evils of the system against which he is earnestly con- tending. A somewhat thorough study of the PREFACE. zziz writings of the English Reformers, compelled him to modify his views, and to adopt the principles of the Com|)ileis of the Prayer Book, in prefer- ence to the innovations of Laud and of his fol- lowers. Examination of the writings of the Primitive Fathers has convinced him that the High Church principle was unknown to the Church before the times of Cyprian, two centuries after the death of most of the Apostles. He has yet to find the statements of an early author, that Primitive Episcopacy was necessarily connected with an episcopal consecration, a sec- ond ordination, or an exclusive tactual succession of a third order of the ministry. Having shown that the most important Church of antiquity, while episcopal in government, with the clearest succession of patriarchs, was yet without episcopal consecration and tactual suc- cession for two centuries, the burden of proof rea- sonably lies with those who contend that other churches possessed such a tactual and uninter- rupted succession, to make clear the fact. It has never yet been done, nor can it be with our present amount of light. The mere use of the terra succession, by writers XXX PREFACE. like Eusebius, Irenaeus, and TertuUian, does not at all settle the question, inasmuch as succession in office and place are not necessarily connected. Dr. Barrow quotes Gregory Nazianzen as saying, Atlianasius was the successor of Mark, no less in piety than in presidency; the which we must suppose to be properly succession." This tactual episcopal succession is assumed by exclusive writers, while no satisfactory proof is furnished. In a question like this, which concerns the Church standing, and the validity of ministerial acts in the largest portion of the Reformed and Protestant Communions, mere assumptions will not pass current. The reception of these exclusive assumptions, without satisfactory proof, by Christian people, we believe, as sincere as any, has produced its natural fruits, and made our Episcopacy need- lessly repulsive and odious. Primitive Episcopacy, saddled with these hu- man additions, how it has lost its rightful posi- tion ! In the Roman Church, the effect is seen in the almost complete destruction of spiritual religion, and the substitution of an amalgam of Judaism, Paganism, and a corrupted Christianity, whose latest and most favorite dogma, the sinless Con- PREFACE. XXxi ception of the Virgin Mary, has been borrowed from the Koran of Mohammed. In the Anglican Church, the result has been the repulsion of a large portion of the most religious minds of the nation from its communion. In our own Church, it is seen in the sacrifice of strength and numbers, which might readily have been se- cured; in a waning inflopnce; in intestine strife; in the increase of formalism; and in the intel- lectual deterioration of the clerical body. The history of the past, as well as the present con- dition of affairs, fully establishes these statements, and justifies the position taken by the author; a position taken conscientiously, and with the sincerest regard for the truth and the Church Catholic, and his own branch of the same. In a succession of apostolical doctrine; in the fact of a ministerial succession ; and in a moder- ate, wise, and safe Episcopacy, he believes with the Reformers ; but in the Laudean doctrine of an indispensable, unbroken, episcopal tactual suc- cession, one entirely different from that held by the Christian Fathers, he has no confidence. He has no respect for what has proved to be a de- structive and impolitic innovation. He trusts his book may lead others to a full investigation of this error, and to unite with him in resisting xxxii PBEFACE. and opposing it, until the whole Church shall combine in rejecting it. That the legitimate result of the teachings of Cyprian was the papacy, he is fully convinced. That the contest now in the Church is between the principles of Cyprian and those of Luther, he believes, in the words of Isaac Taylor : " It is thus at this moment: Cyprian and Luther are wrest- ling amain for mastery in the English Church ; and one or the other of these spirits must be dis- lodged. A se'ason of apathy may again come upon the Church, and so the struggle may stand over to another day; but at its next revival, the English Church will either go over uncondition- ally to antiquity, erasing from its formularies whatever is Protestant in them, and will expel all who adhere to scriptural doctrine ; or, it will re- cover its lost ground, and become consistently Protestant and biblical." How remarkably has this prediction, uttered in 1843, been verified ? We are already in the midst of the renewed conflict. May God speed the right, and give ultimate triumph to a true antiq- uity ? May an open Bible, a free pulpit, an evangelical ministry, prevail over formalism, rit- ualism, ceremonialism, and ecclesiasticism, and every system akin to Judaism and Popery ? CONTENTS. CHAPTER I. PA«a THE OHUKCH OF ENGLAND ACKNOWLEDGES ONE EVANUULIOAI. MINISTRY 1 CHAPTER II. THE PATRIARCHAL CHUP.CH OF ALEXANDRIA FURNISHES PRIM- ITIVE PRI'X'EDENT TO THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND WITH RESPECr TO THE VALIDITY OF ORDINATIONS IN CHURCHES DESTITUTE OK El-ISCOPAL CONSECRATION AND SUCCESSION . 10 CIlAl'TEli HI. NO EPISCOPAL CONSECRATION OR SUCCESSION KNOWN IN THE CHURCH OF ALEXANDRIA FOR MORE THAN TWO CENTU- RIES AFTER ST. MARK 19 CHAPTER IV. TESTIMONY OF ENGLISH REFORMERS 24 CHAPTER V. WRITERS OF THE SEVENTEENTH CENTURY 4S CHAPTER VI. MODERN EPISCOPAL WUITKRS 53 CHAPTER VII. THE ARGUMENT OF AN EPISCOPAL LAYMAN OF THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND, WITH RESPECT TO THK ORDINATIONS OF THE CHURCH OF ALEXANDRIA 6S (xzxiii) Xxxiv CONTENTS. CHAPTER VIII. FAM ROMAN CATHOLIC TESTIMONY 81 CHAPTER IX. OB.IECTIOXtl 84 CHAPTER X. KKCAI'lTULATION 100 CHAPTER XI. TESTIMONY KliOM NON-EI'ISCOI'AL STANDAIII) WltlTEKS . . 107 CHAPTEH XII. SUCCESSION OF SOUND DOCTWNE, THE TKUE APOSTOLIC SUC- CESSION 167 APPENDIX A. ADDITIONAL TKsTIMOXV 195 APPENDIX B. CONKIKMATOKY EVIDENCE 206 APPENDIX C. KURTHEK LAY TESTIMONY 217 roXTENTS OF SUPPLEMENT. PAGE EXAMINATION OP GORE'S OBJECTIONS .... 337 TRSTIMONIES FROM THE METHODIST COMMUNION — WES- LEYf COKE, EMORY, PECK 243-9 CONGREGATIONAL AND PRESBYTERIAN TESTIMONY — CON- DEH, SPARKS, MEHKIAM, HALL, IIITCHCOCK, FI8HEK, SMYTH, MILLER, DWIGHT, MASON, BOARDMAN . 249-79 EPISCOPAL TESTIMONY — JACOB, LIGMTFOOT, HATCH, MOSS- MAN, GREENWOOD 281-309 A ROMAN CATHOLIC WITNESS— ILLENDORF . . 309-12 DR. WHITTAKER ON JEltOMK 313 moderation of whitgift saravia ordained by prebbtteks selden's version cf eutychius 319 jewel on jerome 330 continental churches and refokmkks on jkkomk ; lutheh, calvin, claude, etc 331 conclusion — dr. r. b. welch on tub offer of the histokic episcopate 333 . 1.315 . 317 (xxxv) " They do but abuse tbemselvea and others, who would persuade us that Bishops by Christ's Institution have any Superiority over other men ; for we have believed him who told us, that in Jesus Christ there's neither High nor Low, and that in giving honor, every yuan should be ready to 'prefer another before himself; which saying must certainly cut off all claim to supe- riority by Title of Christianity, except men can think these things were spoken to poor and private men. Nature and Religion agree in this, that neither of them had a hand in this Heralding of secundum, sub et supra: all this comes from Composition and Agreement of men among themselves. . . "The pursuit of Truth has been my only care ever since I understood the meaning of the word. For this I have forsaken all hopes, all friends, all desires .which might bias me, and hinder me from driving right at what I aimed. For this I have spent my money, my means, my youth, my age, and all that I have. If with all this cost and pains, my purchase is but error, I may safely say, to err has cost me more than it has many to find the truth: and truth shall give me this testimony at last, that if I have missed of her, it was not my fault, but my misfortune." " Ever Memorable * John Hales, of Eton. (xxxvi) THE PRIMITIVE EIRENICON. CHAPTER I. THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND ACKNOWLEDGES ONE EVANGELICAL MINISTRY. It is widely asserted that the Church of Eng- land, and the Protestant Episcopal Church, which are identical in doctrine and government, deny the valid character of orders not conferred by Episcopal bishops. As tliis charge is a serious one, affecting the scriptural standing of that church, it is important that it should be exam- ined, and if false, be refuted. History fully vindicates this Church from the charge, and establishes her character as compre- hensive and catholic. The principles of the Church of England were settled by the Reformers, in the reigns of Edward and Elizabeth, when the Liturgy and Articles were compiled and revised. The action of that Church during tliis period is the best commentary on the intention of its legislators, and the mean- ing of their words. 1 2 THH: I'KIMITIVK K1KF.NICC)X. The point to bt; ascertained in reference to tlie matter we are considering, is, How did these au- thorities deal with those who sought to niinister in holy things in their Church, but who had been ordained according to the Presbyterian form? Did they acknowledge the valid character of such ordination, or did they not? This is the simple question, and on its answer the whole controversy hinges. History decides this point as it does points with respect to the meaning and intent of the American Constitution. What Washington, Hamilton, and Madison have clearly declared to be the meaning of the latter, we receive : what Cranmer, Latimer, Ridley, and Jewel plainly teach with respect to the meaning of the Episco- pal standards, no unprejudiced man will gainsay. It is remarkable, in view of the opinions advanced by many modern Episcopal diyines, that for more than a century after the compilation of the Prayer Book, that book was used by ministers not or- dained by bishops, who yet were regularly induct- ed into parishes of the Church of England, and the sacraments administered and all the functions of the ministry exercised by the same, no man forbidding. The proof we proceed to give, and if conclu- sive, it settles the question, notwithstanding the assertions of no matter how many modern claim- ants to the exclusive validity of episcopal orders. The Protestant Episcopal Church may be thor- JloDKli.V lliiN (iF. IIIK ( III liCH OF KX(,1.AXU. 3 oughly coniprc'lieii.si ve, wliik; nt the same time many Protestant Episcopalians may be exclusive, and stand on a contracted platform. S I li YPK (difd 1 737). Strype, tlie historian, remarks on tlie act 13th of Elizabeth, " By this the ordinations of the foreign reformed cliurches were made valid, and those that had no other orders were made the same capacity with others, to enju// any place within England, merely on their subscribing the articles" (vol. ii. |). 514). (kkble.) Keble, one of the founders of the modern school of Oxford, admits, in his preface to Hook- er's works (p. 76), that " nearly up to the time that Hooker wrote (1594), numbers had been ad- mitted to the ministry of the Church of England, with no better than presbyterian ordination." JSISHOI* HALL (died 16.";6). Bishop Hall (vol. x. 341) writes : " The sticking at the admission of onr l)rethren, returning from foreign reformed churches, was not In the case of ordination, but of institution ; they had been ac- knowledged ministers of Christ loithout any other hands laid on them ; but according to the laws of our land, they were not capable of institution to a benefice, unless they were so qualified as the 4 THK I'KIMLTIVK KIKlvNICON. statutes of this realm doth require. And, secondly, I know those, more tlian one, that by virtue of that ordination, which they have brought with them from other reformed churches, have enjoyed spir- itual promotions and livings without any excep- tions ag-ainst the lawfulness of their callings^ BISHOP COSIN (died 1672). Bishop Cosin, in his letter to Cordel, states : — " If at any time, a minister so ordained in these French churches came to incorporate him- self in ours, and to receive a public charge or cure of souls among us, in the Church of Eng- land (as I have known some of them to have done of late, and can instance in many others before my time), our bishops did not reordain him to his charge, as they must have done if his former ordination in France had been void ; nor did our laws require more of him than to declare his public consent to the religion received among us, and subscribe the articles established " (p. 231, Am. ed.) BISHOP BURNET (died 1714). Bishop Burnet, in the " History of his own Times " (vol. i. p. 332), testified that to the year 1662, " those who came to England from the for- eign churches, had not been required to be reor- dained among us." In his " Vindication " (p. ,84) he says : " No bishop in Scotland, during my MOI)Kl;\II()\ OF THE ('HUKCH OF ENGLAND. 5 Stay in that kingdom, did so much as desire any of the Presbyterians to be ordained." BISHOP FLEETWOOD ((lied 1723). Bishop Fleetwood, in his works (p. 552), writes of the Church of England : — Certainly it was her practice during the reigns of King James and Charles I. ; and to the year 1661, we had many ministers from Scotland, from France, and the Low Countries, who were ordained by presbyters only, and not bishops, and they were instituted into benefice with cure ; and yet were never reordained, but only subscribed the articles." HALLAM AND MACAULAY. We close our testimony in the case, with the statement of two modern standard historians. Hallam, in his Constitutional History" (p. 224), writes : — " It had not been unusual from the very begin- ning of the Reformation, to admit ministers, or- dained in foreign churches to benefices in Eng- land ; no reurdiaation liad ever been practiced with respect to those who had received the impo- sition of hands in a regular church ; and hence it appears that the Church of England, whatever tenet might latterly have been broached in contro- rersy, did not conmler the ordinations of presbyters invalid." 6 THE PRIMITIVK KIKKN' ICf )X. Macaulay, in his " History " (vol. i. 132), states : — " Episcopal ordination was now (1662), for the first time, made an indispensable qualification for preferment." From the above facts, which cannot be gain- said, it is clear that the Church of England prac- tically acknowledged for more than a century, in the most open manner, the validity of orders not episcopal, and allowed her members to receive the sacraments, and ministrations of clergymen, without such orders. We have presented the testimony of seven Church of England bishops, presbyters, and lay- men, ehm'chmen of all parties, clearly to the point, that " many ministers " — " more than one " — "numbers,'' "were instituted into benefices with cures," "enjoyed spiritual promotions and livings." " with the same capacity with others," "were acknowledged ministers," "were never re- ordained," for " no reordination had ever been practiced with respect to them," " from the very beginnings" of the Reformation in the Church of England. EDWARD VI. Moreover, during the same period, a Presbyte- rian Church composed of foreigners, with a Pres- byterian ministry, was placed under the spiritual charge of the Bishop (jf London, and has thus re- MODERAirOX OK THE CHURCH OF ENGLAXD. 7 mained till the present day. The patent granted by Edward VI., 1550, reads, " that by the ministers of the Church of tlie Germans, and other stran- gers, a sound interpretation of the most Holy Gos- pels, and the adiiiinistralioii of the sacraments according' to lite Word of God and Apostolic cus- toms rnu// e.r.isty If such ministrations be invalid, how can that Church, her officers and rulers, be excused for such dereliction of duty ? In this view of the valid character of the min- istrations of the foreign Presbyterian ministers, the King was fully sustained by the venerable Cranmer. ARCHBISHOP CKANMKR. Archbishop Parker, in his " Antiqnitates Britan- nicse " (p. 580), states : " Archbishop Cranmer, that he might strengthen the evangelical doctrine in the Universities of Cambridge and Oxford, fronr> which an infinite number of teachers might go forth for ihe instruction of the whole kingdom, called into England the most celebrated divines of foreign nations: Peter Martyr Vermellius, a Florentine, and Martin Bucer, a German, from Strasburg. The former taught at Oxford, the latter at Cambridge. Wiih the latter, also, Paul Fagius became Professor of Hebrew at Cambridge. And besides these, ImmanucI Tremellius, Berna- dinus Ochine, Peter Alexander, Volerandus Pol- 8 THE PRIMITIVE EIKEXICON. lanus, all of whom, with their wives and children, he maintained. Philip Melancthon and Musculus also were invited." The author of " Vox Ecclesiag " excepts to the statement in " True Churchmanship Vindi- cated," that these men were regarded as " minis- ters." But Parker continues : Fagius soon died. The other two, by constant readings, sermons, and disputations, refuted popery and spread the gos- pel." In the " Zurich Letters we find Peter of Peru- gia writing to Bullinger thus from Cambridge : " Martin Bucer, Bernadine, and Peter Martyr are most actively laboring in their ministry." The Martyr Bradford, — whom of all the Reformers, the Romanists sought most earnestly to pervert to their creed, — in his farewell to Cambridge, exclaims, " Remember the readings and preach- ings of God's true prophet and preacher, Martin Bucer."' Keble attempts to excuse the English Reform- ers, on the ground that they were affected by their "personal friendships and political sympathies" with foreigners ; that they had given up the argu- ment from " tradition," on which exclusive Epis- copacy is based; and that "they wanted the full evidence of the Fathers, with which later genera- tions have been favored," especially .a " genuine copy of the works of Ignatius."' To this we reply, that the Reformation divines MODKRATION OF THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND. 9 were more fully read in the Fathers than our modern theologians, the patristic writings consti- tuting almost the sole Christian literature then extant ; that, though they differed essentially with respect to the office of tradition with this Oxford professor, nevertheless, tradition also sustains them in their views, as well as Holy Scripture. On motives of principle, as well as of sympathy and affection, they acted with ecclesiastical modera- tion, and framed our standards accordingly. Taking tradition as authority, how could they assert that episcopal orders were alone valid, when a large and important section of the Primi- tive Church, from apostolic times to the year 250, had neither episcopal consecration nor succes- sion. For, in one of the largest churches of antiquity, simple appointment by presbyters con- ferred all the rights of the primitive episcopate. I CHAPTER II. THE PATRIARCHAL CHURCH OF ALRXANDRfA FUR- NISHES PRIMITIVE PRKCEDENT TO THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND WITH RESPECT TO THE VALIDITY OF ORDINATIONS IN CHURCHES DESTITUTE OF EPIS- COPAL CONSECRATION AND SUCCESSION. The portion of the Primitive Church to which we are to look for precedent to sustain the action of the Church of England in acknowledging ordinations without Episcopal succession to be valid is the patriarchal Church of Alexandria. In order to exhibit the important position of the Church and City of Alexandria, we give the lan- guage of a few of our standard writers : — VR. JOHN LORD. Professor John Lord, in his recent work, entitled «' The Old Roman World," thus writes : " The ground-plan of this great city was traced by Alex- ander himself ; but it was not completed until the reign of Ptolemy Philadelphus. It continued to receive embellishments from nearly every mon- arch of the Lagian line. Its circumference was abont fifteen miles ; the streets were regular, and THE CITY OF ALEXANDRIA. 11 crossed one another at right angles, and were wide enough to admit both carriages and foot passen- gers. " The harbor was large enough to admit the- largest fleet ever constructed ; its walls and gates were constructed with all the skill and strength known to antiquity ; its population numbered six hundred thousand, and all nations were repre- sented in its crowl;i.MIIIVi: EIKKXICOX. the Palaestra, the Amphitheatre, and the Temple of the Caesars, called out the admiration of trav- ellers. The Emporiun) tar surpassed the quays of the Tiber. But the most imposing structure was the Exchange, to which for eight hundred years ail the nations sent their represenratives. It was commerce which made Alexandria so rich and beautiful, and for which it was more distin- guished than both Tyre and Carthage. Unlike most commercial cities, it was intellectual ; and its schools of poetry, mathematics, medicine, philos- ophy, and theology, were more renowned than even those of Athens during the third and fourth centuries. For wealth, population, intelligence, and art, it was the second city of the world. It would be a great capital in these times" ^nn 89 90). DR. WM. S. TYLER. Professor Tyler, in his fifth article on " Repre- sentative Cities," in Hours at Home," October, 1867, writing of Alexandria, says : " It was the mission of Alexandria to collect manuscripts; to revise editions of the classics ; -to compose sys- tematic treatises on gi'ammar, geography, and the mathematical and physical sciences ; to found libraries and inaugurate universities ; to estal)lish an exchange for the intellectual productions and literary wares of distant lands ; to criticise and compare the literature of different nations; to Till-: CITY f)F Al.KXAXDKIA. 13 eclecticise, if I may so say, the philosophy of the Orient and the Occident, and even to mediate be- tween the religion of Greeks and barbarians, Jews and Gentiles. In short, to collect whatever was valuable, to select whatever was true and beautiful and good, and to perpetuate whatever was worth preserving ; this was the idea, this the aim of Alexandria, though, like all other human aims and ideas, it was imperfectly accomplished. . Here the Alexandrian critics corrected and settled the text of Homer, the Bible of the ancient Greeks. Here, also, the seventy translated the Old Testament from Hebrew into Greek. Here, also, was the principal catechetical school and theological sem- inary of the early Christian Church. . . . The birthplace of the eloquent ApoUos, the philosoph- ical Clement, the learned Origen, and the the- ological Athanasius ; the traditional place of the martyrdom and burial of the Evangelist Mark, and the probable source of those speculations touching '■the Logos.,' to which the Apostle John alluded in the beginning of his Gospel ; it was in Alexandria that Christianity, wedded to philos- ophy, began to command the respect of the learned, armed herself with new weapons for the defense of the taith, and entered upon a new, and in some respects, a higher field of conflict and triumph. . . . " Christian Alexandria holds a conspicuous place in Ecclesiastical History. Alexandria gave the 14 THE PRIMITIVE EIRE5ICt theolog- ical school, and its most full, (lefinite, and generally accepted creed." DR. <;K<>H'jK houk. Professor George Howe, in his '• Bicentenary Discourse on Theological Education," 1844 (p. 69), thus speaks of the Alexandrian Seminary: — " This school was taught bv a succession of men eminent for learning,, science, and piety. Among them were Pantaenus, Clement, and Ori- gen, men famous while they lived for their talents, learning, and influence. •' The industry of these teachers, and of Origan in particular, was intense. Besides teaching the principal branches of theological srudy, and the exegesis of the Hebrew and Greek Scriptures, they added the Grecian literature, and the study of philosophy, and indeed everything which would discipline the minds of the young men, and pre- pare them the better for a life of Christian activ- ity. Clement says that he had many eminent men as his teachers ; one in Greece, who was au THE SCHOOI.S OK A 1,KX A N Dli I A. 15 Ionian, another in Magna Grecia ; one from Coelosyria, another from Egypt ; others from the East, and of these, one from Assyria, another in Palestine, a Hebrew by descent. The last I met was the first in power: him I found concealed in Egypt, and rested satisfied. He was a true Sicil- ian bee, gathering the flowers of the Prophetic and Apostolic meadows, who engendered true knowledge in the minds of those who heard him. He thus describes Panta-nus, his revered prede- cessor in the Alexandrian School." HOSPINIAN. Hospinian, as quoted by Professor Emerson in his elaborate history of this school, in the " Bib- lical Repository" (vol. iv. 1834), remarks: — " Multitudes, renowned for learning and piety, issued forth from it, as from the Trojan horse, and applied themselves to the blessed work of the Lord in the churches of the East." DR. HASE. Dr. Hase, in his " Church History " (p. 117), graphically describes , the most learned scholars of this most famous university, who succeeded Ori- gen : — " From the Alexandrian School proceeded those who represented the theology of their century. Athanasius, a didactic rather than an exegetical writer, who ingeniously and enthusiastically re- l^j THK PRIMITIVE EIKEXICOX. duced all Christianity to the simple doctrine of the divinity of Christ; and the three Cappadocians,— Gregory of Nys.sa (died about 394), who, next to Ongen, was most distinguished for his scientific profundity and originality; his brother Basil, the great metropolitan of Csesarea (died 379), equally zealous for science and inonasticism, but more remarkable for liis talents in the administration of ecclesiastical affkirs ; and the abused friend of his youth, Gregory of Nazianzum (died 390), by in- clination and fortune so toss.'d between the tran- quillity of a contemplative lif,. niul the storms of ecclesiastical government, that he had no satisfac- tion m either, _ neither a profound thinker nor a poet, but according to the as|)irati()ns of his youth an orator, frequently pompous and dry, but labor- ing as powerfully for the triumph of orthodoxy as for genuine practical Christianity. Next to these were Eusebius of C;esarea (died 340), whose f^imple but not artless style was like that of one whose knowledge was abundant, who was fond of peace, and disinclined to the new formula of orthodoxy; and blind Didymus (died 39o), in spirit and in faith the last faithful follower of Origen." '5^ DEAN STANLEY. " The most learned body assembled at Nicsea was the Church of Alexandria," writes Dean Stan- ley, in his "History of the Eastern Churdi." " The See of Alexandria was then the most im- THK CHURCH OF AI^KXAXDRIA. 17 portant in the whole Church. Alexandria, till the rise of Constantinople, was the most powerful city in the East. The prestige of its founder still clung to it. The Alexandrian Church was the only great seat of Christian learning. Its episco- pate was ' the Evangelical See,' as founded by the Evangelist St. Mark. ' The chair of St. Mark' was, as it still is, the name of the patri- archal throne of Egypt. Its occupant, as we have seen, was the only potentate of the time who bore the name of ' Pope.' After the Council of Nicaea, he became the 'judge of the world,' from his decisions respectino; the celebration of Easter ; and the obedience paid to his judgment in all matters of learning, secular and sacred, almost equalled that paid in later days to the ecclesias- tical authority of the Popes of the West. The ' head of the Alexandrian Church,' says Gregory Nazianzen, ' is the head of the world." In his own province, his jurisdiction was even more extensive than that of the Roman Pontiff. Not only did he consecrate all the bishops through- out his diocese, but no other bishop had any in- dependent power of ordination (p. 237). RKV. JOSEPH BIXCtHAM (died 1 723). In his " Antiquities " (vol. i. p. 218), this learned author writes : — *' I must here observe that the Primate of Alex- andria was the greatest metropolitan in the world, "'2 18 THE I'lMMITlVK KIREXICON. both ill the absolntenetis of his power and the ex- tent of his jurisdiction. For he was not metro- politan of a single province, but of all the prov- inces of Egypt, Libya, and Pentapolis, in which there were at least six large provinces, out of which sometimes above a hundred bishops were called to a provincial council. Alexander sum- moned near that number to the conrlemnation of Arius before the Council of Nice. And Athana- sius speaks of the same number meeting at other times; particularly the Council of Alexandria, in 339, which heard and justified the cause of Atha- nasius after his return from banishment, had al- most an hundred bishops in it, which was above thirty more than the Bishop of Rome's Libra, which was but sixty-nine. Nor was the Primate of Alessandria's power less than the extent of his jurisdiction ; for he not only ordained all his suflfi-a- gan bishops, but had liberty to ordain presbyters and deacons in all churches throughout the whole district. " M. Basnage and Launay will have it that he had the sole power of ordaining, and that not so much as a presbyter or deacon could be ordained without him. Valesius thinks his privilege was rather that he might ordain if he pleased, but not that he had the sole power of ordainino; presbyters and deacons. But either way it was a great priv- ilege, and peculiar to the Bishop of Alexandria; for no other metropolitan pretended to the like power besides himself." CHAPTER III. NO EPISCOPAL CONSECRATION OR SUCCESSION KNOWN IN THE CHURCH OF ALEXANDRIA FOR MORE THAN TWO CENTURIES AFTER ST. MARK. The fullest statement, we possess with respect to the ordinations in the church at Alexandria is given by Eutychius, patriarch of that see, in "the tenth century. The works of this author were translated into Latin, in part, by Selden, 1642, and afterwards in full by Pococke, 1659. Of this author, Mosheim writes : — " Among the Arabians no author bears a higher reputation than 'Eutychius, Bishop of Alexan- dria, whose annals, with several other productions of his pen, are still extant ; who cultivated the sciences of physic and theology with the greatest success, and cast a new light upon them both by his excellent writings." THE PATRIARCH EUTYCHIUS (Tenth Century). In giving a history of this, his own see, Euty- chius mentions Mark the Evangelist as having appointed Hananias the first patriarch, and then proceeds : — 20 THK PKIMITIVK KIRENICOX. " Moreover he appointed twelve presbyters with Hanaiiias, who were fo remain with the pa- triarch, so that when the patriarchate was vacant they might elect one of the twelve prt'tibyter?, upon whose head the other eleven might place their hands and bless hira and create him patri- arch, and then choose some excellent man and appoi'ir him presbyter with themselves in the place of him who was thus made patriarch, that thus there might always be Twelve. Nor did this custom respecting the presbyters, namely, that they should create their |)atriarch from the twelve presbyters, cease at Alexandria until the times of Alexander, Patriarch of Alexandria, who was of the number of the three hundred and eighteen. But he forbade the presbyters to create the patri- arch for the future, and decreed that when the patriarch was dead the bishops .should meet to- gether and ordain the patriarch. Thus, that an- cient custom, by which the patriarch used to be created by the presbyters, disappeared, and in its place-succeeded the ordinance for the creation of the patriarch by the bishops.'' George Elmacinus, a later Egyptian writer, whose works were translated by Erpenius, con- firms this testimony of Eutychius. We have, however, the confirmation of his statements by more ancient writers. TESTIMONY 01' THE FATHERS. 21 SEVERUS (Tenth Cfntur\ ). Severus, as quoted by Renaudot, both histo- rians of the patriarchs of Alexandria, states that after the death of Theonas " the priests and peo- ple were collected together at Alexandria, and laid their hands on Peter, his son in the faith, and disciple, a priest, and placed him in the patri- archal throne of Alexandria, according to the command of Theonas, in the tenth year of the Emperor Diocletian." HILARY, OR AMBROSE (Fouitli Century). The author of a commentary on St. Paul'3 Epistles, by some supposed to be Hilary, and by others Ambrose, both of the fourth century, on Ephesians iv. 2, writes : — " The Apostle calls Timothy, created by him a presbyter, a bishop (for the first presbyters were called bishops), that when he departed the one next to him might succeed him. Moreover, in Egypt the presbyters [consignant) confirm, if a bishop be not present." A CONTEMl'ORARY. Another author, whose works are printed with those of St. Augustine, and supposed to be his contemporary, says : — " In Alexandria, and through the whole of Egypt, if there is no bishop, a presbyter conse- crates." 22 THE I'KI.MITIVK KIKENICOX. ST. JKKOMK (Fouitli Cfiiturv). The morit important witness, however, one born within tlie tentuiy succeeding, is St. Jerome, confessedly tlie most learned of the ancients, who in his Epistle to Evangeliis, after quoting passages of Scripture, to show that bishops and presbyters, as to their sacerdotal character, are the same, re- marks : — " But that afterwards one was chosen to be over the rest ; this was done to prevent schism, lest each one drawing the Church after him should break it up. For at Alexandria, also, from Mark the Evangelist to the bishops Heraclas and Dio- nysius, the presbyters always called one elected among themselves, and placed in a higher rank, their bishop ; just as an army may constitute its general, or deacons may elect one of themselves, whom they know to be diligent, and call him archdeacon. For what does a bishop do, with the exception of ordination, which a presbyter may not do ? " It is well known that Jerome teaches the same origin for Episcopacy, in his commentary on Titus i. 5, where he says: — " As the presbyters, therefore, koow that they are subject by the custom of the Church to him who is placed over them, so let bishops know that they are greater than presbyters more by custom than by any real appointment of the TKSTIMONY OK Till-; l AllIKKS. 23 Lord, and that they ought to govern the Church along with the presbyters," etc. Such is the testimony of antiquity in regard to the ordinations in the patriarchate of Alex- andria in the times immediately succeeding the Apostles. Do we ever read of the validity of the minis- try of the Church of Alexandria as denied by the rest of the Primitive Church ? If not, then is the Church of England sustained in her course in this respect by primitive precedent, and those who deny the validity of presbyterian orders, im- pugn the action of this Church, and of the Prim- itive Church likewise. Their theory is a modern innovation. CHAPTER IV. TESTIMONY OF ENGLISH REFORMERS. This custom of the Church of Alexandria was well known to the English Reformers and Revis- ers, and is conceded by the ablest modern writers. AltCUBlSHUI" WHITGItT (died 1604). This writer, in his "Answer to the Admonition " of Cartwright, which was revised and approved by Archbishop Parker, Bishops Cox, Cooper, and others, and according to Strype, " may be es- teemed and applied to as one of the public books of the Church of England concerning her profes- sion and principles, and as being of the like au- thority in respect to its worship and government, in opposition to the Disciplinarians, as Bishop Jewel's 'Apology and Defense,' in respect to the Reformation and doctrine of it, in opposition to the Papists." while contending for the primitive origin of Episcopacy, does not deny the state- ments of Jerome with regard to Alexandria. They were familiar to his mind, as they were to all the divines of that period. In vol. ii. p. 222, he writes : — TESTIMONY OF ENGLISH REKOKMERS. 25 *' The same Hierome, in his 'Epistles ad Evag-.,'' teacheth that the cause that one was chosen among the bishops to rule over the rest was to meet with schisms, lest every one according to his own fancy should tear i»i pieces the Church of Christ ; and says farther, that in Alexandria," etc. He then quotes the passage referred to. Vol. ii. p. 251, Whitgift writes: — " Every bishop is a priest, but every priest hath not the name and title of a bishop, in that mean- ing that Jerome in this place taketh the name of bishop. For his words be these : ' In Alexan- dria, from Mark the Evangelist,' etc. . . . ' Nei- ther shall you find this word episcopus commonly used but for that priest that is in degree over and above the rest, notwithstanding episcopus be often- times called presbyter, because presbyter is the more general name,' " etc. As this combined testimony of Whitgift, Par- ker, Cox, Cooper, and others, is of such value, we give further extracts : — " It is plain that any one certain form or kind of external government, perpetually to be ob- served, is nowhere in the Scripture prescribed to the Church. . . . This is the opinion of the best writers ; neither do I know any learned man of a contrary judgment." — Whitgift (vol. iii. p. 215). " One church is not bound of necessity in all things to follow another; only the Church of Rome is so arrogant and proud to challenge that prerogative " (p. 317). 26 THE PliLMITIVE EIRENICON. " The doctrine taught and professed by our bishops at this day is much more perfect, and sounder than it commonly was in any age after the Apostles' time " (ii. p. 471). What Whitgift, Parker, Cox, and Cooper thought of the " Via Media " may here be learned. When Cartwright charged the Church of England with a closer agreement with the Papists than with the Reformed churches, Whitgift replied, — " Wherein do we agree with the Pajjists ? or wherein do we differ from the Reformed churches ? With these we have all points of doctrine and substance common ; from the other we dissent, in the most part both of doctrine and ceremonies. From what spirit come these bold and untrue speeches ? " (vol. ii. p. 472.) " Beware of an ambitious morosity, and take heed of a new popedom. . . . You may not bind us to follow any particular church, neither ought you to consent to any such new servitude " (p. 454). BULLIXGER'S " DECADKS." We give an extract from the "Decades" of this learned foreigner, inasmuch as his writings were indorsed by Archbishop Whitgift. There may not have been an entire agreement between the two authors on all points concerning church gov- ernment, but, at the same time, what modern ex- clusive Episcopal writer would have commended TESTIMONY OF BULLINGER. 27 the " Decades " to the study of the clergy, without reservation ? We have in this act of Whitgift an evidence of the confidence entertained by the English Divines in their Continental co-workers. Henry BuUinger was preacher of the Cathe- dral of Zurich from 1531 to 1574. He enter- tained the English exiles under Mary. Such was his influence that he was appealed to as umpire in the Vestiarian controversy ; and his decision, that the use of vestments was scriptural and proper, went far to settle the question. Whitgift, in 1586, issued the following archi- episcopal order : — " Every minister having cure . . . shall, before the second day of February next, provide a Bible, and Bullinger's 'Decades' in Latin or English, and a paper book, and shall every day read over one chapter of the Holy Scriptures, and note the principal contents thereof in his paper book, and shall every week read over one sermon in said ' Decades,' and note likewise the chief matters therein contained in said paper." Bullinger, in his fifth Decade, third sermon, writes : — But in the order of bishops and elders from the beginning there was singular humility, charity, and concord ; no contention, no strife for prerog- ative, or titles, or dignity ; for all acknowledged themselves to be ministers of one Master, coequal in all things touching office or charge. He made 28 THE I'laMlTlVE ElUEiNlCON. them unequal not in office, but in gifts, by the excellency of gifts. ... In process of time all things of ancient soundness, humility, and simplicity vanished away; while some things are turned upside down; some things either of their own accord were out of use, or else were taken away by deceit : some things are added to. Verily not many ages after the death of the Apos- tles there was seen a far other hierarchy (or gov- ernment) of the Churcli tlian was from the begin- ning; although those beginnings seem to be more tolerable than at this day all of this same order are. St. Hierome saith, ' In time past churches were governed with the common council and ad- vice of the elders : afterward it was decreed that one of the elders, being chosen, should be set over the others : unto whom the whole care of the Church should pertain, and that the seeds of schism should be taken away.' Thus much he : In every city and country, therefore, he that was most excellent was placed above the rest. His office was to be superintendent, and to have the oversight of the minister, and of the whole flock. He had not (as we eve6 now understand out of Cyprian's words) dominion over his fel- lows in office, or other elders; but, as the Consul in the Senate-house was placed to demand and gather together the voices of the Senators, and to defend the laws and privileges, and to be careful lest there should arise factions among the Sena- TESTIMONY OF BULLINCxER. 29 tors, even so no other was the office of a bishop in the Church; in all other things he was but equal with the other ministers. But had not the ariogancy of the ministers and ambition of the bishops in the times that followed further increased, we would not further speak against them. And St. Hierome affirmeth that ' That preferment of bishops sprang not by God's ordi- nance, but by the ordinance of men.' " In the second sermon, Bullinger states : — " St. Hierome judgeth rightly, saying, that by the custom of man, and not by the authority of God, some one of the elders should be placed over the rest, and called a bishop ; whereas of old time an elder or minister and a bishop were of equal honor, power, and dignity." He then refers to the letter to Evangelus in which Jerome alludes to the Church of Alexan- dria. If Whitgift had regarded episcopal government as essential to the existence of a church, he would, reasonably, have guarded his readers against llie statements of Bullinger on this point, just as the American House of Bishops, when recommend- ing "Doddridge's Commentary" to the perusal of candidates for orders, directed attention at the same time To this author's diflferent view^ with re- spect to church government. 30 THE PIUMITIVE EIRENICON. Dlt. JOHN RAINOLDS. There is a striking similarity in the statement of Bullinger, to that given by Dr. Rainolds, Pro- fessor of Divinity at Oxford, as to the origin of Episcopacy. Archbishop Usher presented it to the public in 1641, in a Tract entitled, " The Judgment of Dr. Rainolds, touching the Original of Episcopacy, more largely confirmed out of Antiquity." As both Rainolds and Usher had read all the Fa- thers, and were respectively esteemed the most learned men of their times, we have no account of this matter to which credence can be more im- plicitly given. What Augustine said of Jerome, may be justly applied to these profound scholars : " What tliey were ignorant of, no man knew." The following is Rainolds' statement : — " Presbyters were constituted bishops by the Holy Ghost, that they might superintend and feed the flock ; and that this might be more effec- tually accomplished by their united counsel and consent, they were accustomed to meet together in one company, and to elect one as president of the assembly, and moderator of the proceedings ; whom Christ in the Revelation denominates the angel of the church, and to whom he writes those things which he meant him to signify to the others. And this is the person whom the Fathers afterwards, in the Primitive Church, de- nominated the bishop." (Conference, ad Hart, TESTIMONY OF RAINOLDS. 81 cap. iv. p. 47). The tract may be fomid in Ush- er's Works, vol. V. p. 75. In this connection we give the important letter of Dr. Rainolds to Sir Francis KnoUys, Lord Treasurer of England, who wrote to inquire whether Dr. Bancroft was right when he asserted, at St. Paul's Cross, " that bishops were superior governors over their breth- ren, by God's ordinance, i. e., jure divino To this Rainolds replied, in what is the oldest de- fense on record of moderate primitive Episcopacy, against its first Protestant High Church champion (though Bancroft was far from holding the preva- lent exclusive view) : " It is one thing to say that there ought to be no difference between them," etc., ..." another thing to say that by the Word of God there is no difference betwixt them but by the order and custom of the Church," which St. Austin saith in effect himself. . . . " When Harding, the Papist, alleged these very witnesses to prove the opinion of bishops and priests being the same, according to Scripture, to be heresy, our learned countryman of good memory. Bishop Jewel, cited to the contrary Chrysostom, Ambrose, .Jerome, and St. Austin himself, concluding his answer with these words : " All these and other more holy fathers, with St. Paul, for thus saying, by Harding's advice, must be held for heretics." Michael Medina, a man of great account in the Council of Trent, more ingenuous therein than 32 THE PRIMITITE EIREKICOS. many other Papists, affirmed not only the former ancient writers alleged by Bishop Jewel, but also another Jerome, Theodoret, Primasius, Sedulius, Theophylact, who were of the same mind, . . . with whom agree likewise CEcunienius, and An- selmus. Archbishop of Canterbury, and another An- selmus, and Gregory, and Gratian, and after them how many, it being once enrolled in the canon law for sound and Catholic doctrine, and thereupon taught publicly by learned men, ail which do bear witness against Dr. Bancroft of the point in ques- tion, that it was not condemned for a heresy by the general consent of the whole Church. . . . Where- to it may be added, that they also who have labored about the reforming of the Church, these five hundred years, hare taught that all pastors, be they entitled bishops or priests, have equal authority and power by God's Word. First, the Waldenses, next Massilius Patavinus, then Wickliffe and his scholars, afterwards Huss ; last of all Luther, Calvin, Brentius, Bullinger, Musculus, and others, who might be reckoned particularly in great num- ber such as were with us ; both Bishops Jewel and Pilkington, and the Queen's Professors of Divinity in our Universities, Drs. Humphrey and Whittaker, and other learned men. Bradford, Lambert, Fox, and Fulke, do consent therein ; so in foreign nations all whom I have read treating of this matter, and many more whom I have not read. TESTIMONY OF RAINOLDS. 33 " But why do I speak of particular persons ? It is the common judgment of the Reformed .Churches of Helvetia, Savoy, France, Scotland, Germany, Hungary, Poland, the Low Countries, and our own. I hope Dr. Bancroft will not say that all these have approved that for sound doc- trine which was condemned by the general con- sent of the whole Church for heresy in a most flourishing time. I hope he will acknowledge that he was overseen when he avouched the supe- riority which bishops have among us over the clergy to be God's own ordinance." This testimony of Rainolds, to a point conge- nial to the one under consideration, it would seem' were conclusive as to the view of the Church of England with respect to the origin of Episcopacy. The only reply which is given, is that " Rainolds was a Puritan." A strict conformist to the Church of England all his days, and in his last hours a recipient of the Communion according to its rites, Rainolds was selected by King James" to present the demands of the Reforming party of the Church. The changes he desired were mainly those made by Bishop White in our American Prayer-Book. To an impartial student no Chris- tian name in history is more worthy than this divine, who could not be tempted by an episco- pate offered him by his sovereign ; who was long the revered instructor of the English clergy, and honored in being the tutor of Richard Hooker; 3 34 Till", I'l;lMmVE KIRliXrCDN. a man who, far in advance of his age, sought by moderate counsels to avert the coming storm, and whose last legacy to the Church was the standard English version of the Bible, made by his mon- arch at his earnest request. The soul of this true evangelical churchman went to its reward while appropriately engaged in the preparation of this greatest surviving monument of the Reformation. DR. ANDREW WILLF.T (died 1621). This writer, for his acquirements, was called " a miracle of learning." He was chaplain to Prince Henry and Prebend of Ely. Bishop Hall includes him amoni^ the clergy of England, who were " the world's wonder." His greatest work is the " Syn- opsis Papismir This work, dedicated to Queen Elizabeth, and afterward to James I., passed through five editions under the royal license. In 1634 an edition was issued " by the authority of His Majesty's royal letters-patent," which state " that it hath been seen and allowed by the Lords the Reverend Bishops, and hath also ever since been in great esteem in both Universities; and also much de- sired by all the learned, both of our clergy and laity, throughout our dominions." From this important work we quote largely. Vol. iii. p. 58, Dr. Willet writes : " To the ecclesiastical policy in the advancing of the dignity of the bishops these things (of human appointment) do TESTIMONY OF WH-LET. 8.^ pertain. First of all, St. Hierome saitli of contir- mation committed only to bishops, ' Know that this observation is rather for the honor of their priesthood than by the necessity of any law.' " Secondly, the Council of Aquisgrane (cap. 8) saith, that the ordination and consecration of ministers is now reserved to the chief minister only for authority's sake. " Fourthly, the jurisdiction of the Church, which, in time past, Hierome saith, was commit- ted to the Senate or College of Presbyters, was - afterwards, to avoid schism, devolved to the Bishop. And of this Senate mention is made in the Decrees. St, Hierome saith : " At Alexan- dria, from the Evangelist Mark, down to the bishops Heraclas and Dionysius, the presbyters always gave the name of bishop to one whom tliey elected from themselves, and placed in a higher degree ; in the same way as an army may create its general, or the deacons should choose an industrious man whom they make their arch- deacon. (Hierome ad Evang.) So it should seem that lite verij eleclioii of a bishop in Ihosc flaijs, ivilhoitt any other circumstances, was his ordina- tion^ Speaking of the Greek Church, on p. 72, he writes : " Though they yielded the supremacy to the bishop as the chief, yet the presbyters were joined with them in the regiment of the Church ; the sole administration of the keys was not in the 86 l ili; I'IM.MI I'lVE KIRENtCON. bishop. The same, also, was the custom of the South Church, as Jerome writeth, how in Alex- andria, from Mark the Evangelist unto Heraclas and Dionysius, ' The presbyters did call one chosen from amongst them, and placed in an higlier degree their bishop.' (Hierome ad Evang.) By tlie which it appeareth, that the College of the Presbyters did elect and choose their bishop, and he was a prime man among them ; but the other were not excluded. Ambrose testifieth as much of the custom of the Egyptian Church : ' The first presbyters were called bishops, and the first removing, the next succeeded. In Egypt the presbyters, the bishop not being present, did con- firm ; but because the next presbyters were found unworthy to hold the primacy or first place, the manner was changed by the provision of a council, that not order, but merit and worthiness should make a bishop' (in 4th ad Ephes.). It seemeth then that the custom of the Egyptian Church at tlie first was to make the bishop only the prime or first man of the presbytery ; the change that followed was by synodical constitutions. And some evidence yet remaineth of that ancient ecclesiastical government to this day in the Ethi- opic Church, where the patriarch hath always twelve ecclesiastical persons his assistants, with whom he communicateth touching ecclesiastical affairs." Dr. Wi^let, on p. 53, quotes St. Ambrose as say- TESTIMONY OF WILLET. 37 ing : " He doth place the ordination of deacon after a bishop. Why ? Because there is one ordination of a bishop and a priest, for. both of them is a minister, yet the Bishop is first among- the priests." " St. Chrysostom useth the same reason : ' There is almost no difference between a bishop and a priest, because that unto priests the care of the Church is committed, and that which the Apostle said of bishops doth agree unto priests.' Page 47, he writes : I come now to deliver our own opinion The distinction of bishops and priests, as it i.s now received, cannot be directly proved out of Scripture ; yet it is very necessary for the policy of the Church to avoid schism, and to preserve it in unity. Of this judg- ment. Bishop Jewel against Harding, showeth both Chrysostom, Ambrose, and Jerome to have been (Defens. Apolg. p. 248). And amongst the rest, St. Jerome thus wrileth : ' That the Apostle teacheth, evidently, that bishops and priests were the same. Yet he holdeth this distinction to be necessary for the government of the Church. That one afterward was chosen to be set over the rest ; it was done to be a remedy against schism ' (ad Evang.). To this opinion, St. Jerome subscrib- eth — Bishop Jewel in the place before quoted, and another most reverend prelate of bur Church, (Bishop Whitgift) — in these words : ' I know these names to be confounded in the Scriptures , S8 I HK I'RIMITIVE EIRKN'ICOX. but 1 tspeak according to the manner and custom of the Church ever since the Apostles' time ' (Defen. Answ. Admonit, p. 383). Which saying is agreeable to that of St. Augustine (Epist. xix. ad Hieron.): 'According to the names of honor, which the use or custom of the Church hath ob- tained, a bishop is greater than a priest.' So that Auoustine himself, who was no Arian,doth found this distinction rather upon ancient custom than Scripture." Page 52, " Michael Medina, a Papist, thinketh that both Jerome, Ainbro?e, Augustine, Chrysostom, were in the same heresy with Arius. It may easily be disproved. Firstly, seeing Augus- tine with the rest held Arius to be a heretic, how could they condemn that for heresy in another which they themselves maintained? Secondly, it is not like that the Church, which had con- demned that for heresy in Arius, would tolerate it in the rest. Thirdly, there is great difference be- tween Arius' opinion and theirs, for he would have no diti'erence at all between a bishop and a priest. The Fathers allowed a difference, holding it to be profitable for the peace of the Church ; they only affirmed, that this distinction was rather author- ized by the ancient practice of the Church, than by any direct place of Scripture." We have here the testimony of Dr. Willet with respect to the view of the Church of England in regard to episcopal ordination (" our own opin- ion "), as he terms it, expressed with the approval TESTIMONV Of WIM.KT. 39 of Elizabeth and James, and of tlie bishops and universities of England. He (juotes, as sustain- ing the same opinion, Bishop Jewel's " Apol- ogy," a standard authority, and also Bishop Whit- gift's " Answer to the Admonition," making the assertion during the lifetime of the latter author. As no other writer has discoursed more clearly, and more ably on these topics which so deeply concern the peace of all churches, than Dr. Wil- let, in his " Synopsis," we give another quota- tion from p. 55 : " Although it cannot be denied but that the government of bishops, according to the use of the primitive Church, is very profitable for the preserving of unity, yet dare we not con- demn the churches of Geneva, Helvetia, Ger- many, and Scotland, that have received another form of ecclesiastical government, as the Papists proudly affirm all churches which have not such bishops as theirs are, to be no churches. Where- fore I cannot conclude that this special form of ecclesiastical government is absolutely prescribed in the Word ; for then all those churches which have not that prescript form, whether of bishops or others, should be condemned as erroneous churches. So then here is the difference between our adversaries the Papists and us. They say that it is of necessity to salvation to be subject to the Pope, and to bishops and archbishops under him, as necessarily prescribed in the Word ; but so do not our bishops and archbishops, which is 40 TUi: riMMlTIVE EIREXICON. a notable difference between the bishops of the popish church and of the Reformed Churches. (Defens. Answ. Admonition, p. 382). " Wherefore, as we condemn not those Reformed Churches which have retained another form of ecclesiastical government, so neither are they to censure our Church, for holding still the ancient regiment of bishops, purged from the ambitious and superstitious inventions of the popish prel- acy. Let every church use tliat form which best fitteth their state ; in external matters every church is free, not one bound to the prescription of another, so they measure themselves by the will of the Word, for if any church shall seem to prescribe unto another in those things wherein they are left free, that saying of the Apostle may be fitly applied against them (1 Cor. xiv. 36), ' Did the Word of God spring from you, or came it unto you only?' God may give unto one church wisdom out of the Word, to know what is best for their state, as well as to another. And so I conclude this point with that saying of St. Augus- tine to the Donatist bishops: ' Hold that which you hold : you have your sheep, I have my sheep ; be not troublesome to my sheep, I am not trouble- some to yours' (Exposit. 2, in Psal. xxi.). So may we say to our sisters, the Reformed Churches, and they likewise to us : Let them hold that gov- ernment they have ; we do not molest them in their course, neither let them molest us in ours.'' TPSTIMOXV OF WILLET. 41 As we are defending in this work the practice of the Church of England for one hundred years, in allowing the validity of presbyterian ordina- tion, we may be excused if we quote further from this work of Dr. Willet, which has the imprima- tur of the sovereign heads of the Church of England, the bishops and the universities, and which has more fully and satisfactorily treated of this subject than any other work of that period. Volume vi. p. 368, Dr. Willet writes : " As the one hundred and eleventh error, the Papists hold that they are neither priests nor deacons which are not ordained of bishops. Neither is it true that there are no ministers but by the ordination of bishops, for this were to condemn all those Reformed Churches of Helvetia, Belgia, Geneva, with others which have not received the form of ecclesiastical government. Undoubtedly where godly bishops are, there no ordination is to be had without them, as in the Church of England ; but every church having not the same office, bur others equivalent or correspondent thereunto, hafli full authority in itself to ordain ministers in such order and manner as the Church hath received, agreeable to the Word of God. So that we doubt not but that all the Reformed Churches profess- ing the gospel have true and lawful ministers, though they observe not all the same manner in the election and ordaining them. And this is the general consent of the churches themselves," 42 THE PRrMITlVF. KIREXICON. He then quotes, among others, the " Anglican Confession : *' " We say that the minister ought lawfully, duly, and orderly to be preferred to that office of the Church of God."' It may be re- marked here That in these words we have an au- thorized interpretation of the Nineteenth Article. " This, then, is the judgment of the Reformed Churches, — that every church is not tied to the same manner of ordination of ministers, so that it be agreeable to the Word of God; but accord- ing to this rule every church may make choice of that form and order which is most agreeable to their state, so that when the calling of bishops is received, by them ministers must enter; where there are none, the calling of the church must be followed. Our arguments and reasons are these: " First, out of Scripture, Acts xiii. 3, cei"tain prophets and teachers at Antioch lay hands upon Paul and Barnabas. The Rhemists gather here- upon "that they were ordered, admitted, and con- secrated by them." Annot. in liunc locum (which we say not, but they were onlv sent out to the execution of their office, being before chosen of the Spirit) ; but hence it followeth, that as at An- tioch, there being no Apostles, but only prophets and teachers, to lay hands upon Paul, the rest did it ; so those churches where there are no bishops, the right of ordaining ministers may be executed by others lawfully appointed of the Church. " If this were not so, these inconveniences TESTIMONY OF WILLET. 43 would ensue : Firstly, that all these Reformed Churches should have no true ministers, being without episcopal ordination. Secondly, that they must either be denied to be churches, or else a true church may be without the power of ordi- nation, which is in nowise to be granted. Third- ly, that those excellent men, Luther, Melancthon, Calvin, with others, extraordinarily raised up of God for the propagation of the Gospel, should not have been true ministers because they entered not by that ordination." On p. 376, quoting again from Jerome, he adds : " To this it is further added by a reverend learned man, now a bishyp of our Church; so at length l)y custom presbyters were utterly excluded from all advice and counsel, whereof Ambrose com- plaineth, and bishops only intermeddled with the regiment of the Church. This manner of subjec- tion in presbyters, and prelation in bishops, grew only in continuance of time, and not by any ordi- nance of Christ or his Apostles. See more of this matter on difference of ministers." This we have before presented. Thus we may see plainly and unmistakably, what was the view of the Church of England on the point of ordination, down to the year 1634, the very year in which Archbishop Laud, first of Protestants, broke the unity of the Church by re- questing the English Ambassador at Paris to withdraw from the Presbyterian ministrations. 44 THE PRIMITIVE EIRENICON. For, previous to this event, intercommunion be- tween all the Protestant bodies was on terms of entire equality, with no disturbance on the point of church government. This was clearly estab- lished at the Synod of Dort, 1618, by the recep- tion of the Holy Communion by Bishop Carleton, Drs.- Hall, Davenant, and Ward, of the Church of England, in common with the rest of the deputies, at the hands of Dr. Bogermann, the Presbyterian moderator. " There is no place on earth like the Synod of Dort ; no place where I should so much like to dwell," said Dr. Hall, afterwards the dis- tinguished Bishop of Norwich. Willet's " Syn- opsis," which is sustained by the statements of Jewel's " Apology," and Whitgift's " Answer," establishes clearly the moderate and Catholic principles of the Church of England. Thus the doctrine and the practice of this Church are seen to be in full accordance with each other, as both were consonant with the principles and practice of the Primitive Church. CllAi'TKll V. WRITERS OF THE f^E VENTEENTH CENTLllY. We have given proof that tlie revisers of the standards of the Church of England under Eliza- beth and her most prominent divines, were ac- quainted with the historical fact that the Church of Alexandria, while maintaining episcopal gov- ernment, was without episcopal consecration and succession for two centuries, from the time of its founder, Mark the Evangelist. This Church, fol- lowing primitive customs, allowed such ordination to be valid. To strengthen our position, we proceed to give the concessions of distinguished later divines — two of the seventeenth and four of the present century. ARCHBISHOP USHER (died 1655). For the first half of the seventeenth century we present Archbishop Usher as a witness of the views of the divines of that period, himself confess- edly the most learned of them all. As a man who had read all the fathers, Greek and Tiatin, Usher could not fail to be acquainted with the facts here 46 THE PKIMlilVE EIKEXICON. made prominent. Richard Baxter, in his " Life " (p. 206), writes of Usher: " I aslied him also, in his judgment, about the validity of presbyterian ordination, which he asserted, and told me that the king asked him, at the Isle of Wight, ' where he found in antiquity that presbyters alone or- dained any.' And that he answered, ' I can show your majesty more even, where presbyters alone successively ordained bishops,' and instanced in Hierome's words, Epist. ad Evagrium, -of the presbyters of Alexandria choosing and making their own bishop, from the days of Mark to Heraclas and Dionysius." Usher, it is well known, held that the bishops differed from the presbyters, not in order, but simply in degree. " The intrinsical power of ordaining," he writes, " proceedeth not from juris- diction, but only from order. But a presbyter hath the same order in specie with a bishop. Ergo, a presbyter hath equally an intrinsical power to give orders, and is equal to him in the power of order ; the bishop having no higher degree in respect of retention or extension of the character of . orders, though he hath a higher degree, i. e. a more eminent place in respect of authority and jurisdiction and spiritual regimen." Appendix to " Pan's Life," p. 6, ed. 16S6. " The Lord Primate was ahvAvs of this opinion,'' says Parr. He quotes hitn as saying: "Howsoever, I must needs think that the churches which have TESTIMONY OF USHER. 47 no bishops are thereby become very much defec- tive in their government, and tliat the churches in France, who, living under a Popish power, cannot do what they would, are more excusable in 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 uni- versal), I do profess 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 Charenton." This language is the more important to our purpose, inasmuch as but recently, in 1634, Arch- bishop Laud, the father of exclusive Episcopacy, had desired the English Ambassador to France not to attend the preaching and sacraments of the Presbyterian ministers at Charenton, on the ground that they had no valid ordination. BISHOP SriLLINGFLEET (died 1699). We pass now to the testimony of one of the most distinguished divines of the latter half of the same century, Bishop Stillingfleet, about whom there has been as much controversy as concerning any divine of his Church. The testi- mony of Stillingfleet is the more forcible, as he belongs to that class of Episcopalians, who, led astray from their early moderation, have adopted 48 THE PUIMITIVE EIKENICON. more stringent views of Episcopacy in after life. Stillingfleet, however, like many others, on further reflection, returned to the comprehensive views he had so ably presented in his " Irenicum." Stillingfleet, after he was made dean, in 1680, used strong language towards the non-conform- ists, and advanced higher claims for Episcopacy, and intimated that he would not then~ have made all the concessions which he had advanced in his " Irenicum," written in 1662. He wrote, how- ever, in the heat of a most violent controversy — " that age of fierce and savage controversy, of the tomahawk and scalping-knife," as Rogers terms it. In the last years of his life, Stillingfleet revised, and endorsed entire. Bishop Burnet's work on " The Articles," a work most obnoxious to ex- clusive churchmen, wherein the author asserts, " Whatsoever 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 the Church, half an age after, did, not- withstanding 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 imperfect state. And, therefore, the general words in which this part of the Article (23d) is penned, seem to have been designed on purpose not to exclude them." This language Stillingfleet fully endorsed. TESTIMONY OF STILMNGFI-EET. 49 Ten years previous, he united with Tillotson, Tennison, Patrick, and others, in an earnest attempt for a comprehension of dissenters, and one of the conditions of the plan was that " for- eign Presbyterian ministers should be received without reordi nation." Birch, in his " Life of Til- lotson," gives the particulars. The arrangement was defeated by the bigotry and intolerance of the lower House of Convocation ; in consequence, England has presented the sad anomaly, for two centuries, of a national Church rejected by half the population. The equally distinguished John Howe, in reply to Stillingfleet after his defection, writes: — " Somewhat it is likely he was expected (and might be expected) to say to this business; and his own thoughts being set to a work, fermented into an intemperate heat, which, it is to be hoped, will in time evaporate," which, as we have seen, was the case. Bishop Burnet, so intimate with this author, writes of him : " To avoid the imputation that book brought on him, he went into the business of a high sort of people beyond what became him, perhaps beyond his own sense of things." Our own Bishop White writes concerning the " Irenicum " : " The book, however, was, it seems, easier retracted than refuted ; for, though offen- sive to other parties, it was mannged, says the same author (Burnet), with so tniich learning and 50 THE PRIMITIVE EIRENICON. skill, that none of either side undertook to answer it." (" The Case of the Episcopal Churches," p. 22.) Presuming, then, that the testimony of Stilling- fleet is the more conclusive from his subsequent history, we give a few extracts from the abundant supply at hand. On page 298, he asserts: " Be- fore the jurisdiction of presbyters was restrained by mutual consent, in this instance, doubtless, the presbyters enjoyed the same liberty that the presbyters among the Jews did, of ordaining other presbyters by the power with which they were invested at their own ordination. In the first primitive Church, the presbyters all acted in com- mon for the welfare of the Church, and either did or might ordain others to the same authority with themselves; because the intrinsical power of order is equally in them, and in those who were after appointed governors over presbyters. And the collation of orders doth come from the power of order, and not from the power of jurisdiction. It being, likewise, fully acknowledged by the school-men that bishops are not superior above presbyters as to the power of order. " But the clearest evidence of this is in the Church of Alexandria, of vi'hich Hierome speaks: ' For at Alexandria,' " etc. Then quoting the pas- sages we have previously given, and contending that the ordination as well as election was con- ducted by the presbyters simply, he proceeds : TESTIMONY OF STlLLIXGFLliET. 51 To which we may add what Eufi/chius, the patriarch of Alexandria, saith in his Origines Ecclesice Alexandrince, published in Arabic by our most learned Selden, who expressly affirms, ' that the twelve presbyters,' " etc. ; then giving the language as we have formerly quoted it, he proceeds: "Neither is the authority of Eiilijc.liiiDt so much to be slighted in this case, ct)ming so near to Hierome as he doth." " By these we see that where no positive re- straint from constraint and choice, for the unity and peace of the Church, have restrained their liberty as to their external exercise of the power of order or jurisdiction, every one being ad- vanced into the authority of a church governor, hath an internal power of conferring the same on persons fit for it." On page 326, he writes : " At Alexandria, where the succession runs clearest, the original of the powers is imputed to the choice of presbyters, and to no divine institu- tion." On page 398, after showing that in Scot- land ordination was practiced by presbyters from i A. D. 263 to A. D. 430, he proceeds : " Neither is it any ways sufficient to say that those presbyters did derive their authority from bisiiops ; for, how- ever, we see here a Church governed without I such, or if they had any, they were only chosen from their Cu/dei, much after the custom of the Church of Alexandria, as Hector Boethius doth imply." Then, stating that the Gothic churches 52 THE PRIMITIVE EIRENICON. were planted and governed by presbyters for seventy years, and the great probability that pres- byters ordained in the Church of France, he con- cludes : " We nowhere read in those early planta- tions of churches, that ivhere there were presbyters already^ they sent to other Churches to derive epis- copal ordination from thetti.'" And in relation to the doctrine of the Church of England as to the point, on page 438, he writes : " It is acknowl- edged by the stoutest champions for Episcopacy, before the late unhappy divisions, that ordination performed by presbyters, in cases of necessity, is valid." In testimony to this last statement he refers to Bishops Jewel, Pilkington, Bridges, Bilson, Alley, Andrews, Downham, Davenant, Prideaux, and Morton, with Drs. Field, Saravia, Nowel, and Mason, " to whom may be added the Primate of Armagh (Ussher), whose judgment is well known as to the point of ordination." Thus much for the testimony of the seventeenth century. In our next chapter, the witness of liv- ing Episcopal writers will be presented. CHAPTER VI. MODERN EPISCOPAL WRITERS. Having presented proof that the Church of England acknowledged the validity of Presbyte- rian Orders, in the most public manner, for up- wards of a century after the compilation of her standards, we proceeded to vindicate her action on the ground that it was in accordance with primitive precedent. That for the space of two hundred years in the Church of Alexandria, after its foundation by St. Mark, no episcopal conse- cration or succession was practiced or possessed, we have shown by the statements of the early Fathers, and the later writers of the Alexandrian Church. That this was known and acknowl- edged by the ablest writers of the Church of England in the sixteenth and seventeenth cen- turies, has been seen by quotations from their writings. We proceed now to present the admissions of modern Episcopal writers in relation to a fact which completely silences all exclusive Episcopal claims. And first, — 64 THE fKlMlTlVE EIRENICON. DR. STANLEY (Dean of Westminster). •In his " History of the Eastern Church " (pp. 326-27), when speaking of the period of the Council of Nice, he says : — " In a few weeks after the close of the Council, Alexander died, and Athanasius succeeded to the vacant see. It was a marked epoch in every sense for the Egyptian primacy. Down to this time (according to the traditions of the Alex- andrian Church itself), the election to the great post had been conducted in a manner unlike to that of the other sees of Christendom. Not the bishop, but twelve presbyters, were the electors and nominators, and (according to Eutychius) consecrators. It was on the death of Alexander that this ancient custom was exchanged for one more nearly resembling that which prevailed elsewhere. " Jerome speaks of the custom as having lasted only till the Bishops Heraclas and Dionysius (Epist. ad Evang. 85). But the tradition of the Alexandrian Church, as preserved in Euty- chius (1-331), maintained that it lasted till Alexander. The change which he ascribes to Heraclas is another, which may have led to Jerome's statement, namely, that down to that time there had been no bishop in Egypt except the Bishop of Alexandria." TESTIMONY OF LITTON. 55 PROFESSOR LITTON (of Oxford). This able writer remarks, in his treatise on " The Church of Christ " (p. 570) : « When Epis- copacy was introduced, to bishops as being so far successors of the Apostles as that they were the highest order of ministers in the Church, the power of ordination was, agreeably to apostolic precedent, reserved — a reservation which was ratified by ancient canons, and has received the sanction of immemorial usage. On this solid ground it is best to rest the practice of Episcopal ordination. That bishops rightly ordain, we can say with certainty ; to say that none but they can ordain, is, not only to add something of our own to the written Word, but to set aside the evi- dence of history, which testifies to the contrary, and to abandon the moderate position taken upon this subject by our most learned divines. " The most remarkable instance, in which a deviation from the rule that bishops only should ordain, appears to have taken place, is the well- known one of the Alexandrian Church, in which, as Jerome reports, it was the custom for the pres- byters ' to choose one of their own number, and placing him in a higher position, to salute him bishop ; as if an army should make an emperor, or the deacons should elect one of themselves and call him archdeacon.' (Epist. ad Evang.) To the same effect is the testimony of Hilary the deacon, and of Eutychius of Alexandria. To the 56 THE PRIMITIVE EIRENICOK. evidence of the former writer Mr. Palmer (on the Church, pt. 6, c. 4), objects that the word ' consignant,' which he (Hilary) uses, signifies not ' ordain,' but ' confirm,' and to that of the latter, that he lived too late (in the tenth century) to have any weight in determining such a ques- tion. But, however indecisive the expressions, or the opinions, of late writers separately may be, the presumption in favor of the obvious meaning of Jerome's language, created by their united testimony, is very strong, especially as it is con- firmed by a passage which occurs in the book printed with Augustine's works, ' Questiones,' etc. : ' Nam in Alexandria et per totam ^gyptum si desit episcopus, consecrat presbyter.'" (Q,ues. 51.) DR. WILLIAM GOODE. From " The Divine Rule of Faith and Prac- tice " of this eminent controversialist, we extract the following testimony: — " That episcopal consecration was generally appointed in very early times to be, as it was, the seal to the episcopal appointment, can hardly, I think, be questioned by any one who is at all versed in the records of the Primitive Church ; but, nevertheless, there are testimonies occurring which seem to show, not merely that it was not absolutely essential, but that it was not univer- sally practiced. TESTIMONY OF GOODE. 67 " For instance, the testimony of Eutychius of Alexandria, is plain that such was not the case originally at Alexandria. His words are these : " Then quoting the passage, he proceeds : " I have given this passage in full, because it has been sometimes replied that it referred only to the election of the patriarch, and that we must sup- pose that he was afterwards consecrated to his office by bishops. But it is evident to any one who takes the whole passage together, that such an explanation is altogether inadmissible ; and, moreover, the very same word which (following Selden) I have translated created, is used with respect to the acts of the presbyters, and is after- wards used with respect to the acts of the bisliops in the appointments. I am quite aware tliat very considerable learning has been employed in the attempt to explain away this passage, and the reader who wishes to see how a plain statement may thus be darkened, may refer to the works mentioned below." Commenting on a passage from Renaudot, he continues : " The sole object for which 1 quote the passage is, to show, that according to Euty- chius, the person appointed to the episcopal office in Alexandria held and exercised the duties of the office without any episcopal consecra- tion. " And this statement of Eutychius is clearly and expressly supported by the testimony of 58 THE PKIMITIVE EIRENICON'. Jerome, in a passage where he plainly maintains the doctrine that such an appointment is suffi- cient to constitute a presbyter a bishop, and adduces this example in proof of it." After quoting Jerome's words, he adds: " This passage, be it observed, does not take away from the episcopate its rights, but distinctly admits that the power of ordination belongs properly to that office, and that its possessor has a higher rank than the presbyter. But, at the same time, it clearly maintains that as it respects the ministerial character, there is no difference be- tween a presbyter and a bishop, the difference being only to be found in the ecclesiastical dis- tribution of the duties to be performed by them, and what is still more to our purpose, that appointment to the episcopal office by the pres- byters of the Church is sufficient (as far as essen- tials are concerned) to entitle a presbyter to perform the duties of the episcopal function. " Now these two positions are perfectly con- sistent with each other. We may maintain fully even the apostolicity of the episcopal form of church government, and yet deny, that episcopal consecration is a sine qua non to the performance of the duties of the bishop or president of a church. And, if we bear this in mind, we shall find that Jerome, notwithstanding the charges of self-contradiction that have been brought against him, is perfectly consistent in what he has written TESTIMONY OF RlDt)LE. 59 on this subject. The great point with Jerome manifestly is, that such a president of the Church should be appointed, and such powers conceded to him ; and, in his view, when that is done, the essentials are safe." (Vol. ii. pp. 255-59.) REV. J. E. KIDDLE. We present another witness in this connection, whose testimony is of great weight from his emi- nent learning in the department of Christian Antiquities, — Rev. Mr. Riddle, of St. Edmunds Hall, Oxford. As a commentator on the Gospels and Prayer Book, as a Church historian, as a chronologist, a lexicographer, as Bampton lec- turer for 1852, and particularly as the compiler of the most learned of English modern works on Christian Antiquities, this author's opinion on the point we are considering is of peculiar value. From Mr. Riddle's full and candid dissertation on the ancient distinction between the bishop and presbyter, we take the following extract : " Jerome, one of the most learned of the Latin fathers, who had before him all the testimonies and arguments of earlier writers, has placed this matter in its true light with peculiar distinctness. In his annotation on the first chapter of the Epistle to Titus, he gives the following account of the nature and origin of the episcopal office: ♦A presbyter is the same as a bishop. And until, 66 tHK I'ULMITIVE EIRENICOJ^. by the instigation of the devil, there arose divis- ions in religion, and it was said among the peo- ple, " I am of Paul, and I of Apollos, and I of Cephas," churches w^ere governed by the Com- mon Council of the presbyters. But afterwards, when every one regarded those whom he baptized as belonging to himself rather than to Christ, it was everywhere decreed that one person, elected from the presbyters, should be placed over the others ; to whom the care of the whole church might belong, and thus the seeds of division might be taken away. Should any one suppose that this opinion, — that a bishop and presbyter is the same, and that one is the denomination of age and the other of office, — is not sanctioned by the Scriptures, but is only a private fancy of my own, let him read over again the Apostles' words to the Pliilippians, — " Paul and Timotheus, the servants of Jesus Christ, to all the saints in Christ Jesus, which are at Philippi with the bish- ops and deacons : Grace be unto you and peace, from God our Father, and from the Lord Jesus Christ," etc. Philippi is a single city of Mace- donia, and certainly, of those who are now styled bishops, there could not have been several at one time in the same city. But, because at that time they called the same persons bishops whom they styled also presbyters, therefore the Apostle spoke indifferently of bishops as of presbyters.' " The writer then refers to the fact, that St. TESTIMONY OF RIDDLE. 61 Paul, having sent for tlie prcsbi/ters (in the plural) of the single city of Ephesus only, afterwards calls these same persons bishops. (Acts xx.) To this fact he calls particular attention, and then observes that, in the Epistle to the Hebrews also, we find the care of tlie Church divided equally among many. '"Obey them that have the rule over you and submit yourselves, for they watch for your souls as they that must give account ; that they may do it with joy and not with grief, for that is unprofitable for you ! " And Peter,' con- tinues Jerome, ' who received his name from the firmness of his faith, says in his Epistle: The presbyters who are among you I exhort, who am also a ])resbyter, and a witness of the sufferings of Christ, and also a partaker of the glory that shall be revealed ; feed the flock of God which is among you [he omits the word, "taking the oversight thereof," episcopountes, i. e., superin- tending it], not by constraint but willingly." These things we have brought forward to show that, with the ancients, presbyters were the same as bishops. But in order that the roots of dissen- sion might be plucked up, a tisage gradually took place, that the whole care should devolve upon one. Therefore, as the presbyters knew that it is by the custom of the Church that they are subject to him who is placed over them., so let the bishops know that they are above presbyters rather by custom than by the Lord^s ajrpointme nt, and that 62 tttE PfelMlTtVE ElRENtCON. they ouglit to rale the Church in common, herein imitating Moses,' etc. " The same views are maintained by this father in his ' Epistle to Evagrius,' with the additional mention of the fact, that from the first foundation of the Church of Alexandria, down to the days of Heraclas and Dionysius, the presbyters of that Church made (or, as we should say, consecrated) bishops. The passage, which is quoted at some length in the note, is very important. Having re- ferred to several passages of the Acts and epistles in proof of an assertion which he had made, to the effect that bishop and presbyter were at first the same, he proceeds to say that ' afterwards, when one was elected and set over the others, this was designed as a remedy against schism. . . . . For at Alexandria, from the Evangel- ist Mark, down to the bishops Heraclas and Dionysius, the presbyters always gave the name of bishop to one whom they elected from them- selves, and placed in a higher degree ; in the same way as an army may create its general, or as deacons may elect one of their own body, whom they know to be assiduous in the discharge of duty, and call him archdeacon. For what does a bishop perform, except ordination, which a pres- byter may not do,' etc. " The fact which Jerome here states, respecting the appointments and ordination of bishops in the Church of Alexandria by presbyters alone, for TEStlMONV OF TEKI'ULI.IAN. the space of more than two centuries, is attested also by Eutychius, Patriarch of Alexandria. And the opinion of Jerome respecting the original equality, or rather identity, of presbyter and bishop, is in perfect accordance with the language of a still earlier writer, Tertuliian, ' De Baptis- mo,' c. xvii. The two passages together form a text and a commentary, sufficient to elucidate the whole matter : " ' The highest priest, who is the bishop,' says Tertuliian, ' has the right of administering bap- tism. Then the presbyters and deacons, yet not without the authority of the bishop, because of the honor of the Church, which being preserved, peace is preserved. Otherwise the right belongs even to laymen Emulation is the mother of division. " All things are lawful to me," said the most holy Paul, " but all things are not expedient." Let it suffice that you use your liberty in cases of necessity, when the condition of the person, or the circumstances of the place, compel you to it.' " Upon the whole, then, it appears that the or- der (or office) of a bishop is above that of a priest, not by any authority of Scripture, but only by the custom of the Church, or by virtue of an ecclesi- astical arrangement" (Riddle's "Antiquities," pp. 235-42, ed. 1843). The declaration of Jerome, that as late as the fourth century, the authority to ordain was the 6-i tHE PKlMlTlVl': KlliKNlCOS*. sole peculiar privilege of llie bishop, and this atl ecclesiustieal arrangement, not a divine ordinance, is in itself a sufficient refutation of the exclusive Episcopal claim, upon which such a dangerous superstructure of wood, hay, and stubble, has been erected in later times. In his preface to this same volume, entitled " A Plea for Episcopacy, Charity, and Peace," Riddle writes : " I have thus put together a few thoughts which have arisen in iny mind while I have been particularly conversant with works re- lating to the history and antiquities of the Chris- tian Church. Perhaps even those grounds of episcopacy which I have described as certain and strong, may be regarded by some persons in a dif- ferent light, while others may think that clear cer- tainty and evidence attach to those which I have ventured to describe as doubtful. But such dif- ference of opinion will not trouble either my readers or myself, if we are duly influenced by Christian humility and a peaceful love of truth. " Lessons of moderation, candor, and Chris- tian charity, may be continually learnt by a care- ful examination of church history and antiquities. Great mischief and many dissensions have arisen from refusing to acknowledge certain questions to be doubtful or open, which yet have never been determined, and which it is not needful to com- press within narrow limits. The study of Chris- tian antiquities may show that questions do ex- APOSTOLIC SUCCESSION. 65 ist, in connection with the origin and claims of Episcopacy, which, if positively decided and main- tained in the affirmative by anyone set of persons, must lead to unpleasant differences, and perhaps to a want of Christian sympathy, between those who ought to ' love as brethren.I Let the advo- cates of different systems of church government treat each other not merely with forbearance, but with unfeigned respect. None of the prevalent systems of the present day can afford to maintain any excluisive claims in the face of history. Nor can such claims consist with charity " The following questions, for example, may well be left open, being such as will always re- ceive different answers from different inquirers. Did the Apostles in any way sanction the doctrines commonly connected with the theory of apostolic succession ? If an apostolic succession had been designed from the first, it may reason- ably be supposed that the Apostles would have made some pointed allusion to such a provision for the transmission of the faith, and for the peace of the Church, especially in their warnings against false doctrines and divisions. But although such warnings are numerous, they contain no intima- tions of such a bulwark of sound doctrine and centre of Christian unity. St. Paul, in full pros- pect of the attempts of false teachers, did not charge the elders of Ephesus to abide by the de- cisions and doctrines of a bishop, but he desired 66 THE PRIMITIVE EIRENICON. them to take heed to themselves, and then com- mended them to God " 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 seems to involve the doctrine ; and if the fact be hopelessly obscure, the doctrine is irrecov- erably lost. But can we suppose that the divine Author of our religion has sufli'ered any part of his Gospel to perish ? It is, of course, possible that a truly apostolic succession may have existed, although the traces may have entirely disap- peared, but must we not allow men to regard such a loss as constituting to render the wliole doctrine and institute extremely doubtful? Should we not weaken the good cause of Episcopacy, by insisting upon pretensions which cannot be estab- lished, and which may really be fictitious ? " It is impossible to prove the personal succes- sion of modern bishops, in an unbroken episcopal line, from the Apostles, or men of the apostolic age. " As a matter of history and fact, apostolic succession, in this acceptation of the term, is an absolute nonentity. Call it a theory, a fiction, a vision, or whatever you choose, you cannot give it a name too shadowy and unsubstantial. It exists, indeed, as an honest prejudice in the minds of many sincere Christians, and so far is entitled TESTIMONY OF RIDDLf:. 67 to consideration and respect. But in itself it is an empty sound. " Doubtless the custom of setting apart men for the Christian ministry by the laying on of hands, has existed in the Church from the apos- tolic age, having been originally derived from the practice of the Jewish synagogues, under which institution all who were appointed as fixed min- isters, to take care of the performance of religious duties, were solemnly appointed in this manner. The hands of the Apostles and their contempo- raries form, therefore, the first link of a chain which has extended to the present day ; and this circumstance is a pleasing subject of contempla- tion to the minds of many persons, and espe- cially to the members of those churches which have retained the custom. But we must be in possession of many other particulars, which are irrevocably lost, in order to build upon this fact the doctrine of a succession, derived from the Apostles themselves, in the line of bishops alone, and for the conveyance of a peculiar grace" (Preface to Riddle's " Antiquities," pp. 41, 46 ; 50, 51). The views of the most distinguished writers of the Church of England, with respect to apostolic succession, are given at the end of the volume. CHAPTER YJL THE ARGUMENT OF AN EPISCOPAL LAYMAN OP THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND, WITH RESPECT TO THE ORDINATIONS OF THE CHURCH OF ALEXANDRIA. We quote from " An Inquiry into the Scrip- tural View of the Constitution of a Christian Church," etc., by William Albin Garratt, A. M., Barrister at Law. London : 1846. As the view taken by a lay member of the Church of England, employing a legal mind in the examination of historical testimony, we re- gard the passage as eminently valuable, and therefore quote it almost entire. On the laity of the Chui'ch, under God, depends its deliver- ance from its present dangers, and to them espe- cially is commended a careful examinalion of the testimony here presented. On p. 367, this author writes: " Eutychius, of Alexandria, after mentioning that Mark the Evangelist went and preached at Alexandria, and appointed Hananias the first patriarch of that city, adds." The author, after quoting Eutychius, and then Severus, whose language we have before given, says : " The slight apparent discrepancy between these two passages ARGUMENT OF AN ANGLICAN BARRISTER. 69 may easily be removed. Eutychins mentions the twelve presbyters only in whom the appointment of patriarcli was vested, from wliom the patriarch was to be chosen, and of whom the remaining eleven were to lay their hands on his head. Seve- rus says that the priests (sacerdotes) and people were assembled ; while Eutychius does not say that the people were excluded from being present at the appointment of a new patriarch. Severus mentions the priests generally, not particularly specifying the twelve presbyters ; nor had he any occasion to specify them, as he does not mention the election, but only the assembling and the lay- ing on of hands and the enthroning. We may, indeed, infer from the tenor of this narrative that the election in the case of Peter was merely formal; the choice having been previously fixed upon him as the spiritual son and disciple of Theonas, and in pursuance of his ' command ' (his recommendation probably). Lastly, Severus, if taken literally and strictly, would seem to say that the persons assembled, priests and people, laid hands on Peter; but no one would under- stand him to say that every individual present laid his hands on Peter. The plain meaning is, that those of the individuals assembled whose office it was laid hands on the patriarch elect, the others being assembled to witness the transaction. " We have, then, in Eutychius, illustrated and confirmed by Severus, distinct evidence of the ex- 70 THE PKIMITJVK EIRENICON. istence of a custom in the Church of Alexandria differing altogether from the customs mentioned by Cyprian, as prevailing among the African churches in his province; a custom traced back to the time of Mark the Evangelist ; a custom which vested the election and creation of the patriarch in twelve presbyters without the concurrence of any bishop. The eleven presbyters who remained after one of their number had been elected bishop, laid their hands upon his head and implored a blessing upon him, thereby setting him apart for his new office as the ' prophets and teachers,' not ' apostles or bishops,' which were in the Church at Antioch, ' fasted and prayed, and laid their hands on ' Paul (an apostle already) and Barna- bas, and ' sent them away,' thus separating them for ' the work ' to which the Holy Ghost had ' called them,' — the missionary journey on which they went, as related immediately afterwards. " By this election and imposition oi presbyters' hands, the individual was, according to Eutychius, created patriarch, invested therefore (without episcopal intervention), with the full authority of the episcopal office, and, accordingly (as we learn from Severus), Peter, immediately on being so appointed, was placed on the patriarchal throne. This statement of Severus overturns the fancy of some persons, that the rule mentioned by Euty- chius related only to the election, and that the patriarch elect was afterwards ordained by bish- ARGUMENT OF AN ANGLICAN BARRISTER. 71 ops. A fancy which Mr. Goode, on other grounds, has shown to be without foundation. This view of the usage of the Church of Alexandria is con- firmed by a passage in Jerome (born about a. d. 345), which, on account of its importance, I have quoted at some length." Having given the pas- sage as we have previously quoted it, he pro- ceeds : " In this passage Jerome not only con- firms Eutychius' statement of the custom of the Church of Alexandria, but shows his understand- ing of the custom to be that the presbyters there exclusively appointed their bishops; and he fur- ther tells us how bishops were originally intro- duced into the Church. " He confirms the statements of Eutvchiu?, though he speaks of the custom as continuing (not till Alexander, but) till Heraclas and Diony- sius, bishops He must have derived his information from some other source, probably from some writer contemporary with Heraclas and Dionysius, from whom, of course, he would only have learned that the custom had continued till their time ; and he does not say that it has ceased. His, therefore, is testimony independent of those of Eutychius and Severus, and probably derived from an earlier source, contemporary with the existence of the custom. It leaves no room to doubt the accuracy of the statements of Euty- chius and Severus. " More than this, Jerome's testimony establishes 72 THE PRIMITIVK KIRENICON. as correct that view of the custom which ascribes to the presbyter from first to last the appointment of the Patriarch of Alexandria ; not only his elec- tion (unum ex se electtim), but his elevation to a higher rank ; for Jerome compares the proceeding to that of an army constituting a general {impcr- utorem facial), which, according to the Roman custom, was by acclamation, or of deans choosing an archdeacon. And the whole tenor of the pas- sage shows that Jerome intended to state the ap- pointment of the bishops of Alexandria as made ivithout any episcopal interference or sanction ; on the custom so understood his argument is founded, and it is intelligible on no other hypothesis. He asks, indeed, ' What does a bishop do, with the exception of ordination, which a presbyter may not do ? ' But he does not ascribe this exception to any difference of apostolic commission between a bishop and presbyter. His position is that ' the bishop and the presbyter are the same,' both ' suc- cessors of the Apostles,^ successors (not in the sense of a transmitted commission, but) as hold- ing in the Church the same office of pastors and teachers, the bishop being placed ' over the rest ' as their ruler. " And this is obviously the ground of the ex- ception, it belonging to the bishop, as chief ruler of the Church, to ordain ; an exception, therefore, limited to the case of a church having a bishop, and not precluding the presbyters (when the see ARGUMENT OF AN ANGLICAN BARRISTER. 73 is vacant) from electing and laying hands (as those of Alexandria did) on their new bishop." " Once more, Jerome's account of the introduc- tion of bishops, as distinguished from presbyters, deserves serious attention. Jerome had his faults, — and great faults, — but he was a man of exten- sive learning. He argues from Scripture that ' a bishop and presbyter ' are the same ; and then adds, that ' afterwards one was chosen over the sect.' Why ? ' To prevent schism ; ' to form a bond of union between the presbyters, and again to facilitate union among the different churches. That he is right in his view of the passages of Scripture which he cites (Phil. i. 1, Acts xx. 28, Tit. i. 5, 1 Tim. iv. 14, 1 Peter v. 1, 2 John i., and 3 John i.) is, I think, clear, and will scarcely be disputed by any one, though an advocate for Episcopacy, who has carefully considered the question ; and what he adds, as a matter of fact, respecting the purpose for which one person was ' chosen to be over the rest,' is not inconsistent with what we read in the epistles to the seven apocalyptic churches, or with the facts which have been deduced from our examination of the Fathers down to the time of Cyprian. It is a statement which implies a gradual introduction of Episco- pacy into the churches, first into one church, and then into another ; a statement in perfect harmony with the result which I deduced from an examina- tion of several epistles of the apostolic fathers, 74 THE PRIMITIVE EIRENICON. and at the same time utterly at variance with the notion of apostolic succession by episcopal ordi- nation. The purpose, however, for which princi- pally I quote this passage of Jerome, is not for his opinion respecting the bishops and presbyters, but^to confirm the statements of Eutychius re- specting the original custom of the Church of Alexandria in the appointment of its patriarchs, and to overturn the erroneous glosses sought to be put upon it. " I now revert to that statement of Eutychius as incontrovertibly correct, and as establishing that, from the time of Hananias, who was ap- pointed by St. Mark Bishop of Alexandria, till after the Council of Nice, a period of more than two centuries, the twelve presbyters of Alexandria elected from among themselves their bishop or patriarch, and by their appointment of him to the episcopal office (the other eleven laying hands opon hin)) constituted him bishop or patriarch, the ruler of their church, entitled (without any sanc- tion or confirmation of any other bishop) to per- form all the duties of the episcopal office. " It is further evident from the statement that this practice existed when there was no want of bishops to ordain or consecrate (had that been thought necessary) the patriarch. For Alexander (the patriarch who put an end to the custom) is said to have transferred the election to ' the bish- ops;' and may we not, from this expression, and ARGUMENT OF AN ANGLICAN BAKKISTEK. 75 from the title given to the bishops of Alexan- dria, reasonably conclude that Alexandria was a mother church by which other churches had been founded with bishops of their own ? Yet these bishops took no part in the appointment of the patriarchs until after the Council of Nice. " Further, this custom was observed for more than two centuries without objection being made to it; observed, not in an obscure church, but in one of the principal churches of the age, in the chief city and metropolitan church of Egypt, in a church and city of which the catechetical school, successively under Clement and Origen, was renowned throughout the world. Its patri- archs (those created by the presbyters) were recog- nized by other churches, and we learn from the statements in Eutychius, that its patriarch Alex- ander was one of the three hundred and eighteen bishops assembled at the Council of Nice. What then is the effect of this one fact ? What is the effect of this Alexandrian custom upon the ques- tion of episcopal succession by episcopal ordina- tion from the times of the Apostles? " In the first place, it confirms the objections which I have offered to various passages in Ire- naeus, Tertuliian, Origen, and Cyprian, being re- ceived as evidence in support of the alleged ^fact of apostolical succession ' in the Tractarian sense of the word ; those passages I mean in which the writer either speaks in general terms of succession 76 THE PRIMITIVE EIRENICON. or episcopal succession from the Apostles, or as- serts that apostolical churches can enumerate the succession of their bishops, from the first bishop appointed by an apostle. It annihilates all such passages as evidence for such a purpose. The Alexandrian patriarchs, Heraclas, or Dionysius, or Alexander, could, with strict truth, have talked of episcopal succession in this church, from the first bishop appointed by Mark the Evangelist, and have enumerated the succession of bishops of Alexandria from that first bishop, and yet those bishops were ' created ' by the presbyters ; yet they were not episcopally ordained to the office of bishop. " In the next place, the Alexandrian custom makes a gap in apostolical succession, through episcopal ordination, which can never be filled up; breaks a link in the supposed chain which can in no way be replaced. Even if it could be shown that the custom was peculiar to the Church of Alexandria, how could any bishop of the present day, tracing back his succession through a series of bishops to an apostle, prove satisfactorily that no individual in that series had derived, mediately or immediately, from one of these Alexandrian patriarchs? But can it be shown that the custom was, in the first ages of Christianity, peculiar to the Church of Alexan- dria ? Is it probable that the Evangelist St. Mark should have there introduced a usage at variance ARGfMENT OF AN ANGLICAN BARRISTER. 77 with the practice of other churches ? The truth seems to be that the Apostles laid down general principles for the government of churches and the appointment of ministers; and that those prin- ciples were variously carried out in different churches, according to circumstances, resulting in some churches earlier, in others later, in all ulti- mately, in the threefold distinction of ministers, as consonant with, but not essentially required by, those principles " (pp. 367-79). This able review, after thorough examina- tion of Scriptural and patristic testimony, con- cludes: "Firstly, that a church, bearing a three- fold ministry of bishops, elders, and deacons is conformable to the plan ultimately introduced, with the apostolic sanction, into the churches of Asia Minor, and consequently consistent with the will of God ; secondly, that such a form of church government is the best^ ivhere the circum- stances of the Church do not essentially diflf'er from those of the seven Asiatic churches; and, thirdly, that a church possessing that form of gov- ernment ought not to depart from it without clear and strong grounds, such as an obvious necessity for the preservation of the true faith." " But we cannot conclude from any practice of the Church, as recorded in the New Testament, either, firstly, that a church sound in apostolic doctrine, but wanting the threefold ministry, is not a true Church of Christ ; or, secondly, that a cliurch having both an apostolic doctrine and a threefold 78 THE I'RtMlTlVE EIRENICON. ministry, but whose bishops cannot trace back an uninterrujited succession to an apostle, is not a true Church of Christ" (pp. 198, 199). We think great good might be done by the republication of this able and candid work by a clear-headed layman. bowdler's view. We give, in this connection, the language of another able layman of the Church of England, who has employed his pen against the modern innovators on her doctrines: — " It is no part of my plan to trace the origin or course of departure from the system of church government in the apostolical times, as it lies before us in all its simplicity. I admit — indeed, as the lawyers say, it is a part of my case — that some change was unavoidable; and I see nothing in the present constitution of the Church of Eng- land that is inconsistent with the principles of the Apostles, But to say that they are identical is a mere abuse of words. Still less is it to be heard say, without some impatience, that there is safety in her communion only, as she has descended from the Apostles, through all the changes and abominations that have intervened." After an examination of the primitive writers he proceeds : " I am aware that in St. Jerome's time there existed generally, though by no means universally, this difference between the bishop and the presbyter, namely, that to the former was TESTIMONY OP BOWDLER. 79 then confided the power of ordination. The transition from perfect equality to absolute su- periority was not suddenly effected ; it was the growth of time, not of years, but of centuries, the distinction of authority or office preceding that of order or degree in the Church, and being introductory to it. With the former I have no concern, it being sufficient to show, that as a distinct and superior order in the Church, Epis- copacy, in the modern acceptation of the term, did not exist in the time of the Apostles; and that, however expedient and desirable such an institution might be, it cannot plead the sanction of apostolic appointment or example. " It may be difficult to fix the period exactly when the episcopate was first recognized as a distinct order in the Church, and when the con- secration of bishops, as such, came to be in gei - eral use. Clearly not, I think, when Jerome wrote. Thus much, at least, is certain, namely, that the government of each Church, including the ordination of ministers, was at first in the hands of the presbytery ; that when one of that body was raised to the office of president, and on whom the title of bishop was conferred, it was simply by the election (co-optatio) of the other presbyters, whose appointment was final, requir- ing no confirmation or consecration at the hands of any other prelates, and that each Church was essentially independent of every other. " If, then, all this be so, there seems to be an 80 THE PRIMITIVE EIRENICON. end to the question; for, under whatever circum- stances the privilege of ordaining was afterwards committed to the bishop, he could of necessity receive no more than it was in their power to bestow, from whom he received it, who w^ere co- ordinate presbyters, not superiors. At whatever period, therefore, it were adopted, and with what- ever uniformity it might be continued, and what- ever of value or even authority it might hence acquire, still, as an apostolical institution, it has none ; there is a gap which can never be filled, or rather, the link by which the whole must be suspended is wanting, and can never be supplied. There can be no apostolical succession of that which had no apostolical existence ; whereas, the averment, to be of any avail, must be, not only that it existed in the time of the Apostles, but was so appointed by them, or that there can be no true Church without it." (" Bowdler's Letters on Apostolic Succession," pp. 32-48.) That two laymen of ability and learning, after a thorough examination of the subject, should come to the same conclusion, and this in opposi- tion to the general current of opinion in their Church, is certainly strongly confirmatory of the position here maintained, and should induce our intelligent laity to investigate the basis of a sys- tem which, confessedly, is doing so much damage to the cause of peace and unity in our com- munion, and promoting schism among the com- mon brotherhood of the faith. CHAPTER VIIL ROMAN CATHOLIC TESTIMONY. In giving the language of Drs. Stanley, Litton, Goode, and Riddle, with respect to the Alexan- drian presbyterial ordination, we have presented the concessions of some of the ablest of living Episcopal writers, sufficient for our purpose, and we now offer ROMAN CATHOLIC TESTIMONY. The concession of writers of the Ronnau Church strengthen the force of our argument, aw we therefore give the language of the learned MORINUS, as quoted by Dr. Goode. Dr. Goode remarks : " It is most important to observe, that even the Romanist Morinus, one of the most learned di- vines of the Church of Rome, fully admits, and even maintains by the citations of various testi- monies, that this was for a long period the cus- tom at Alexandria, referring for proof particularly to the passage of Jerome, just cited, and vindica- ting the meaning I have affixed to it against ob- 82 THE PRIiMITm; EIRENICONT. Sections. He finds fault, indeed, with the passage of Eutychius on other grounds, but with that I have no concern. I adduce it simply to show that in the case to which it refers, episcopal consecra- tion was not considered necessary to constitute a presbyter a bishop." Now, on this point, Morinus himself speaks thus : " St. Jerome testifies that at Alexandria, from the time of Mark the Evan- gelist to Dionysius, that is, for the space of nearly two hundred years, the bishops were inaugurated without any consecration, but the presbyters of Alexandria, when their bishop was dead, elected one of their own order, aud belonging to their own church, and placed him upon the higher throne, and called him bishop. By which exam- ple, truly, it most clearly appears that neither •Terome nor the Alexandrians recognized that character by which a bishop is said to be above a presbyter, since no prayer, no ceremony, no form of words, was used above the presbyters elected. You will sav he mentions none, but it cannot well be concluded that there was none, since it is certain that authors do not always relate every- thing that took place. This indeed is true, but the scope and words of St. Jerome do not admit of this objection. For he contends, that a pres- byter is the same as a bishop, and proves this from the peculiar and unusual custom of the Al- exandrians, who made use of no consecration, no words to consecrate as a bishop the presbyter TESTIMONY OF MORINUS. elected by them, but only placed him on the throne, and called him bishop." Referring to the "Breviarum" of Liberatus, p. 122, he says : " It clearly follows from it that for at least two hundred years after Alexander, the presbyters of Alexandria, not the bishops, elected the patriarch ; and that neither the pres- byters nor the bishops, nor any other person, laid their hands on the person elected." Bishop Jewel states that it was the custom " for the newly elected patriarch to place the hand of his deceased predecessor on his own head," The statement of Jewel is confirmed by Bing- ham in his " Antiquities." The inquiry here arises — Did the succession flow through the hand of the dead patriarch, or from the living presbyters, and which was the bet- ter of the two ? CHAPTER IX. OBJECTIONS. It is not surprising that this remarkable fact in ecclesiastical history has much troubled our more extravagant and exclusive Episcopal writers, and among others, BISHOP PEARSON, of revered and honored memory. This learned writer professes to discredit the testimony of Eutychius, in his " VindiciEe Igna tianae," while at the same time, he quotes him elsewhere as an authority with respect to the chronology of the early Roman Church. Gibbon remarks (vol. i. p. 108) : " The ancient state, as it is described by Jerome, of the bishops and presbyters of Alexandria, receives a remark- able confirmation from the patriarch Eutychius (Annal., torn, i., p. 330, vers. Pococke), whose testimony I know not how to reject, in spite of all the objections of the learned Pearson in his ' Vindiciae Ignatianae.' " And page 131, " Its in- ternal evidence would be a sufficient answer to all that Pearson has urged." On a question of EXAMINATION OF OBJECTIONS. 85 this kind, we may regard Gibbon as an impartial and reliable authority. OTHER OBJECTIONS. We find, in the seventeenth century, Bishop Parker and Dr. Hiekes ; and in our times, Hobart, Bovvden, Cooke, Chapin, Jarvis, Boyd, and Per- cival, offering criticisms similar to those of Pear- son and Palmer. As a specimen, Dr. Jarvis objects that " Selden, who made this discovery, had not a profound knowledge of Arabic, nor was he well versed in ecclesiastical history." Such language borders on the ludicrous. Dr. Pococke assisted Selden in his translation, and according to the " Encyclopasdia Britannica,'* " Pococke was for many years the first orientalist in Europe." He afterwards pub- lished the complete works of Eutychius, to which edition Gibbon refers. Of Selden, Bishop Jebb writes : " Of this great man's attainments, it were superfluous to speak ; his life, properly told, would be a complete history of the learning of his time." Lord Clarendon says : " Mr. Selden was a person whom no char- acter can flatter, or transmit in any expressions equal to his mind and virtue. He was of such stupendous learning, in all kinds and in all lan- guages, as may appear from his excellent and transcendent writings, that a man would have thought he had been entirely conversant among 86 THE PRIMITIYE ElftENlCON. books, and had never spent an hour but in reading and writing." Archbishop Usher, the greatest scholar of his century, in his funeral sermon over Selden, said : " He looked upon the deceased as so great a scholar, that himself was scarce worthy to carry his books after him " (Elrington's " Usher," p. 273). To the objections of Palmer, we have given the reply of Dr. Litton. Bowden, Hobart, and Cooke have endeavored to disparage the testimony of Eutychius, by charging him with ignorance of the facts, misstatements, etc. To such objections, and to the charge that the work has been garbled, we reply with Mosheim, that Eutychius was " the most learned man of his nation, in medicine and theology,"' in a most learned time; with Giesler, " It is at least certain that the part which is contradictory to the usage of later times, has not been interpolated, and so far has a historic value." And in the apt words of Stillingfleet, in answer to Pearson (" Ireiiicum " p. 300), " Neither is the authority of Eutychius so much to be slighted in this case, coming so near to Hierome as he doth, who doubtless had he told us, that Mark and Ananias, etc., did all these with- out any presbyters, might have had the good for- tune to have been quoted with as much frequency and authority as the anonymous author of the martyrdom of Timothy in ' Photius ' (who there unhappily follows the story of the seven sleepers), EXAMiNAtlON OBJECTtONS. 8T or the author of the ' Apostolical Constitutions ' whose credit is everlastingly blasted by the excel- lent Mr. Daille, on the counterfeit writings of the Apostles, so much do men's interest tend to the enhancing or abating the esteem and credit both of the dead and living." REV. J. M. NEALK. This author, in his recent elaborate history of the " Church of Alexandria," endeavors to over- throw the testimony of Eutychius, by charging him with ignorance. He contends that the act of the presbyters was simply an election. One of his most prominent authorities, Le Quien, he con- fesses, was " ignorant of Arabic." Neale offers nothing new in his argument. FULL STATEMENTS OF OPPONENTS. In order that our readers may see all that may be said on the opposite side of this vital question on the point of succession, we give the full argu- ments of three of the most recent exclusive epis- copal writers. DR. PERCIVAL. And first, Percival on the " Apostolical Succes- sion," p. 26, writes : " The next precedent cited, is that of Alexandria, where it is pretended that, for about two hundred and fifty years after Christy the presbyters ordained the bishop. This rests upon the supposed testimony of two witnesses — 88 THE PRIAIITIVE ElKENlCON. St. Jerome, who lived one hundred and fifty years, and Eutychius, who lived seven hundred and fifty years after the time mentioned. I wonder what would be said of any churchman who would at- tempt to found a precedent on two single wit- nesses so far removed. However, let us consider what their evidence amounts to. St. Jerome speaks thus : ' At Alexandria, from the Evangelist Mark, to Heraclas and Dionysius the bishops, the presbyters always gave the name of bishop, or nominated to be bishop, one chosen from among themselves, and placed in a higher degi-ee.' Ob- serve, firstly, the utmost that can be made of this passage, by itself, is that the presbyters at Alex- andria had a voice in the appointment of the pa- triarch, which in other places rested with the bish- ops of the province. And even this is not dis- tinctly stated. Jerome does not say the bishop was chosen by the presbyters, but from among them. Nor does he say hy whom he was placed in a higher degree. Observe, secondly, that St. Jerome proves, by his very next sentence, that he did not mean that the presbyters ordained the patriarch ; for he subjoins, ' For what does a bish op do, except ordination, which a presbyter may not do?' Observe, thirdly, that from the very passage appealed to by the Presbyterians, it ap- pears that, from the days of St. Mark, the founder of the Church of Alexandria inclusive, the Church there had always been governed by a single chief EXAMINATION Of PERCIVAL. 80 pastor, called bishop, of a higher degree than presbyters; so that episcopacy is admitted to be an evangelical arrangement. Thus the chief evidence witnesses the direct contrary to that for which appeal had been made to him. Next, let us call the other witness, Eutychius, a writer of the tenth century, who states that ' St. Mark in- stituted twelve presbyters at Alexandria, who, upon the vacancy of the See of Alexandria, did choose of their number one to be head over the rest, and the other seven did lay their hands upon him, and made him patriarch.' " But observe, firstly, that even if we could re- ceive Eutychius' statements without exception, before the Presbyterians could derive any benefit from it, they must show first, reason to believe that the presbytery here spoken of was not an episcopal, or apostolic college, as we have seen before; that all the early commentators under- stood the presbytery (1 Tim. iv. 14) to be. Sec- ondly, that the patriarch thus appointed, received no other ordination, and then, when they have done all this, still thus much will remain proved against them, by this very story, that ecclesias- tical government, by a community of presbyter.--, without a chief pastor over them, was unknown at Alexandria, as well as in the rest of Christen- dom. " But observe, secondly, that if Eutychius, who lived in the tenth century, ia allowed to be a com- 90 THE PfttMlTlVE EIRENICON. petent witness of what happened in the first and second, Severus, a writer of the same age and country, must be also allowed to bear testimony. Severus distinctly speaks of bishops and presby- ters and laity being all concerned in the appoint- ments of patriarchs of Alexandria, in the very earliest successions. So that we must inquire further, whether any other historical evidence tliat may be adduced on the point, tends most to con- firm Eutychius or Severus. Now, firstly, it is certain that all the other churches received the canons, called apostolical, which require a bishop to be ordained by two or three bishops, and recog- nize no other order as qualified to ordain. Be- tween these churches and Alexandria, constant communication was kept up, sometimes on the most friendly, sometimes on the most unfriendly footing. But in none of their intercourse, neither amicable or hostile, is this point of difference ever urged ; which, sure, it would have been, on one side or the other, as a handle of reproach, if it had really existed. Secondly, the learned Abraham Echellensis has shown that, from the beginning, these very canons were received by the Church of Alexandria itself; so that the Christians there must have violated their own laws, had they done as the Presbyterians suppose. Thirdly, we find from other quarters that, early as A. d. 300, there were not less than one hundred bishops in the patriarchate of Alexandria. Fourthly, which EXAMINATION OF I'ERCIVAL. 91 seems decisive of the point, we find a question coming before a council of Alexandria, a. d. 339, concerning one Ischryas, who acted as a presbyter, pretending to have received orders from a certain Colluthus. But when it was made plain that Colluthus himself had died a presbyter, the coun- cil decreed that all on whom he had laid hands should be regarded as mere laymen. Surely the world will hardly be persuaded that the council would have thus denied the power of a presby- ter to ordain even a presbyter, if, in the memory of living men at the time, their patriarch himself had received no other ordination. What then must we suppose to have been the ground of the opinions expressed by Jerome ^nd Eutychius ? Simply some peculiar privileges in the election of the patriarchs of Alexandria which, from several other quarters, we learn that the presbyters of that city possessed. " Abraham Echellensis, in the documents relat- ing to the Alexandrian Churcii, which he has collected, has preserved one which gives an ac- count of a discussion between the bishops of the province and the presbyters of the city, upon this very point; in which, while the bishops freely acknowledge the right of election to be in the presbyters, they as freely asserted their right of veto upon such election, provided the persons elected were unworthy of the office." (See Le Quien, in his " Oriens Christianus ; Patr. Alex.") 92 THE PRIMITIVE EIRENICOJf. As to the statements of Percival, it may be ob- served : — 1st. If Jerome is not tp be received as a wit- ness, because living one hundred and fifty years after the events described, why is Eusebius more worthy of credence, who lived as long after the men whose succession he gives, upon what he confesses to be uncertain testimony ? Without Eusebius, Percival could not pretend to present authority in regard to episcopal succession. Je- rome, moreover, had access to all the authorities which were in the hands of Eusebius. 2d. It should be borne in mind that there were no bishops in the neighborhood to ordain the patriarch. Thiti is a sufficient answer to nearly all the objections of Percival. 3d. Because Jerome states that bishops en- joyed in the fourth century one privilege beyond presbyters, namely, that of ordaining, it does not follow that it had always been regarded as essen- tial for them to ordain, or that they received the right by episcopal succession, or, that the exclu- sive privilege was divinely coiifcrnHl. The oppo- site is clearly established in this discu: receiving orders at a late period in life.) Dr. Killen continues : " An old ecclesiastical law, recently presented for the first time to the English reader (see Bunsen's ' Hippolytus,' ii. 351-7), throws much light on a portion of the history of the church long buried in great obscu- rity. This law may well remind us of those re- mains of extinct classes of animals which the naturalist studies with so much interest, as it ob- viously belongs to an era e\ en anterior to that of the so-called apostolical canons (probably framed only a few years before the middle of the third century, and called apostolical, perhaps, because concocted by some of the bishops of the so-called apostolic churches). " Though it is a part of a series of regulations once current in the Church of Ethiopia, there is every reason to believe that it was framed in Italy, and that its authority was acknowledged by the Church of Rome in the time of Hippolytus. The canons edited by Hippolytus were, no doubt, at one time acknowledged by the Western Church. It marks a transition period in the history of ec- TESTIMONY OF KFLLKN. 18T clesiastical polity, and whilst it indirectly confirms the testimony of Jerome, relative to the custom of the Church of Alexandria, it shows that the state of things to which the learned presbyter refers, was now superseded by another arrange- ment. " This curious specimen of ancient legislation treats of the appointment and ordination of min- isters. ' The bishop,' says this enactment, 'is to be elected by all the people And they shall choose one of the bishops and one of the PRESBYTERS, .... AND THESE- SHALL LAY THEIR HANDS UPON HIS HEAD AND PRAY ' (BuH- sen's ' Hippolytus,' iii. 43). " Here, to avoid the confusion of a whole crowd of individuals imposing hands on ordination, two were selected to act on behalf of the assembled office-bearers ; and, that the parties entitled to officiate might be fairly represented, the deputies were to be a bishop and a presbyter. " Eutychius intimates that the Alexandrian presbyters continued to ordain their own bishops till the time of the Council of Nice. It is not improbable that, until then, some of them may have continued to take part in the ordination, and his statements may be so far correct. " The canon (of Hippolytus) illustrates the jeal- ousy with which the presbyters, in the early part of the third century, still guarded some of their rights and privileges. In the matter of investing 138 THE PRIillTITE EIRENICOK. others with church authority, they yet maintained their original position, and though many bishops might be present when another was inducted into office, they would permit only one of the number to unite with themselves in the ceremony of ordi- nation. Some at the present day do not hej^itate to assert that presbyters have no right whatever to ordain; but this canon supplies evidence, that in the third century they were employed to ordain bishops." KEV. JOHX BROWX, D. D. Dr. Brown, of Scotland, in his " Letters to Dr. Pusey" (p. 224), -unites : " But passing from your Church, I would further remark, that the succes- sion must have been injured in all those instances in which bishops and presbyters were not only baptized, but were ordained by presbyters, and were not reordained. Now that this was the case from the earliest ages is beyond a doubt. It was the case in the important see of Alexandria, when, as Usher stated to Charles I., upon the au- thority of Jerome and Eutychius, the presbyters for a long time made not only presbyters but bishops. ' For even from Mark the Evangelist,' says the first of these authors, etc. " Upon which Willet, as was noticed formerly, remarks : ' So it would seem that the very elec- tion of a bishop in those days, without any other circumstances, was his ordination.' And says TESTIMONY OP BROWN. 139 Still ingfleet, who answers at considerable length the numerous objections urged by Bishop Pear- son, to this interpretation of the passage : ' It appears that by election, he means conferring atithoriti/, by the instances he brings to that pur- pose ; as the Roman armies choosing their em- peror, who had no other power but what they received by the length of the sword, and the dea- cons choosing their archdeacon, who had no other power but what was merely conferred by the choice of the college of deacons' (' Irenicum,' p. 274). "And says Eutychius, who is represented by Ebn Abi Osbae, as a ' man well acquainted with the sciences and institutions which were in use among the Christians,' and whose testimony co- incides with that of Jerome, ' Hananias was the first of the patriarchs who was set over the Church of Alexandria,' etc. " And as it was obvious that he could have no inducements to make this statement, but a regard to truth, because, as he himself was a patriarch, ^ it was fitted to lessen the respectability of the ruler, inasmuch as it showed a deviation from the mode of creating the patriarchs, which had been recommended by the Evangelist ; and as it is confirmed by Jerome, who was born only about eighty years after the change took place, and who had the best opportunities to become acquainted with the fact, as he lived much in the East, it is 140 THE PRIMITIVE EIRENICON. perfectly capricious on the part of Episcopalians to question their testimony. " Usher, who was one of the most able and learned of their bishops, examined the evidence of former times with the utmost care, and declared himself to be satisfied, and there appears to be no good reason why it ought not to satisfy them now. If they have perfect confidence in the lists of bishops of so\r\e of the churches given by Eusebius, though he lived nearly three hundred years after the time when they commenced, noth- ing but a conviction that it bears so strongly against diocesan Episcopacy and the apostolical succession, could prompt them to doubt the state- ments of Jerome, who lived so much nearer to the event which he reports, corroborated as it is by another individual who himself presided over the see of Alexandria, and might have access to its records, and who will be acknowledged at least to be an impartial witness. " But if the bishops of Alexandria, as Usher affirmed, for txoo hundred, and fifty years, were made by presbyters, either by election without or- dination, or by their laying their hands on their heads, and setting them apart to their office, I would like to be informed whether the succession must not have been broken even at the very be- ginning, during that long period. " And as Alexandria was one of the largest and most populous bishoprics in the early TESTIMONY Of BROWN. 141 Church, I shall leave it to any candid individual to say w^hether he can estimate the amount of the disorder and confusion which may have been introduced into other sections of the Christian Church, by clergymen coming into them, whose orders, upon your principles, must have been ir- regular and invalid." On page 361, he adds : " I have only further to remark, on the statements of Jerome, that in the only instance which he mentions of the appoint- ment of bishops, after they were first introduced, that of the bishops of Alexandria, he represents them as made by presbyters, just as the Roman army made their emperor, and the deacons made their archdeacon. He does not say whether they ordained them, though this is asserted afterwards by Eutychius. And it is evident that if they were ordained, they alone must have performed it ; for before diocesan bishops were adopted by the Church, who did not receive their office by any divine appointment, but by mere human ar- rangement, there could be none but presbyters to consecrate those who were raised to the episco- pate, not only in the Church of Alexandria, but in all the churches. " But if, according to Jerome, it was presbyters alone who began the succession, and ordained the first diocesan bishop in all the churches, from whom the whole of the bishops of the present day, and the whole of their clergy have derived 142 THE PRIMITIVE EIRENICON their order, the succession has been vitiated af the very commencement, and cannot be rectified ; and if presbyterian orders have no validity, there cannot, on your principles, be a church, or a min- ister, or a single individual who has any revealed or covenanted title to salvation on the face of the earth." DR. GEORGE CAMPBELL. Professor Campbell, of Marischal College, Ab- erdeen, in his " Lectures on Ecclesiastical His- tory " (p. 130), thus writes : " Another witness whom I shall adduce is Jerome, who wrote about the end of the fourth century, and the beginning of the fifth. The testimony which I shall bring from him regards the practice that had long subsisted at Alexandria. I shall give you the passage in his own words, from the Epistle to Evagrius, ' Alexandriae a Marco,' etc. " I know it has been said that this relates only to the election of the Bishop of Alexandria, and not to his ordination. To me, it is manifest that it relates to both ; or, to express myself with greater precision, it was the intention of the father to signify, that no other ordination than this election, and those ceremonies with which the presbyters might please to accompany it, such as the installment and salutation, was then and there thought necessary to one who had been ordained a presbyter before ; that, according to the usage of that Church, this form was all that was requi- TESTIMONY OF CAMPBELL. 143 Bite to constitute one of the presbyters their bishop. But, as I am sensible that unsupported assertions are entitled to no regard on either side, I shall as- sign my reasons from the author's own words, and then leave every one to judge for himself. " Jerome, in the preceding part of this letter, had been maintaining, in opposition to some dea- con who had foolishly boasted of the order of deacons as being superior to the order of presby- ters : Jerome, I say, had been maintaining, that in the original and apostolical constitution of the Church, bishop and presbyter were two names for the same office. That ye may be satisfied that what he says implies no less, I shall give it you in his own words : 'Audio qiiendam in tanlam eru- pisse vecordiam, ut diaconas presbyteris, id est epis- copis, anteferrel. Ncm, cum apostolus perspiciie doceat eosdevi esse presbyteros quos episcopos, quid patitur mensarum et viduarum minister, ut supra eos, se tumidus efferat! " For this purpose he had, in a cursory manner, pointed out some of those arguments from the New Testament, which I took occasion, in a for- mer discourse, to illustrate. In regard to the in- troduction of the episcopal order, as then com- monly understood, in contradistinction to that of presbyter, he signifies that it did not exist from the beginning, but was merely an expedient de- vised after the times of the Apostles, in order the more effectually to preserve unity in every church ; 144 THE PRIMITIVE EIRENICON. as, in case of difference among the pastors, it would be of importance to have one acknowl- edged superior in whose determination they were bound to acquiesce. His words are, ' Quod ante postea ; ' he had been speaking immediately before of the times of the Apostles : ' vnvs eleclus est-, qui caeteris preponeretur, in schismatis remedium /actus est, ne tinus quisque ad se trahens, Cliristi ecclesiam rumperetJ Then follows the passage, quoted above, concerning the Church of Alexan- dria. " Nothing can be plainer than that he is giving an account of the first introduction of the episco- pate (as the word was then understood), which he had been maintaining was not a different order from that of presbyter, but merely a certain pre- eminence conferred by election, for the expedient purpose of preventing schism. And in confirma- tion of what he had advanced, that this election was all that at first was requisite, he tells the story of the manner that had long been practiced, and held sufficient for constituting a bishop in the metropolis of Egypt. It is accordingly intro- duced thus : ' Nam et Alexandrice,^ as a case en- tirely opposite, to wit, an instance of a church in which a simple election had continued to be accounted sufficient for a longer time than in other churches ; an instance which had remained a ves- tige and an evidence of the once universal practice. " Now, if he meant only to tell us, as some TESTIMONY OF CAMPBELL. 145 would have it, that there the election of the bishop was in the presbyters, there was no occasion to refer to Alexandria for an example, or to a former pe- riod, as that continued to be a very common, if not the general, practice throughout the Church. And though it be allowed to have been still the custom in most places to get also the concurrence or con- sent of the people, this shows more strongly how frivolous the arguments from their being electors would have been in favor of presbyters as equal in point of order to bishops, and consequently su- perior to deacons ; since, in regard to most places, as much as this could be said concerning those who are inferior to deacons, the very meanest of the people, who had all a suffrage in the election of their bishop. " But, understood in the way I have explained it, the argument has both sense and strength in it, and is, in effect, as follows : ' There can be no essential difference between the order of bishop and that of presbyter, since, to make a bishop, nothing more was necessary at first (and of this practice the Church of Alexandria long remained an example) than the nomination of his fellow- presbyters; and no ceremony of consecration was required but what was performed by them, and consisted chiefly in placing him in a higher seat and saluting him bishop.' " Was ever anything more frivolous than Pear- son's criticism on the distinction between a se and 10 146 THE PRIMITIVE EIRENICON. ex se 7 the phrase used in the above quotation (* Vindiciae Ignatianae,' p. 1. c. x.). Or could any- thing be conceived more foreign to Jerome's pur- pose than the above passage has thought fit to interpret it ? " Add to this, that the very examples this father makes use of for illustration, show manifestly that his meaning must have been as I have repre- sented it. His first instance is the election of an emperor by the army, which he calls expressly making an emperor. And is it not a matter of public notoriety, that the emperors raised in this manner did, from that moment, without waiting any other inauguration, assume the imperial titles and exercise the imperial power? And did they not treat all as rebels who opposed them ? " If possible, the other example is still more decisive. To constitute an archdeacon, in the sense in which the word was then used, no other form of investiture was necessary but his election, which was in Jerome's time solely in the fellow- deacons ; though this also, with many other things, came afterwards into the hands of the bishop. By this example, he also very plainly acquaints us that the bishop originally stood in the same re- lation to the presbyters, in which the archdeacon in his own time, did to the other deacons, and was, by consequence, no other than what the arch-presbyter came to be among the presbyters. " But does not Jerome, after all, admit, in the TESTIMONY OF CAMPBELL. 147 very next sentence, the superiority of bishops in the exclusive privilege of ordaining?. True; he admits it as a distinction that th^n actually ob- tained ; but the whole preceding part of the let- ter was written to evince that frona the beginning it was not so. " From ancient times he descends to times then modern, and from distant countries he comes to his own, concluding that still there was not one article of moment whereby their powers were dis- criminated : Quid enim facit^ excepta ordinalione, episcopus^ quod pre sbyternon facial ?^ This, in- deed, proves suHiciently, that at that time presby- ters were not allowed to ordain. But it can prove nothing more; for in regard to his sentiment about the rise of this difference, it was impossible to be more explicit than he had been through the whole epistle. I shall only add, that, for my part, I cannot conceive another interpretation that can give either weight to his argument or consistency to his words. Tlie interpretation I have given does both, and that without any violence to the expression. " I might plead Jerome's opinion in the case. I do plead only his testimony. I say I might plead his opinion as the opinion of one who lived in an age when the investigation of the origin of any ecclesiastical order or custom must have been incomparably easier than it can be to us at this distance of time. I might plead his opinion a^ 148 THE PRIMITIVE EIRENICON. the opinion of a man who had more erudition than any person then in the Church, the greatest linguist, the greatest critic, the greatest antiquary of them all. But I am no friend to an implicit deference to human authority in matters of opin- ion. " Let his sentiment be no further regarded than the reasons by which they are supported are found to be good. I do plead only his testimony as a testimony in relation to a matter of fact, both re- cent and notoriovis, since it regarded the then late uniform practice of the Church of Alexandria, a city which, before Constantinople became the seat of empire, was, next to Rome, the most eminent in the Christian world. "To the same purpose the testimony ol the Al- exandrian patriarch Eutychius has been pleaded, who, in his * Annals ' of that Church, takes notice of this same practice, but with greater particularity of circumstances than had been done by Jerome, Eutychius tells us that the number of presbyters therein was always twelve ; and that, on an occa- sion of vacancy in the episcopal chair, they chose one of themselves, whom the remaining eleven ordained bishop by imposition of hands and ben- ediction. In these points, it is evident there is nothing that can be said to contradict the testi- mony of Jerome ; all that can be affirmed is, that the one mentions particulars about which the other had been silent. TESTIMONY OF CAMPBELL. 149 " But it will be said there is one circumstance — the duration assigned To this custom — where- in there seems to be a real contradiction. Jerome brings it no farther down than Heraclas and Dionysius ; whereas Eutychius -represents it as- continuing to the time of Alexander, about fifty years later. Now, it is not impossible that a cir- cumstantial custom might have been in i)art abol- ished at one time, and in part at an'other. But admit that in this point the two testimonies are contradictory, that will by no means invalidate their credibility as to those points on which they are agreed. The difference, on the contrary, as it is an evidence that the last did not copy from the first, and that they are therefore two witnesses and not one, seems rather as a confirmation of the truth of those articles wherein they concur. And this is our ordinary method of judging in all mat- ters depending on human testimony. That Je- rome, who probably spoke from memory, though certain as to the main points, might be somewhat doubtful as to the precise time of the abolition of the custom, is rendered even probable by his men- tioning, with a view to mark the expiration of the practice, two successive bishops rather than one. For if he had known certainly that it ended with Heraclas, there would have been no occasion to mention Dionysius ; and if he had been assured of its continuance to the time of Dionysius, there would have been no propriety in mentioning Her- aclas." 150 Tllk I'klMITlVE EIRENICON. (richakd BAXTER (died 1691). This eminently learned controversial writer in his "Jesuit Juggling" (Am. ed., 1835, p. 205, chap. xxiv. : on " Evangelical Lawful Ministry,)" • in reply to the claim of the Roman Church, " that they only have a true ministry or priest- hood and an apostolical episcopacy and true ordination, and that we and all other Protes- tant churches have no true ministers, but are mere laymen under the name of ministers, be- cause we have no just ordination," thus argues: " What succession of episcopal consecration was there in the Church of Alexandria, when Jerome (Epist. ad Evagi-ium) tells us, ' At Alexandria, from Mark,' etc. — .... " Thus Jerome shows that bishops were then made by presbyters. In the same epistle he proves from Scripture that presbyters and bish- ops were one. " Medina, accusing Jerome of error, saith that Ambrose, Austin, Sedulius, Primasius, Chrysos- tom, Theodoret, CEcumenius, and Theophylact were in the same heresy as Bellarmin himself reporteth him. So that presbyters now may make bishops as those of Alexandria did. Jerome there saith : ' All are the successors of the Apos- tles.' Yet apostles as apostles have no succes- sors, as Bellarmin teacheth (lib. 4, ' de Pontif.' cap. 25) " 5. He that is ordained according to the Apos- TESTIMONY OF BAXTER. 161 ties' directions or prescripts of Scripture, hath the true apostolical ordination ; but so are we or- dained. The Apostles never confiued ordina- tion to those prelates that depend on the Pope of Rome. The bishops to whom the Apostles committed that power, are the same who are called presbyters by them, and they were the overseers or pastors, each but of one single church, and not of many churches, in Scripture times, so Hammond asserts. Such are those ordained among us now. " Gregory Nazianzen, ' Orat.' 18, saith : ' I would there was no presidency nor prerogative of place and tyrannical privileges, that so we might be known only by virtue. But now this right side and left side, and middle and lower degree, and presidency and concomitancy, have beoot us many constitutions to no purpose, and have driven many into the ditch, and have led them away to the region of the goats.' • " Isidore Peiusiat, lib. 3, ' Epist. 223, ad Hier- acem,' saith: 'When I have showed what dif- ference there is between the ancient ministry and the present tyranny, why do you not crown and praise the lovers of equality ? ' "Refer to Sedulius, Anselm, Beda, Alcuin, Bucer, Peter Martyr, and Wickliffe's argument on the Waldenses. " Cassander (' Consult.' article 14) saith : ' It is agreed among all, that of old, in the Apostles' 152 THE PRIMITrVE EIRENICON. days, there was no difference between bishops and presbyters, but afterwards, for order's sake and the avoiding of schism, the bishop was set before the presbyter.' Occam determineth, that by Christ's institution all the priests of what degree soever are of equal authority, power, and juris- diction. Reynold Peacock wrote a book ' De Min- istrorum ^qualitate,' which your party caused to be printed." " Richard Armachan (liber 9, cap. 5, ' ad Qusest. Armen.') saith : ' There is not found in the evan- gelical or apostolical Scriptures, any difference between bishops and simple priests called pres- byters ; whence it follows, that there is one power in all, and equal from their order. Cap. 7, answering the question whether any priest may consecrate churches, etc., he saith, ' Priests may do it as well as bishops, seeing a bishop hath no more in such matters than any simple priest. It seems, therefore, that the restriction of the priest'^ power was not in the primitive church according to Scripture.' " 6. The chief error of the Papists in this cause is expressed in their reason, ' no man can give the power which he hath not ; ' wherein they in- timate that it is man that giveth the ministerial power ; whereas it is the gift of Christ alone. Man doth but design the person that shall receive it, and then Christ giveth it, by this law, to the person so designed ; and then man doth invest him, and sol- TESTIMONY OF HOOKER. 153 emnize his introduction. Asa woman may choose her husband, but it is not she that giveth him the power over her, but God who determineth of that power by his law, affixing it to the person chosen by her, and her action is but a condition or cause of that capacity of the matter to receive the form. Men do but obey God, in a right choice and designation of the person ; his law doth presently give him the power, with which for order's sake he must be in solemn manner invested. But matters of order may possibly vary ; and though they are to be observed as far as may be, yet they always give place to the end and substance of the work for ordei'ino- whereof they are appointed." In this latter statement Baxter has shown the fallacy of our exclusive Episcopal writers. These have inverted the Scriptural doctrine, giving prom- inence to the human investiture of office, and de- preciating the Spirit's work in>he selection of the bishop, in answer to the prayers of his electors. Like other human perversions, the Church has sadly suffered, and the cause of Christ's kingdom been greatly hindered. RICHARD HOOKER (died 1600). This justly celebrated divine refers to the state- ments of Jerome with regard to the Church of Alexandria. He does not object to his testimony as to the presbyters making the bishop by election. 154 THE PRIMITIVE EIRENICON. He simply argues this point: " We cannot with any truth so interpret his words as to mean, that ill the Church of Alexandria there had been bishops endowed with superiority over presbyters from St. Mark's time only till the time of Hera- clas and Dionysius." He attempts to reply to the assertion of Jerome, that the authority of bishops over presbyters arose from custom, and not from divine arrangement. He is not pleased with his own argument. He remarks : " This answer to Jerome seemeth dan- gerous. I have qualified it, as I may, by addition of some words of restraint ; yet I satisfy not myself; in my judgment it should be altered." These words of Hooker appear to have been placed by him in the margin, and afterwards in- serted in the text by his editor, Dr. Gauden. In the same fifth chapter of Book Seventh, after a consideration of Jerome's language, he concludes : " Wherefore, lest bishops forget themselves, as if none on earth had authority to touch their estates, let them bear continually in mind, that it is rather the force of custom whereby the Church having so long found it good to con- tinue under the regiment of her virtuous bishops, doth still uphold, maintain, and honor them in that respect, than that any such true and heavenly law can be showed, by the evidence whereof it may of truth appear that the Lord Himself hath appointed presbyters forever to be under the regi- TESTrMOlJY OF HOOKER. 155 ment of bishops, in what sort soever they behave themselves. Let this consideration be a bridle unto them, and let it teach them not to disdain the advice of their presbyters, but to use their authority with so much the greater humility and moderation, as a sword which the Chnrch hath power to take from them." After discussing the arguments for and against episcopal government, in his fourteenth chapter he writes : " Now, whereas, hereupon some do infer that no ordination can stand but only such as is made by bishops, which have had their ordina- tion by others before them till we come to the very Apostles of Christ themselves To this we answer there may be sometimes very just and sufficient reason to allow ordination made without a bishop." Here Hooker concedes the main point, and justifies the action of his Church, through his whole life. If in the heat of argument with the Puritans he has used stronger language with respect to the authority of Episcopacy, it is an inconsistency necessarily connected with his posi- tion, and a difficulty which all encounter who are led to assert a jure dioino claim for the supe- riority of bishops over presbyters, or to assert the necessity of an episcopal consecration to confer the right to ordain. If the great Hooker stumbled, who now can succeed in the attempt? Yet Hooker's claims are moderate, in contrast with modern pretensions. 156 THE PRIMITIVE EIRENICON. BISHOP HOADLEY (died 1761). Bishop Hoadley, in his " Brief Defense of Epis- copal Ordination," argues for such ordination, on the ground that it was the " will of the Apostles " and "the settled method of the Church.'' He ad- vocates it on the gi'ound of " order, decency, and regularity," — not of " indispensable necessity." The ability and moderation of his work justly entitle him to the encomium passed by Bishop White in " The Case of the Episcopal Churches Considered" (p. 17). "The name of Bishop Hoadley 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 senti- ments, and his enlightened zeal for civil liberty. He has written in defense of episcopal govern- ment with more argument and better temper than is commonly to be met with in controversial writings. This amiable prelate expresses him- self as follows," etc. From the case of the Church of Alexandria, as stated by Jerome, Bishop Hoadley derives a strong argument for episcopal ordination. His argument is as follows (p. 418) : " First he saith,that in some parts of the Christian Church it is not very difficult to fix the time of this restraint apon presbyters. The only instance he produceth is that of the Church of Alexandria, in which he saith, St. Jerome tells us that for above two hun- TESTIMONY OF HOADLEY. 157 dred years the presbyters cl^ose and set apart their bishops. From whence he argues tBat if presbyters in this Church of Alexandria invested and conferred power and authority on their bish- ops, and the validity of this act of theirs remained unquestionable, much more might they confer order on presbyters. " And, lest there should not appear reason enough in the argument itself, he adds, that this argument Mr. Baxter often tells us was esteemed unanswerable by as great a man as Archbishop Usher (p. 100). I have often told this author how little I am moved with great names in mat- ters of judgment; nor will he, I well know, vield to the force of every argument' (in other points) which Archbishop Usher thought unanswerable. And therefore I hope he will give me leave freely to examine the force of this argument. For I am so far from thinking it unanswerable, that I cannot help thinking it will be found to prove the very contrary to the design of this author in alleging it. For, " 1st. Either this bishop whom the presbyters of Alexandria constituted from the very time of St. Mark the Evangelist, to the time of Heraclas and Dionysius, was no more than a prime-presby- ter, or president of the council of presbyters, or he was bishop in the peculiar sense of the word. If he were more than a prime-presbyter, it will not follow that because they chose their own presi- 158 THE PRIMITIVE EIRENICON. dent, therefore much more might they ordain other presbyters,- which is the argument here used. For it is a much less thing for persons of the same office, met together to choose one of themselves, to practice amongst themselves for the better management of their joint counsels, than to call other persons to their own office, in which they had no part before. But if he was bishop, in the peculiar sense of the word (as I doubt not St. Jerome meant, and this argument supposeth), then here is demonstration of the distinction be- tween bishops and presbyters from the very days of the Apostles. " 2d. This very choosing themselves a bishop is so far from proving that they were not under restraint in the point of ordination, that it is the very putting themselves under that restraint ; as a people choosing any person, from amongst them- selves, to be their king, restrains that right, which was oriainallv in them, of grantinsr commissions of lesser importance ; and is designed to devolve the power of doing this upon this single per- son ; so far is it from proving that they themselves continue to exercise it. And, according to St. Jerome, the presbyters choosing and setting a bishop over themselves, is the thing which put a period to their ruling the churches in common, and with a proper equality ; and from the very time of their doing this, they must, according to him, be under restraint. So that instead of argu- tESTIMOKY OF HOADLEY. 169 ing, the presbyters chose their bishop, a superior officer, therefore much more ordained presbyters; I argue, the presbyters of Alexandria chose to themselves bishops from the very time of the Apostles ; therefore from that time they were re- strained from ordaining other presbyters, suppos- ing they had an original right to that work. " For what, I pray, is that restraint which BIbndel and this author contend that the presby- ters voluntarily put themselves under, near the middle of the second century ; but what resulted from their choosing, from amongst themselves, governors whom they called bishops ? And what is that restraint which St. Jerome speaks of, but the very order that one should be chosen from among the presbyters, to whom the care of the Church should be in a peculiar sense committed ? Nay, supposing this person chosen by them to have been only a prime-presbyter, what I am say- ing is so evident, that Blondel himself acknowl- edges such a restraint upon the presbyters by their choice of a prime-presbyter, as that nothing was afterwards to be done, in which he was not to bear a principal part. And St. Jerome's only design being to point out the occasion of that distinction of bishops and presbyters, which pre- vailed in his days, and on which the restraint put upon presbyters, according to him, was settled in the Church ; to be sure he could mean nothing in these words, less than to prove that this restraint 160 THE PRIMITIVE EIKENlCON. was in the Church of Alexandria from the time of St. Mark, by showing that from that time the presbyters of that Church had chosen bishops and placed them over themselves. " For the sentence going before is to this pur- pose, that though in his opinion the original de- sign was that presbyters should govern by their presbyteries ; yet that afterwards one was chosen from amongst them to be set over the rest ; and that this was designed for the preventing some abuses and schisms. To prove this, he appeals to the Church of Alexandria, in which he saith the presbyters, even from the time of St. Mark, had chosen one from amongst themselves whom they called peculiarly by the name of bishop, to be sure for the purpose above mentioned, in reme- dinm schismalis. If, therefore, the distinction in his days between the offices of' bishops and priests was in remedium schismalis, it follows that this election of a bishop (which he here speaks of) was for the same end. For no one can say but that St. Jerome is here speaking of that choice of a bishop which restrained the power of presby- ters, whatever he supposed them to be. " 3d. It doth not in the least follow from the presbyters choosing their own bishops, that they pretended to ordain presbyters ; and yet the whole of this argument is founded upon their choosing their own bishops. Suppose it be said of any company of men, that they met together and TESTIMONY OF HOADI.EY. 161 chose one from amongst themselves, and having placed him by that means in a higher station, they called him king ; doth it follow because they thus made him king, therefore to be sure they did what is of lesser importance ; that therefore any of them, or all of them, after this, gave commis- sions to other officers under this king ? No ; from the time of that election he is, by the will of God and the law of nature, invested with all due au- thority; and it is his business to give commissions to all inferior officers. Just so it is in the case before us. Let it be granted that those presbyters chose one out of their number, and that having by that means placed him in a higher station, they called him bishop, which is all St. Jerome saith, it will not follow from hence that after this elec- tion, they assumed to themselves to give commis- sions to inferior ecclesiastical officers ; but rather that from this time, this was one of his peculiar businesses, as I have just now been observing. "4th. As there is no consequence in the argu- ment drawn from hence, so neither doth St. Je- rome give the least color to such an argument, but in the same place useth such expressions as abso- lutely overthrow it. He doth not say that these presbyters conferred power and authority upon their bishop ; nor doth it follow from what he saith, any more than it follows from a prince's nominating a person to a bishopric, that such nomination is the sole authority by which he acts u I 162 THE PRIMITIVE EIRENICOK. in ecclesiastical matters. He may, notwithstand- ing this, derive his authority from the will of God ; and the instant of the election be the time from whence the will of God concerning his authority must be supposed to take place. And therefore this author doth not well to add such expressions as these to those of St. Jerome, to embellish his argument, which at least must rest wholly upon tiiat father. " Again, he useth the word episcopus in a pecul- iar sense, as signifying an office distinct from presbyters. The same word he useth in the very next sentence in the same sense, and denies to presbyters the right of ordination, as I have shown before, which he here appropriates to bishops. But what is very remarkable, he illustrates the pres- byters choosing their bishop by the similitude of an army choosing their general. Now, from hence it follows, that as the army after such election, pretended not to the granting inferior commissions in it, but did indeed, by means of this' election, devolve this upon the person chosen general ; so neither did the presbyters, after the election of their bishop, pretend to the granting commissions to inferior presbyters ; and this for a very good reason, namely, because they had, by this election, devolved this business upon the person chosen bishop, as they had the care of the churches in all cases in a very peculiar manner. But, as I pass, I cannot forbear asking, if this account, the TESTIMONY OF HOADLEY. 163 Alexandrian presbyters choosing their own bish- ops, be true, what becomes of that inalienable right of the laity in elections, of which this author upon another occasion speaks? " Thus have we seen of how little force this ar- gument, from these presbyters choosing their own bishop, is, to prove that they did all that time ex- ercise their supposed right of ordination ; and how little satisfaction this gives us in our inquiry, how and when the exercise of this right came to "be restrained in the Church. From whence I like- wise draw an argument that it was the same (in St. Jerome's opinion) in all churches, as in the Church of Alexandria, because he makes the gov- ernment of churches to be always the same in all places ; and the decree on which he founds the restraint put upon presbyters to be universal and at the same time. " Consequently, therefore, if it was in pursuance of this desire that the Alexandrian Church chose bishops, and that by this choice the presbyters were restrained in the exercise of their original right, this restraint must likewise be as early, according to St. Jerome, in all other churches, that is, from the very days of the Apostles. Con- sequently, likewise, if the learned Blondel be the defender and follower of St. Jerome, he cannot pretend to fix the time of this restraint in any of the churches later than this. Much less can he, consistently with himself, first fix the time of this 164 THE PRIMITIVE EIBENICOK. restraint (which St. Jerome represents as at the same time universal) to the middle of the second century, and afterwards argue from St. Jerome himself, that it could not be in the Church of Alexandria till the end of the third century. " However, this may be palliated ; having ex- amined the so much boasted instance of the Al- exandrian presbyters, and found it so mistaken agd so misapplied, I shall not trouble myself to search that dark author for any other less mate- rial instances, but content myself with having considered what is principally urged and depended on by those who have given the latest occasion of the present debate." Thus, with consummate ability, does Bishop Hoadley argue the question of moderate episco- pacy ; and if the argument could have always been presented with equal wisdom and prudence, many objections would not have been offered to its acceptance. For Bishop Hoadley opposes with equal power the doctrine of an essential, unbroken, episcopal succession, which has so largely brought odium upon the Episcopal cause, and occasioned its re- jection by so many learned and candid persons. On page 489 of this same volume, this author remarks : " I think not an uninterrupted line of succession of regularly ordained bishops neces- gary." In his " Preservative " (p. 75), he more largely TESTIMONY OF HOADLEY. 165 argues the point, and thus forcibly expresses his convictions : I do not love, I confess, so much as to repeat the principal branches of their be- loved scheme ; they are so difl'ereiit, vvhencesoever they come, from the voice of the gospel. When they would claim you, as their fellow-lafiorers the Papists do, by telling you that you cannot hope for the favor of God but in the strictest commun- ion in their Church (which is the true Church of England, governed by bishops in a regular suc- cession) ; that God hath himself hung your salva- tion upon this nicety ; that He dispenses none of His favors or graces but by the hands of them and their subordinate priests ; that you cannot be authoritatively blessed or released from your sins but by them who are the regular priests ; that churches under other bishops (i. e., other than in regular succession) are schismatical conventicles, made up of excommunicatea persons, both clergy and laity, out of God's Church, and out of His favor : I say, when such arguments as these are urged, you need only to have recourse to a gen- eral answer to this whole heap of scandal and defamation upon the will of God, the gospel of Christ, and the Church of England in particular; that you have not so learned Christ, or the design of his gospel, or even the foundation of this par- ticular part of his Church, reformed and estab- lished in England. " The following arguments will justify you 166 THE PRIMITIVE EIRENICON. which, therefore, ought to be frequently in the thoughts of all who have any regard for the nnost important point : God is just and equal and good, and as sure as He is, He cannot put the salvation and hapginess of any man upon what He himself has put it out of the power of any man upon earth to be entirely satisfied in ; it hath not pleased God, in His providence, to keep up any proof of the least probability, or moral possibility of a regular uninterrupted succession." This language, addressed by this eminent de- fender of Episcopacy, to the Non-jurors of his day, is equally applicable to the Tractarians and Ritualists of our own times, their true successors, and deserves the solemn consideration of every member of our communion who seeks the glory of God in the advancernent of the truth, and of a pure gospel. CHAPTER XII. SUCCESSION OF SOUND DOCTRINE, THE TRUE APOS- TOLIC SUCCESSION. As a fitting ^lose to this examination of the Institutions of the Church of Alexandria, in their bearing on the doctrine of episcopal succession, we give the views of nearly all the prominent writers under Edward and Elizabeth, with those of other later standard writers, on this important topic. That the Reformers regarded the succession of Scriptural truth as the succession by vi^hich the Church of God was to be distinguished, is clear from their writings. They make no distinct mention of the subject in the Articles, or Ordinal. Inasmuch as many modern writers have asserted that valid succession is ministerial and tactual, and must be episcopal and uninterrupted, in order to find the doctrine of our Church on this subject, and to expose a pernicious error, we must turn to the writings of the Compilers under Ed- ward, and the Revisers under Elizabeth. 168 THE PRIMITIVE EIRENICON. JOHN BRADFORD (d. 1555). A clear statement of the matter is made by John Bradford, Bishop Ridley's chaplain, " whom in my conscience," said Ridley, " I judge more worthy to be a bishop, than many of us that be bishops already, to be a parish priest." He was the man whom, of all others, the Papists labored to reclaim. Dr. Harpsfield, the papal examiner, held the following conversation with .Bradford : — " The Church hath also," saith he, "succession of bishops." And here he made much ado to prove that this was an essential point. *' You say as you would have it," quoth I ; " for if this point fail you, all the Church you go about to set forth will fall down. You shall not find in all the Scripture this your essential point of suc- cession of bishops," quoth I. " In Christ's Church Antichrist will sit." " Tell me," quoth he, " were not the Apostles bishops ? " " No," quoth I, " except you make a new def- inition of bishops ; that is, give them no certain place." " Indeed,'' said he, " the Apostles' office was more than bishops, for it was universal ; but yet Christ instituted bishops in His Church, as Paul saith, ' He hath given pastors, prophets;' so that I trow it proved by the Scriptures the succession of bishops to be an essential point." TRUE APOSTOLIC SUCCESSION. 169 To this I answered that " the ministry of God's word and ministers is an essential point ; but to translate this to bishops and their succession," quoth I, " is a plain subtility ; and therefore," quoth I, " that it may be plain, I will ask you a question. Tell me whether the Scriptures know any difference between bishops and ministers whom you call priests ? " « No," saith he. " Well, then, go on forward," quoth I, " and let us see what you get now by the succession of bishops, that is of ministers; which cannot be understood of such bishops as minister not, but lord it." " The next day," writes Bradford, " Master Harpsfield began a very long oration almost three quarters of an hour long, first repeating what he had said, and how far w^e had gone over night, and therewith did begin to prove upward succession of bishops here in England, for eight hundred years ; in France, at Lyons, for twelve hundred years; in Spain, at Hispallen, for eight hundred years ; in Italy, at Milan, for twelve hundred years, laboring by this to prove his Church ; whereto he used succession of bishops in the last Church for the more confirmation of his words, and so concluded with an exhortation and an interrogation : the exhortation that I could obey his Church ; the interrogation, whether I could show any B^ch succession for the demori^ 170 THE PRIMITIVE EIRENICON. stration of my Church (for so he called it) which I followed." Now what was the reply to this argument, a facsimile of all exclusive succession arguments since ? — " Unto this, his long oration, I made a short answer, how that my memory was evil for to answer particularly his long oration ; therefore I would generally do it, thinlting that because his oration was rather to persuade than to prove, that a general answer would serve. So I told him, that if Christ or His Apostles, being here on earth, had been demanded of the prelates of the Church, then to have made a demonstration of the Church by succession of high priests, which had approved the doctrine He had taught: 'I think,' quoth I, 'that Christ here would have done as I do ; that is: would have brought forth that which upholdeth the Church, even the verity of the word of God taught and believed, not of the high priests (which of long time had persecuted it), but of the prophets and other good, simple men, which perchance were counted for heretics by the Church, that is, with them that were ordained high priests in the Church ; to whom the true Church was not then tied by any succession, but the word of God.' " (Vol. i. pp. 501, 505.) TKUE APOSTOLIC SUCCESSION. 171 BISHOP RIDLEY (d. 1555). This view of Bradford, of great importance in this connection, is maintained by Bishop Ridley, confessedly, of all the Edwardian Reformers, of most influence generally in our communion. In his farewell letter to his Christian friends, written a few days before his martyrdom, Ridley says of the Church of Rome : " It may justly be called Apostolici, that is, true disciples of the Apostles, and also that church and congregation of Chris- tians an apostolic church, yea, and that, certain hundred years after the same was first erected and builded upon Christ, by the true apostolical doc- trine taught by the mouths of the Apostles them- selves. ... So long and so many hundred years as that see did truly teach and preach that gospel, that religion, exercise that power, and ordered everything by these laws and rules, which that see received of the Apostles, and, as Tertullian saith, the Apostles of Christ, and Christ of God ; so long (I say) that see might well have been called Peter and Paul's chair and see, or rather Christ's chair, and the bishop thereof Apostolicus, or a true disciple and successor of the Apostles, and a minister of Christ. . . . " For understand, my lords, it was neither for the privilege of the place or person thereof, that that see and bishop thereof were called Apostolic, but for the true trade of Christ'' s religion, which was taught and maintained in that see at the 172 THE PKIMITIVE EIRENICON. first, and of those godly men. And therefore as truly and justly as that see then, for that true trade of religion and consanguinity of doctrine with the religion and doctrine of Christ's Apos- tles, was called apostolic ; so, as truly and justly, for the contrariety of religion and diversity of doctrine from Christ and his Apostles, that see and the bishop thereof at this day both ought to be called, and are indeed, antichristian. That see is the seat of Satan ; and the bishop of the same, that maintaiiieth the abominations thereof, is Antichrist himself indeed." Writing to Bradford in reference (•' Works,"' 414,418) to the discussion on the Church given above, Ridley exclaims : " O good Lord, that they are so busy with you about the Church ! It is no new thing, brother, that is happened unto you ! for that was always the clamor of the wicked bishops and priests, against God's true prophets. ' The temple of the Lord, the temple of the Lord, the temple of the Lord ! ' and they said, ' The law shall not depart from the priest, nor wisdom from the elder ; ' and yet in them whom only they esteemed for priests and sages, there was neither God's law nor godly wisdom." The stress that Ridley lays on the necessity of sound doctrine to preserve church character is very observable. TRUE APOSTOLIC SUCCESSIOK. 178 BISHOP LATIMER (d. 1555). Bishop Latimer, in his conference with Ridley, expresses himself in a similar manner. "The Scripture is not of any private interpreta- tion at any time. For such a one, though he be a layman, fearing God, is much more fit to understand holy Scripture than any arrogant and proud priest, yea, than the bishop himself, be he never so glistening and great in all his pontificals. . . . Let the Papists go with their long faith ; be thou contented with the short faith of the saint, which is revealed unto view the word of God written. Adieu to all popish fantasies, Amen. For one man having the Scripture and good reason for him, is more to be esteemed himself alone, than a thousand such as they either gath- ered together, or succeeding- one another " (p. 114). BISHOP HOOPER (d 1555). Bishop Hooper — Edward's favorite preacher, and who if Edward had lived would have exer- cised a most commanding influence upon the conduct of the Reformation — is most forcible in the expression of two views on this point. Hooper had differed with Ridley with respect to the continuance in use of the Roman vest- ment. These differences were settled. Ridley writes, " To my most dear brother, and reverend fellow-elder in Christ, John Hooper, grace and 174 THE I'KIMITIVE EIRENICON. peace. . . . Forasmuch as I understand by your works, which I have yet but superficially seen, that we thoroughly agree and wholly consent tO' gether in those things which are the grounds and substantial points of our religion, against the which the world so furiously rageth in these our days, howsoever in time past in swollen waters and circumstances of religion, your wisdom and my simplicity (I confess) have in some points varied," etc. • In his " Declaration of Christ and his Office," 1547, Hooper writes : " Such as teach the people to know the Church by these signs : namely, the traditions of ujen and the succession of bishops, teach wrong."' In the " Confession of his Faith," written 1550, he says : " As concerning the minis- ters of the Church, I believe that the Church is bound to no sort of people, or any ordinary suc- cession of bishops, cardinals, or such like, but unto the very word of God ; and none of them should be believed but when they speak the word of God." In 1552, he charges his clergy to in- struct their people : " lest that any man should be seduced, believing himself to be bound unto any ordinary succession of bishops and priests, but only unto the word of God and the right use of his sacraments." ("Works," i. 82; ii. 90, 120.) TRUE APOSTOLIC SUCCESSION. 176 ARCHDEACON PHILPOT (d. 1555). Archdeacon Philpot, an accomplished Can- onist under Edward, and a martyr, when the Archbishop of York urged : " Rome hath known succession of bishops, which your Church hath not ; ergo^ that is the Catholic Church, and yours is not, because there is no such succession can be proved in your Church," replied : " I deny, my lord, that succession of bishops is an infallible point to know the Church by ; for there may be a succes- sion of bishops known in a place, and yet there be no church, as at Antioch, and Jerusalem, and in other places, where the Apostles abode as well as at Rome. But if you put to the succession of bishops, succession of doctrine withal (as St. Augustine doth), I will grant it to be a good proof for the Catholic Church ; but a local suc- cession is nothing available. . , . Although you can prove the succession of bishops from Peter, yet this is not sufficient to prove Rome the Cath- olic Church, unless you can prove the profession of Peter's faith, whereupon the Catholic Church is builded, to have continued in his successors at Rome, and at this present time." (" Examina- tions," pp. 37, 137.) ARCHBISHOP CRANMER (d. 1556). It is not necessary to quote Archbishop Cran- mer in this connection, inasmuch as his views on this subject are acknowledged to be as compre- 176 THE PRIMITITIVE EIRENICOK. hensive as any of his contemporaries, and have been previously referred to in this volume. We see from the language of these most prominent and influential of the divines under Edward, that the exclusive uninterrupted episcopal succession the- ory, was by all rejected. The translator of Cranmer's " Confutation of Unwritten Verities," a contemporary, writes (p. 11, Parker Society ed.) : " Such gross ignorance (I would to God it were but ignorance indeed) is entered into their heads, and such arrogant bold- ness possesseth their hearts, that they are bold to affirm no church to be a true church of God, but that which standeth by ordinary succession of bishops, in such pompous and glorious sort as now is seen. ... As sweet agreeth with sour, black with white, darkness with light, and evil with good ; even so this outward, seen, and visible Church, consisting of the ordinary succession of bishops, agreeth with Christ." The name of this author is not ascertained. We pass now to the reign of Elizabeth, the period of the revision of the Prayer Book. BISHOP JEWEL (d. 1571). And first we have Bishop Jewel, the most learned of the bishops, declaring in his " Apol- ogy," a public work: " God's grace is promised to a good mind, and to any one that feareth Him, not to sees and successions." In the " Defense of TRUE APOSTOLIC SUCCHSSION. 177 his Apology " (p. 201), he writes : " To be Peter's lawful successor, it is not sufficient to leap into Peter's stall. Lawful succession standeth not only in succession of place, but also and much rather, in doctrine and diligence." Harding, the Romanist, asks Jewel : " If you cannot show your bishoply pedigree, if you can prove no succession, then whereby hold you ? Tell us the original and first spring of your Church ! Show us the register of your bishops, continually succeeding one another from the be- ginning, so as that fails bishops have some one of the Apostles or apostolic men- for his author and predecessor. How can you prove your vo- cation ? By what authority usurp you the ad- ministration of doctrine and sacraments? What can you allege for the right and proof of your ministry ? Who hath called you? Who hath laid hands on you ? By what example hath he done it? How and by whom were you consecrated? Who hath sent you? Who hath committed to you the office you take upon you ? Be you a priest or be you not ? If you be not, how dare you usurp the name and office of a bishop? If you be, who gave you orders? The institution of a priest was never yet in the power of a bishop ? " To this argument, similar to that of Harps- field, what does this writer of the second " Book of Homilies," and publisher of our Articles, reply, in 12 178 THE PRIMITIVE EIREXICOK. words which were placed in the parish churches of England ? " If it were certain that the religion and truth of God passeth ever more orderly by succession, and none otherwise, then were succession, where- of he hath told us so long a tale, a very good substantial argument of the truth. But Christ saith, by order of succession, ' The Scribes and Pharisees sit in Moses' chair.' Annas and Caiaphas, touching succession, were as well bishops as Aaron and Eliezar. Of succession, St. Paul saith unto the faithful at Ephesns : ' I know that after my departure hence, ravening wolves shall succeed me. And out of yourselves there shall (by succession) spring up men speak- ing perversely.' Therefore St. Hierome saith: ' They be not always the children of holy men That (by succession) have the places of holy men.' As the Scribes and Pharisees succeeded Moses, perverting and breaking the laws of Moses ; even so do the bishops of Rome this day succeed Christ, perverting and breaking the laws of Christ. . . . Such affiance some time had the Scribes and Pharisees in their succession. There- fore they said : ' We are the children of Abra- ham;' unto us hath God made his promises: ' Art thou greater than our father Abraham ? ' As for Christ * we know not from whence he came,' or what can he show for his succession. And when Christ began to reform their abuses TRUfc: APOSTOLIC SUCCESSION. 170 and errors, they said unto him, ' By what power doest thou these things. And who gave thee this authority?' Where is thy succession ? Thus to maintain themselves in credit, for that they had continuance and succession from Aaron and sat in Moses' chair, they kept Christ quite out of possession, and said unto Him, even as Mr. Hard- ing saith now unto us : ' Who ever taught us these things before thee? What ordinary succession and vocation had thou ? What bishop admitted thee? Who confirmed thee ? Who allowed thee ? ' . . . All other things failing, they must hold only by succession ; and only because they sit in Moses' chair they must claim the possession of the whole. " This is the right and virtue of their succession. . . . We neither have bishops without church, nor church without bishops. Neither doth the Church of England this day depend of them whom you often call apostates, as if our Church were no church without them. . . . They are for a great part learned and grave and godly men, and are ashamed to see your follies. Notwithstand- ing, if there were not one, neither of them nor of us, left alive, yet would not therefore the whole Church of England flee to Louvaine. . . Whoso- ever is a member of Christ's body, whosoever is a child of the Church, whosoever is baptized in Christ and beareth his name, is fully invested with their priesthood, and therefore may justly be 180 THE riUMITIVE EIRENrCO^^ called a priest. And wheresoever there be three such together, as Tertullian saith, ' yea, though they be only laymen, yet have they a church!' . . . God's name be blessed forever! We want neither church nor priesthood, nor any kind of sacrifice that Christ hath left unto his faithful." " Faith Cometh (not by succession, but) by hear- ing; and hearing cometh (not of legacy or inher- itance from bishop to bishop, but) of the word of God. 'Succession,' you say, 'is the chief way for any Christian man to avoid Antichrist.' I grant you if you mean the succession of doctrine. It is not sufficient to claim succession of place, it behoveth us rather to have regard to succession of doctrine." (" Works," iii. 320, 38, 48.) BISHOP PILKINGTON (died 1575). Bishop Pilkington, one of the Revisers, remarks (" Works," p. 600), " Succession in doctrine makes them the sons of the prophets and apostles, and not sitting in the same seat nor being bishops of the same place . . . There cannot be proved a suc- cession of tlieir bishops in any one place of this realm since the Apostles. ... So stands the suc- cession of the Church not in mitres, palaces, lands, or lordships, but in teaching some religion and sort- ing out the contrary. . . . He that does these things is the true successor of the Apostles. . . . When they can bring the Apostles' doctrine or life, for example, to be like their life and teaching, they may say they follow the Apostles." •TRUE APOSTOLIC SUCCKSSION. l8i DR. WIIITTAKER (died 1595). The learned Professor Whittaker, in reply to Beliarmin's "Disputation of Scripture ". (p. 570), writes : " Thougii we should concede the succes- sion of that Church unbroken and entire, yet that succession would be a matter of no weight, be- cause we regard not the external succession of place and persons, but the internal one of faith and doctrine." And elsewhere he says: "Faith is, as it were, the soul of the succession, which faith, being wanting, the naked succession of persons is like a dead carcass without the soul. The Fathers indeed always much more regarded the succession of faith than any unbroken series of men." DR. wii.LKT (died 1621). Dr. Willet, in his « Synopsis Papismi" (p. 276), writes: "Every godly and faithful bishop is a successor of the Apostles. We deny it not, and so are all godly and faithful pastors and ministers. The province of succession, we see, is in the preaching of the Word, which appertaineth as well to other pastors and ministers as to bishops." DR. FULKE (died 1589). Dr. Fulke, a noted antagonist of Popery, in his answer to Stapleton (p. 74), says : "The Scrip- ture requireth no succession of names, persons, or places, but of faith and doctrine ; and that we 182 THE PRIMITIVE EIRENICON. prove when we affirm our faith and doctrine by the doctrine of the Apostles. Neither had the Fathers any other meaning, in calling upon new upstart heresies for their succession, but by a succession of doctrine, as well as of persons." . . . And against Sanders (p. 26) : " The same au- thority of preaching and ministering the sacra- ments, of binding and loosing, which the Apostles had, is perpetual in the Church, in the bishop and elders, which are all successors of the Apostles." BISHOP BiLSOX (died 1G16). Bishop Bilson, appealed to by Keble in support of his views, makes this forcible statement, as quoted by Brown, in his " Letters to Pusey ' (p. 288) : " The succession is of no weight, unless truth of doctrine and purity of life be added to it." DR. SUTCLIFFE (died 1629). Dr. Sutcliffe, also appealed to by Keble, thus writes : " Stapleton asserts that we (the Protes- tant churches) are destitute of the succession. And he thinks we are terribly pressed by this argument; but without reason. For the exter- nal succession, which both heretics often have and the orthodox have not, is of no moment. Not even our adversaries themselves, indeed, are certain respecting their own succession. But we are certain, that our doctors have succeeded to the Apostles and prophets and most ancient TRUE APOStOLiC SUCCESSION. 183 Fathers. And moreover, if there is any weight in external succession, they have succeeded to the bishops and presbyters throughout Germany, France, England, and other countries, and were ordained by them." (" De vera Eccles." p. 37, 38.) CALFHILL (died 1570). In his " Treatise on the Cross," p. 230, this divine, bishop elect of Worcester, writes : " 1. And who- soever will be successors unto the Apostles, must use this ministry, this trade of doctrine, which, if they continue in being lawfully called thereunto by God, and have gifts competent to approve their calling unto the world, they care not for the sign of the cross to be imprinted in them, the virtue whereof never departed from them. Certain it is that neither Scripture nor any learned father commendeth the blessing of prayer to us. And how yo«r wisdom doth esteem the wagging of a bishop's fingers I greatly force not. I looked rather that ye should have commended the oil for anointing, which the greasy merchants will have in every mess. "2. For the character indelebilis., 'the mark un- removable,' is thereby given. Yet there is a way to have it out well enough, to rub them well favorably with salt and ashes, or, if that will not serve, with a little soap." 184 The PRrMITltE ElREXtCOK. ARcnnisHor Bancroft (died 1610). " It is most apparent, and cannot be denied, but that Irenaeus, Cyprian, TertuUian, Ambrose, Jerome, Augustine, and divei's other ancient writers, do call the bishops the Apostles' succes- sors ; insomuch as some of them, especially the authors of the ecclesiastical histories, do draw long catalogues of the particular bishops' names that succeeded the Apostles, and other apostolical men whom they made bishops, which catalogues and manner of speech of the said Fathers, being used by them very fitly against such heretics as did arise up in their days, have since, in our time, been greatly abused by the Papists. Unto whom the learned men, tiiat have stood for the truth against them, by writing have contihually an- swered, that the Fathers' arguments, drawn from the said personal succession of bishops, were very effectual so long as the succession of the Apostles' doctrine did concur; wherewithal that the Fathers, in urging of the first, had ever an esp&ciaJ eye to the second, some point of doctrine being ever called in question by the said heretics." (" Survey," chap, xxvii. p. 333.) ARCHDKACOx MASON (died 1621). " That assertion of Stapleton's, to wit, that ' wheresoever this succession is, there is also a true Catholic Church,' cannot be defended; but Bellarmin saith, far more truly: 'It is not necessarily gathered that the Church is always TRtJR APOSTOLIC SUCCESStON. 185 where there is succession.' For, besides this out- ward succession, there must be likewise the in- ward succession of doctrine to make a true church. Irenaeiis describeth those which have a true suc- cession from the Apostles, ' to be such as with the succession of the episcopal office have received the certain grace of truth.' And this kind of suc- cession he calleth 'the principal succession.' So Gregory Nazianzen, having said ' that Athanasius succeeded St. Mark in godliness,' addeth, that ' this succession in godliness is properly to be ac- counted succession ; for he that holdeth the same doctrine is also partaker of the same throne ; but he that is against the doctrine must be reported an adversary, even while he sitteth on the throne, for the latter hath the name of succession, but the former hath the thing itself, and the truth.' There- fore you must prove your succession in doctrine, otherwise you must be holden for adversaries, even while you sit on the throne." (" On the Consecra- tion of the Bishops, &c., in the Church of Eng- land," book ii. chap. i. p. 41-43.) Archdeacon Mason elsewhere remarks : " Seeing a priest is equal to a bishop in the power of order, he hath equally intrinsical power to give orders." (Tract, p. 160.) It is evident, from these prominent writers of the reign of Elizabeth, that the same view was taken of succession, as was held by the Compilers under Edward. 186 THE PRIMITIVE EIRENICON. BISHOP BABINGTON (died 1610). If we pass to the next generation of divines trained under the Revisers, we find Bishop Bab- ington, of the Commission of 1604, declaring : " They are true successors of the Apostles that succeed in virtue, holiness, truth, etc. . . . Not that sit on the same stool. Faith cometh by hearing, saith St. Paul (not by succession), and hearing cometh (not by legacy or inheritance from bishop to bishop), but by the Word of God." DEAN FIELD (died 1616). Dean Field on the same Commission, writes (Bk. ii. ch. 30): " Thus still we see that truth of doctrine is a necessary note whereby the Church must be known and discovered, and not ministry, or succession, or anything else without it." Bk. iii. ch. 39, lie writes : " It is most evident, that that wherein a bishop excelieth a presbyter is not a distinct power and order, but an eminence and dignity only, specially yielded to one above all the rest of the same rank for order's sake, and to preserve the peace and unity of the Church. If bishops become enemies to God and true relig- ion, in case of such necessity, as the care and government of the Church is devolved to the pres- byters remaining Catholic and being of a better spirit, so the duty of ordaining such as are to as- sist or succeed them in the ministry pertains to them likewise." TRUK APOSTOLIC StJCCESSTON. 187 BISHOP DAVENAXT (died 1641). Bishop Davenant, a deputy to the Synod of Dort, observes : " All boast about local succession is empty, unless a succession of true doctrine be also proved." (Alport's" Life of Davenant," i. 20.) BISHOP FRAXCIS WHITE (died lt)24). Bishop Francis White, of Ely (p. 64) : " The true visible Church is named apostolical, not be- cause of local and personal succession of bishops, (only or principally), but because it retaineth the faith and doctrine of the Apostles. Personal or local succession only, and in itself, maketh not the Church apostolical." Dii. THOMAS WHITE (died 1604). Dr. White, Prebendary of St. Paul's, in reply to a Jesuit's objection, " The Protestant Church is not apostolic because they cannot derive their pedigree lineally without interruption from the Apostles, as the Roman Church can from St. Peter, but are forced to acknowledge some other, as Calvin, Luther, or some such,'' replies: " Our answer. is, that the succession required to make a church apostolic, must be defined by the doctrine, and not by the place or person. Wheresoever the true faith contained in the Scriptures is properly embraced, there is the whole and full nature of the Apostolic Church. For the external succes- sion we care not." 188 THR PRIMITIVE KIRENrCON. ARCHBISHOP LAUD (died 1645). Archbishop Laud, to whom we are indebted for the introduction of exclusive churchmanship into the English Church, makes a remarkable concession with respect to the point we are con- sidering. He writes, in reply to Fisher, the Jesuit : " Be- sides for succession in general, I shall say this : It is a great happiness where it may be had visi- ble and continued, and a great conquest over the mutability of this present world. But I do not find any one of the ancient Fathers that makes local, personal, visible, and continued succession a necessary sign or mark of the Church in any one • place. . . . Most evident it is, that the succession which the Fathers meant is not tied to place or person, but it is tied to purity of doctrine," Else- where he says: " I have endeavored to unite the Calvinists and Lutherans ; nor have I absolutely unchurched them. I say indeed in my book against Fisher, according to St. Jerome, No bishop, no church; and that none but a bishop can ordain, except in cases of inevitable neces- sity ; and whether that be the case in the foreign churches the world may judge." With regard to the necessity of an uninter- rupted, tactual, episcopal succession, to constitute a valid ministry, we present the opinions of a few modern Episcopal writers of acknowledged eminence. TRUE APOSTOLIC SUCCESSION. 189 DEAN PEARSON. Dean Pearson, of Salisbury, in his Charge, 1842, objects to " this assertion of the absolute necessity of the apostolic succession of episcopacy to the existence of a Christian Church, or to the validity and efficacy of the Christian Sacrament; a posi- tion which, however countenanced by the opin- ions, whether of ancient or modern writers, and consistent as it is with the spirit of Romanism, I venture to affirm, without fear of successful con- tradiction, has never been assumed by the Church of England ; which, while asserting in the preface to her offices of Consecration and Ordination, the apostolic origin of the third order of ministers in Christ's Church, and while lamenting by iier accredited writers, as an imperfection and defect, the want of the episcopal order in some of the Reformed churches on the Continent, does not excommunicate, or on that account refuse to ac- knowledge them, while adhering to the orthodox faith, as to all that is essential, as true and living branches of Christ's Universal Church." DEAN ALFORD. • This modern standard commentator, on the proof text of Scripture, upon which the scheme of Apostolic Succession is based. Matt, xxviii. 16-20, writes : — "We are therefore obliged to conclude that others were present (beside the eleven), Whether these 190 THE PRIMITIVE EIRENICOJf. others were the ' five hundred brethren at once,' of whom Paul speaks, does not appear. ' Go ye therefore and teach,'' etc. Demonstrably, this was not understood as spoken to the Apostles only ; but to all the brethren. To understand ' icilh you ' only of the Apostles and their successors is to de- stroy the whole force of these most weighty words. Descending even into literal exactness, we may see that ' teaching them to observe all things what- soever I have commanded yott,^ makes ' them. ' into ' you ' as soon as they are ' made disciples.^ The command is to the universal Church — to be per- formed, in the nature of things, by her ministers and teachers, the manner of appointing which is not here prescribed, but to be learned in the un- foldings of Providence, recorded in the Acts of the Apostles, who by his special ordinance were the founders and first builders of that Church ; but whose office, on that very account, precluded the idea of succession or renewal." BISHOP O'bRIEX. Bishop O'Brien, of Ossory, writes, in his Charge, 184!5 : "All our great divines, who maintain the reality and advantages of a succession ' from the Apostles' time,' of episcopally consecrated bish- ops, and episcopally ordained ministers to the Church, and who rejoice in the possession of it by our own Church, as a signal blessing and priv- ilege, not only do not maintain that this is abso- TRUE APOSTOLIC SUCCESSION. 191 lutely essential to the being of a church, but are at pains to make it clear that they do not hold that it is." BISHOP HOPKIXS. Our late presiding Bishop Hopkins, in his " Re- ply to Milner," vol. ii. p. 3, makes a similar state- ment : " Dr. Milner asserts that the Church of England unchurches all other Protestant commun- ions which are without the apostolical succession of bishops. Whereas, on the contrary, not only does Hooker, whom he quotes on the previous page, but all the Reformers, together with Jewel, Andrewes, Usher, Bramhall, and in a word, the whole of our standard divines, agree in maintain- ing that Episcopacy is not necessary to the being, but only to the well-being of the Church ; and hence they grant the names of churches to all denominations of Christians who hold the funda- mental doctrines o/" ^/R. fiENRY A. BOARDMAN. 275 testifying in favor of their own titles, emolu- ment, grandeur and power. "They had a very deep interest at stake. An interest sufficient, if not to stake their credibility on this point, yet greatly to reduce its value. On the contrary, Jerome had noth- ing to gain, but much to lose. He put his interest and peace in jeopardy. He had to encounter the hostility of the episcopal order, and of all who aspired to its hoDors. He had to resist the growing encroachment and corrup- tion, and that under the formidable protection of a civil establishment. He had, therefore, every possible inducement to be sure of his facts before he attacked a set of dignitaries who were not, in his age, the most forbearing of mankind. " The conclusion is, that Jerome, as we have said, is a more unexceptionable witness than any prelate Their silence under his challenges is more than a presumption that they found it wise to let him alone Jerome, with the register of antiquity in his hand, and the train of presbyters at his back, was too potent an adversary." DR. HENRY A. BOARDMAN. From the work of this author on the " High Church Doctrine of the Apostolical Succession," 276 THE HISTORIC EPISCOPATE. we make the following extract on the point under discussion. " The Christian Fathers are entitled to the same respect as men of equal piety and intel- ligence in other ages of the Church, but the exorbitant veneration entertained for them by Romanists and High Churchmen, has been a source of incalculable mischief to the Church. . . . . The assurance, however, with which Prelatists are in the habit of asserting that the testimony of the Primitive Church is entirely in their favor, makes it proper to divert on this point for a little, before proceeding with the argument. " I shall show in another connection, that it was the common judgment of the Reformers and the Reformed Churches, that bishops and presbyters are by divine institution one order, and that the existing arrangement in Prelatical Churches by which the powers of jurisdiction and ordination have been taken from presbyters, and given exclusively to the bishops, is a matter of mere human arrangement. " For the present, I content myself with cit- ing the testimony of a single witness from antiquity in proof of these points. This wit- ness is the celebrated Jerome, who flourished about the year four hundred, and of whom Erasmus declared, that * he was without con- bR. HENRY A. BOARDMAN, 27? troversy, the most learned of all Christians, the prince of divines, and that for eloquence he excelled Cicero.' The extracts that follow will furnish an adequate answer to the questions so often asked, ahout the time and manner of the rise of Prelacy. I give them from Dr. Mason's translation." Examining Jerome, and employing the line of argument of Dr. Mason ; after referring to the Church of Alexandria ; he concludes : " Finally, Jerome states that even in Ins time, i. e., towards the end of the fourth century, there was no power excepting ordination, exercised by a bishop which might not be exercised by a pres- byter. ' What does a bishop,' he asks, ' except- ing ordination, which a presbyter may notdo ?' Notwithstanding the innovations he describes, had already been made, and episcopacy intro- duced (as a remedy for schism !) yet even in hia time the new order of things was not wholly established. Ordination had been given up to the bishops, but the presbyters had not sur- rendered entirely the right o( Jurisdiction, nor indeed any other right. They afterwards lost even this measure of independence. They were obliged to succumb to the bishops, as the bishops, in turn, were to the metropolitans and patriarchs, and these, at last, to the Pope." After an exhaustive examination of the sub- 278 THE HISTORIC EPISCOPATE. ject, he proceeds: "These extracts show that it is the common judgment of Reformed Chris- tendom, a party in the Church of England, and in the Episcopal Church in this country ex- cepted, that bishops and presbyters are, accord- ing to the Word of God, of one order, and that PRESBYTERS, equally with bishops, have a right TO ORDAIN. " It detracts nothing from the force of this conclusion, that the Churches just named, prac- tically deny the validity of Presbyterial ordi- nation. We quote the Church of England, both as to theory and practice, against itself, and leave it to its friends to harmonize its in- consistencies. As regards its refusal to recog- nize any except Prelatical ordinations, it is to be regretted that that Church, and its daughter this side of the Atlantic, should have suflFered the High Churchism, which was so heartily repudiated by its founders, to place them in a position which has so offensive and Popish an aspect towards other evangelical Churches, be- cause this cannot but have an injurious effect upon the general interests of Christianity. " But if they choose to give themselves up to the sway of this spirit — if their bishops should even take Laud himself, the all but canonized ' confessor and martyr,' of the Ox- ford, coterie, for their model, as indeed some DR. HENRY A. BOARDMAN. 279 of them seem quite willing to do — it could not cancel their past testimony to the great scrip- tural truth, that presbyters and bishops are identical in ordor, and are, so far as the divine institution of the office is concerned, clothed with the same powers." Chrjsostora, a contemporary of Jerome, in speaking of the difference between presbyters and bishops, uses language which implies that presbyters bad lost their former right of ordi- nation, and that they were somehow unfairly deprived of it. He says: " There is no great difference between a bishop and a presbyter. . . . In the ordination only, have they gone above, and in that thing only seem to take advantage oi {pleonectein\ the presbyters." The word fleonectein, in New Testament Greek means to defraud, to' circumvent — see 2 Cor. ii. 11 ; xii. 17, 18 ; 1 These, iv. 6. Harrison, " Church of the Fathers," p. 263-4, has shown that Chrysostom, in his Commentary, gives the word this meaning on the above texts. We have thus far presented this additional testimony from the brightest Lights in the Congregational, Methodist, and Presbyterian Churches; and all American but two; to fur- ther emphasize the fact, that the custom of election and ordination of bishops by presby- 280 THE HISTORIC EPISCOPATB!. ters, which prevailed in the Patriarchal Church in Alexandria for two centuries, is thoroughly understood in those Churches, so largely pre- dominant in this land ; and that all hope of leading their ministers and members to em- brace the views of the comparatively diminu- tive number of Protestant Christians, who hold to a divine order of bishops in Apostolic succes- sion ; possessing the sole, exclusive power of imparting a right to preach and administer sacraments, by the laying on of their hands in ordination ; is utterly futile, and that these claims, so openly and persistently made, are necessarily becoming more and more offensive, as their unreasonableness and unsoundness are becoming more apparent. As this class of people rely so largely on the effect of Episcopal ordination, we shall offer additional decisive testimony, from the writings of divines of the highest rank as scholars, on whom Episcopal hands have been laid; who defend Episcopacy on the ground of its Original institution, a& a human and desirable arrange- ment, when regarded in its true light as an Ojffice ; but necessarily injurious when wrongly held to be an order, and that divinely diverse from that of Presbyter. DR. Q, A. JACOB. 281 AI>DrriONAL CONFIRMATORY TESTIMONY FROM CIIURCn OF ENGLAND DIVINES, To the decisive testimony already presented hy English Episcopal Divines, Willet, Usshcr, Siillingfleet, Stanley, Litton, Goode and Riddle, as to the historical fact concerning the Church of Alexandria, we now offer additional evidence in the same line, by other equally eruinent Theologians of the same Communion. REV. DR. G. A. JACOB. This writer, whose work on " Ecclesiastical Polit_y " has been widely adopted as a Text Book, says: "The episcopate in the modern acceptation of the term, and as a distinct clerical order, does not appear in the N^ew Testa- ment, but was gradually introduced and ex- tended throughout the Church at a later period." After examining the patristic evidence on the subject, he continues : "The origin of Epis- copacy is expressly acknowledged by patristic testimony even in the fourth century, when there was so strong a tendency to magnify the bishop's office. It is acknowledged that churches were at first governed by the comnion advice of presbyters; that schisms and con- tentions among them made it necessary to place one over the others, and that the custom of the 282 THE HISTORIC EPISCOPATK. Church, ratlier than any orditiatice of the Lord, made bishops greater than the rest. Let Je- rome's unmistakable •words be a sufficient evi- dence of this: 'Idem est ergo Presbyter qui P^l'iscopus,' etc. . . . The episcopal office in its original institution was one of simple piority among the other ministers, rather than a superior order in the Church. ... A very interesting account of the successive advances . . . made in the second and third centuries is given by Prof. Lightfoot in his treatise on the Christian Ministry, appended to his edition of the Epistle to the Philippians. He there points out that the development of the episcopal authority was marked by three distinct stages of progress, which were connected respectively with the names of Ignatius, Irenaeus, and Cyprian. In the time of Ignatius, the bishop then only primus inter pares among his co- presbyters, was regarded as a centre of unity ; in the time of Irenaeus, he was looked upon as the depository of Scriptural truth ; and with Cyprian the bishop was the absolute vicegerent of Christ in things spiritaal in the Church." Dr. J. speaks of " the tendency to thrust the Church usages of later times upon the apostolic age, without regard to the facts in the case." "Jerome expressly affirms that it was eccle- siastical custom, and the desire to prevent dis- DR. G. A. JACOB. 283 putea, and not any divine law that caused the distinction between bishops and presbyters. This distinction according to him, consisting principally, if not solely, in the authority to ordain. Long after the general establishment of Episcopacy, and reaching even to the fourth century, traces are to be found of presbyterian ordinations still retaining their place in the Christian Church. " Prof. Lightfoot quotes a decree of the Council of Ancyra (a. d. 314), to the effect that neither tlio country bishops nor the ctty pres- byters were to give ordinations without permis- sion from the bishop of the diosese in writing. . . . ' It is especially important to observe that they lay more stress on episcopal sanction than on Episcopal ordination.' " " Anotlier remarkable testimony to the ex- istence and long continuance of presbyterian ordination is given by Eutychius, a Patriarch of Alexandria." Then quoting Eutychius, he adds: "This distinct testimony of Eutychius is confirmed by Jerome, who lived so close to tlie time when the Alexandrian practice was still in force." Eccle. Pol. pp. 67, 80, 112. THE HISTORIC EPISCOPAfE. DR. LIQHTFOOT, BISHOP OF DURHAM. This eminent scholar, recently deceased, re- ferred to by Dr. Jacob, is styled by Bishop Browne, of Ely, as " one of the ablest, most learned, and most candid of living divines." In his Commentary of Phillipians, p. 96, he writes : " Of the identity of the ' bishop ' and ' presbyter ' in the language of the apostolic age, the following evidence seems conclusive." Pre- senting the ordinary proof texts he proceeds : "Nor is it only in the apostolic writings that this identity is found. St. Clement wrote prob- ably in the last decade of the first century, and in his language the terms are convertible. " Towards the close of the second century the original application of the term ' bishop ' seems to have passed not only out of use, but almost out of memory. ... In the fourth century when the fathers of the Church began to .ex- amine the apostolic records with a more critical eye, they at once detected the fact. . . . Of his predecessors the Ambrosial Hilary had discerned the same truth. Of bis con- temporaries and successors, Chrysostom, Pela- gins, Theodore of Mopsuestia, Thooderet, all ac- knowlege it. Thus in every one of the extant Comraeutaries on the epistles containing the crucial passages, whether Greek or Latin, DR. LIGHTFOOT, 285 before the close of the fifth century, this identity is affirmed, 'p. 230.' Even in the fourth and fifth century when the independence and power of the episcopate had reached its maximum, it waa still customary for a bishop in writing to a presbyter to address him as 'fellow presbyter,' thus bearing testimony to a substantial identity of order. Nor does it appear that this view was ever questioned until the Reformation." After quoting Jerome, Hilary and Augus- tine, and referring to Cyprian, and to references presented by Giesler, he proceeds : " The case of the Alexandrian Church, which has already been presented casually, deserves special notice. St. Jerome, after denouncing the audacity of certain persons, who would give to deacons the precedence over presbyters, that is over bishops," and alleging Scriptural proofs of the identity of the two, gives the following fact in illustration: "At Alexandria, etc." After quoting Jerome he writes: "Though the direct statement of this father refers only to the appointment of the bishop, still it may be inferred that the function of the presbyters ex- tended also to the consecration. And this in- ference is borne out by other evidence. ' In Egypt,' writes an older contemporary of St. Je- rome, the commentator Hilary, the presbyters seal {i. e. ordain or consecrate), if the bishop b^ 286 THE HISTORIC EPISCOPATE. not present. This, however, might refer only to the ordination of presbyters, and not to the consecration of a bishop. But even the latter is supported 'by direct evidence, which though comparatively late deserves consideration, inas- much as it comes from one who was himself a patriarch of Alexandria. Eutychius, who held the patriarchal See from A. D. 933 to A. D. 940, writes as follows : ' The Evangelist Mark, etc' ... It is clear from this passage that Eutychius considered the functions of nomina- tion and ordination to rest with the same per- sons." " At the close of the second century, when every considerable Church in Europe appears to have had its bishop, the only representative of the episcopal order in Egypt was the bishop of Alexandria. ... It was a matter of con- venience and almost of necessity that the Alex- andrian presbyters should themselves ordain their chief." Bishop Ligbtfoot proceeds to show how the views of the episcopate in regard to power, changed gradually, and decidedly in the periods represented by Ignatius, Ireneeus, and Cyprian; as we have seen referred to by Dr. Jacob. Then discussing the claim of Sacerdo- talism ; by reference to Clement, Ignatius, Polycarp, Justin, Irenseus, and Clement of DR. EDWIN HATCH. 287 Alexandria, he proves that these fathers at- tached no such office to the Christian ministry ; but that " TertuUian is the first to assert direct sacerdotal claims on behalf of the Christian ministry." The march of sacerdotal ideas was probably slower at Alexandria than at Carthage or Rome." The reason is clear, the office of the bishop was not unscriptually and unreasonably magnified. DK. EDWIN HATCH. Few works in this age have produced a deeper impression than *' The Organization of the Early Christian Churches," by the Bamp- ton Lectures for 1S80. The work was soon translated into German. The Brit. Quar., Jan- uary, 1883, p. 127, says of it: "What Nie- buhr did for Roman, and Grote for Grecian history, Hallam, Stubbs and Freeman have done for English history. Mr. Hatch has done the same for Church history, and with a bold- ness and noble fidelity to truth, so far as it can be ascertained, which refuses to be biased by either Church traditions, or party interests . . . Its patient investigations and conclusions distinctly mark an epoch in the history of ecclesiastical traditions." Principal Fairbairn thus writes of this work: "We cannot but admire its fine analytical 288 THE HISTORIC EPISCOPATE. qualities, its delicate appreciation of the forces at work, and the true sense for history and historical movement that pervades it. The book is a healthy one, and will help to set the question it discusses in a fresh light before the Anglican, as distinguished from the English student. . . . English scholarships, broadened and illumined by German, is becoming too critical in spirit and historical in method, to spare the old high Anglican doctrines. The Divine right of Episcopacy is dead ; it died of the light created by historical criticism. It is open to no manner of doubt that the modern bishop has no place in the I^evv Testament." This powerful writer (Dr. Fairbairn), has so clearly shown how the Sacerdotal system grew out of the perversion of the Primitive Epis- copate, that we quote him : ^' A priestless was too pure a religion ; men were not yet spiritual enough for it. The sacerdotal was every where esteemed the sacred; what was not sensuously holy was not holy at all. Jew and Greek alike knew the priest, neither knew any religion without him, and to bring down Christ to their level was easier than to rise to His. It was more familiar and natu- ral, more in harmony with universal and imme- morial custom to speak of the person active in things religious as a priest, than as an elder, or DR. EDWIN HATCH. 289 teacher, or preacher. And the more important and authoritative the bishop became, the stronger grew the tendency to invest him with sacer- dotal functions. " The inevitable result begins to appear in Tertullian. The bishop becomes to him sacer- dos. The presbyters, indeed, form an ordo sacer- dotalis, and the bishop is sunmus sacerdos, and porUifex maximus. Hypolytus denotes the office by the terms archiemtia to kai didashalia. Cy- prian, of course, goes further, and his bishop is uniformly sacerdos, his associates consacerdotes, and the presbyters are cum episcopo sacerdotali honore covjuncti. " In the Apostolic Constitutions the bishop is frequently designated iereus^ and once, indeed, arehiereus. These terms show the work of deprivation complete : the priestless religion made thoroughly priestly ; Christianity trans- formed into a hierarchic and sacerdotal system, ceased to be the religion of Christ. All that He had most hated in Judaism, entered and took possession of the faith that called itself by His name. Ills Church ceased to be a society of the like-minded, where the freedom of the spirit reigned ; became a stupendous sacerdotal civitns or state, where the ecclesiastic was su- preme, and obedience was conformity to his institutions." Brit, Quar., Oct., 1881, 210. 290 THE HISTORIC EPISCOPATE. A few extracts from Dr. Hatch's work will be given to show the drift of a volume which will amply repay critical study. On p. 83, he writes: "I approach this question with the greater diffidence because an hypothesis has long been current which does not admit of direct refutation, and which assigns the origin of this quasi monarchical government to an institution of either our Lord Himself, or the Apostles acting under His express directions. But in spite of the venerable names by which for many centuries, and in many Churches this hypothesis has been maintained, and in spite also of the disadvantage under which any one labors who declines the short and easy road which it seems to offer, and winds his way through a dense undergrowth of intricate facts, it is impossible, at least for some of us, to accept the belief that the episcopate forms an excep- tion to the general course of the divine govern- ment of the world, and to refrain from proceed- ing to the inquiry whether any causes are in operation which are adequate to account for its supremacy, without resorting to the hypoth- esis of a special and extraordinary institution. P. 98 : " The episcopate grew by the force of circumstances, in the order of Providence, to satisfy a felt need. It is pertinent to add that this view as to the chief cause which oper- DR. EDWIN HATCH. 291 ated to produce it has not the merit or demerit of novelty. Although the view must rest on its own inherent probability as a complete explana- tion of the known facts of the case, it has the sup- port of the earliest and greatest of ecclesiastical antiquaries, St. Jerome, arguing against the growing tendency to exalt the diaconate at the expense of the presbyterate, maintains that the Churches were originally governed by a plural- ity of presbyters, but that in course of time one was elected to preside over the rest as a remedy against division, lest different presbyters, hav- ing different views of doctrine, should, by each of them drawing a portion of the community to himself, cause divisions in it. The supremacy of a single officer which was thus forced upon the Churches by the necessity of unity of doc- trine, was consolidated by the necessity of unity in discipline." P. 105. "The view that bishops, and not presbyters, are the successors of the Apostles, appears first by implication in the claims of Zeph^ rinus and Calistus, during the Montanist controversy, to have the power of absolving penitents from sin, which appears to have been based on tlie assumption of their succession from St. Peter. (Tcrtullian de Fudic. 21, &c.)" P. 107 : " The Church writers of the fourth and filth ccnlnrics, Chrysostotn, E[ii[)lianins, 292 THE HISTORIC EPISCOPATE. Jerome, Hilary the deacon, expressly state that bishops and presbyters are equal, save in the one respect, that the former only have the right of appointing persons to Church office. It is main- tainable upon the evidence that, even in this one respect, the writers in question wrote only of the usage of their own times, and that in earlier times the interposition of a bishop was not always required. What the bishop was conceived of having, was not peculiarity of function, but priority of rank." The cases of the ordination of Daniel the monk, by Paph- nutius a presbyter, and earlier, that of Felicis- simus by Novatus another presbyter, whose va- lidity Cyprian does not question, are presented. P. 130: "The conception of ordination, so far as we can gather either from the words which were used to designate it, or from the elements which entered into it, was that simply of appointment and admission to office. " But there is one element, which was not present in admissions to civil office, and to which in later times great importance has been attached — the rite of the imposition of hands." After showing that in the form of ordination of a bishop in tlie Apostolic Constitutions, no mention was made of imposition of hands, he proceeds: "In entire harmony with this is the account which Jerome gives of the aduiibsiou DR. EDWIN HATCH. 293 to office of the bishop of Alexandria : after the election, the presbyters conduct the elected bishop to the chair: he is thereupon bishop de facloy He quotes from Jerome; refers to Eu- tychius, " as a later, but apparently independ- ent authority, to the same effect ;" mentions Flaccus Albinus as adoptinsj Jerome's aocoiiiit, which is also corroborated by the language of Synesius. " It follows from this that the rite was not universal : it is impossible that if it were not universal, it can have been regarded as esseu- tial." ... It appears that Gore, whom we have already quoted, attempted a reply to Hatch's Book. We have not seen it. The Brit. Quar. Review, Jany., 1883, remarks of it : " Mr. Hatch scarcely needed to have devoted the pages of his preface to this edition to reply to the pamphlet of Mr. Gore, which is ninch stronger in vehement lan- guage than in evidence and argument. "Mr. Hatch's work has well nigh paralyzed the advocates of the ecclesiastical traditions which it travcrsofi. No competent ecclesiastical historian has attempted a refutation of it." 294 THE HISTORIC EPISCOPATE. REV. THOMAS WYMBERLY MOBSMAN. Among the most thorough, original and sat- isfactory examinations of the organization of the Primitive Church of the first two centuries, is that of the author above named, Rector of Torrington. Like most Episcopal divines, in his early ministry, he held to three orders in the ministry : to a second ordination, and to the episcopal succession. He was led to an under- standing of the facts in the case, by a careful study of all primitive documents in the origi- nal. The results are seen in his "History of "the Early Christian Church," too little known in this country. This author was compelled by the light he received, to abandon all these positions. In Preface, p. xiv., he writes : "It has been too hastily assumed that Protestants, and Non-Conformists, as they are called, would not have had standing ground in the Primitive Church. I thought so once. Deeper reading, and reflection, have convinced me of the con- trary." "A student of the Fathers I had been all my life, but had always read them with a ready-made apparatus of Anglican views and theories at hand to interpret them, until, a few years ago, I resolved to review the whole of Ante-Nicene literature, divesting myself, as far RKV. T. W. MOBSMAN. 295 as I could, of all preconceived opinions. This history is the result of that review." With regard to this sulgect, Mossman says: "The original Constitution of the Church of Alexandria, it is scarcely too much to say, is the most important question of Ante-Nicene Christianity." " la order to arrive at the truth about tlie constitution of the Alexandrian Church we must collect and compare together all the state- ments which can be foujid in ancient writers bearing upon the question ; and although the impartial reader must judge for himself, we shall be mistaken, indeed, if the evidence to showr that that community was, originally, not what is now called an episcopal one, be not felt to be, taken as a whole, simply overwhelming." On p. 94, our author, quoting the language of Eutychius, remarks: "By making or con- stituting bishops where none had been before, it is probably meant that Derretrius and Ilier- aclas appointed in some of the principal cities of Egypt one presbyter to preside permanently over hig brethren, in the same way that they did themselves in the metroi)olis ; and as all the presbyters of Egypt seem to have been called bishops down to a late period, this will account for these Egyptian bishops, in the later senpc 296 THE HISTORIC EPISCOPATE. of the word, being called, as we have seen, archbishops. " Strenuous and persistent efforts have been made to shake or evade the force of this state- ment of Eutychius, but it is far from easy to do so. In the first place, he was Patriarch of Alexandria himself, and however ignorant he may have been in other respects, he may fairly be supposed to have some knowledge of the history of his own Church. Then, his work only professed to be a Chronicle, containing the annals of the Church of Alexandria. Unless, therefore, he invented these stories, he must have derived them from ancient sources, extant in his own day. But the supposition that he invented them cannot be entertained for a moment. " Eutychius lived at a period when it was a thousandfold more .probable that any one, a bishop above all, would forge history to sup- port the theory of exclusive episcopal ordina- tion, than that they would invent it in favor of presbyterianism. Eutychius wrote at a time when episcopal ordination had been pretty firmly established as the rule throughout the whole Christian Church for nearly six centu- ries. He would be perfectly aware that his statement about Alexandria would have the Rev. T. W. MOSSMAIf. 297 effect of lowering the estimation in which his Church was held by the rest of Christendom. " The truth of the matter is, that St. Jerome tells us the same things as Eutychius in differ- ent words. But all that this great Father says upon Episcopacy, and upon the ancient or rather original and apostolic constitution of the Alexandrians, that is to say, the Egyptian Church, is of such immense importance that it will be best to give it in full." Jerome's Com- ments on Scripture are then presented. P. 98. " It is indeed most beautiful to find how, as we study the annals of the Primitive Church, the light breaks forth ever more and more clearly upon us. The mists into which later controversialists and upholders of theories have enveloped almost- every subject, are dispelled before the bright beams of Truth, and the Church of Christ becomes visible to us, with her fair, pure face, as she was at the beginning. "All ancient writers are brought into perfect harmony with each other — the Apostles them- selves, St. Ignatius of Antioch, St. Clement of Rome, Tertullian, St. Chrysostom, St. Jerome, even St. Cyprian, the traditions of particular Churches, facts of history without number, which no longer require to be explained away, but fit harmoniously into the fair edifice of historical truth, all unite iu testifying with 298 THE HISTORIC EPISCOPATE;. accordant voice what the great doctor of the Church, St. Jerome, proclaims iu the worda quoted above, that Episcopacy was not of the Lord's institution, but was a custom which grew up to take away schism." Then quoting the language of Jerome with respect to the Alexandrian Church, he writes: " How it is possible for any one, most of all for that school which professes to glory in accept- ing the Fathers as witnesses to the faith and practice of the Primitive Church, to shut their eyes to the testimony of St. Jerome, is one of those mysteries which will probably always remain a perplexity to the student of moral philosophy. To the objection that Jerome says : " "What is there, except ordination, which a bishop does, which a presbyter may not do?" He replies: "The answer to this is obvious. St. Jerome in this last passage is not writing history; he is not saying what presbyters could or could not do at the beginning of the Church ; he merely says that even then, at the close of the fourth century after Christ, after all the inno- vations which had taken place — the only differ- ence between a bishop and a presbyter was, that it was not lawful for the latter to ordain." And this no one ever thought of disputing. Every moderately informed person in his day reV. t. w, mobsman. m knew that innovating bishops, such as Alex- ander, and innovating councils, such as Ancyra, had taken away the rights of the presbytery. And as the whole Church appeared to acquiesce in the loss of freedom for the sake of peace, there was nothing left for such writers at St. Jerome, except to call attention to the original identity of bishops and priests. To the common suggestion that bishops were called in from abroad to consecrate the Alex- andrian Patriarch, Mossman replies: "The election of a bishop by presbyters was not such an unusual event in the fourth century, that St. Jerome should go out of his way to point out that it had been the custom in Egypt about a century previous. It must be remembered that St. Jerome felt it a part of his mission to put down episcopal and prelatic pride, and to recall men's minds to the original constitution of the Church ; and tliis being the case, he could have found abundant evidence much nearer at hand, if he had only wanted to ehow that priests could elect their bishops." To the supposition that the twelve who elected the patriarch were a'college of bishops, it is replied, that there is not a shadow of proof for it, that the idea is opposed by the direct statement of Eutychius; that the patriarch 8U0 THE HiSTORiC EPISCOPATE. would have needed no fresh consecration, being already a bishop. " If Ave at once recognize the simple fact that, during the third century, the patriarchs of Alexandria gradually altered the original constitution of their Church, and brought it into conformity with the practice of the rest of the Church Catholic, which about a.d. 250 was assuming a rigidly episcopal form, then all be- comes clear, simple and straightforward ; ex- planations so called are unneeded, paradoxes vanish, and historical nebulous mists melt away before the keen, searching glance of honest criticism." P. 102 : " Whatever modern writers may assert to the contrary, ancient authors give no countenance to the theory that no alterations have taken place in the Church of Christ. . . . Thus a writer in the fourth century, who passes under the name of Ambrosiaster, and whose writings are usually bound up with those of St. Ambrose, has a remarkable and interest- ing passage upon the changes which had taken place up to his day. If this writer were, as some learned meil suppose, a deacon of the Roman Church named Hilary, his testimony is still more valuable, for while asserting the original absolute identity of bishops and priests, ftEV. t. W. MOBSMAN. 301 he speaks strongly of the immense difference between priests and deacons." Criticising a remark of Hilary about Evange- lists, Mossman writes: "The fact that Mark himself, who certainly did not hold any higher rank in the Apostolic Church than that of one of the seventy disciples, in other words, of pres- byter, or elder, yet ordained other presbyters, is a proof that presbyters had the power of ordination. If there were any truth in the episcopal theory, that bishops have succeeded in the place of the Apostles, presbyters of the seventy elders, St. Mark ought to have been ordained bishop, before he himself could ordain. But all antiquity testifies that Mark was never anything higher than a presbyter." After quoting another Hilary, who writes : " For in Alexandria and throughout the whole of Egypt, if a bishop be absent, a presbyter consecrates ;" our author says : " Error is long lived and dies hard ; but it may perhaps be hoped, that after this nothing further will be heard of bishops being accounted a superior order to priests, upon any higher ground than that of a supposed convenient and profitable ecclesiastical arrangement." Mossman in his work of 514 pages thoroughly ventilates the whole subject critically, analyz- ing the writings of Clement, Ignatius, Poly- 302 The historic episcopaTbI. carp and St. Herraas ; everything in the first two centuries, which can throw light on the early government of the Church. With respect to the Non-Episcopal Churches — our author thus expresses himself, p. 181 : "Aa for the other so-called sects, such as Lutherans, Calvinists, Moravians, on the con- tinent of Europe ; Independents, Baptists, Methodists, in England and America, I have no hesitation in saying, that two great innova- tions upon primitive spirit and primitive practice are alone answer ible for such Chris- tian communities being in a state of separa- tion from the Catholic, or universal Church at all. " One of these innovations was the invention and growth of the system of Canon Law, com- mencing with the tremendous forgery of t-he Apostolic Constitutions, a forgery with which, what is itself a creature of Canon Law the later form of Diocesan Episcopacy, is closely con- nected. " The other ia the so-called establishment of the Church by Constantine, but which might be much more properly called an establishment of the temporal power of the episcopate." Speaking of the Canons of Ancyra, A. D. 314, he says, p. 491 : '' I am firmly convinced that the more this part of Church history is studied, ftEV. T. W. MOSSMaN. 303 the more clearly it will be seen, that there was no question of distinction of order between presby- ter and bishop involved in these Canons, sim- ply because that particular distinction had not as yet been thought of by any one." Thus we see that that distinction, which is now regarded by many as having the force of a divine revelation ; is pronounced by this candid Churchman, who has examined the question as ably and thoroughly as any previous writer, not even to have entered the heads of the clergy and laity of the Primitive Church. The whole episcopal scheme of divine right in a third order is proved to be based upon a delu- sion with no historical basis ; and for ages men have been claiming divine prerogatives for functions, for which they have not had the shadow of a right, neither from the word of God, nor from the doctrine and practice of the Primitive Church before it was corrupted by alliance with the State ; as so fully shown by the writers whose testimony has been pre- sented ; scholars of the highest standing iu all prominent sections of the Christian Church. 804 l-fiE HlSTOftld UPISCOPATE!. AN ENGLISH JURIST. In his Cathedra Petri, Thomas Greenwood, a barrister and English Churchman, has given a careful examination of the rise of Episcopacy. " This laborious and important historical work is a credit to modern English scolarship. It is composed sine ira et studio, from disinterested love for the subject, in a truth-loving, candid yet critical and genuine historical spirit." Thus writes Dr. Schatf in the Am. Pres. Review, January, 1864, p. 1. The testimony of this writer is therefore of very great value, as from a jurist of calm judg- ment, and capable of sifting evidence, and of ascertaining its worth. Vol. 1, p. 4, we read : " In the absence of all contemporary evidence, we may presume that the outward organization adopted by the Chris- tians of Rome resembled that of like associa- tions in every city where the Gospel had been successfully preached. They had therefore in all probability their elders and deacons or minister- ing officers, and numbered among the most active and energetic of their leaders those whom the peculiar gifts and graces of the Holy Spirit had qualified to give the requisite impulse to the Christian scheme. In the Apostolic times the succession of bishops was a matter of no im- AN ENGLISH JUBIST. 805 portance. The first Christians could have had uo other object in view in the choice of their ministers but the fitness of the persons chosen for the extension of the kingdom of Christ, the conversion of the heathen, and the edification of the elect. . . . There is in fact as little reason to believe that presiding ministers, pres- byters or deacons, were the strictly stationary officers they afterwards became, as that the Apostles themselves were so." Passing on to the matter of the Ignatian Epistles, p. 66, he writes : " The ablest scholars of Christendom have, for the last three centu- ries, been engaged in fruitless attempts to dis- entangle the text of Ignatius from the mass of clumsy forgery and interpolation by which on all hands it is admitted to have been defaced. The extent of the 'falsification was in truth the only question in dispute. Referring to the dis- covery of three Epistles in the Syriac tongue in 1845, and the criticisms of Cureton and Bunsen thereon, in which he agrees, he remarks : " That version we therefore accept as faithfully repre- senting the original Greek text of Ignatius' letters, and consequently the only one available as evidence of the real character of the ecclesi- astical system of the Ignatian period." " It would be very rash to presume that the unity of the Christian body was then regarded 306 THE HISTORIC EPISCOPATE. as dependent upon the adoption of one uniform outward organization. It is even probable that many Churches — e. g., those of Corinth and Alexandria — were not yet episcopally consti- tuted ; and it is apparent that the mention of a bishop or presiding elder in the Church of Smyrna, can go no way to prove any distinc- tion between him and bis fellow-laborers, the presbytery and the diaconate, other than that of a simple presidency. *' Jerome says that the Church of Alexan- dria was originally governed by a college of presbyters under the presidency of one of their own body, with the title of proedros : a terra implying a chairmanship of a popular assembly rather than a permanent office like that of the bishop in Jerome's age. Eusebius, however (1. vi., 26, 35), gives the presiding officers of the Alexandria Church the title of bishop. I am unable to explain the discrepancy, unless it be that Jerome's remark applies to an earlier period than that spoken of by Eusebius. P. 137, quoting the language of Jerome, he writes : " In the last years, therefore, of the period under review, and nearly three-quarters of a century after the establishment of Christi- anity as the religion of the State, we find the most eminent doctor of the Latin Church de- clining to place the title of the Episcopacy upon AN ENGLISH JURlSt. 307 the ground of divine ordinance, expressly reduc- ing it to that of religious expediency. The ques- tions, therefore, present themselves unbidden — Was Jerome ignorant of the existence of the Ignatian and Cyprianic writings? or had those fabrications not yet made way enough in the Christian world to reach the learned circle of which Jerome formed in some sort the centre? "Setting aside the so-called 'Clementines' and ' Recognitions,' are we to suppose that the more ancient and respectable compilations known as the 'Apostolical Constitutions' and 'Canons' had escaped his notice? or that he was inclined to treat them as harmless fictions, not perhaps incapable of some useful application on behalf of the hierarchical order so fully con- stituted in his age ? " Without attempting an answer to these ques- tions, it may be observed that the idea of Epis- copacy conveyed to us in the work of Jerome, as cited above, does not advance a step beyond the genuine Ignatian idea as deducible from the original Syriac letters ; while, on the other hand, it presents a striking contrast to the hierarchi- cal theory so fully unfolded in the suppositious writings of the martyr bishop, and in those attributed to Cyprian of Carthage." P. Ill : " Throughout the whole of the third century the hierarchical and monarchical prin- 808 THE HISTORIC EPISCOPATE. ciples appear to have proceeded jiari passu towards that fuHuess of pretension we find tliein to have arrived at in the fourth. And, indeed, it is believed that the Cyprianic writings, or those among them which are most open to sus- picion, must have seen the light before the close of the latter era — probably within the same period of time which gave birth to the Clemen- tine and pseudo-Ignatiau fictions. " Mr. Shepherd, in his ' History of the Church of Rome,' has pointed out many circumstances of suspicion attaching to the 'Letters of Cy- prian,' which impugn the genuineness of those productions. But we cannot go with him the length of regarding Cyprian himself as a rqythi- cal personage. " In the preface to the second volume, p. xvi., this author while regarding the Episcopal form as the most desirable, remarks: 'Its history discloses to us that it cannot be exalted into an article of belief; that it was not intended to present a perfected form ; nor — as was the case with the Mosaic priesthood — is there in that writing anything to ideniify it with the moral or dogmatic teaching of the Church. Regarding the institution as an inslrument with the highest reverence, we do and say all that the facts con- nected with its first institution warrant us doing and saying. And if we go an inch further, we A ROMAN CATHOLJC WITNESS. 309 are inevitably involved in the dogma of a per- petual revelation, and driven to search for the particnlar body in which that revelation resides, — a task which lies far out of the beat of the historical student." It is here seen that the view of Greenwood corresponds with that presented by another of the legal profession, in Ch. vii. p. 68. W. A. Garrett. We thus have clergymen, and lay- men ; Episcopalians, Presbyterians, Methodists, and Congregationalists, and also Roman Catho- lics ; giving their joint and overwhelming testimony to the absence of an episcopal succes- sion in the Primitive Church of Alexandria; or of a distinction of Order in the offices of bishop and presbyter. If there is any certain fact pertaining to the Primitive Church, it is that here considered. We close our array of witnesses, with the presentation of a modern Roman Catholic savant^ Professor Ellendorf, of Berlin. A ROMAN CATHOLIC WITNESS. In his work on the Roman Primacy in which he makes clear that there is no historical proof that Peter was ever in Rome, (which fact Greenwood in his Cathedra Petri has also satis- factory established), he inquires, p. 244 : '"What Church constitution did the Apostles ordain ? 310 THE HISTORIC EPISCOPATE. The Catholic Church says : ' These presbyters were not priests but bishops of the present day. These are, kaCezochen^ the successors of the Apostles, appointed by them to be heads and rulers of the individual Churches, and for this end entrusted with a special higher power, which was imparted to them by a peculiar con- secratiorj. Under them stand as subordinates of a lower order of rank, the priests properly, who were consecrated by the bishops, while the former could only be consecrated by arch- bishops. The latter have the exclusive right to administer the sacraments of confirmation and consecration. In every Church there can and must be only one bishop ; while the num- ber of priests may be large. The bishops form the first order of rank, appointed by God in the Church, while the priests make up the second,^ " "The inquiry now is, whether there were such bishops in the Apostolical Church as a specially appointed institution given by Christ ? " After we have carefully examined and com- pared all the writings of the New Testament, and have likewise consulted the oldest tradi- tions after the time of the Apostles, we see our- selves forced decisively to reply in the negative to this question, and to hold firmly by the view, that originally there were no bishops in the present sense ; that from the beginning on- A ROMAN CATHOLIC WITNESS. 311 ward, bishop and priest formed one and the same rank aud grade, one and the same dignity ; that at first the priests were appointed by the Apostles to be pastors of the Church ; and that they, as well according to the name as in fact were bishops ; that the present episcopate is not of divine but historical origin. " This one view, which is a vital question agitated between the Catholic aud Protestant Church, loe will prove by incontestible reasons, as the only true and correct one. " If the present episcopate is of divine origin, it must of necessity, according to its essence, show itself in the apostolical century, namely, in the time of the Apostles themselves. " a. Accurately distinguished from the priests and be placed above them. " b. They must have possessed and exercised a peculiar higher power above the priests : (1) special care for the preservation of doctrine and discipline : (2) the distribution of the sacra- ment of confirmation and the consecration of the priests. " c. In every Church there must have been only one bishop, aud he must show himself in every case. " Yet of all these things there is not a single trace, but precisely the contrary, as we shall show. 312 THE HISTORIC EPISCOPATE. "It is not to be conceived how in spite of , these expressions of the holy Scriptures, so clear and unquestionably, there could have arisen, in the Catholic Church, tlic opinion that bisl>ops and elders were differcnl, and that the former constituted a rank, appointed by Christ, above the hitter. But the grounds by which the advocates of the episcopate defend this as a divine institution, correspond completely to the utter baselessness of the view." Ellendorf proceeds to meet the arguments of Walter, whom he styles " the most powerful and skillful defender of the Catholic Church constitution and hiei'archy, at the present day," and thus concludes : " From these numerous witnesses capable of no other interpretation, and that cannot be refuted, we draw the conclusion that in the Apostolical Church there were no bishops as a higher order of rank above priests, appointed by Christ; that, still more, bishops and priests were one and the same, and that accordingly, in any Church, were as many bishops as there were priests, who united in a college — the -presbytery — in common (or collectively), administered the highest government in the Church." Bib. Sacra. Jany., 1859, p. 112. DR. WHITTAKER. 313 A CRITICISM ON THE ARGUMENT FROM JEROME. Some argue that the language of Jerome implies that the change to Episcopacy was made in the apostolic age. Sanders, the Romanist, asserted that bishops had been appointed by the Church, after the Schism in Corinth, with the approbation of the Apostles, though not under their direction, and appealed in proof of it to the testimony of Jerome. ARGUMENT OP DR. WHITTAKER. He was answered by Prof. Whittaker, of Cambridge, King's Prof, of Divinity, among the most learned of the Elizabethean divines: "I answer Sanders plainly, either that he does not understand, or has not attended to what Jerome intends. For, although during the lives of the Apostles some said, ' I am of Paul,' ' I of Cephas,' ' I of Apollos,' and Jerome writes, before it was said, 'I am of Paul,' etc. ; never- theless, Jerome does not think that this order was changed by the Apostles, but subsequently by the judgment of the Church. This Jerome signifies when he says, ' Presently throughout the whole world it was decreed that one elected out of the presbyters should be placed above the rest ' "Was the thing thus done decreed 314 THE HISTORIC EPISCOPATE. by the Apostles? Jerome himself answers: 'As in fact the presbyters,' he says, ' know that they are subjected to a bishop placed over them by custom of the Church.' " Jerome says ' by custom of the Church,' not by the decree of the Apostles ; then he adds: 'Thus the bishops may know that they are superior to presbyters by custom, rather than by the fact of our Lord's appointment.' But if the Apostles had changed that order, and had placed bishops before presbyters, and had forbidden that thereafter the Churches should be governed by the general council of the presbyters, that, indeed, woidd have been a divine arrangement, as set forth by the Apostles of Christ ; unless those things which the Apos- tles had decreed, should be ascribed to custom, and not to the divine arrangement. " But during the lives of the Apostles, nothing was changed in this order. For the Epistle to the Corinthians was written when Paul was engaged in Macedonia; but after this time he left Titus in Crete, that he might appoint pres- byters in each town ; Tit. i. 6. If the Apostle had thought that the order should be changed, he would not have directed that presbyters should be appointed in each town ; nor would Jerome have brought testimony from Paul — Phil. i. 1 ; 1 Tira. iii. 2, etc, — by which he couI4 ARCHBISHOP WHITGIFT. 315 demonstrate that a presbyter was the same as a bishop. Paul had written his Episile to the Philippians, to Timothy, to Titus, and Peter his, and John his after that schism arose in Corinth, and Luke also had written that the presbyters of Ephesus, after that schism, were called together by Paul at Miletus. "When Jerome, relying fully on these pas- sages (Epist. to Evagrius), contends that a pres- byter is equal to a bishop in all respects, he could not be so unmindful of himself as to have supposed that the arrangement was made by the Apostles. So, elsewhere, when he had sub- joined the testimony of Scripture, by which he proved that the bishops and presbyters were not different things, he adds: 'Afterwards one was elected who should be over the otliers.' If ^afterwards one was elected who should be superior to presbyters,' theri.-foro the Apostles did not introduce the distincticn, but a certain ecclesiastical custom or arrangement." Contro. 4. Quaes. 1, cap. 3, sect. 29. MODERATION OF WHITGIFT. Dr. Saravia, Prebend of Canterbury, presents the same plea with regard to St. Jerome's mean- ing, asSandcis. This divine has been quoted us an asscrtcr of exclusive Episcopacy. But two goupidcratiutis ur'i herg worthy of notice. 316 THE HISTORIC EPISCOPATE. Archbishop "Whitgift, in a letter to Beza, given in full by Strjpe, in his "Whitgift, vol. ii. p. 156, states that Saravia had written in defence of the English Church against the assaults of Beza, briefly, he says: "The purpose of Dr. Saravia to assert degrees amonsr the ministers of the Gospel was wholly undertaken without the injury and prejudice of any particular Church ; that on them the necessity of defend- ing the truth and ourselves was thus first im- posed by others. But I would have you, wor- thy sir, persuade yourself of this, that there is no mortal man more studious than myself for the peace of the Church, nor from his very soul, more truly wisheth that every particular Church would mind its own business, and not prescribe the laws of rites, and the manner of govern- ment to others. For this is the apple of con- tention, if anything else be, which bringeth forth that unhappy estrangement among breth- ren (how little soever it be discerned), and will still bring it forth, unless it be timely prevented." " Most learned and most dear brother in Christ, farewell, February, 1594. Your most loving brother and fellow-servant in Christ, John Whitgift, Archbishop of Canterbury in England." This letter establishes conclusively, that pre- vious to 1594:, no English Episcopal divine had SARA VI A. 317 advanced exclusive claims for Episaopaey, such as are now, uufortunately so common, and more- over, that the controversial works on the sub- ject were defensive, and not antagonistic to the Presbyterian Communions on the continent, here fully acknowleged as Churches of Christ. Saravia, and Sutcliff, Bishops Jewel, Bridges, Cooper, Bancroft and Bilson, who had pre- viously written, are here vindicated from Epis- copal exclusiveness and bigotry, by their supe- rior, with whose approval they had published their works. Hooker, about the same time, wrote with equal charity and moderation. SARAVIA ORDAINED BY PRESBYTERS. Again, with regard to Dr. Saravia, another fact, bearing strongly on this question deserves special notice. It is stated by an eminent lay- man of the Protestant Episcopal Church, in the course of a thorough discussion of a topic cog- nate to that which is here considered. Col. J. M. Patton of Virginia, in his argument on the "Validity of Min. Orders," before that Diocese, remarks, p. 18: "Rev. Adrian A. Saravia was an intimate friend of Hooker's in the last years of his life, a distinguished theologian, and one of the translators of the Bible under James I. Though a Presbyterian only by ordination, he 318 THE HISTORIC EPISCOPATfi. was zealous for Episcopal government of tha Cliiirch, in Hooker's sense of it. " It can be proved that though he held such high positions in the Anglican Church, he, like so many others (the great multitude of vphom Keble speaks), never considered it necessary to take Episcopal orders, and never had them. . . . And so Hooker, who had never denied in his life, but alwaj'S maintained, the validity of Presbyterial orders, sealed their validity at his death, by receiving absolution and the supper of the Lord, at the hands of a Presbyterian divine." Saravia, like the Alexandria divines, while maintaining strongly an Episcopal polity, it seems, laid no especial stress, like our modern High Churchmen, on an Episcopal succession. EDTYCHIUS. 319 selden's version of eutychius. " Constituit item Marcus Evangelista duo- deciru Presbyteros cum Hanauia qui nempe manerent cum Patriarcha, adeo ut cum vacaret Patriarchatus, eligerent unum e duodecim Pres- byteris cujus capiti reliqui undecim mauus impouerent, eumque benedicerent et Patriar- cham eum crearent, et dein virum aliquem insig iiem eligerent, eumque Presbyterum secum coa- stituerent loco ejus qui sic factus est Patriarcha, ut ita semper extarent diiodecim. Nequedesiit Alexandrise iustitutum hoc de Presbyteris, ut scilicet Patriarchas creareut ex Presbyteris duodecim, usque ad tempera Alexandri Patri- arcliae Alexandrini, qui fuit ex numero illo cccxviii. Is autem vetuit ne deinceps Patri- archam Presbyteri crearent. Et decrevit, ut mortuo Patriarcha, convenient Episcopi qui Patriarcham ordinarent. Decrevit item, ut vacante Patriarchatu, eligerent sive ex qua cunque regione, sive ex duodecim illis Presby- teris, sive aliis, ut res ferebat, virum aliquem eximium, eumque Patriarcham crearent. At- que ita evanuit institutum illud antiquius, quo creari solitus a Presbyteris Patriarcha, et suc- cessit in locum ejus decretum de Patriarcha ab Episcopis creando." Eutych.Patr. Alex. Eccle- sise suae orig. Ed. J. Selden. Lond. 1642. 4to. pp. 29-31. Of Selden see above, p. 85. 320 THE HISTORIC EPISCOPATK. BISHOP JEWEL ON JEROME, Bishop Jewel, whom Hooker staled "the worthiest divine which Christendom hath pro- duced these hundreds of years," iu his "De- fence of Apology " — a book placed in all the churches of England by order of the Queen, and Archbishops, writes, vol. iii., p. 294: " St. Jerome saith, 'Let bishops understand that they are above priests rather of custom than of any truth or right of Christ's institution ; and that they ought to rule the Church altogether.' And again, ' Therefore a priest and a bishop are both one thing; and before that by the inflaming of the devil, parts were taken in religion, and these words were uttered among the people, ' I hold of Peter, I hold of Apollos, I hold of Peter,' the churches were governed by the common advice of the priests.' " P. 439: " He saith somewhat in rougher sort: 'I hear say there is one become so peevish that he setteth deacons before priests, that is to say before bishops ; whereas the apostle plainly teaches us that priests and bishops are both one.' "... "St. Augustine saith: 'The office of a bishop is above the office of a priest (not by authority of the Scriptures, but) after the names of honor, which the custom of the Church has now obtained.' " Parker Soc. Ed, SUPPLEMENTARY APPENDIX. CONCERNING JEROME AND THE CONTINENTAL REFORMERS. As will be seen from what has preceded, there has been a contest since the Reformation, over the meaning of the statements of this pre- eminently learned writer. The controversy has arisen from later authors attempting to make the language of Jerome to square with the views of modern High Churchmen, who hold to a third order in the ministry, by divine right ; instead of with those who preceded him, and who lived within two centuries after the Apostles. The testimony here presented has made it clear that Jerome, did not hold to the view, which among English writers, was first held by the School of Laud, and his sympathizers; and which has been so strongly pressed by the Ox- ford Tractarians, and those who sympathize with them here, and in the mother country. The attempt to twist the meaning of this distinguished father of the Post-Nicene Church has failed. (321; 322 SUPPLKMEN'TARY APPENDIX. The view which Antiquity took of Jerotne's language, the same as that of the English, and Continental Reformers; cannot be overthrown. This is acknowledged by a famous Koman Catholic author, Alphonsus De Castro, Arch- bishop of Carapostello, who came to England with Philip II, and who in his Book, Contra Heres, p. 103, rebukes a writer who sought to evade Jerome's clear testimony, thus: "But Thomas Waldensis truly is deceived ; for Je- rome does endeavor to prove that according to divine institution, there was no difference be- tween presbyter and bishop," We have seen what was the view of Cranmer, as often expressed. The same was that of Bishops Cox and Pilkington, and Dr. Redmayn, Prayer Book Revisers ; of Bishop Alley, and Lambert and Fulke ; of Dean Field and Bishops Morton and Bedell ; of Professor Whittaker, of Cambridge, and Bishop Jewel ; who repeatedly refer to Jerome as an authority to establish the fact, that by the word of God, there are but two orders in the Christian ministry. THE CONTINENTAL REFORMERS. If we pass to the Continent, we find the most eminent Reformers also referring to Jerome for authority. This is nowhere more prominent than in the THE LUTHERAN CHURCH. ^23 Smalkakl Articles, 1537, drawn up by Luther, aticl signed by Melaucthon, Bugenhagen, Jonas, Myconius, Bucer, Fagius, and other illustrious Reformers. Here we read : " Wherefore Je- rome plainly affirms, that there is no difierence between a bishop and a presbyter ; but that ever}' pastor is a bishop. Here Jerome teaches that the distinction of degrees between a bishop and a presbyter or pastor, was only appointed by human authority, and the thing itself im- ports no less ; for on both bishop and presbyter is laid the same duty, and the same charge. Only ordination, in after times, made the diffe- rence between bishop and pastor. By divine right there is no difierence between a bishop and a pastor or presbyter; orders communicated by the later are valid, because of divine right; the power of jurisdiction or government belongs to all pastors or presbyters, and has been un- lawfully and shamefully appropriated to them selves by diocesan bishops.'' As this document was agreed to and signed by the Electors, Dukes, Counts, Barons, Consuls and Senators from thirty- five cities, together with eight thousand clergymen; it establishes the fact that the Lutheran Reformers received the teachings of Jerome, in the same sense with Cranraer and his associates. The last public Document of the Lutheran Church, The 3-24 SUPPLEMEXTARY APPENDIX. Syllabus of Controverted Points," ch. 18, § 4, is no less explicit ; " ordiaation to the work of the ministry is necessary in a church at liberty ; but this act does not belong to bishops alone» nor can it with propriety be called a sacra- ment. We hold this in opposition to the Papists, and also to certain English Episcopalians, as Carleton, Hall and Bilson, who distinguish be- tween presbyters and bishops, as to the point of ordination." The Confessions of Saxony, 1551 ; of Wir- tenburg, 1552 ; of Belgium, 1556 ; of Bohemia, 1573 ; contain similar statements. The second Helvetic confession, 1566, was signed not only by the Swiss, but by the Churches of Geneva, Hungary, Savoy, Polonia, Scotland and others ; and this document after referring to Jerome's testimony, reads : "Thus far Jerome ; now there- fore no man can forbid, by any right, that we may return to the old appointment of God, and rather receive that, than the custom devised by men. . . . The power that is given to the ministers of the Church is the same in all ; and in the begiiming, the bishops or elders, did with a common consent and labor govern the Church. No man lifted himself up above auotJier." OHURCH OF HOLLAND. 325 THE CHURCH OP HOLLAND. Such was the view taken by the Church of Holland, One of the articles of the famous Synod of Dort, 1618, is : "As for the ministers of God's word, they have equally the power and authority wheresoever they are." In a work entitled " Synopsis Theologiae," prepared hy Polyander, Thysius and Walaeus, members of that Synod, and Professors in three Dutch Universities; xlii. § 29, etc., we read: "The practice of investing one person from among the presbyters, with the authority of President, and giving him by way of eminence, the title of bishop, was not a divine but a mere human appointment, and was brought in after the Apostles' time; as, after Jerome, many of the Papists themselves confess, particularly Lom- bard, Gratian, Cusan and others." Similar views were held by the Danish Church which retained Episcopacy. Tlic first Danish Confession — 1537 — states that "True bishops or priests are all the same." The King of Denmark, as Duke of Holstein, signed the Articles of Smalkald 1538. Vandalin, Professor of Theology in Copenhagen, writes, 1727 : " Are bishops and presbyters distinct orders by divine risht? We deny it; iu opposition to th" Pa- 82G SUPPLEMENTARY APPENDIX. pistR and to certain persons of the Church of England." The Swedish Church, also Episcopal, takes this view of the human origin of the episco- pate. See Miller's Letters, p. 274. THE CHURCH OF FRANCE. The remaining Continental Church, that of France, in her Confession, takes the same ground. The language of two of her most emi- nent divines will testify to the point. And first, Calvin, whom Hooker styles "a worthy vessel of God's glory — the wisest man that ever the French Church did enjoy," and Bishop An- di'ews : "an illustrious person, and never to be mentioned without a preface of the highest honor." Bishop Carleton well remarks in re- lation to the smaller lights who have abused this illustrious Christian's memory: "Some take it for a sign looking towards Popery, when the members of our own Church offer such a service to the Papists, as to speak evil of them that have been the greatest enemies of Popery, the greatest propagators of the truth." Calvin, from whose Genevan Prayer Book, ■was taken the Introductory portion of our Morning service, and of the Communion Office, and whose work is thus so strikingly stamped upon our Book of Common Prayer; in the CALVIN. 32T preparation of which his counsel was so sought, valued, and followed, by the founders of the Church of England, is most emphatic in his lansfuam-e concernino; the meanino; of Jerome. From his Institutes, long a text book in the University of Oxford, we quote, Book iv. eh. 4: "Jerome in his commentary on the Epistle to Titus saith : A presbyter was the same as a bishop, &c. . . . And in another place (Epist. ad Evagr), he teaches how ancient an institu- tion this was: for he says that at Alexandria, from Mark tlie Evangelist, down to Heraclas and Dionysius, the presbyters always placed one chosen out of their number in a higher station and called him bishop. Every city then had a college of Presbyters, who were pastors and teachers, and who all executed among the people the offices of instructing, exhorting and exercising discipline, which Paul enjoins on bishops. Titus, 1, 9. And every one of these colleges (as I said before), was under the presi- dency of one bishop who was only so far above the rest in dignity, as to be himself subject to the assembly of his brethren." On Philip, 1, 1, again referring to Jerome, he says: "Afterwards it became customary that he who presided in the bench of presbyters of a particular Church, should alone be called bishop. This, however, arose from human cus- SUPPLEMENTARY APPENDIX. torn, and is by no means supported by Scrip- ture." . . . Out of the corrupted signification of a word, this evil arose, that thence, as if all the presbyters were not colleagues, and called to the same function, one, under the pretext of a new title, arrogated to himself a dominion over others." ... On Acts xiv. 28, he writes: "It arose from corruption, and a departure from primitive purity, that those who held the first seats in particular cities, began to be called bishops. I say that it arose from corruption, not that it is an evil for some one, in each col- lege of pastors, to be distinguished above the the rest; but because it is an intolerable pre- sumptioF', that men in perverting the titles of Scripture to their own humor, do not hesitate to alter the meaning of the Holy Spirit." Calvin's own words, often and plainly ex- pressed, settle the fact that he was entirely satisfied with his own Presbyterian ordination, and felt himself fully empowered to take the part of ordaining others into the presbytery. TESTIMONY OF CLAUDE. We close this testimony of the Continental Reformers, with another famous divine of the French Church, Claude, the antagonist of Boss- uet ; according to Mosheim, a man " of great erudition and eloquence," at whose death Wil- CLAtlDE. 329 liani of Orange shed tears. In his celebrated "Historical Defence of the Reformation," he uses decided language on the point here dis- cussed : p. 372. " Can this author be ignorant of the opinion of St. Jerome, of Hilary the dea- con, and after them of Hincmar ; which they have so explicitly given, concerning the unity or identity of the office of bishop or presbyter, in the earliest ages of the Church ; and con- cerning the origin of that distinction which afterwards took place between them. Can he be ignorant that St. Augustin himself, writing to St. Jerome, refers that distinction, not to the primitive institution of the ministry, but merely to an ecclesiastical custom which has since grownup? Can he be ignorant that some of the fathers have taught us, that the ordination of a presbyter and a bishop are strictly one and the same, and not different kinds of acts, suf- ficiently expressing to us the identity of the offices." Claude, in language which reflects the present sentiments of the great body of Protestant ministers, with respect to the base- less and offensive claims of the High Church exclusive Successionists, indignantly repudiates these assumptions and proceeds : Can he deny that presbyters anciently ordained equally with bishops ? The right of ordination is one that naturally belongs to presbyters. And since 330 SUPPLEMENTARY APPENDIX. they ba ve been deprived^of it by rules and con- stitutions, which are merely of human author- ity, the right still remains essentially attached to their office, and they may justly reclaim it, whenever the state of the Church will permit. " And that I may declare my opinion with freedom, it appears to me that the haughty and insolent opinion, which maintains the absolute necessity of Episcopal ordinations, and without them annihilates the Church, the ministry and the sacraments, however pure the faith, the doctrine and the piety of the Church may be: thus making religion depend on a form, and that form a mere human invention. I repeat it, it appears to me that this insolent opinion carries on it the character of a Bhameful cor- ruption ; it bears the mark of profound hypoc- risy, of a pure pharisaism, which strains at a gnat, while it swallows a camel. I cannot help having, at least, a deep contempt for such opinions, and compassion for those who are thus obstinate and headstrong in maintaining them." A letter of Claude's having been published, by some who claimed that he greatly favored Episcopal government, such as was in England ; in 1681, Claude wrote to the Bishop of London and also to a lady, stating that the former let- ter was not intended for the public: that it greatly misrepresented him (as has been the CLAUDE. 331 case with Jerome), that "he was surprised and astonished to see it as well in French as in Eng- lisli ; that he had two things in view, to justify us from the calumny which some persons im- puted to us of believing that salvation could not be obtained under the Episcopal govern- ment, " and of aiding "a good and holy union of the two parties." He says also: "The N'on-Conformists com- plain . . . that you will receive no one to the niiiiistry, till he acknowledges, on oath, that Episcopacy is of divine riglit, which is a hell to the conscience. They complain, that, whilst you do not re-ordain the Roman Catholic priests who come to you, you re-ordain ministers, who come to you from beyond the seas, in the Churches of France, Holland, etc. Thoy com- plain that the bishops have a rigid attachment to many ceremonies which are otlensive, and for which, nevertheless, they combat tanquatn ■pro arts et focis. In the name of God, my Lord, labor to remove these grounds of complaint, if tliere is any truth in them ; if there is not, to give information of the real state of the case. And let all Europe know that there is nothing which the glory of God, and the love of the Church can demand of you, that you are not ready to grant." Strange is it, that, now, two hundred years 332 SUPPLEMENTARY APPENDIX. after tliis letter, in this free land of light ; this same baseless, ofleusive, and harmful claim is troubling our Protestant Israel; limiting the comfort, influence and power of Christian min- isters; an obstacle to the progress of charity, courtesy and peace ; an unhealthy and unsightly fungus on the Body of Christ. CONCLUSION. We can find no better words with which to close our Inquiry than those of the lamented Professor Hatch, and his able critics. With respect to differing forms of Church government Dr. Hatch writes, p. 213: "The fact of the necessity and desirability of form is no proof of the necessity and desirability of this or that particular form. Nor is the fact that a particular form was good for a particular age a proof that it is also good for another age. The history of the organiza- tion of Christianity has been in reality the his- tory of successive readjustments of form to altered circumstances. Its power of readjust- ment has been at once a mark of its divinity and a secret of its strength." p. 215. "The most significant fact of modern Christian his- tory is that within the last hundred years, many millions of our own race and our own Church, without departing from the ancient faith, have DR. R. B. WELCH. 333 slipped from beneath the inelastic framework of tlie ancient organization, and formed a group of new societies on the liasis of a closer Chris- tian brotherhood, and an almost absolute de- mocracy." This brilliant, scholarly and candid work has been left as a rich legacy to the Church, by this gifted divine, removed so unexpectedly in the fullness of his powers, and with the promise of greater results. Professor Fairbairn alluding to the recent death of Dr. Hatch in the Cont. Rev., March, ^1890, p. 405, remarks of him: " Who of all recent Oxford men most fulfilled the ideal of the scholar in Theology, and applied in a spirit as reverent as it was thorough, the scientific method to the history of ecclesiastical institutions. But there wiis no man who more thoroughly be- lieved, or who was so armed with proofs to support his belief, that Anglo-catholicism was utterly unhistorical, as Edwin Hatch." BR. R. B. WELCH. We have in the timely criticism of Dr. Ran- som B.Welsh, Professor in Auburn Seminary, on the offer of the Historic Episcopate by the House of Prot. Epis. Bishops, and the replies to it, in the Presby. Rev., July, 1888, reference to Dr. Hatch, and e^^tract^ from his work. These we 334 SUPPLEMENTARY APPENDIX. present, with interesting and pertinent remarks oil the ofter which has attracted so ruuch atten- tion. After quoting Dr. Jacol>, Dr. Welch says, p. 358 : " Dr. Hatch proceeds at length to show, 'by what gradual steps the Congrega- tional System of early times passed into the Dio- cesan System of later times ; how the National Churches arose from Communities becominy: grouped in larger combinations on the political lines, first of the Eoman administration, and afterwards of the newly-formed kingdoms of the West, so as to form the aggregates or units which are known as National Churches (Roman, Anglican, etc.).' " "It has no doubt been sometimes maintained that the diocese in its modern sense is an insti- tution of primitive times. But the jrecorded facts are far from supporting this view. . . . In earlier times such a system would have been impossible;" again, "the idea that ordination conveys not merely status hut character^ and still more the idea that such character is indellible, are foreign to primitive times." There is, he says, such variance (of the primitive and Eastern) with the Western Church in later times, and especially with the Church of Eng- land as hardly to be credible except upon the clearest evidence," which he proceeds to give with tjje successive rnoditications and readapt^' DR. R. B. WELCH. 335 tions from the Congregational system of early Christianity, to the diocesan system of mediaeval times." He adds : " Hence Dr. Jacob's conclu- sion is in keeping with Dr. Hatch : ' that in such matters the Church may appoint in any mode which may be deemed most expedient, amena- ble only to the general law of decency and order; that to restrict ordination to the hands of bishops is owing to no divine law or apos- tolic prescription." Confirmatory authorities are referred to and largely quoted from Jerome to Lightfoot. The resultant is tbus substan- tially stated on the one hand : " However the Churches like our own may prefer the Episco- pal government and ordination ; yet on the other hand, the government and ordinations of the Presbyterian Churches are just as valid, Scriptural and apostolic as our own " (pp. 114, 115). As Dr. Welch so fully reflects the mind of the Non-Episcopal Churches with respect to the reordination which is expected of tliem, on accepting the basis of unity proposed, his remarks are valuable and pertinent, and we therefore give them. On p. 356, he says, with reference to the language of some of the Prot. Epis. bishops in connection with this offer: "From the Episcopal statements just quoted, is it oot apparent to what committal those may 336 SUPPLEMENTARY APPENDIX. be exposed, who would accept the Declaration of the House of Bishops without conference— a committal to open and high sacerdotalism, sacraraentarianism and Episcopal control ; a clerical priesthood divinely empowered (and it alone empowered) as a mediating, sacrificing, absolving order — strictly and consummately a hierarchical order through which is given effect to every Christian ordinance, even regenerating men in baptism, actually offering the body and blood of Christ in the sacrifice of the Eucharist, absolving from sin or condemning under the terrors of excommunication, and including ' the doctrine of the Apostolic Succession 'as essential to our definition of a valid ministry." Having presented the views of the Reformers and great divines of England down to the pres- ent day, as declared in the language of Dr. Stanley, " According to the strict rules of the Church derived from the early times, there are but two orders — presbyters and deacons" (the view publicly asserted by the Reformed Episco- pal Church, which alone distinctly represents the English Reformation). Dr. W. concludes thus : " Here, within the Episcopal Church, and by high authority earlier and later, is fur- nished an alternative to the extreme and exclu- sive views of historic Episcopacy. According to the broader and more primitive view, there DR. R. B. WteLCH. 337 is not only place but occasion for 'brotherly conference ' and mutual correction. '• Here there is ground for possible conciliation and practical compromise. Here is an open and sure 'way out of denominationalism,' to copy a phrase from the Churchiaan — a way no less practicable, it would seem, for the Episcopal than for the Non-Episcopal, illustrated, accord- ing to the same paper, by the practice to-day in the historical, philological, and scientific world, of ' discovering truth by comparison of views ;' and we might add, not according to the practice of former days by ecclesiastical decrees assuming and dictating what shall be scientific truth. The application is easy. '* Many candid, wise and noble men, Episco- pal no less than Non-Episcopal, see in this direction not only a way out of denomination- alism, but into Christian unity — not into ab- sorption and uniformity, but into Christian co-operation and intercommunion." The way fortunately has already been made easy, and when the Protestant Episcopal Church has conformed itself to the ways of the Primi- tive Church, and to the views of the Reformed Episcopacy of Cranmerand his fellow- workers ; as has been already done by anticipation, thor- oughly by the Reformed Episcopal Church; when it has, throwing oflf its weights, elevated S3S aypi>LEMKNtASV At»PEM&l}t. itself to this Apostolic pUtform ; it can assist iu promoting Christian unity. On no other grounds can its oflFers of peace and union be consistently and favorably received, by the great body of Protestant Christians in this and other lands. "How I wish there had been no presidency, no preference of place, no arbitrary privilege, that we might be distinguished by virtue only. But now this right hand, and left band, and middle, and higher, and lower; this going be- fore, and following in company, have produced us much unprofitable affliction, brought many into a snare, 'and thrust them away into the company of the goats: not only of the inferior class, but also of the shepherds, who being masters in Israel, have not known these things." Gregory Kazianzen, Archbp. of Constantinople. INDEX. A. PAGE Alford, Dean, Testimony of 189 Amalarius, " 208 Ambrose, " 21 Anonymous Author, " 195 B Babiugton, Bp., Testimony of 186 Bacon, Lord, " 231 Bancroft, Abp., " 184 Bangs, Dr , " 114 Baxter, Richard. " 150 Biiigliam, " 17 Bowdler, " 78 Bradford, John, " 168 Brown, Dr., " 138 Bullinger, " 26 Burnet, Bp., " 4 C. Calfhill, Testimony of 183 Campbell, Dr., " 142 Coleman, Lyman, " 121 Cosin, Bp., " 4 Cranmer, Abp., Liberality of 7 " " Testimony of 175 Cummiug, Dr., " 127 D. Davenaut, Bp., Testimony of 187 (339) E. Edward VI., Patent granted by .... 6 Essays on the Church, Notice of . . . .217 Eutychius, Testimony of . 19 F. Field, Dean, Testimony of 186 P'leetwood, Bp., " 5 Fulke, Dr., " 181 G. Garratt, W. A., Argument of 69 Giesler, Testimony of . 108 Goode, Dr., " . 56 Griswold, Bp., " . 320 H. Hall, Bp., Testimony of . 3 Hallam, " . 5 Harrison, .John, Confirmatory evidence of 212 Hase, Dr., Testimony of 15 Herzog, " ' 111 Hilary, " 21 Hoadley, Bp., " 156 Hooker, Richard, " 153 Hooper, Bp., " 173 Hopkins, Bp., " 191 Hospinian, " 15 Howe, Prof., " 14 340 INDEX. 'J4 Kainolds, Dr., Testimony of 30 22 Riddle, Rev. J. E., " 59, 64 176 Ridley, Bp., " 171 " Rights of the Christian Church," Notice of 195 J. Jarvis, Examination of Jerome, St., Testimony of Jewel, Bp., " K. Keble, Testimony of . . 3 Killen, Dr., " " . . 131 L. Latimer, Bp., Testimony of 173 Laud, Abp.. " " 188 Layman, A., " 217 Litton, Prof., " 55 Lord, Dr., " 10 M. Macaulay, Testimony of . 5 Mahan, Dr., Examination of 96 Mason, Francis, Testimony of 184 Morinus, " 81 Mu.sgraye, Abp., " 192 N. Neale, Rev. J. M. Argument of .... 87 Neander, Testimony of . 110 O. O'Brien, Bp., Testimony of . 190 P. Pearson, Dean, Testimony of 189 Percival, Dr., Examination of .... 87 Philpot, Archdeacon, Testi- mony of ... 175 Pilkington, Bp., Testimony of iSO Powell, Thomas, " ill S. SchafF, Dr., Testimony of 107 Severus, " 21 Smith, Dr., " 192 Stanley, Dean, " 16, 54 Stevens, Abel, " 116 Stillingfleet, Bp., " 47 Strype, " 3 Suiflner, Abp., " 193 T. TertuUian, Testimony of . 63 Tostatus, " ■ . 210 Tyler, Prof., " . 12 U. Usher, Abp., Testimony of . 45 V Via Media, Theory of . . 214 W. Warren, Dr., Testimony of 227 Wharton, Dr., " ' 191 AVhite, Francis, Bp., " 187 White, Thomas, " 187 Whitgift, Abp., Order of . 27 " " Testimony of 24 Whittaker, Dr., '• " 181 "Whose are the Fathers?" Notice of . . . 206 Willet, Dr., Testimony of 34, 181 Wilson, Dr., " 116 INDEX TO SUPPLEMENT. A. PAQB . :ioo 281, 283, 299, 302 Andrews, Bp., on Calvin, 320 Ambrosiaster, . Ancyra, Council of. Augustine, Asbury, Bp., B. Basnage, . Baxter, British Quarterly, Boardman, 11. A., BuDsen on Ignatius, Burnet, Bp., C. 320, 329 243 249, 2.53 . 264 . 289 . 276 . 30.5 249, 266 Calvin, . . . 336-8 Carleton, Bp., on Calvin, 326 Clirysostona, . . .279 Claude, . . . 328-31 Col