BX 5880 .M3 McCrady, Edward, 1868- Where the Protestant Episcopal Church stands ^ WHERE THE PROTESTANT EPISCOPAL CHURCH STANDS WHERE THE PROTESTANT EPISCOPAL CHURCH STANDS A Review of Official Definitions Versus Non-Official Theories Con- cerning the Nature and Extent of The Church Catholic BY THE REV. EDWARD McCRADY RECTOR OF THE CHURCH OF THE NATIVITY GREENWOOD, MISSISSIPPI NEW YORK E. P. BUTTON AND COMPANY 681 Fifth Avenue 1916 Copyright E. P. DUTTON & CO. 1916 Printed in the U. S. A. ran •ftnfclierbocljet pxta, tKc>io IBorfc To The EVANGELICAL KNOWLEDGE SOCIETY OF THE PROTESTANT EPISCOPAL CHURCH That, in AiN age of spiritual narrowness, is nobly endeavor- ing TO keep alive those principles of the Anglican Reformation Which, Protestant against all Ecclesiastical Arrogance — Tolerant OF ALL things SAVE INTOLERANCE ITSELF — AND EXCLUD- ING NO Body of Christians on Earth, it RIGHTLY PROCLAIMS TO BE THE ONLY ALL-COMPREHENSIVE AND CATHOLIC BASIS Upon which a divided Christendom May unite — These pages are Gratefully Dedicated CONTENTS CHAPTER PAGE I. — The Proposed Name — Its Significance 3 II. — Official Declarations Concerning the Church Catholic .... 29 III. — Other Declarations — Official and Non-Official ..... 55 IV. — Objections Considered . . .113 V. — Do "Catholics" Represent the Church? 141 VI. — The Kikuyu Controversy . . .157 VII. — Development in Theology . . .195 VIII. — Conclusion 229 I THE PROPOSED NAME— ITS SIGNIFICANCE Where the Protestant Episcopal Church Stands THE PROPOSED NAME— ITS SIGNIFICANCE THAT the Protestant Episcopal Church is a part of the Holy Catholic Church is a fact uni- versally admitted by all classes within our communion, and did the present agitation for a change of name contemplate nothing further than the mere expediency of emphasizing that fact upon the title page of the Prayer Book or elsewhere, little objection woiild or could be raised to it. In reality, however, the object of this movement is of far deeper significance. It is not merely to emphasize the fact that this Church is a legitimate branch of the Catholic Church that this matter has been systemati- cally kept before the General Conventions of the Church for years past. The real, underlying motive of the movement is to bring about a further funda- mental change in the doctrinal position of the Church. This, indeed, should have been obvious 3 4 WHERE THE CHURCH STANDS when the attempt was made to strike out the word "Protestant" from our legal title. But while the significance of this resolution in behalf of this particu- lar change is now, perhaps, fairly well appreciated, it so happens that there are few apparently, who are alive to the real meaning and intent of the other titles suggested. All these, in one way or another, propose to incorporate the word "Catholic" in the official title of this particular branch of the Univer- sal Church. That such an attempt, irrespective of the motive involved, is necessarily beset with diffi- culties should be obvious even upon a casual examina- tion of the problem. For, first of all, it must be remembered that as long as the organic unity of the Church Universal is not an existent fact, denomina- tional titles — which are necessarily differentiative — are absolutely essential to distinguish the several branches of the Catholic Church, nor could the mere adoption of some common appellation, in itself, effect the unity desired, or accomplish anything but confusion worse confounded. If every legitimate branch of the Church Catholic, simply because of its consciousness of substantial connection therewith, should follow the lead of the Roman Church and call Itself "The Holy CathoHc Church, " this, in itself, woiild accomplish nothing for the cause of organic unity or union between the several "branches." On the other hand, it would lead to hopeless obscurity in all legal and practical affairs. Moreover, the adoption of such a title would be as illogical as it would be inexpedient. For to give to this "branch" WHERE THE CHURCH STANDS 5 of the Catholic Church, as its denominational or "branch" title, any such appellation as "The Catholic Church," "The Holy CathoHc Church," etc., such as was actually suggested at one stage of the discussion, would involve the absurdity of designating a part by the title belonging only to the whole. It would be nothing less absurd than to call the State of Wisconsin the United States of America, merely because the former rightly claims to be a legitimate part of the latter. Unless we are prepared to make the monstrous claim that the entire Church Catholic is coterminous with that particular body known as the Protestant Episcopal Church, and that all other "churches" so called, are but human societies having no real connection with the true Body of Christ, there is obviously no sensible pretext for the adoption of such a title. The Roman Church, indeed, does actually make such an extravagant claim for herself, and it is because of this very fact that she does consistently repudiate all Christian Bodies not in visible communion with the Roman See, condemning them as mere man-made societies. Even the most ardent supporter of the Fond du Lac agitation is not prepared for such extravagant pre- tensions on our part. The most extreme " Catholic" Churchman fully recognizes the claims of Roman, Greek, and Anglican Churches to be legitimate parts of the Catholic Church. This being the case, we say that the adoption of such a name as the official title of this particular communion would be senseless, even from their point of view, since it would not 6 WHERE THE CHURCH STANDS even have the pretense of rational justification that the Roman view involves, and would entail endless confusion. To have a number of Churches each calling itself the *'Holy Catholic Church"; yet refusing to enter into organic union with one another would simply mean chaos in the Ecclesiastical world. From the standpoint of expediency, then, the proposi- tion is impracticable, while from the standpoint of logic it is absurd. We would not notice it here at all, were it not that such a title has been seriously proposed from time to time. In short, for this denomination to adopt the title "The Catholic Church," or "The Holy Catholic Church," as its official name would be simply to do one of two things — either (a) to claim that this Church is the one and only Church Catholic on earth — all others being excluded from the visible Body of Christ; or else, (b) to be guilty of the absurdity of giving to a part the title which can only logically belong to the whole. It was doubtless to avoid this dilemma, which must indeed have been patent to the leaders of the move- ment, that the more defensible title of "The American Catholic Church" came gradually to the forefront. The American Catholic Church The advantage of this appellation is that it is undeniably a branch title and so avoids the absurdity of either of the above implications. If we should adopt it, we would neither be guilty of claiming to WHERE THE CHURCH STANDS 7 be the whole Church on Earth, nor could it be said that we had given to a part the title belonging to the whole. In short, the name American Catholic directly connects us with the Church Universal throughout the world, while it simultaneously dif- ferentiates or distinguishes us from all other parts or branches of that Church. To borrow an expres- sion from a little book entitled A Handbook of hifor- mation published some time ago by the Young Churchman Co., of Milwaukee, this proposed name has the advantage of suggesting "Historic Identity with the Church of the Ages" {i.e., in the word "Catholic") and simultaneously by the prefix "Ameri- can" such identity is further "localized" so "as to imply this particular body in the United States and none other. ' ' Here then we have a proposition presented, which, on the surface, appears to be a very harmless one, even, if to many of us, the neces- sity for it is not so apparent. For to those who do not look beneath the surface, it seems at first sight to be a reasonable proposition that if that part of the Holy Catholic Church originating in Italy be designated the Rommi Catholic Church — that part originating in Greece be designated the Greek Catholic Church — that part originating in England, the Anglican or Anglo-CaLihoVic, then that part which originated in America should likewise be legitimately termed the American Catholic. But what about the Methodist, Baptist, Presbyterian, Congregationalist, and other bodies likewise in America ? Are they to be excluded from the Catholic Church? Is this Protestant 8 WHERE THE CHURCH STANDS Episcopal Church the only true branch of the Catho- lic Church native to America — hence the only one that can logically claim to be the American Catholic Church? Now this is a very embarrassing question. In fact, it is so embarrassing that it is most carefully avoided — not only by "Catholics," but by a large number of more moderate Churchmen who have been completely misled in their estimate of these matters by certain extravagant claims 'of modem Episcopacy. Yet this is the crux of the whole matter. In short, if he is cornered, and obliged to make a definite answer, the "Catholic" Churchman replies — "No, the Methodist, Baptist, Presbyterian, Congregationalist and, in fact, the Protestant bodies generally, are not parts or branches of the Catholic Church, for the reason that they have not the His- toric Episcopate which is absolutely essential to the ministry, Sacraments, and, in general, the being of the Church." Nullus Episcopus, Nulla Ecclesia ("No Bishop — No Church") is a fundamental motto, hence of all the so-called Protestant bodies existing in America, that which is now termed the Protestant Episcopal Church is the only one that can legitimately claim to be a true branch of the Catholic Church, for in this alone is the Historic Episcopate represented. It is for this reason, there- fore, that it can alone claim in very truth to be the American Catholic Church, as it is the one dis- tinctively American branch of that Church. This, then, is the significance of the proposed name. It at once emphasizes our connection with the true WHERE THE CHURCH STANDS 9 Church Catholic, while it simultaneously differen- tiates us from all the Protestant "Sects." It will, of course, be immediatel}'- evident also to our readers what a w^onderful advantage this name will have over the present clumsy title in promoting the cause of Christian Unity — especially in winning the Protes- tant "Sects" from the error of their ways, and giving them the opportunity of discovering the true Church Universal. As Dr. Manning so cogently expressed it upon the floor of the last convention, a Church that is leading the movement for Universal Christian Unity should not be encumbered by so narrow an appellation. It should have a more "Comprehensive" title — and what more "Compre- hensive" than "American Catholic".? That is to say what more "comprehensive" than that designa- tion which makes the Catholic Church coterminus with the Historic Episcopate, and consigns all non- Episcopal bodies to the limbo of the "unconverted heathen. " Lest it be thought that we are somewhat exaggerating the import of this view in its relation to the limits of the Catholic Church, it may be well to cite a few passages from the works of some well- known authorities. Beginning with the Tractarians, whom all good "Catholics" regard as authoritative, and as pioneers in the exposition of their tenets within the English Church, we find the British CRITIC — "their principal organ in England " — thus expressing itself: "A Church ... is such only by virtue of that from which it obtains its Unity — and it obtains its Unity only from that in which it centers, 10 WHERE THE CHURCH STANDS viz. : — the Bishop. . . . Therefore we declare . . . that the Episcopal dignity is so necessary in the Church that without a Bishop there cannot exist any Church, nor any Christian man: no, not so much as in name. For he, as successor of the Apostles ... is the source of and fountain, as it were, of all those mys- teries of the Catholic Church, through which we obtain Salvation. And we hold the necessity of a Bishop to be as great in the Church as the breath of life is in a man, or as the Sun is in the system of Creation." (Quoted by Schmucker, Hist, of All Religions, pp. 293, 294.) With the exception of that portion which denies that even individual Christians can exist apart from the Bishop — (a matter upon which there is diversity of opinion) the above may be said to express the unanimous opinion not only of the Tractarians and their followers, but of many High Churchmen of the present time — "without a Bishop there cannot exist any Church"; ergo, all non- Episcopal bodies are outside the pale of the Church. Says Bishop Hobart: "Whoever is in Communion with the Bishop, the Supreme governor of the Church on Earth, is in Communion with the Head of it ; and whoever is not in Communion with the Bishop, is thereby cut off from Communion with Christ." {A Companion to the Festival and Fast, p. 59.) So also Dr. Dix tells us that no man can be "a lawful minister" who has not been "ordained by the Bishop." The "Protestant Sects" are not Churches at all, but have ''cut themselves off from the Catholic Church, by abandoning the Catholic Ministry.'* WHERE THE CHURCH STANDS ii (Trinity Church Catechism.) Again, the Rev. Walker Gwynne affirms that at the time of the Reformation, "large bodies of Christians under Luther, Calvin, Knox, and others, broke away from the Catholic Church in its corrupt state, and formed independent sects. . . . Instead of rejecting only the Roman errors, which were new, they rejected also the Catholic Ministry and worship, which were apostolic and old, a7id thus cut themselves off from the Catholic Church.'' {Manual of Christian Doctrine, p. 199.) He also informs us on the next page, that ' ' The Catholic Church, ' ' from which the above mentioned Protestants "broke away" or "cut them- selves off " is ''the only way to Salvatiort. " That it has ''three great branches," viz.: "The Churches in Communion with the Archbishop of Canterbury"; "The Churches in Communion with the Greek Bishop or Patriarch of Constantinople"; and "The Churches in Communion with the Bishop of Rome." All other "Societies today calling themselves Churches," have no right to the title — they are mere "Sects." To the same effect the Rev. E. W. Hunter informs us that "The Church of God" is one, as to Holy Orders: Bishops, Priests, and Deacons, Holy as to teaching. Catholic as to jurisdiction, Apostolic as to origin." That "In these United States there are three religious bodies that fulfil these essential requirements, namely: The 'Protestant Episcopal' Church, The 'Roman Catholic' Church, The Greek Church. {The Holy Catholic Church, p. 11.) And again that "there are three principal branches of the 12 WHERE THE CHURCH STANDS; Holy Catholic Church: The Anglican, called in the United States the 'Protestant Episcopal'; the 'Holy Roman,' and the 'Holy Orthodox.' {Impor- tant Items Regarding the Church, p. 4.) He adds also that on account of our unfortunate title; "Pro- testant Episcopal," only two of these bodies are "popularly supposed to fulfill these requirements," viz.: — the "Roman Catholic and the Greek." Therefore, he argues that this "Modem and Secta- rian" title . . . "which operates as an obstacle to Christian Unity" should give place to that of "The American Cathohc Church." Numbers of other quotations could be adduced to the same effect but the above are amply sufficient to show that in the opinion, not only of our so-called "Catholic" Churchman, but also of a large number of High Churchmen, the Protestant Churches, so-called, are not churches at all but man-made "Sects." They have no part or parcel in the Holy Catholic Church, for they ''broke away'' from this Church, or ''cut themselves off" from it by "ahando7ting the Catholic Ministry, " that is the Historic Episcopate, which is so absolutely essential to the being of the Church that "without a Bishop there can?iot exist any Church." Hence, as the Presbyterian, Methodist, Baptist, Congregationalist, and the rest of the Protestant "Sects" are no part of the Catholic Church on account of the absence of the Historic Episcopate, and as we, the members of the Protestant Episcopal Church, are the only ones to retain this absolute essential, it follows inevitably that we, and we alone. WHERE THE CHURCH STANDS 13 represent the American branch of the Holy Catholic Church. We should therefore clearly proclaim the fact to the world by calling ourselves "The American Catholic Church." Now it must be fully confessed that if this is the official teaching of the Protestant Episcopal Church with regard to the nature and limits of the Catholic Church, the conclusion derived from it is inevitable, and the legitimacy of calling ourselves The American Catholic Church cannot be denied: but — it must also be as fully confessed again, that if this is not the official teaching of the Protestant Episcopal Church with regard to the nature and limits of the Catholic Church, but on the contrary is absolutely incompatible with that teaching, then the conclusion derived from it is false, and the adoption of the title American Catholic involves nothing more or less than a fundamental change m the doctrinal position of the Church. It so happens that the above concep- tion of the nature and limits of the Catholic Church is not that which has received the official Sanction of the Protestant Episcopal Church, but is absolutely inconsistent therewith, hence any attempt to adopt the name. The American Catholic Church, means, in plain English, an attempt to change a fundamental principle. We now propose to prove the truth of this assertion, by submitting evidence as to what the official teaching of this Church really is, as to the nature and limits of the Catholic Church. 14 WHERE THE CHURCH STANDS Official View of the Church We purpose to show first, that the Church of England, and secondly, that the Protestant Episco- pal, have from the very beginning consistently maintained but one attitude on the subject of the nature and limits of the Catholic Church; that instead of limiting it to the sphere of the Episcopal Churches, they have officially declared it to cover the entire body of bapti?-ed persons, and even professing Christians, throughout the world, and have further recognized some of the non-Episcopal Churches by name as legitimate branches thereof. Before pre- senting the direct evidence upon this point (which is abundant), we desire to pave the way by calling attention to a certain matter which although bearing only indirectly on the subject, nevertheless affords evidence which is conclusive. It is the official teach- ing of the Church of England, as well as of the Protes- tant Episcopal Church that Baptism is that rite by which we are incorporated into the Body of Christ, which body is the Catholic Church. "The Church, which is His Body." (Ephes. i., 22, 23.) This fact is so generally admitted that it seems unnecessary to cite evidence for the confirma- tion of it, but for form's sake we refer the reader to the following: "Baptism wherein I was made a member of Christ {i.e. of His Body — the Church) the child of God, and an inheritor of the kingdom of Heaven," (Catechism.) " Grant to this child that thing which by nature he cannot have; that he may WHERE THE CHURCH STANDS 15 be baptized with water and the Holy Ghost, and received into Christ's Holy Church, and be made a living member of the Same." (Pub. Baptism of Infants — English Pr. Book.) And immediately upon the consummation of the act of Baptism, the officiating Clergyman says: "We receive this child into the congregation of Christ's flock. "... "See- ing now, dearly beloved brethren, that this child is regenerate, and grafted into the body of Christ's Church." . . . "We yield Thee hearty thanks, most Merciful Father that it has pleased Thee to . . . incorporate him into Thy Holy Church, etc. " (Pub. Bap. Infants-English Pr. Book.) (Practically the same expressions occur also in the corresponding offices of our own Prayer Book. From these and numberless other declarations set forth by authority, it is easily deduced that this is the teaching of the Protestant Episcopal Church — viz.; — that every person who has been duly baptized has been made therein and thereby, a member of Christ's Body or Church. Hence the limits of the Holy Catholic Church are co-extensive with the company of all baptized persons throughout the world.' This much then is demonstrable. An objection is easily urged by the question, what constitutes valid ' We are fully aware that a very ingenious argument has been recently brought forward to offset this difficulty, viz: — that which contends that though as individuals, Protestants are members of the Catholic Church, their organizations have no right whatever to be considered as legitimate parts or branches of the same. This objec- tion will be fully dealt with later on, though its irrelevance should be obvious. i6 WHERE THE CHURCH STANDS Baptism? We will admit, say our opponents, that this Church as well as the mother Church of England, has officially affirmed that all validly baptized persons are members of the Church Catholic, but it does not necessarily follow from this that these so-called Baptisms are real Baptisms. If Baptism is a Sacra- ment, and if every Sacrament depends for its validity upon its administration at the hands of an Epis- copally ordained Clergyman, it follows inevitably that there are no valid baptisms administered in non- Episcopal Churches so-called. Therefore, the Protes- tant bodies are no parts of the Catholic Church. Now we present this objection merely because it is the legitimate argument following upon the assump- tion that the Episcopate is essential to the validity of the Sacraments generally. As an actual fact, however, "Catholics" knowing only too well that the Church has unqualifiedly recognized the validity of Baptism administered in non-episcopal bodies, and even of Lay Baptism, do not (because they cannot), take this line of defence but with strange inconsistency admit that Lay Baptism is valid (hence that individual Protestants are all members of the Church) while simultaneously continuing to make the assertion that the Episcopate is essential to the validity of the Sacraments generally, and to the very being oj the Church. Note well the inconsist- ency ! When speaking generally, they sweepingly assert that Episcopacy is essential to the validity of the ''Sacraments'' {plural), hence essential to the validity of both the Holy Communion and Baptism. WHERE THE CHURCH STANDS 17 When confronted, however, with the Church's official recognition of Lay Baptism, and their own admission that even individual Protestants are members of the Church CathoHc (by virtue of their valid Baptism therein) they elastically adjust them- selves to the new position so necessitated, as if the point were oj no consequence whatever. (Whereas the tacit admission is actual surrender.) They quite as tenaciously hold on to what is left of the assertion, viz: that Episcopacy is essential to the validity of the Holy Communion, any way. From the fact that Baptism, and not the Holy Communion, is the Sacrament oJ admission to membership in the Church Catholic, and thus the only one that affects the ques- tion before us one way or another, what is left of the proposition is wholly irrelevant, even if it were true. As an actual matter of fact, it is not even true. If Episcopacy is essential to the validity of the one Sacra- ment, it is essential to the other also — AND IF NOT —WHY NOT? LET US HA VE THE ANSWER. Not to anticipate matters which will be exhaus- tively discussed in the following chapters, and in order to pave the way to a better understanding of what is to follow, we will now proceed to substantiate our initial proposition regarding the Church's atti- tude toward the matter of Lay and Protestant Bap- tism. That both the Church of England, and our own Communion, have officially recognized the validity of Lay Baptism, and in actual practice have regularly admitted the Baptism of Protestant Minis- ters, generally, as valid, is so well known that it i8 WHERE THE CHURCH STANDS would seem wholly unnecessary to cite evidence upon the subject, but in order that no step in the argument may be criticized as unsupported, and that from first to last it may be clearly seen that we appeal only to what has been set forth by authority, we will address ourselves to the task. Lay Baptism "Yea, 'Baptism by any man in case of necessity,' was the voice of the whole world heretofore. Neither is TertuUian, Epiphanius, Augustine, or any other of the ancients against it. " (Hooker, Eccles. Polity, bk. v., ch. Ixi., 3.) "The universal tradition and practice of the Church from the earliest ages has allowed the valid- ity of Lay Baptism in cases of necessity, a rebaptism never being required for such persons. The question was fully discussed in the Church of Carthage with the above conclusion." {Church Cyclopcsdia, Art., Baptism.) "The question of rebaptizing or otherwise was for the most part determined (in the early Church) simply by the question whether the essential elements of Baptism were wanting or no, viz., water and the •words prescribed by our Lord. If these were em- ployed the Baptism was regarded as valid, though irregular, and the person so baptized was admitted into Communion, if on other grounds found worthy, after imposition of the hands of the Bishop. " (Smith, Cheetham Diet. Chr. Antiq., vol. i., Art., Baptism.) WHERE THE CHURCH STANDS 19 "This is clearly laid down by the Canon Law: A Priest is the ordinary minister of Baptism: the Bap- tism of women is forbidden except in the case of necessity : but even the Baptism of a Jew or a Pagan must not be reiterated. (Decret. pars iii. de Con- secratione: de Baptismi Sacramento, xix., xx., xxiii.) And we must remember that the Canon Law, which in the Middle Ages was the Law of the Western Church, including the Church of England, has re- mained no less so since the Reformation, except where contrary to the Statute Law or the royal pre- rogative. The Legatine and Provincial Constitu- tions, made under the sanctions of Cardinal Otho and Othobon, the Pope's Legates, and by many Archbishops of Canterbury, are given in Lynde- wood's Provinciale (a.d. 1679). The usage in case of necessity of Lay Baptism (men and women) is strictly enjoined. Priests are commanded to teach their parishioners the right Form of Baptism; and Archbishop Peccham censures certain fooHsh Priests {Stolidi Sacerdotes) who profaned by reiterating the Sacrament after Lay Baptism (Lyndewood, De Baptismo et ejus Effectu, lib. iii., tit. xxiv.) — Blunt's Diet. Doc. and Hist. Theology, Art., Lay Baptism.) "Such Baptisms {i.e. administered by laymen) have always been held valid by the Church of England.'' {Church Handy Diet., Art., Lay Baptism.) "The Sarum Manual enjoined that each Parish Priest should often, on the Sunday, set forth to his parishioners the Form of Baptizing in order that, if 20 WHERE THE CHURCH STANDS need be, they {i.e. the parishioners) might know how to baptize infants. . . . The Sarum Rubric per- mitted Lay Baptism in cases of necessity only." {The Prayer Book Interleaved, p. 189.) Even the Council of Trent held the same view : "Si quis dixerit, baptismum, qui etiam datur ab haereticis, in nomine Patris, et Filii, et Spiritus Sancti, cum intentione faciendi quod facit Ecclesia, non esse verum baptismum: Anathema sit." (Cone. Trid., Sess. VH., Canon IV., De Baptismo.) ("If any man shall say that Baptism, even though it be administered by heretics, in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, with the intention of doing what the Church does, is not true Baptism — Let him be Anathema.") The principle thus laid down has been definitely stated from time to time by English Synods from a very early age; and the Pupilla Oculi, which was a standard book of instructions for the Clergy in the mediseval period, has some exhaustive statements on the subject which plainly show that it was the practice to recognize Baptism as valid by whomso- ever administered if given with the proper matter and form of words; which practice undoubtedly continued up to the time of the Reformation. This is, at the same time, shown most clearly and authori- tatively by the Rubric placed at the end of Ritus Baptizandi in the Salisbury Manual, which is as follows: (Here is appended, in Latin, the specific direction given by the Parish Priest to his parish- ioners, to be used by them in baptizing children, when WHERE THE CHURCH STANDS 21 the services of a Priest can not be obtained. He continues) — "The substantial part of the above Rubric was retained in the Book of Common Prayer in the following words: "The Pastors and Curates shall oft admonish the people that they defer not. . . . And also they shall warn them that without great cause and necessity they baptize not children at home in their houses. And when great need shall compel them so to do, that then they minister it on this fashion. First, let them that be present call upon God for His Grace, and say the Lord's Prayer, if the time will suffer. And then one of them shall name the child, and dip him in the water, or pour water upon him, saying these words," etc. . . . "A7id let them not doubt, but that the child so baptized is lawfully afid stcfficiently baptized. ..." (Blunt's Annot., Book Com. Prayer, p. 405.) This Rubric, introduced into the first Prayer Book of Edward VI. (1549), after the form of the Salisbury Manual, is repeated in the second Prayer Book of Edward (1552). It has thus been officially authorized three times by the Church of England since the Reforma- tion (to say nothing of the official sanctions before that time), but in spite of this, because the wording of it was altered in the Revision of 1661, it has been supposed by some that the doctrinal teaching of the Church on this point was officially changed at that time. That this is not the case, however, can easily be demonstrated. The same men who ordered the alteration of the wording of this Rubric in 1661, also asserted clearly 22 WHERE THE CHURCH STANDS and emphatically that they had not done it with any intention of changing the doctrinal teaching of the Church on this point — that, in fact, of "all the sundry alterations proposed" they had "rejected all such as were of dangerous consequence (as secretly striking at some established doctmie or laudable practice of the Church of England, or indeed of the whole Catholic Chiirch of Christ) . ." and that they did freely "profess to the world that the Book as it stood before established by law, did ?tot contain in it any thing contrary to the Word of God, or to sound doctrine,'' etc. (Preface, Bk. Com. Prayer, 1661). If then it can be demonstrated that the Church of England taught the legitimacy of Lay Baptism before 1661, and specifically so in this Rubric, and if in altering the wording of this Rubric, the Revisers themselves as specifically state again that the altera- tion was not made with the purpose of changing its doctrinal significance (viz. : the legitimacy of Lay Baptism), it follows inevitably that the Church of England since the year 1661 has continued. to hold that doctrine. This in itself is conclusive, and should settle the question, if question it be. It may be of interest, however, to note the words of Blunt, him- self a High Churchman. After noting that the words "one of them" in the former Rubric were changed to "lawful minister," he himself remarks: "These successive alterations have been supposed to narrow the theory of the Church of England respecting Baptism, and to restrict its valid administration to Bishops, Priests, and Deacons. But although these WHERE THE CHURCH STANDS 23 additions and alterations were probably made with the object of checking Lay Baptism, it cannot be said that they contain any decision against their validity; nor, indeed, can it be supposed, for a moment, that the prudent men who superintended the various revisions of the Prayer Book would have reversed, merely by a Rubric, the long estabHshed tenet of the Church of England that Lay Baptisms are in some cases necessary, and are not to be repeated." Moreover, he significantly adds, in comment on the expression "lawful minister": "It must not be forgotten that 'minister' in the Book of Common Prayer means 'executor officii,' and that if it was used here in that sense, the addition of 'lawful' does not by any means of necessity restrict it to a clergyman. The 'alius minister ad hoc magis idoneus' of the Rubric, given in the preceding note, shows that the word 'minister' was used even of a Lay person in the case of the ministration of Baptism long before the Reformation." (Annot., Bk. Com. Pr., p. 405.) But while all this is true— and more- over a great admission for a High Churchman— yet it is all wholly unnecessary to estabHsh our point. We have only to remember that the Church of Eng- land taught the legitimacy of Lay Baptism prior to 1 66 1, specifically setting it forth in the Rubric above quoted. We have only to remember that the Revisers of 1661 have, in so many words, declared that no doctrinal teaching of the Prayer Book prior to that year was affected in any way whatever by the amendments and alterations which they introduced. 24 WHERE THE CHURCH STANDS We have only to remember these facts, we say, to prove beyond all shadow of doubt that this continued to be the doctrinal teaching of the Chiirch of England after the Restoration. Moreover, Blunt tells us that, "although there were supposed to be about 300,000 persons in England who had been baptized by Lay- men at the time when the clergy were restored to their duties in 1 66 1, no public provision was made by the Church for rebaptizing them, nor does it appear, that any doubt whatever was thrown upon the validity of their baptisms by those who revised our Offices." {Annot., Bk. Com. Pr., p. ^05.) Finally, if there should still remain any doubt as to the teach- ing of the Church to-day, we have only to remind our readers of the generally acknowledged fact that no doctrinal alterations or changes of any importance whatever, have been made either in the Prayer Book or in any of the other formularies of the Church of England since 1661, and that, with regard to the very matter in question, the legitimacy of Lay Baptism has twice been officially affirmed within the past one hundred years. * ' The validity of Lay B aptism during the present century has been twice decided by the ecclesiastical courts of the English Church — in the Court of Arches in the case of Kemp v. Wickes (a.d. 1809), and in that of Martin v. Escott in the Arches Court and before the Judicial Committee (a.d. 1841). (Blunt's Diet, of Doct. and Hist. Theology, Art., Lay Baptism.) Add to this the official declaration of our own Communion that "this Church is far from intending to depart from the WHERE THE CHURCH STANDS 25 Church of England in any essential point of doctrine, discipline, or worship" (Preface to Prayer Book), and the well known fact that in actual practice we are accustomed to recognize the validity of Lay Baptism, to say nothing of the validity of the Bap- tisms performed by Protestant Ministers, and it will be easily seen that our contention is fully established. But, whatever may be our attitude toward the Ministers of other Protestant Churches, once admit that this Chiirch recognizes the validity even of Lay Baptism, and officially recognizes again that all who are validly baptized are incorporated into the Body of Christ's Holy Catholic Church, and it follows in- evitably that this Church officially recognizes all Protestants as members of the Catholic Church, Hence, it is contrary to the official teaching both of the Church of England and of our own to affirm that the Holy Catholic Church is limited to those Congregations which are under the regimen of the Historic Episcopate, or that all non-episcopal, protes- tant bodies are excluded therefrom. II OFFICIAL DECLARATIONS CONCERNING THE CHURCH CATHOLIC 27 II OFFICIAL DECLARATIONS CONCERNING THE CHURCH CATHOLIC HAVING now demonstrated our contention from the indirect evidence afforded by the official attitude of the Church on the matter of Lay Baptism, we will next proceed to establish it from the direct evidence of the Church's definitions of, and declarations concerning, the Church Catholic or Universal. That, officially ^ she has never limited her conception of the Catholic Church to those particular bodies organized under the government of the Historic Episcopate, as so many of her clergy are doing to-day in her name, but without her authority, will be clear from the following facts : (i) In the "Prayer for all Conditions of Men," the English Church officially identifies the Church Catholic as co-extensive with "all those who profess and call themselves Christians, " and as the number of those who do thus profess and call themselves Christians is not limited to those who are members of Episcopal Churches, but includes all Protestants, it follows that the Church here again, in this Prayer, officially recognizes all Protestants as members of 29 30 WHERE THE CHURCH STANDS the Catholic Church. In the English Prayer Book the passage in question reads as follows: "More especially, we pray for the good estate of the Catholick Church; that it may be so guided and governed by Thy good Spirit, that all who profess and call them- selves Christians, may be led into the way of Truth, and hold the Faith in unity of spirit, in the bond of peace, and in righteousness of Hfe." In our own Prayer Book the first clause is changed slightly in its wording, but bears precisely the same import: "More especially we pray for Thy Holy Church Universal; that it may be so guided," etc. Note, moreover, that this Prayer was not issued until 1662. Hence it was the official expression of the Church on this subject at the time of the Restoration. As it is universally conceded that no doctrinal or other changes have crept in since that day, it is obvious that this continues to be the official view to-day. (2) The same definition is again repeated in the Prayer "for the whole state of Christ's Church Militant here m Earth." "Beseeching Thee to inspire continually the Universal Church with the spirit of Truth, unity, and concord: And grant that all they who do confess Thy Holy Name, may agree in the truth of Thy Holy Word, and live in unity and godly love." (Communion Office, Eng. Pr. Bk.) By referring to our own Prayer Book, it will be seen that the same Prayer with only a few unessential verbal alterations has been officially authorized. Still further on, in the same Office, we note: "The Mystical Body of Thy Son, which is the blessed WHERE THE CHURCH STANDS 31 company of all faithful people." The wording is the same in both the American and EngHsh Prayer Books. (3) Again, in a Prayer set forth by the Church (circa 1572) we read: "Be merciful (0 Father of all mercies) to Thy Church Universal dispersed through- out the whole world: and grant that all they that confess Thy Holy Name, may agree in the truth of Thy Holy Word, and live in godly concord and unitie. " (4) Again, in the Bidding Prayer of the Church of England, pubhshed in the Canons of 1604 (Canon 55), and set forth by authority of Convocation, we find these words: "Ye shall pray for Christ's Holy Catholic Church, that is, for the whole congregation of Christian people dispersed throughout the world:' If, still ignoring the plain and obvious meaning of all these official utterances, there are any yet ready to assert that the Church authoritatively supports their Tractarian theory that the Episcopate is absolutely essential to the existence of a true Church; if there are yet any who, in defiance of the above quotations, are disposed to maintain this, on the pretext that such expressions as "the congregation of Christian people dispersed throughout the whole world," of "the blessed company of all faithful people," were intended to refer only to those who were faithful to the true doctrine of the Church and the Episcopate, and who were, therefore, the only true "Christian people," we reply that this whole fine-spun hypo- thesis will be found to be completely shattered by a 32 WHERE THE CHURCH STANDS little further examination of the evidence before us. For first of all, the statement, that "all who profess and call themselves Christians" are to be regarded as members of the Church Catholic, in itself contradicts this assumption. The further fact that all' who have been baptized, whether by a valid ministry, or only by laymen, have been officially pronounced members of the Holy Catholic Church, places the attitude of the Church of England towards these non-episcopal bodies beyond all question. Besides all this, the possibility of any reasonable doubt as to the Church's position is absolutely eliminated by the fact that she has gone beyond these general statements, and in a number of other instances has in so many words recognized these non-episcopal congregations as true "Churches," and, together with the Greek, Roman, and her own communion, included them by name in the Holy Catholic or Universal Church. Thus, as early as 1550 the German Protestants in England were acknowledged as constituting a genu- ine branch of the Church. A patent was granted them by Edward VI. to protect them in their rights, "that by the Ministers oj the Church of the Germans, and other strangers, a sound interpretation of the most Holy Gospels, and the administration of the Sacraments according to the word oJ God and Apostolic customs may exist.'' Moreover, in the Bidding Prayer, set forth by authority in 1604 — a portion of which we have just quoted, the Church of Scotla^id is specifically mentioned, by name, as a part of the Holy Catholic Church, which Church, at that time, was a WHERE THE CHURCH STANDS 33 non-episcopal, i. e. Presbyterian body. The passage reads as follows: "Ye shall pray for Christ's Holy Catholic Church, that is, for the whole Congrega- tion of Christian people dispersed throughout the whole world, and especially for the Churches of England, Scotland, and Ireland." (Canon 55.)' Again, we have a copy of a license issued by the Archbishop of Canterbury (Gnndal) to one John Morrison a Presbyter of the Church of Scotland, permitting him to officiate without re-ordination in the Church of England, and assigning as a reason the validity of his Presbyterian ordination in ''the Reformed Church of Scotland, ^^ to wit: "Since you, the aforesaid John Morrison . . . were admitted and ordained to sacred Orders and the Holy Ministry, by the imposition of hands, according to the laudable form and rite of the Reformed Church of Scotland . . . we, therefore, . . . approving and ratifying the form of your Ordination and preferment done in such manner aforesaid, grant to you a license and faculty, with the consent and express command of the most reverend Father in Christ, the Lord Edmund, by the Divine Providence Archbishop of Canterbury," etc. (License dated April 6, 1582. See full text of same in Strype's Life of Archbishop Grindal. Also cited by Goode and other authorities.) This is official recognition by the highest authority in the Church ' The assertion, sometimes met with in " Catholic " text-books, that the Church of Scotland here mentioned was not Presbyterian, is without foundation. The matter is fully discussed a few pages further on. 34 WHERE THE CHURCH STANDS of England both of the integrity of the Presbyterian Church of Scotland as a true branch of the Catholic Church, and of the consequent validity of its non- Episcopal ordinations. Moreover, we may here add, parenthetically, that this particular instance is only one of many, it being a fact well known to all his- torians (though strangely ignored and suppressed by High Churchmen) that the Chiirch of England for more than a hundred years not only officially recognized the validity of the ordinations of such non-Episcopal Churches, but habitually admitted their Ministers to her own communion without re- ordination. This has been attested by Strype, Hall, Cosin, Burnet, Fleetwood, Keble, Hallam, Macaulay, and many others. Thus, Hallam tells us: "It had not been unusual from the very beginning of the Reformation to admit Ministers, ordained in foreign Churches, to benefices in England; no reordinaton had ever been practiced with respect to those who had received imposition of hands in a regular Church ; and hence it appears that the Church of England, whatever tenet might have been broached in con- troversy, did not consider the ordination of Pres- byters invalid." {Constitutional History, p. 224.) Says Macaulay, "The Church of Rome held that Episcopacy was of Divine institution, and that certain supernatural graces of a high order had been transmitted by the imposition of hands through fifty generations from the eleven who received their commission on the Galilean Mount to the Bishops who met in Trent. A large body of Protestants, on WHERE THE CHURCH STANDS 35 the other hand? regarded Prelacy as positively un- lawful, and persuaded themselves that they found a very different form of ecclesiastical government prescribed in Scripture. The founders of the Angli- can Church took a middle course. They retained Episcopacy, but they did not declare it to be an institu- tion essential to tJie welfare of a Christian Society, or to the efficacy of the Sacraments.'' (Jlist., vol. i., chap. i.) " Certainly it was her practicey' declares Bishop Fleetwood, ''during the reigns of King James and Charles I.; and to the year 166 1, we had MANY ministers from Scotland, from France, a7id the Low Countries, who were ordained by Presbyters only, and not by Bishops, and they were instituted into benefices with cure; and yet were never re-ordained, but only subscribed the Articles." {Works, p. 552.) Nor, we may add, was this custom ever discontinued because wrong in principle or doctrine, but as will be presently shown, because practical considera- tions rendered it highly ijtexpedient. After the overthrow of Episcopal Government in England during the days of Cromwell, it was deemed posi- tively necessary in order to insure its stability in the future, that all Ministers coming into the Church from other denominations, should give evidence of good faith, by submitting to Episcopal Ordination, before being honored with benefice and cure. In fact, it was justly complained that it was hardly fair to allow men who were openly opposed to Episco- pacy, and who declined to be ordained by Bishops, to be promoted to benefices in an Episcopal Church 36 WHERE THE CHURCH STANDS and supported out of the pockets of a people who desired an Episcopal Government. Says Bishop Hall, "The sticking at the admission of our brethren, returning from foreign Reformed Churches was NOT in the case of ordination, but of institution ; they had been acknowledged Ministers of Christ without any other hands laid on them; but according to the laws of our land, they were not capable of institu- tion to benefice, unless they were so qualified as the statutes of this realm doth require. And secondly, I know those, more than one, that by virtue of that ordination, which they have brought with them from other Reformed Churches, have enjoyed spiri- tual promotions and livings without any exceptions against the lawfulness of their callings." {Works, vol. X., p. 341.) So also Macaulay, "Episcopal ordination was now {1662) for the first time, made an indispensable qualification for preferment. " {Hist., vol. i., p. 132.) But we shall produce abundant evidence a little later on as to this. For the present we merely desire to emphasize the fact that for more than one hundred years it was the regular custom of the Church of England to admit non-episcopally ordained Ministers to officiate, and to hold office and benefice, in her Communion, and that when the custom was discontinued, it was for practical con- siderations only, no doctrinal principle being in- volved. She still continued to recognize the validity of Presbyterian Ordination. As a recent writer — the late Dr. Chas. A. Briggs, has said: "It is an historical absurdity for members of the Church of WHERE THE CHURCH STANDS 37 England and of the American Protestant Episcopal Church, to deny the validity of Presbyterial ordina- tion, which was recognized as you show and as is well known to all historians, by the fathers and founders of the Church of England." But the weightiest evidence of all comes from the pen of one whom our "Catholic" brethren cannot afford to discredit. No name is held in greater reverence among them than that of John Keble — one of the leaders of the Tractarian movement — and yet no man more candidly though reluctantly admits the truth of this assertion. It is a subject of deep regret with him that the Church of England ever assumed such a position or officially sanctioned such a practice, but that she did do so, he does not hesitate honestly and squarely to admit in his Preface to Hooker's Works affirming that it is ''notorious'' that the extreme Episcopal claims advocated by his party were not maintained by the Reformers, and that ''numbers had been admitted to the ministry of the Church of England, with no better than Presbyterian ordination." (P. Ixxvi.) It is hardly necessary to add to this fact, what is but a necessary corollary therefrom, that the official recognition of the validity of the ordinations of these non-episcopal bodies is synonymous with the recognition of these bodies themselves as true "Churches.'' As no doctrinal position of the Church of England on this or any other matter was ever subsequently changed, if the words of later Revisers (especially the Revisers of 1661) are to be relied upon at all, it is a foregone 38 WHERE THE CHURCH STANDS conclusion that the Church is officially bound to this position to-day. To return to our citation of facts, the Church of England in the year 1580, again officially set forth a prayer in which intercession was made in behalf of "the Churches of France, Flanders, and of such other places as were then suffering per- secution. " (Proctor's Hist. Book of Common Prayer, p. 479, Note.) A similar prayer set forth in 1590, just ten years later, beseeches that "forasmuch as Thou hast promised to maintain and defend the cause of Thy Church . . . protect and strengthen Thy Servants our brethren in France that are now ready to fight for the glory of Thy Name ... so shall that proud generation have no cause to insult over Thy true Church, " etc. Again, Canon 30 (1604) asserts that it was not the purpose of the Church of England to forsake and reject {per omnia recedere) the Churches of Italy, Frajice, Spain, Germany, or any such like Churches, in all things which they held and practised," etc., — a statement which while im- plying the disagreement of the Church of England upon certain points both with the Church of Rome and the above named Protestant Churches, none the less recognizes all of them as ''Churches.'' In a celebrated work entitled Synopsis Papismi, which though written by an individual clergyman of the Church of England only, was afterwards set forth by authority of the Church herself as expressing her official views, a number of the non-episcopal Protes- tant bodies are recognized hy name as true Churches and the validity of their ministries endorsed. To WHERE THE CPIURCH STANDS 39 quote: ''Neither is it true that there are no Ministers but by the ordination of Bishops, for this were to con- demn all those Reformed Churches of Helvetia, Belgia, Geneva, with others which have not received this form of Ecclesiastical Government . . . so that we doubt not but that all the Reformed Churches professing the Gospel have true and lawful ministers, though they observe not all the same manner in the election and or- daining them. And this is the general consent of the Churches themselves.'' (Synop. Papismi, vol. vi., p. 368.) Let the reader note well that this is not merely the opinion of the author, Dr. Willet, but of the Church, for the entire work containing this statement was issued ''by the authority of His Majesty s royal letters-patent,'' and was further "seen and allowed by the Lords the Reverend Bishops, and hath also ever been in great esteem in both Universi- ties ; and also much desired by all the learned, both of our Clergy and Laity, throughout our dominions." Again, the Church of England officially endorsed the statement of Dr. Richard Cosin in his answer to the Puritan work entitled, An Abstract on Certain Acts of Parliament, that differences merely in the form of government did not impugn the integrity of "the Churches of Denmark, Sweveland, Poland, Ger- many, Rhetia, Vallis, Tellina, the nine Cantons of Switzerland reformed, with their confederates of Geneva, of France, of the Low Countries, and of Scotland." Like the former, this work was also endorsed by the Church herself — "published by authority. " {Vide "An Answer to an Abstract," etc.. 40 WHERE THE CHURCH STANDS 1584, p. 58. Quoted in Goode's Work on Orders.) Again, in a work which was "perused and by lawful authority of the Church of England allowed to be public," the said Church officially recognized ''all the neighbor churches christianly reformed," — re- ferring to the wow-episcopal bodies on the Continent. This work — Exposition of the Articles, by Thomas Rogers, thus officially endorsed, Archbishop Ban- croft "ordered all the Parishes in his Province to supply themselves with" — a fact which further proves that even the High Churchmen of that day (for Bancroft was one of the most conspicuous) did not attempt to defend the extreme principles that are advocated to-day. Note Since the above was written, our attention has been called to a criticism which is occasionally made by "Catholics" in regard to the statement that the Church of Scotland, referred to in the Bidding Prayer of 1604, was Presbyterian. A recent writer in the Living Church (Jan. 31, 19 14, p. 473) commenting upon a statement made by the Dean of Worcester (Dr. Ede) to the same effect, asserts with great confidence that this allegation "has been shown over and over again to be nothing but a fiction, and a vulgar error. " He declares that "in the year 1600 'the Presbyterian form of government was abolished by the King' (and that) Presbyterianism was not estab- lished until 1696, nearly a century later than the date of the Canon. James I. of England had created in 1600 (he means, of course, when King of Scotland only) nine dioceses in Scotland, and appointed Bishops to them; these Bishops were given seats as such by the Parliament of Scotland. . . . The Church set up by the King, and not the Presbyterian body is the Church referred to in the Bidding Prayer." Now if this is true, if Episcopal Government was estab- lished in Scotland in 1600, and the Bidding Prayer of 1604 referred to this Episcopal Church, and if the Church of Scotland continued to be Episcopal, and " Presb3rterianism was not established until WHERE THE CHURCH STANDS 41 1696, nearly a century later than the date of the Canon," we should like to ask this plain question: Why, tJien, was it necessary to conse- crate Bishops for Scotland in 1610? What had become of the Epis- copacy which the King had established just ten years before (in 1600), and for whose preservation the English Church had authorized the prayer in question only six years before — especially if this Epis- copacy was not overthrown, nor Presbyierianism establislied, until i6q6? The truth of the matter is, there is no warrant for this assertion, for it is a fact well known to historians, and admitted by one of the ablest exponents of High Church principles (John Henry Blunt), that the attempt of the King here cited was unsuccessful. Though he made appointments for the ofEce of the Bishopric, his appointees were never consecrated, nor did the Church of Scotland ever admit that they possessed any spiritual authority. Parliament, indeed, assisted the King in the attempt, and despite the opposition of the Kirk, gave them seats, but for all that, the Kirk refused to recognize their Episco- pal authority, they exercised no Episcopal functions, and could not, in the very nature of things, attempt to do so as they were never conse- crated. If they had been consecrated in 1600, and exercising author- ity in 1604, as the writer implies, there would never have been any further consecration in 1610. It was because these so-called Bishops were not Bishops in reality, had tiever liad consecration, had never exercised spiritual authority, nor had the Kirk consented to Episcopal government until 1610, that for that very reason it became necessary in that year (when her consent was finally obtained) that such conse- cration should be bestowed. It is ridiculous, therefore, to talk about the Bidding Prayer of 1604 referring to an Episcopal Church in Scotland, for the only Episcopal Church existing there at that time was one that officially denounced Episcopacy, and the only Bishops there, were men who had never been consecrated by any Bishop whatever. Moreover, we know that James himself admitted that his mere appointment did not constitute these men Bishops, and it is notorious that they were ever referred to derisively as "Tulchan Bishops," a vulgar expression for "dummies." In 1604, then, the year in which the Bidding Prayer was set forth, the Church of Scot- land was not only Presbyterian, but militantly so, in defiance of the King. Yet it was formally admitted by the Church of England even at that time (when prejudice was so strong) to be a true part of the Holy Catholic Church. As the whole history of this contest between James and the Church 42 WHERE THE CHURCH STANDS of Scotland throws light on some other matters relative to the main point of this discussion, it will not be amiss to go into it a little further, and in doing so, we shall quote extensively from this same well known High Churchman, to whom we have referred and whose opinions are of great weight with "Catholics." Says John Henry Blunt: " The peculiar course which the Reformation took in Scotland was in nothing more strange than in its results as to the episcopate. Some of the old Bishops turned with the times, and either retained the revenues of their Sees, as did Robert Stuart, Bishop of Caithness, and Earl of Lennox, or made over these revenues to some of their relatives, as did Alexander Gordon, Bishop of Galloway: m both cases ceasing to exercise the episcopal office although retaining the episco- pal title. As these old Bishops died off, nominal successors were sometimes appointed by the Crown, or the Regents acting in the name of the Crown; and thus there were titular Bishops of ancient Sees who were never consecrated nor even in Priests^ Orders. (They were shrewdly named ' Tulchane Bishops ' a ' Tulchane ' or ' Tul- chin ' being a stuffed calf's skin set up in sight of a cow to persuade her to give her milk.) This continuance of a nominal Episcopate, side by side with the Presbyterian establishment (mark the words) was much favoured by the Court party, but it is difficult to say whether from reasons of self-interest as regarded the ancient revenues of the Sees, or in the hope that the shadow of an episcopate might some day be turtied into a reality. ^^ "When the Young King James VI. became nominally independent, though only twelve years of age, in 1578, the General Assembly of preachers took much bolder action in respect to these titular Bishops than they had ventured to take while a strong-minded nobleman was Regent. Meeting at Dundee in July, 1579, they first .passed an 'ordinance' declaring that the office of Bishop had no warrant in the Word of God. . . . After this, in 1580, they issued the "National Covenant," previously referred to, by which 'tlie government of the Kirk by Bishops' ... is 'declared to be unlawful within this Kirk. "... This opposition of the Pres- byterian faction to the free action of the Crown . . . gave James a lasting hatred of Presbyterianism . . . and when he succeeded to the Crown of England he took measures for grafting a true Episcopate upon the Kirk, evidently with the view of gradually assimilating the ecclesiastical system of Scotland to that of England. In this purpose the King was probably supported by a strong anti-revolutionary party in Scotland: for in the year 1606 the Scottish Parliament WHERE THE CHURCH STANDS 43 passed an Act 'for the restitution of Bishops' [Note — this was two years after Canon 55, the Bidding Prayer, was passed, was an Act of Pariiament only, and did not alter the attitude of the Kirk.] The purpose of this act was that of enabhng the Crown to restore to the titular Bishops such portions of the Estates of their respective Sees as still remained in its hands. In the same year (1606) James endeavored to pave the way for the restoration of Episcopal Authority by pro- posing to the General Assembly that the titular Bishops should act as Moderators or Presidents in the Presbyteries within their Dioceses, thus giving them much more power in the administration of ecclesias- tical affairs. This proposition was, after some resistance, adopted by the Assembly, and put in practice throughout the Kirk. {Even at this date, let it be noticed, the end was not attained. The King's appointees were merely permitted to occupy the Presbyterian office of ' Moderators. ' They were not recognized as Bishops either by the Kirk or the King, and could not be so recognized for the very plain reason that they had 7iever been Consecrated Bishops.) After this the King frequently urged the ' Bishops ' to take on themselves the adminis- tration of all Church aflfairs, and as they were unwilling to do so without the consent of the Ministers, an Assembly was at last called to consider the question in June, 1610. ... At this Assembly nine resolutions were assented to which practically established the jurisdiction of the Crown and the Bishops. . . . The jurisdiction of the Episco- pate being thus restored, James I. prepared to restore it to its proper spiritual position by having some of the titular Bishops consecrated. Accordingly, John Spottiswoode, Archbishop of Glasgow, Andrew Lamb, Bishop of Brechin, and William Couper, Bishop of Galloway, were summoned to London, where the King told them that he had restored the revenues of the Bishoprics, and had appointed worthy men; but (note the following words) that as he could 7iot make them Bishops, nor could they make themselves so, he had called them to Eng- land that they might be consecrated, and that being thus made true Bishops instead of mere titular ones, they might return to Scotland and consecrate the rest." It will be seen now from this account, given by one of the greatest authorities among High Churchmen, that the statements of Mr. Hall are absolutely without foundation. No Bishops were consecrated for Scotland or estabhshed over the Church of Scotland until 1610, ten years after the date he alleges, and six years after the Bidding Prayer was authorized. Even the "jurisdic- tion of the Episcopate" was not admitted, according to Blunt, until 44 WHERE THE CHURCH STANDS the year 1610, and no attempt to consecrate Bishops, until their law- ful jurisdiction within the Church had been established. In short, it was not till 1606 — two years after the Bidding Prayer had been authorized — that the Scottish Parliament even yielded to the pressure brought to bear upon it and passed an Act "for the restitu- tion of Bishops" (the very wording of the title betraying the fact that Bishops had not been restored at that time) and even then the Kirk held out against the measure, nor did it finally surrender until June, 16 10, four years later, when it finally assented to the "Nine Resolu- tions." After the action of the Scottish Parliament in 1606, James succeeded in getting the Kirk to allow his appointees to preside over their Assemblies, but aside from the fact that this again was two years after the Prayer in question was authorized, and so can affect our argument in no way whatever, aside from all this, we repeat, it was even then with the distinct understanding that they were "Moderators" or Presidents in the Presbyteries only. This was a strictly Presbyterian arrangement, nor did James or any one else in England flatter themselves that this concession meant an Episcopal form of Government for the Church. They well knew, and the King admitted, as we have seen, in so many words, that they were not Bishops, for they had never been consecrated, and could not, there- fore, in the very nature of things, presume to exercise episcopal functions. They were simple Presbyters presiding as Presbyterian "Moderators" over a strictly Presbyterian Church. There was no Episcopal Church in Scotland, then, before 1610, and the petition in the Bidding Prayer of 1604 was for the Presbyterian Church of Scotland. Moreover, what is thus admitted by so prejudiced an authority as Blunt, is of course corroborated by numbers of other writers not so hostile to the cause of Presbyterianism. We need mention only one of these. Neale, in his History of the Puritans tells us that, "In the year 1580, the General Assembly with one voice declared Diocesan Episcopacy to be unscriptural and unlawful. The same year King James, with his family, and the whole nation, subscribed a Confession of Faith, with a solemn league and covenant annexed, obliging themselves to maintain and defend the Protestant doctrine and the Presbyterian Government. After this the Bishops were restored by Parliament to some parts of their ancient dignity; and it was made treason for any man to procure the innovation or diminution of the power and authority of any of the three estates; but when this Act was proclaimed, the Ministers protested against it, as not having been WHERE THE CHURCH STANDS 45 agreed to by the Kirk. In the year 1587, things took another turn, and his Majesty being at the full age of twenty-one, consented to an Act to take away the Bishops' lands and annex them to the crown. In the year 1590 it was ordained by the General Assembly that all that bore office in the Kirk, or should hereafter do so, should sub- scribe to the Book of Discipline. In the year 1592, all Acts of Parlia- ment whatsoever made by the King's Highness, or any of his pre- decessors, in favor of Popery or Episcopacy, were annulled; and, in particular, the Act of May 22, 1584, 'For granting commissions to Bishops or other ecclesiastical judges, to receive presentations to benefices, and give collations thereupon. ' This act, for the greater solemnity, was confirmed again in 1593, and again this present year {1594), so that from this time to 16 10, Presbytery was undoubtedly the legal establishment of the Kirk of Scotland, as it had been in fact ever since the Reformation." {Id., vol. i., pp. 294, 295.) These facts effectually dispose of the objection in question. They also lead us to speak of another matter of even more vital import to our argument. It is a very significant fact, though one that is not generally known, that even in the transaction of 16 10, whereby the Kirk was finally induced to consent to Episcopal Government, such consent was only obtained after the Church of England had formally agreed that the Episcopacy to be established should be modelled after that particu- lar conception of the Episcopate which many Presbyterians had all along regarded as admissible (though, for practical considerations unadvisable) , and had further officially acknowledged the essential validity of Presbyterian ordination as such, — admissions which, it will readily be seen, are fatal to the "catholic" theory of the Episcopate, and their further contention that that theory represents the official view of the Church. In order to understand what is meant by such a conception of the Episcopate, we have only to remind our readers that the Presbyterians did not deny that in the beginning a Presiding Elder or Presbyter, commonly called a Bishop, presided over the meetings of his brother Presbyters in the capacity of a "Moderator" or Chairman of the Assembly. They only denied that such Bishops, as referred to in the New Testament, and in the early Church, were any thing more than Chairmen or Moderators. They denied that they were a separate "Order" over and above the Presbyterate, pos- sessing peculiar and inherent powers. They denied that they could act in any official capacity in independence of the Presbytery, or exercise any power not delegated to them by the same, and that in the 46 WHERE THE CHURCH STANDS matter of ordination specifically, the sovereign power being resident in the Presbyters as a body, the Bishop only conducted the ceremony, being always assisted by certain of his fellow Presbyters, and both of them merely exercising a power delegated to them by "the ordaining Presbytery." What they feared in the Church of England was the tendency to overstep the bounds of this primitive arrangement. They claimed that the "Prelacy" of the Church of England was not truly representative of primitive Episcopacy, that too much govern- ing power had already been placed in the hands of the Bishops, and that although the Church herself, had not, indeed, asserted that the Episcopate was a separate "Order" from the Presbyterate, yet that individual utterances were beginning to be heard to that effect, and there was positive danger that such a theory would eventually be maintained, a presentiment which, as we now see, was too well founded. In view of such a menace, Scotchmen resisted the idea of Episcopacy to the last, and when forced to yield, they did so only after the Church of England had given official assurance that such a conception of the Episcopate as they were willing to recognize, and such a pattern only, would he established. Nor, in acceding to this de- mand, did the Church of England in any way stultify her official position, for as we have seen (contrary to the opinions of our "catho- lic" friends) the Church of England, as a Church, i.e. officially, has never endorsed this exclusive view of the Episcopate at any time, either before or since that date. Accordingly, when the Nine Resolutions, forming the basis of the union, were drawn up in June, 1610, it was explicitly agreed to by the Church of England that when the so- called "titular" Bishops, appointed by the King, should have been duly consecrated, they were to be recognized as "Moderators" of the various Presbyteries within their jurisdiction, and that, while all ordinations were to be placed "substantially" in their hands, it was only in the sense that they were the heads, or representatives of ''THE ORDAINING PRESBYTERY," and that no ordinations were to be consummated by them alone, but only with the consent of the Presbytery, and with the actual co-operation of Presbyters in the ordaining act. We have clear evidence of this from a number of authorities, among them again being the unwilling witness, John Henry Blunt. In recording the details of the transaction, he tells us that " (2) The titular Bishops being ex officio Moderators of all Presbyteries within their Dioceses, Ordinations of Ministers were placed, substantially in their hands as the head of THE ORDAIN- WHERE THE CHURCH STANDS 47 JNG PRESBYTERY." {Did. Sects, Heresies, etc., Art. "Scottish Kirk," p. 544.) To the same effect is the testimony of Caldcrwood who, in citing the Article on Ordination, quotes what is apparently the exact language of the original — that the Bishop "being assisted by some such of the Mitiisters of the bounds where he is to serve, as he will assume to himself, he is then to perfyte the whole act of ordination." (Hist. Kirk of Scotland, vol. ii., p. loo.) Spottiswoode also gives like testimony (vide. Hist. Ch. Scotland, vol. iii., p. 211.) We may also, in this connection, and as evidence of the complete subjection of the Bishops to the authority of the Assembly, cite the further testimony of Lawson that "Bishops were to be subjected 'in all things concerning their life, conversation, office and benefice to the censure of the General Assembly, and if found guilty to be deposed by advice and consent of the King.' " {Epis. Ch. of Scotland.) Finally, not only were these the terms of the agreement between the two Churches, but when the actual Consecration of the Scottish Bishops was consummated, the same year, it was carried out in complete accordance with the conditions thus laid down. In the conference of the English Bishops, preliminary to the act of Conse- cration, the question of the validity of the prior Presbyterian ordina- tion of the candidates, was actually raised by Bishop Andrews, as a necessary consideration before Episcopal Consecration could be conferred, and the opinion was then formally and unanimously rendered that such ordination was valid, and it was in accordance with this OFFICIAL Decision of the Church of Enlgand {which she had already pledged in the Nine Resolutions of Agreement) that THE EPISCOPATE WAS CONFERRED. Says Spottiswoode himself (one of the very candidates in question whose testimony for that reason cannot be gainsaid), "a question in the meantime was moved by Dr. Andrews Bishop of Ely, touching the consecration of the Scottish Bishops, who, as he said, 'must first be ordained Presbyters, as having received no ordination from a Bishop.' The Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr. Bancroft, who was by, maintained Uhat thereof there was no necessity, seeing where Bishops could not be Itad, the ordina- tion given by the Presbyters must be esteemed lawful; otherwise that it might be doubted if there were any lawful vocation in most of the re- formed Churches.' This applauded to by the other Bishops, Ely acquiesced, and at the day, and in the place appointed the three Scottish Bishops were consecrated." {Hist. Ch. Scotland, vol. iii., p. 209.) The above incident is too often quoted, and too generally 48 WHERE THE CHURCH STANDS admitted as a fact, to need to be substantiated by any additional quotations, but it is interesting to note that High Churchmen Hke Russell, the biographer of Spottiswoode, and John Henry Blunt, while freely admitting that this was the position assumed by the Bishops of the Enghsh Church, acting ofBcially, in the name of the Church, condemn the act as illegal, if not invalid. Their very criti- cism, therefore, is at once a candid admission of all that we are here contending for (viz. : that the Church of England did then and there officially recognize the validity of Presbyterian ordination in one of the most important events of her ecclesiastical history), and that their own confessed attitude toward the measure (which is simultaneously the attitude of "CathoHcs" to-day) is self-evident proof that the position of both, so far from representing the authoritative view of the Church of Enlgand, as they would fain contend, is in irreconcilable conflict therewith. Not only, then, was official recognition of the vaHdity of Presbyterian ordination openly and unquaHfiedly given in the year 1610, and the essential principle of the Presbyterian dis- cipline left undisturbed, but it is further to be noted that even in 1662 when, after the downfall of the Episcopal Church during the Interregnum, Episcopacy was again restored, the terms of its re- establishment in Scotland were precisely the same. Once more, even as in 1610, there was great opposition made to it, as the Scottish people generally, were never really in favour of it, but again, as in the former period, they were won over by the assurance that no essential change in their discipline was contemplated, as the Church of England had given official assurance that a moderate Episcopacy only would be established, one that did not deny the inherent power of Presbyters to ordain, or invalidate in any sense the former Minis- try or Discipline of the Kirk. Thus, we find Archbishop Leighton himself, justifying and explaining the measure at that very time, to the people of Scotland, in a work entitled — A Modest Defence of *' Moderate" Episcopacy, As established in Scotland at the Restoration of King Charles II. He says, "Episcopal Government, managed in conjunction with Presbyters, Presbyteries, and Synods, is not con- trary to the rule of Scripture," etc. . . "is not contrary to that new Covenant, which is pretended by so many as the main, if not the only reason of their scrupling. . . . And, as both these assertions, I believe, upon the exactest (if impartial and dispassionate) inquiry, will be found to be in themselves true, so they are owned by the generality of the Presbyteries in England, as themselves have pub- WHERE THE CHURCH STANDS 49 lished their opinions in print, with this title, Two Papers of Proposals, Humbly presented to His Majesty, by tJie Reverend Ministers of the Presbyterian Persuasion — Printed at London, anno 1661. Besides other passages in these papers to the same purpose, in p. li and 12, are these words: 'And as these are our general ends and motives, so we are induced to insist upon the form of a synodical government, conjunct with a fixed presidency or Episcopacy for these reasons: . . . That tJie prelacy disclaimed in tliat Covenant was the engrossing the SOLE power of ORDINA TION and jurisdiction, and exercising the WHOLE discipline, absolutely by Bishops themselves, and their delegates, Cliancellors, Surrogates, and officials, etc., excluding wholly the PASTORS of particmar Churches from all share in it.' And there is one of prime note amongst them, who, in a large treatise of Church Government, does clearly evidence, that this was the mind both of the Parliament of England, and of the Assembly of Divines at West- minster, as they themselves did expressly declare it in the admitting of the Covenant, ' That they understood it not to be against ALL Epis- copacy, but only against that particular frame, as it is worded in the article itself.' (Baxter on Church Government, p. iii. C. 1. tit., p. 275. 'An Episcopacy desirable for the reformation, preservation, and peace of the Churches, a fixed president, durante vita.' See p. 297, 330, ibid.). . . . That this difference should arise to a great height, may seem somewhat strange to any man that calmly con- siders, that there is in this Church 720 change at all, neither in the doctrine nor worship: no, nor in the substance of the DISCIPLINE ITSELF. But when it falls on matter easily inflammable, a little spark how great a fire it will kindle! .... II. When the house of Lords took the Covenant, Mr. Thomas Coleman that gave it them, did so explain it, and profess that it was not their intent to covenant against ALL Episcopacy; and upon this explication it was taken; and certainly the Parliament was most capable of giving the true sense of it, seeing that it was they that did impose it. . . . That very scruple was made by some members of Parliament, and resolved, with consent of their brethren in Scotland, that the Covenant was only intended against PRELA CY as it was then in being in Eng- land, leavinp^ a latitude for Episcopacy, etc." {Works, vol. ii., p. 546 et seq.) Moreover, to all this evidence, must be added the further fact that in the very first Ordinal set forth for the use of the new Episcopal Church of Scotland in 1620, following the teaching of Cranmer and all the Elizabethan Reformers after him, following 50 WHERE THE CHURCH STANDS what had been then, and was at this time (1629) the official view of the Church of England herself, it was distinctly asserted that there were but two orders only (in the technical sense of the word) in the Ministry of Christ's Church, viz.: — (i) BisJiops {or Pres- byters); and (2) Ministers {or Deacons) — See Proctor's Hist. Book oj Com. Prayer, p. 94. In conclusion, then, we may affirm that it is perfectly evident from the above that whatever may have been the tendency at that time toward an exclusive theory of the Episcopate, a tendency which doubtless justified the fear of "prelacy" so called, it is absolutely certain that this tendency was a movement advocated by individuals only. It never had the authoritative sanction of the Church. In short, it is absolutely certain that both in her official teachings, as well as in her official dealings with the Scottish Kirk, the Church of England then stood squarely and unqualifiedly for a moderate view of Episcopacy only — for that view of the Episcopate, in other words, taught by the Reformers and reasserted, time and again, in her public acts and formularies throughout the trying period of the Reformation. Nor is there a shred of evidence to justify the supposition that what was then official doctrine has now ceased to be official. Aside from the fact that there is no evidence whatever of this, such a supposition implies that the present constitution of the Church of England, instead of dating from the days of the Reformation, as is universally acknowledged by friend and foe alike, dates from some period subsequent to the Restoration of 1662, a proposition which does not deserve consideration. If then the "Catholic " theory of the Episcopate and of the Church (which depends upon it as a corollary) is so diametrically opposed to this official view of the Church of England in the seventeenth century, it follows that it is equally irreconcilable with the official teaching of that Church to-day and this, no matter how popular "catholic" principles may be with a great portion of the Clergy and Laity of the Church, or how many volumes defending such principles may be falsely set forth in the name of that Church. Such pretensions cannot possibly change the facts. We may summarize this portion of the argument then as follows: The Church of England in the seventeenth century, acting in her official capacity, made the following clear and specific admissions, — 1st. She admitted the validity of the former Presbyterial ordina- tions of the Kirk; 2d. She formally conceded the demand of the Kirk that from henceforth "ordinations of ministers were placed. WHERE THE CHURCH STANDS 51 substantially, in their (the Bishops') hands as the head of the ordaining Presbytery only." (Resolution 2). 3d. In the first Ordinal de- signed for the use of this new Episcopal Church in 1620, oflBcially "adopted by the Bishops," she repeated the declaration so often made by Cranmcr and the English Reformers generally that there were but two Orders only in the Ministry, viz.: — "Bishops (or Pres- byters) and Ministers" {i.e. Deacons), Proctor's Hist. Bk. Com. Prayer, p. 94. Note. Blunt's Diet. Heresies, etc., p. 545. These facts are, of course fatal to the whole "catholic" conception of the Episcopate as in any sense representing the official view of the Church of England, and the surprising thing is that they are not better known especially when even such a well-known authority as Blunt in his Annotated Book of Common Prayer, a work as popular as it is scholarly, distinctly tells us (p. 566) that *'it was not till the close of the Sixteenth Century, that the distinction between the Orders of Bishops and Priests was asserted" even. This statement is unquestionably true. The only trouble with it is that it is not the whole truth, for even then it was asserted by individuals only, and not by the Church as such. Nor, as we propose to show, has it ever been asserted by the Church as such, but is even to this day an unofficial assertion only of individual Churchmen of so-called "catholic" tendencies. Even in 1620, as we have just seen, the Church reasserted the view of the Reformers that Bishops and Presbyters were one and the same Order, as her official opinion, and we have only to turn to so late a work as the ninth edition of the Encyclopcedia Brilannica, Article "Order," p. 844, to find these words: "The Church of England expressly recognizes the Diaconate and the Priesthood, but no others, as distinct Orders," thus amply vindicating our contention that the official view of the Church to-day is the same as it was in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. As the Revisers of 1662 distinctly state in the Preface of their Prayer Book, no alteration in any doctrine was made by them. Thus the official doctrine of the Church in regard to the Episcopate, even as in regard to all other matters, is exactly the same to-day as it was in the days of Elizabeth. We shall speak more particularly of this matter in a subsequent chapter. For the present we merely desire to mention it, and to emphasize the fact that these objections are fatal to "catholic" conceptions of the official teaching of the Church of England on the subject of the validity of Presby- terian ordinations, and the integrity of Presbyterian bodies as true parts of the Holy Catholic Church. Ill OTHER DECLARATIONS, OFFICIAL AND NON-OFFICIAL 53 Ill OTHER DECLARATIONS, OFFICIAL AND NON-OFFICIAL IT will be observed that the foregoing evidence has all been gathered from official declarations of the Church of England herself or from acts and utterances officially endorsed by her. We have purposely refrained from quoting any passages of a private nature, even from the works of the very highest authorities in the Church which have not been formally endorsed by the Church herself, acting in her official capacity. If now we should go further and attempt to supplement these with all the private opinions expressed by individual church- men who lived contemporaneously with these official declarations, we should swell this essay to an in- ordinate length. Numberless quotations of this kind might be adduced. Practically all the Reformers and nearly all the divines of prominence in the English Church from the days of Cranmer down to within very recent times, who have touched upon the matter at all, have recognized the non-episcopal bodies as true parts of the Catholic Church, and their non-episcopally ordained ministers as having 55 56 WHERE THE CHURCH STANDS been validly, even if irregularly, ordained. The list of those who have in one way or another expressed these opinions includes such names as Cranmer, Ridley, Latimer, Hooper, Jewel, Bradford, Whitgift, Philpot, Pilkington, Whittaker, Fulke, Willet, Bilson, Sutcliffe, Calfhill, Hooker, Saravia, Mason, Babington, Bridges, Field, Davenant, Francis White, Thomas White, Bancroft, Cosin, Burnet, Andrews, Rainolds, Bramhall, Usher, Hall, Downham, Stilling- fieet. Seeker, Wake, Tomline, and numbers of others. * It is not until the days of the Restoration that there is any apparent change of sentiment on the subject, but even then, it is only an opinion of individuals, and never affects the official attitude of the Church herself, which attitude has continued unchanged from the days of the Reformation downwards. It is quite true that men like Archbishop Laud, in their zeal to rid the Church of that Puritanism that had wcllnigh overthrown episcopal authority in England, did many things and said many things which, looked at on the surface, appear to countenance many practices and teachings of our "Catholic" friends to-day. But whatever these men may have wanted to do in the way of altering the official teaching of the Church, we must ever be careful to distinguish between what they tried to accomplish, and what they ' Those who desire to see some of the evidence submitted by these writers are referred to Goode's work On Orders; The True Historic Episcopate, by Mason Gallagher; and a little work by the Author entitled, Apostolic Succession and the Problem of Unity, University Press, Sewanee, Tenn. WHERE THE CHURCH STANDS 57 actually did accomplish — two wholly different things. That the official attitude of the Church toward these non-episcopal bodies and the validity of their min- istries was actually changed at the time of the Restoration is a fiction pure and simple which has not one shred oj evidence to support it, as we now propose to show. To begin with, there is no clear evidence that even the High Churchmen of this period {i. e. prior to the year 1661) held, even as individuals, the extreme opinions entertained sub- sequently by the Tractarians, and by our "Catholic " brethren to-day, on the subject of the Episcopate. Laud is the only one of prominence that appears at times to have favoured these views, but if he is to be judged hy his own words, even he did not go to the extent of absolutely "unchurching" the non-episco- pal bodies, as the Tractarians did, and as the "Catho- lic" party now proposes to do. "I have endeavored to unite the Calvinists and Lutherans, " says he, "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 oj inevitable necessity; and whether that be the case in the foreign Churches, the world may judge. " (Reply to Fisher, q. Gallagher, Prim. Eirenicon, p. 188.) Here then is the worst that can be said — here are the words of the most extreme High Churchman of his day — the man who is popularly supposed to have inaugurated a fundamental, doctrinal change in the official view of the Church, — yet even he admits that "m cases 58 WHERE THE CHURCH STANDS (?/ inevitable necessity'' non-episcopal ordination is legitimate, and adds that in the case of the non- episcopal bodies of his day, the world might judge whether such necessity existed or not, but for his own part he did not absolutely unchurch them. If these words mean anything at all then, it will be seen that our "catholic" brethren cannot legitimately claim even Archbishop Laud in support of their extreme attitude toward the non-episcopal bodies, for unlike them, he admitted the possibility of non- episcopal ordinations as being valid under some cir- cumstances. He said distinctly that he would not assume the responsibility of "unchurching" them, the very thing that our "catholic" friends have not scrupled to do. Whatever else he may have said and done, then, they cannot claim that he excluded these bodies from the Catholic Church. If then such an extreme partisan of Episcopacy as Archbishop Laud could not bring himself to assume such an attitude, and yet if even he could be so harsh in the denuncia- tion of these bodies as to cause himself to be publicly "reproved" by the University of Oxford for his radical utterances, how in the name of reason can it be imagined that the authorities of the Church who thus reproved him, went to such an extreme? The truth is, there is no evidence that even the most extreme churchmen of this period ever went so far as positively to "unchurch" these bodies, as so many of their successors are doing to-day. It is quite certain that the Church as a body, i.e., officially, never presumed to do so. Speaking of individuals' WHERE THE CHURCH STANDS 59 opinions only, however, we repeat that if even Arch- bishop Laud himself did not hold such views, it is very improbable that any other churchman of prominence did so. Bancroft, for example, certainly took high ground on the matter of Episcopacy — such high ground that he, too, like Laud, was attacked as an extremist. Yet even he never went the length of the Tractarians or of the "Catholics" of to-day. As we have seen, when about to consecrate the Scottish Bishops, he eKpressed his individual opinion as to the validity of their former Presby- terian ordination in no uncertain language, and that this opinion was "applauded" by all the rest of the Bishops, individually, who then, as a collective body, proceeded officially, in the name of the Church, to confer the Episcopate upon this basis. Numberless utterances of similar import, both as to the validity of Presbyterian ordination and the integrity of non- episcopal Churches, can be cited from the works of nearly all the Caroline divines — even those most prominently concerned in the Revision of 1662. It will be seen, then, that the modern exclusive view of the Episcopate which makes Ministry, Sacrament and Church itself to depend for their very being upon this Order, is so utterly foreign to the teaching of the English Reformers, as well as to all the official acts and utterances of the Church itself of which they, of course, were the authors, and even so foreign to the individual opinions of the more conspicuous divines of the Church for at least 200 years, that it is simply amazing that, when a man undertakes to make such 6o WHERE THE CHURCH STANDS a statement within the Church to-day, he should be called upon to defend his position at all. For what may seem so strange to those who confine their theological reading to the works of a certain class of Anglican divines only, is simply common talk with historians and scholars outside the fold, and, unf or- nately, is not unknown, however much ignored, by the best scholars within it. In short, if what we have just asserted seems incredible, we will not attempt to reiterate our own assertions, but will ask a few "catholic" authorities to speak for us. In regard to what the English Reformers thought of this exclu- sive view of the Episcopate, so popular to-day, no less an authority than Keble (one of the leaders of the Oxford movement) tells us that "it might have been expected that the defenders of the English hierarchy against the first Puritans should take the highest ground, and challenge for the Bishops the same unreserved submission on the same plea of exclusive apostolical prerogative, which their adver- saries' feared not to insist on for their Elders and Deacons. // is notorious, however, that such was not in general the line preferred by Jewel, Whitgijt, Bp. Cooper, and others, to whom the management of that controversy was entrusted during the early part of Elizabeth's reign. ... // is enough for them to show that the government by Archbishops and Bishops is ancient and allowable; they never venture to urge its exclusive claim, or to connect the Succession with the validity of the Sacraments. " (Preface to Hooker's Works.) Remember, these are not our words. It is WHERE THE CHURCH STANDS 6i the Rev. John Keble who tells you this. It is he who tells you that these men did not ''connect the Succes- sion {i.e. of Bishops) with the validity of the Sacra- ments, " hence with the validity or integrity of a Church, as he (Keble) and his followers, the Tractarians and "CathoHcs" of to-day have been accustomed to do. Add to this also, the words of John Henry Blunt, another champion of "exclusive" Episcopacy, that "z7 was not until the close of the Sixteenth Century that the distinction between the Orders of Bishops and Priests was asserted.'' (Annot. Bk. Com. Prayer, p. 693, ed. Button & Co., 1894.) He means, of course, that before this date Bishop and Priest were regarded as of the same Order. Then what is there in my words which should appear strange? It is simply the testimony of ''catholic" authorities themselves. If, therefore, our opponents desire to show that the Church has changed front on this subject, and holds a diametrically different opinion to-day, they must prove that this fundamental doctrinal change was brought about at some point of time after "the close of the Sixteenth Century"; since their own authorities admit it was not the teaching of the Church before this period. This is their only hope. Now it is precisely this assumption, so absolutely necessary for the vindication of their views, yet so absolutely without support in actual fact, which they seek to encourage. Thus, by implication, Blunt would have us believe that what was the universally accepted doctrine of the Church down to "the close of the Sixteenth Century," was 62 WHERE THE CHURCH STANDS subsequently, in some mysterious manner, officially revoked, so that the Church of England to-day officially maintains a doctrine of the Episcopate which is absolutely the reverse of that she held during the Sixteenth Century. He does not, of course, actually make such a statement (since he cannot), but he assumes it. Now it is precisely this fiction we propose to lay bare. We wish to assert most positively, that there is absolutely not one atom of truth in the assumption that this, or any other doctrine of the Church, was officially changed either at the close of the Sixteenth Cefitury, or at any subsequent period in the history of the Church. The Revision of 1662 did not, and could not have changed it, as is popidarly imagined, for the plain reason that the Revisers of 1662 tell us themselves in so mayty words {see Preface to Prayer Book) that they had not attempted to change any ''established doctrine'^ of the Church in anything that they did, which simply 7ncans that any construction placed on their acts to that effect to-day, has no authority whatever. That individual opinions upon the subject of the Episco- pate may have begun to change at the end of the Sixteenth Century, is one thing, but that the Church as a Church ever changed front officially on that or any other doctrine, either then, or subsequently, is a supposition which has absolutely no evidelice in its support. We repeat, it is a generally admitted fact that the only Revision of importance that ever took place after the close of the Sixteenth Century was the Revision of 1662. Since the men who made this revision themselves inform us most clearly and WHERE THE CHURCH STANDS 63 emphatically that not one of all the amendments then introduced affected any "established doctrhie or laudable practice of the Church of England'' but were concerned merely with minor, unesseiitial matters, it follows inevitably that the view of the Episcopate, which neither regarded it as an Order separate from the Presbyterate, nor held it to be essential to the validity of the Sacraments and the being of the Church, was in no way affected, but continued, as formerly, the official doctrine. There is no way to escape this conclusion. The doctrinal view of the Episcopate, then, which was entertained by the Reformers, and everywhere assumed in the official acts and utterances of the Church before the close of the Sixteenth Century, continued to be the official view of the Church afterwards. It was never sub- sequently altered by the Chuich, and is still the official view, as has been recently stated in the ninth edition of the Encyclopcedia Britannica in a passage already referred to: "The Church of England expressly recognizes the Diaconate and the Priest- hood, but no others, as distinct Orders. " (Art. Orders, p. 844.) Right here we may say that what misleads so many persons to-day in regard to the number of Orders recognized by the Anglican Church, and which, we may add, has tended to increase the errone- ous impression that the Revisers of 1662 introduced an important doctrinal change (in spite of their emphatic assertions to the contrary) is the statement of the opening words of the Preface to the Ordinal : " It is evident unto all men, diligently reading Holy Scrip- 64 WHERE THE CHURCH STANDS ture and ancient Authoi^, that from the Apostles' time there have been these Orders of Ministers in Christ's Church, — Bishops, Priests, and Deacons.'' This apparently justifies the assumption. In view of such a clear and explicit recognition of three Orders, such statements as that of the Britannica, seem to be flatly contradicted, and the common-place asser- tions of our ordinary Church text-books and Sunday School Manuals, amply vindicated. This is a mere cobweb. In fact it is only another instance of the widespread ignorance of the public in regard to the real history of this word "Order" and the evident unwillingness upon the part of most of our popular writers to enter into it. To begin with, the men who inserted this word into the Preface were not the Revisers of the Seventeenth Century at all, but the Reformers oj the Sixteenth Century — the very men whom we know on ''Catholic'' authority did not regard the Episcopate as a distinct Order from the Presbyter ate. ^ How then do we explain the matter? The answer is simple, and known to every student of the subject. The Reformers did not mean by "Order" what is now technically understood by that word. As used by "catholics" and High Churchmen to-day, it signifies a class of Ministers specially set aside by Divine Command, and endowed with specific spiri- tual gifts peculiar to itself. It is in this sense only ' The Preface to the Ordinal was indeed expanded by the Revisers of 1662, but the word in question was not then introduced. It was placed in the very first Preface in 1549, and was repeated in each successive revision of the Prayer Book. WHERE THE CHURCH STANDS 65 that it has, or can have, any bearing on the exclusive claims of the Episcopate, which is the matter under discussion. That is to say it is only in so far as the word "Order," when applied to the Episcopate, implies that the latter is endowed with certain inalienable gifts and functions, peculiarly and ex- clusively its own, and not shared in by the Pres- byterate or any other, that it has any bearing on the question before us. Thus, the Episcopate, in the modem technical sense, is a Divinely differentiated department of the Ministry, to which has been exclusively committed the specific and inalienable powers of ordination and government, something to which neither of the other two Orders can lay claim. Hence, when the word is met with in the Ordinal or elsewhere, the modem advocate of this theory, hesi- tates not to read into it this common technical interpretation. While this is unquestionably the received interpretation of the word to-day, it had no such technical significance either in ancient days, or at the time of the Reformation, or at the time the Preface to the Ordinal was written. It was not the meaning of the Reformers who penned these lines or of those who revised the Preface in 1662. It is as foolish for any one to imagine that the Reformers placed this modem meaning upon the word, as it would be to imagine that they placed the modem meaning upon the word "prevent" when they used it in the Collect for the Seventeenth Sunday after Trinity. The one assumption is just as inexcusable as the other, for it is well known to scholars that the ancients, and the 66 WHERE THE CHURCH STANDS Reformers after them, used the word "Order" synonymously with the words "office,'' ''grade,'* ''degree,'' "rank," etc. In short, they used it in- differently in reference to any distinction of minis- terial function, whether of Divine or human author- ity. What we now refer to as the "offices" (not "Orders") of Archbishop, Archdeacon, Sub-Deacon, Reader, Exorcist, Acolyte, Door-Keeper, etc., were all designated by them indifferently as "Orders" of the Ministry. Says Jeremy Taylor, "it is evident that in antiquity, 'ordo' and 'gradus* were used promiscuously. BaG^Jicx; was the Greek word, and for it the Latins used 'ordo'. . . . They are all of the same name, and the same consideration, for order, distance, and degree, amongst the fathers; gradus and ordo are equally affirmed of them all, " etc. (Episcopacy Asserted, Taylor's Works, vol. vii., pp. 121, 122.) It is this indiscriminate use of the word for practically any ecclesiastical office or function that has led to bewildering confusion, whenever the attempt is made by the uninformed reader to discover the opinions of the Fathers upon the subject. Thus some writers speak of two, some of three, some of five, seven, eight and even ten "Orders" in the Church. No conclusion is possible, therefore, from the mere use of the word itself in the writings of the ancients. We can only hope to settle the question before us by further inquiring what, out of all these "Orders," they regarded as primitive, necessary or essential in the Church. The utter futility of attempting to draw any conclusion from the mere use of the word WHERE THE CHURCH STANDS 67 itself, is nowhere more beautifully illustrated than in Bishop Jewel's famous Defence of the Apology which he wrote in behalf of the English Church. "St. Hierome, " says he, "writing upon the prophet Esay, reckoneth only five Orders or degrees in the whole Church; the Bishops, the Priests, the Deacons, the Enterers or Beginners, and the Faithful: and other Order of the Church he knoweth none. . . . Clemens saith, 'The mysteries of the holy secrecies be committed unto three Orders, that is, unto the Priests, unto the Deacons, and unto the Ministers; ' and yet Deacons and Ministers, as touching the name, are all one. Dionysius likewise hath three Orders, but not the same; for he reckoneth Bishops, Priests, and Deacons. And, whereas, M. Harding maketh his account of four of the less or inferior Orders, meaning thereby Ostiarios, Lectores, Exor- cistas, Acoluthos, the door-keepers, the readers, the conjurers, and the waiters or followers; his own Ignatius addeth thereto three other Orders, Cantores, Laboratores, Confitentes, the chanters or singers, the laborers, and the confessors.' Clemens added thereto Catechistas, the informers or teachers of them that were entering into the faith. A Httle vain book, bearing the name of St. Hierome, De Septem Ordini- bus Ecclesice, addeth yet another Order, and calleth them Fossarios, that is, 'the Sextines, ' or overseers of the graves. And, lest you should think that he reckoneth this Order as amongst other necessary offices to serve the people, and not as any part of the Clergy, his words be these: Primus . . . in 68 WHERE THE CHURCH STANDS clericis Fossariorum Or do est,^ . . . 'The first Order of the Clergy is the Order of the Sextines' etc. . . . Likewise to the three greater Orders, Isidorus addeth another distinct and several Order of Bishops; unto whom agreeth Gulielmus Altisiodorensis and Gottofredus Pictaviensis, as appeareth by Johannes Scotus. Again, of the other inferior Orders St. Hierome leaveth out the Conjurers and waiters: St. Ambrose leaveth out the waiters and door-keepers: the Canons of the Apostles leave out Conjurers, "Waiters, and Door-Keepers, all three together. In this so great dissension and darkness, what way will M. Harding take to follow? By Anacletus there be kvo Orders; by Clemens and St. Hierome three; by Hierome counterfeit seven ; by others eight ; by others nine ; by others ten. " {Id., pp. 272, 273.) From this it will be readily seen that, whatever the opinions of the ancients respecting the primitive or necessary degrees of the Ministry, nothing can be gathered concerning it from the mere use of the word "Ordo" in their writings, as they attached no technical significance to it, such as we are accustomed to do to-day. That the Reformers likewise employed it in this same general and ambiguous way, and that in the very article now before us (viz.: the Preface to the Ordinal) not only they, but the Revisers of 1662 after them used it likewise in the same broad and indifferent sense and not in the modern, tech- nical sense in which our "Catholic" brethren are accustomed to employ it, shoiild be obvious from the very passage in question. The very next line WHERE THE CHURCH STANDS 69 of the Preface reads: "Which offices were evermore had in such reverend estimation," etc. Their meaning therefore is as clear as day. Both the Greek and the Roman Churches had many Orders (i. e. offices, or degrees) in their ministries, but out of all these Orders or Offices, the Revisers declared that only three had been always and everywhere received from the days oj the Apostles downward, viz.: — the offices of Bishop, Priest, and Deacon. This fact would be evident to any one who would read Holy Scripture and Ancient Authors. They proposed, they said, to preserve these three Offices, or Orders in the Church of England. They make no further statement than this m the Preface. They do not go into any explanation of the technical distinctions between these three grades or offices. They merely state it as a fact that they, in contradistinction to all the rest, have existed from the beginning and have been generally received. In short, it is not in the Preface, but in the rubrics prefixed to the several services of the Ordinal (q. v.) that this matter of the technical distinctions existing between the offices, or orders is referred to at all. There we find some- thing very different from what these modern com- mentators would lead us to imagine. When the Revisers come to formulate the Rites and Ceremonies of ordination to these various orders or offices, they take particular pains to specify by Rubric which of them are ^'necessary'' in the Church, and which are not. In short, they take particular pains to specify by Rubric that the office or order of Deacon, and the 70 WHERE THE CHURCH STANDS office or order oi Priest are ^' necessary^' in the Church, and they further as significantly omit to assert the same of the third office or order, the Episcopate. This simply means that in their estimation the essential or necessary Offices — the true Orders (in our modern sense of the word) — were the Diaconate and Preshyterate only. These two, but not the Episcopate, they declared were " wece^^arj' . . . in the Church of Christ," and they further deemed the knowledge of this fact to be of such importance that they required that a sermon be preached at the ordination of every Deacon and Priest to emphasize it, and so keep it always before the mind of the public. Moreover, be it remembered, it is the Revisers of 1662 that empha- size this fact by Rubric — the very men who, because they were living after "the close of the Sixteenth Century" — ^hence at the time when (according to Blunt) the distinction between the Orders of Bishop and Priest was first asserted — are supposed to have introduced this fundamental doctrinal change in the teaching of the Church. So far from being true, then, this interpretation of "Catholics" is not only the reverse of the actual facts, but obviously the reverse. The truth is that before "the close of the Sixteenth Century" the opinion that Bishops and Priests were of the same Order (modern sense) was so universally received, that there was no necessity for introducing the Rubrics in question at all. As no body in the Chiu-ch ever thought of holding that the "order" of a Bishop was anything more than an office, never thought of claiming any exclusive or Divine differ- WHERE THE CHURCH STANDS 71 entiatlon between the Episcopate and the Presby- terate, as was held between the latter and the Diaconate, no attention was paid to the matter one way or another in the Sixteenth Centu^3^ When, after "the close of the Sixteenth Century this claim began to be asserted for the first time by some individuals, it then became necessary for the Church to express herself officially upon the subject. This she did in 1662 by placing special Rubrics before the Ordination Services of Deacons and Presbyters calling attention to the necessity of these Orders in the Church, and as significantly omitting such a Rubric before that of the Consecration of a Bishop. To put the matter briefly, then, the Church of Eng- land officially recognizes, out of all the various Orders or Offices of antiquity, three only to have been "catholic" or practically universal in the Church from the Apostles' time, which three Orders, or Offices she proposes to perpetuate. Of these three, however, she again further declares that two only are really "necessary ... in the Church of Christ," viz.: the Diaconate and the Presbyterate. This means again that, speaking technically , or in the modern sense, these two only are ''Orders,'' the third being (technically) an office, or function only of the Presbyterate, to which a godly Presbyter is ''consecrated'' or "ordained," but not "ordered." Moreover, the clear distinction which they made between these last terms affords still further proof of our assertion. The words "making," "ordering," "ordaining," "consecrating," are not used carelessly 72 WHERE THE CHURCH STANDS or indifferently here in the Ordinal. They have a history, and are here employed with precision. Thus it will be observed that the word ^'ordering'' is used in reference to the appointment of both Deacons and Priests, but not in regard to Bishops, whereas the word "ordaining" is used indifferently in regard to all three. ^ Now when we come to look into the matter, we find that the reason why this last word is used indiscriminately in all three offices is due to the fact that it is a general term, referring to any kind of ecclesiastical appointment or commission, and having no specific or peculiar significance. Thus, in ancient days, it was not only Bishops, Priests, and Deacons who were ''ordained," but likewise Sub- deacons, Acolytes, Readers, Exorcists, Doorkeepers, etc. The same is still the case in the Roman and Greek Churches. There are eight Orders or Offices in the Roman Church to-day, and in each the candidate is '^ordained" thereto. In the Apostolical Constitu- tions, the Canons of Nicasa, Chalcedon, Ancyra, Neo-Caesarea, Antioch, Laodicea, etc., the original Greek word translated "ordain" is, in nearly every instance yzi^oxovkfu. This word is used indiffer- ently with reference to all the so-called "Orders," whether major or minor. That is to say, whether Bishops, Priests, and Deacons, or whether Sub- deacons, Acolytes, Readers, Exorcists, etc., are in- ' The word "ordain" does not occur in the title of the Office for Deacons, but does occur in Second Rubric of said Office: "Such as desiie to be ordained Deacons." It is therefore used in all three Offices indifferently. WHERE THE CHURCH STANDS 73 tended, all are ''ordained'' to their respective offices. Hence the mere fact that Bishops are, in the Ordinal, said to be "ordained" as well as "consecrated" signifies nothing at all. For not only are Priests and Deacons likewise "ordained," but so also Readers, Acolytes, Doorkeepers, etc. While the word "or- dain" thus refers generally to any form of ecclesi- astical appointment, and is therefore used here indifferently, in accordance with primitive, catholic custom, in all three Offices, yet when oiir Revisers come to specify the particular kind of ordination or appointment conferred, they are careful to use the more specific terms — ''making,'' "ordering," "con- secrating." Thus, the Church ordains Deacons in the particular sense of "making" or creating them, i. e. by Divine fiat causing a man who has no ministerial office at all, to become or be created a Minister, one empowered with a peculiar spiritual function, not possessed by laymen; whereas, she later on ordains this Deacon a Priest in the particular sense of *' ordering " i. e. spiritually differentiating him again from the Diaconate, setting him apart into another and higher "Order," class or category. When she comes to "ordain" this Presbyter a Bishop, however, she ordains him in neither one of the foregoing senses. That is to say, neither in the sense of "making" or creating him something that he was not before nor again in the sense of "ordering, " or differentiating him into a higher class or category distinct from the Presbyterate, but simply in the sense of "consecrat- ing," that is solemnly blessing, or dedicating him for 74 WHERE THE CHURCH STANDS certain pastoral duties. She commissions him to exercise certain powers and perform certain functions for and in behalf of his Order and of the Church generally, of which he is the chosen head and repre- sentative. Thus we see that the Ordinal itself, as it stands to-day, only recognizes two Orders in the technical sense of the word. It is only Deacons and Priests that are ^^ ordered^' or differentiated into distinct classes. It is these two Orders only that she officially declares in her Rubrics to be "necessary . . . in the Church of Christ. " Bishops, according to the Ordinal itself are not "ordered," or set over against these two in a third class or category by themselves. They are merely consecrated Presbyters, i. e. Presby- ters specially dedicated to the performance of certain functions, but still Presbyters. They are still of the same Order (technically) as all other Presbyters, and for that very reason nothing is said of their being "necessary . . . in the Church of Christ. " So again, not only does the Ordinal confine the terms, "order- ing'' to the first two grades of the Ministry (see heading — "The Ordering of Deacons," and "The Ordering of Priests" as against "The Consecration of Bishops") but Art. xxxvi. repeats the distinction, speaking of "The Book of Consecration of Bishops, and Ordering of Priests and Deacons. " While all are "ordained,'' therefore, only two are "ordered" or set apart as essentially distinct and necessary grades of the Ministry. Whence again, we see, that in spite of the popular impression to the contrary, the Encyclopedia Britannica is unquestionably correct WHERE THE CHURCH STANDS 75 and most certainly expresses the official view of the Church when it declares that "the Church of Eng- land expressly recognizes the Diaconate and the Priesthood, but no others, as distinct Orders; Bishops and Archbishops are 'ordained and consecrated, ' " z. e. not '^ ordered.'" In short, the Prayer Book knows nothing whatever about the "Ordering" of a Bishop, but only of a Deacon and a Priest, hence it knows nothing of an "Order" of Bishops. The Bishopric is an Office (not an Order) to which certain Presbyters are Consecrated (not Ordered). Even this is not all. To emphasize still more clearly the identity of Bishops and Presbyters in point of Order, the Re- visers of 1662 took the passages of Scripture author- ized by all three of the former Prayer Books (viz. : — Pr. Books of 1549, 1552, 1559) to be read at the Ordering of Priests, and directed that the same should henceforth be read at the Consecration of a Bishop. Hence not only has the Church herself officially identified the "Bishops'' of I. Tim. Hi., with Presbyters, and the "Elders'' or Presbyters of Acts xx., ly, with Bishops, but our own good High Church brethren continue at this very hour, whenever a Bishop is consecrated, to read with the gravest satisfaction, as particularly appropriate for the occasion, a passage referring to "Elders" {i. e. Presbyters); and relating how St. Paul, after having called together these "Elders" of the Church at Ephesus, had bidden them to take heed to the flock over which they had been appointed "Bishops," apparently in blissful 76 WHERE THE CHURCH STANDS ignorance of what it is they are reading. To make the matter still clearer, we present herewith a diagram of the passages appointed to be read as Epistles in the various editions of the Prayer Book. Pr. Bks. Ordering of Priests, Consecration of Bishops. 1549 1552 1559 1662 Acts XX., 17 (Of Elders = Bishops) or I. Tim. iii. (Of "Bishops") Acts XX., 17 (Of Elders = Bishops) or I. Tim. iii. (Of "Bishops") Acts XX., 17 (Of Elders = Bishops) or I. Tim. iii. (Of "Bishops") Ephes. iv., 7 (Of Apostles, Pro- phets, Evangelists, Pastors, Teachers) I. Tim. iii. (Of "Bishops") I. Tim. iii. (Of "Bishops") I. Tim. iii. (Of "Bishops") I. Tim. iii. (Of "Bishops") or Acts XX., 17 (Of Elders = Bishops] If it be kept in mind that I. Tim. iii. relates only to the duties and qualifications of those called ' ' Bishops " in the New Testament, while those spoken of as ^'Elders'* are, in Acts xx., ly, identified with ''Bishops," the force of these statements will be appreciated. [Ex. (i) "If a man desire the office of a Bishop, he desireth a good work. A Bishop then must be blameless," etc., — I. Tim. iii.; Again, (2) "From Miletus Patd sent to Ephesus, and called the Elders (or Presbyters) of the Church. And when they were come to him, he said unto them. . . . Take heed \\rHERE THE CHURCH STANDS 77 therefore unto yoiirselves, and to all the flock over which the Holy Ghost hath made you Bishops" (IxtaKOTCous) ' ; — Acts XX., 17.] It will be readily seen from the above that the compilers of our first three Prayer Books undoubtedly understood the "Bishops" referred to in I. Tim. iii. to be identical with both the Presbyters and Bishops of the present day. That is they regarded the two as constituting the same Order of ministers. They used this Epistle indifferently for the Ordering of a Priest or for the Consecration of a Bishop; — a position abundantly justified by the alternate passage Acts XX., 17, wherein those called "Elders," or Presbyters are clearly identified with those called " Bishops. " Nor w^as their position the least changed by the Revision of 1662, for while the authors of that Revision saw fit to substitute Ephes. iv., 7 in place of the former Epistles (a selection absolutely color- less and indefinite as regards the point in question) yet they nevertheless not only retained the Epistle formerly used at the Consecration of a Bishop in that office, but further took the selection hitherto used exclusively at the Ordination of a Priest (Acts xx., 17). This selection identified the offices of Presbyter and Bishop. They placed it in the office of the Conse- ' It is a mere quibbla to object that the word is translated some- tinies "overseers," for this is only the meaning of the Greek tTiaKoiroi.^ or English " Bishops." It is sufHcient to observe that eiricrKdirovs is the Greek original in this passage and that the Revised Version trans- ates it "Bishops," and the Revised Version has been recognized officially by the Church. 78 WHERE THE CHURCH STANDS cration of a Bishop, a measirre absolutely inexplicable if not for the express purpose of identifying the two, for the alternate selection (I. Tim. iii.), containing a most full account of the qualifications for such an Office, and altogether free from any embarrassing reference to Elders or their identification with Bishops, would alone have been amply sufficient for any other purpose. Add to all this the facts already adduced as to the special headings and Ru- brics introduced into the Ordinal by the Revisers of 1662, emphasizing the opinion that there were but two Orders "necessary'' or essential in the Church, viz. : Presbyters and Deacons, and we believe that to every fair-minded person, who has really followed the argument, the evidence must be conclusive. We may, then, summarize the whole matter as follows: (i) Nothing can be clearer to any one reading the New Testament attentively than that the per- sons referred to as "Elders'* and "Bishops" were one and the same Order. This fact was not only asserted by the English Reformers generally,^ but is prac- tically the unanimous opinion of modern scholars. ^ ' It was officially asserted by them as early as 1537 {Institution of a Christian Man) and again officially 1543 {Necessary Doctrine and Erudition, etc.) and frequently reasserted later on in their private writings. » Hatch, Lightfoot, Sanday, Harnack, Schaflf, Briggs, Fisher, and many others. Even Gore admits this fact. Says Prof. Fisher: "Respecting the rise of the Episcopate there is, at the present day, a near approach to a Consensus among scholars in the various Protes- tant Churches." "Within the covers of the New Testament, the terms Presbyter and Bishop are synonymous." {Beginnings of Christianity, p. 551.) WHERE THE CHURCH STANDS 79 (2) Nothing is clearer than that the Church of England herself officially endorsed this view: (a) By using the passage in I. Tim. iii., relating to "Bishops" alike in the services of the Ordering of a Presbyter and the Consecration of a Bishop and again by using the passage in Acts xx., 17, which identifies Elder and Bishop, sometimes in the one service, sometimes in the other. (b) By using the word ''Ordering'' {i. c. placing the candidate in a separate ''Order'' or Class), only before the Ordination of a Deacon and a Priest, and NOT before the Consecration of a Bishop. And, (c) By placing special Rubrics, in these two services (viz.: the Ordination of Deacons and of Priests) asserting that these two Orders were "Nec- essary" in the Church of Christ, and requiring sermons to be preached emphasizing that fact, but significantly Omitting to place any such Rubric before the service of the Consecration of a Bishop. This is in itself a fiat contradiction oj the whole point of the ^'Catholic" contention that the Episcopate and the Episcopate ALONE is "Necessary" or Essential i7i the Church. It is a curious and significant commentary, there- fore, upon the opinions of our "catholic" brethren, that the very "Order" which they claim to be not only necessary, but exclusively necessary in the Church (necessary to the very being of the Church), is the only one of the three which the Church signifi- cantly refrains from declaring necessary, and the two remaining ones, which they deem of only secondary 8o WHERE THE CHURCH STANDS importance, she declares to be "necessary" — so necessary, in fact, that at the ordination of every Deacon and Priest she requires a special sermon to be preached calling attention to their necessity in the Church. From this again, therefore, it will be ob- vious to our readers how far "catholic" teaching really represents the official view of the Church. With these facts clearly in mind, then, we are in a position to understand the attitude of the Church of England toward the Church of Scotland at the beginning of the Seventeenth Century. We see that it was no surrender of principle whatever that led her to acknowledge the inherent power of the Pres- bytery of the Scottish Kirk to ordain (2d Resolu- tion of the Assembly) as one of the basic principles of unity, or any unworthy compromise upon the part of Archbishop Bancroft in accepting the Presbyterian ordination of the Scottish candidates for the Bishop- ric as valid. As we have before observed, the opinion expressed by the Archbishop upon this subject was his official (not private) judgment, inasmuch as the matter involved an official act of the Church of Eng- land herself, in one of the most important measures that she was ever called upon to consider, viz. : the conferring of the Episcopate upon a sister denomina- tion.^ Note that it was "applauded to by the other Bishops" upon whom this duty also devolved, that even Andrews, who had raised the point, '^acquiesced'' in the decision, and that the consecration determined upon under these conditions was officially performed in WHERE THE CHURCH STANDS 8i accordance therewith, nor have we any evidence that it was ever questioned afterwards. In short, we have here only another instance of the official recog- nition by the Church of England of the validity of Presbyterian Ordination, and of the further fact that presbyterially governed bodies are true parts of the Catholic Church. ^Moreover, in spite of the fact that the Bishop of Ely did, in the foregoing instance, apparently express some doubt on this subject, yet we find him even then "acquiescing" in the decision of his brother Bishops, and a little later on even reiterating the same opinion as his own. For in his letter to Du Moulin (1618) he says, — "though our government be of Divine right, it follows not, either that there is 'no salvation,' or that a Church cannot stand without it. He must needs he sto?ie blind, that ?ees not Churches standing without it. . . . This is not to damn any thing, to prefer a better thing before it: this is not to damn your Church, to recall it to another form, that all afitiquity was better pleased with, that is, to ours." (Second letter to Du Moulin. Words. Christ. Instit., vol. iii., p. 239. Also Goode's Orders.) Archbishop Bramhall, another ardent defender of Episcopacy, also expresses the same opinion. As late as 1659, on the eve of the Restoration, he writes: "I cannot assent . . . that either all or any considerable part of the Episcopal divines in England do unchurch either all or the most part of the Protestarit Churches" (plain evidence that even then, 1659, this view was not held by any "considerable 6 82 WHERE THE CHURCH STANDS part'' of the clergy, much less an official view of the Church). " They unchurch none at all, but leave them to stand or jail to their own Master. They do not un- church the Swedish, Danish, Bohemian Churches, and many other Churches i?i Polonia, Hungaria, and those parts oj the world which have an ordi?iary uninter- rupted succession of pastors, some by the name of Bishops, others under the name of Seniors, unto this day. . . . They unchurch not the Lutheran Churches in Germany, who both assert Episcopacy in their Confessions, and have actual Superintendents in their practice, and would have Bishops, name and thing, if it were in their power. ... I will remove this scruple out of his mind, that he may sleep securely upon both ears. Episcopal divines do not deny those to be true Churches wherein salvation may be had. . . . Episcopal divines will readily subscribe to the determination of the learned Bishop of Win- chester {i. e. Andrews — another proof that he per- sonally held the opinions we have ascribed to him). This mistake proceedeth from not distinguishing between the true nature and essence of a Church, Which we do Readily Grant Them, a7id the in- tegrity and perfection of a Church, which we cannot grant them without swerving from the judgment of the Catholic Church. " (Vindic. of Himself and the Epis. Clergy, c. 3; Works, vol. iii., pp. 517, 518.) There is no mistaking the import of these words, and it is clear therefrom that Andrews, Bancroft, and Bram- hall, all High Churchmen, were entirely agreed upon this matter. It would be useless to multiply like WHERE THE CHURCH STANDS 83 quotations from the works of Usher, Cosin.Davenant, StiUingfleet, and others, ail to tlie same effect. The evidence is simply indisputable that there is no fundamental change in the opinions of any of the great authorities of the English Church up to the very year of the Restoration. However, there was an important demand at this time that something be done to put an end to Puritan usurpation and to re-establish Episcopal authority in the Church of England, which had for years past been strangely defied and derided. This is the meaning of the changes then introduced into the Preface to the Ordinal, and the insistence that from now on ''no mari shall be accounted or taken to he a lawful Bishop, Priest, or Deaco7i in this Church, or suffered to execute any of the said functions, except he be called, tried, examined, and admitted thereunto according to the Form hereafter following or hath had Episcopal Consecra- tion or Ordination. " It is no more a reflection upon the jMinisters of the Protestant Churches who have not "had Episcopal Consecration or Ordination," than it was upon those of the Roman and Greek Communions who, though Episcopally ordained, had not been admitted "according to the Form hereafter following." It was simply a declaration to the world that from now on the Church of Eng- land was going to see to it that the authority of her own Bishops should be respected within the limits of her own jurisdiction. Past events had already proved that it was inexpedient in the extreme to allow Presbyterially ordained Ministers to hold office and 84 WHERE THE CHURCH STANDS benefice in the Church of England, without submit- ting to Episcopal ordination as had heretofore been the rule for over one hundred years. This practice must be discontinued, but in discontinuing it they were careful to point out that there was nothing wrong with the doctrinal position of the men who had formerly allowed it. In short, that what changes or alternations they now introduced, were made in the interests of expediency only, and had no reference whatever to any essential doctrine. In fact, so far were they from desiring to change the doctrinal position of the Church on this, or any point whatso- ever, and yet so fearful were they that the revision of the Prayer Book proposed would nevertheless be interpreted by some persons to mean this very thing (an apprehension which we see now to have been only too well founded) that they took particular pains to assert at the very outset that "of the sundry alterations proposed unto us, we have re- jected all such as either were of dangerous conse- quence {as secretly striking at some established doctrine or laudable practice of the Church of England, or, indeed, of the whole Catholic Church of Christ) or else of no consequence at all, but utterly frivolous and vain. But such alterations as were tendered to us ... as seemed to us in any degree requisite or expedient, we have willingly and of our own accord assented unto ; not enforced so to do by any strength of argument, convincing us of the necessity of making the said alterations; for we are fully persuaded in our judgment (and we here profess it to the world) that the WHERE THE CHURCH STANDS 85 Book, as it stood before established by law, doth not contain in it any thing contrary to the Word of God, or to sound doctrine, or which a godly man may not with a good conscience use and submit unto, or which is not fairly defensible against any that shall oppose the same,^^ etc. (Preface to Prayer Book, 1662.) Moreover, not content with this explicit statement, the Act of Uniformity (XIV Carol, ii.) which was passed to enforce the use of the Revised Prayer Book, went even farther, and having enacted {in support of the prohibition thus added to the Preface to the Ordinal) that "no person whatsoever shall thenceforth be capable to be admitted to any Parson- age, Vicarage, Benefice," etc., unless he shall have been "ordained Priest according to the Form and IManner in and by the said Book prescribed, unless he have formerly been made Priest by Episcopal ordination," fully reveals that this was a measure of expediency only, and not a reflection upon the doc- trinal position of the Reformers in admitting the validity of Presbytenan Ordination, and recognizing non-episcopal bodies as true Churches by significantly adding this proviso: ^'Provided, that the penalties in this Act shall not extend to the Foreigners or Aliens of the Foreign Reformed Churches allowed or to be allowed by the Kings Majesty, His Heirs and Suc- cessors in England. '' If the words of the Prayer Book were intended to change the doctrinal attitude of the Church of England, on the subject of the validity of Presbyterian Ordination, and the status of non-episcopal bodies as genuine Churches, it is 86 WHERE THE CHURCH STANDS perfectly clear that the statement of the Revisers in the Preface, just quoted, that they did not intend to alter any '^established doctrine^ ^ by the changes which they made, was false, that their further state- ment that the Book as it stood before did not contain anything contrary to said doctrine, was a second falsehood, and that this further Act of ParHament allowing the King to continue to admit such non- episcopally ordained Ministers at his discretion, in spite of the fact that it was now absolutely irrecon- cilable with the new doctrine of the Church which they had established (and which this very Act was supposed to enforce), was a miserable stultification of all the official declarations and proceedings of the Chtirch. In short, it is only necessary to read the Preface of the Prayer Book of 1662, and the Act of Uniformity (XIV Carol, ii.) to show by reductio ad absurdum the utter falsity of the assumption that the Revision of 1662 changed in any way the doc- trinal position of the Church of England respecting the Episcopate or the status of non-episcopal bodies as true parts of the Catholic Church, and as a conse- quence, the validity of the ordinations of these non- episcopal Ministers. So far from this being true, it was, on the contrary, the boast of the Revisers that they had not changed anything essential, either in the doctrine, or the practice of the Church. Nothing can be clearer than this fact to any one who reads. Moreover, the claim that is sometimes made that the practice of re-ordination is in itself a condemna- tion of former alleged Orders, and this, proof that WHERE THE CHURCH STANDS 87 the Revisers intended to change the doctrinal posi- tion of the Church on this point (their direct words to the contrary notwithstanding) is again demolished by the testimony of those living and writing at the time, which flatly contradicts this assumption. Arch- bishop Leighton was one of the very first persons whom the requirement of reordination affected. He was compelled to be re-ordained, yet he himself, according to the testimony of his personal friend, Bishop Burnet, did not regard such reordination as signif^ang any annulment of his former orders. " He thought that every Church might make such rules of Ordination as they pleased, and that they might ordain all that came to them from any other Church ; and that the reordaining a Priest ordained in another Church imported no more, but that they received him into Orders according to their rules, and did not infer the annulling the Orders he had formerly received." {Hist, of His Own Times, vol. i., p. 140.) This shows very clearly what Archbishop Leighton understood it to mean in his own case, a conclusion, the correct- ness of which, it is natural to presume, he would be most particular in ascertaining. It is needless to say that Burnet regarded it likewise. Archbishop Bramhall, too, another contemporary, and by no means a Low Churchman, is expHcit in his testimony to the same effect. He says, in his Letters of Orders, when reordaining one who had previously received Scotch Presbyterian Ordination only: "iVo/ annul- ling his former Orders (if any he had) nor determiiiing their invalidity, much less condemning all the sacred 88 WHERE THE CHURCH STANDS Orders of the Foreign Churches (a matter which we leave to the proper Judge to decide) hut MERELY SUPPLEMENTING whatever requisite, according to the Canons of the English Church, had been formerly omitted, and providing jor the peace of the Church, so that the occasion of schism may be taken away, and that it may satisfy the conscience of the faithful, nor that any should avoid his Presbyterian ministrations as though they were invalid.^' {Works, Ox. Ed., vol. i., p. xxxvii., quoted by Goode.) That is to say, the Church adopted this measure, not to condemn Pres- byterian Orders, but simply to remove all occasion of controversy and dispute. Bingham, another author- ity of the same period, the author of the Antiquities of the Christian Church, and renowned as one of the most learned and scholarly writers of his time, also testifies to the same effect. In regard to the "busi- ness of re-ordination," says he, "which some reckon so great a charge against the Act of Uniformity . . . what harm there is in this, I confess I never yet could see: and I am sure there is nothing in it contrary to the principles or practice of Geneva nor perhaps of the whole Frejich Church. For at Geneva it is their common practice, whenever they remove a Minister from one Church to another, to give him a new and solemn ordination by imposition of hands and prayer. Now, if it be lawful, by the rules of the Church of Geneva . . . why cannot men in England consent to receive a new Ordination ?" Moreover, he goes on to show that the fact that the former ordination is assumed to be valid by them, does not affect the WHERE THE CHURCH STANDS 89 matter, for even then, he asserts, "I show that they may submit to a new ordination without sin" and that " they oiight to do it, after the example of Geneva, rather than set up separate meetings and preach against the will of their superiors, to the destruction of the peace of the Church," etc. These last words, moreover, reveal very clearly what we have every reason to believe, from other independent evidence, was the real motive in this requirement of Episcopal ordination of all foreign clergy desiring to enter the Church of England, viz.: not to reflect upon the validity of their former Orders, but to insist that they give tangible evidence of their willingness to submit to Episcopal government which their former insubordination had rendered necessary, and to insure that the emoluments and endowments of an Episcopal Church were not foolishly surrendered to ambitious and rebellious Presbyterians within it. In short, we have direct evidence that such worldly matters as the disposition of benefices and prefer- ments, together with the practical necessity of peace in the Church, were at the bottom of the whole measure, and that the doctrinal question as to the validity or non-validity of Presbyterian ordination was not even remotely considered. Bishop Hall, writing in the very midst of this discussion which culminated in this official act, distinctly says: *'The sticking at the admission of our brethren, returning from foreign reformed Churches, was not in the case of ordination, hut of institution: they had been acknowl- edged Ministers of Christ without any other hands laid 90 WHERE THE CHURCH STANDS on them; but according to the laws of our land, they were not capable of institution to benefice, unless they were so qualified as the statute of this realm doth require. And, secondly, I know those, more than one, that by virtue of that ordination which they brought with them from other reformed Churches, have enjoyed spiritual promotions and livings with- out any exceptions against the lawfulness of their callings." (Vol. x., p. 341.) Like statements from Fleetwood, Burnet, Cosin, and Strype could be adduced, not merely testifying to the common practice of the Church up to the year 1662 in ad- mitting Presbyterially ordained Clergy to officiate in the Church without re-ordination (which is so well known to all historians as to need no comment here) but, further, to enjoy benefice and preferment, and it was this last feature of Act XIH. Elizabeth, mid this feature only, that the Church amended in 1662. As Macaulay distinctly tells us: "Episcopal ordination was now {1662) , for the first time, mside an indispensable qualification /or preferment. " {History, vol. i., p. 132.) But finally, to cap the climax, we have only to remind our readers that it was in this same year again (1662), and at the hands of these same men, that the "Prayer for all Conditions of Men" was, for the first time, set forth, and that Prayer, endorsed by Convocation, identifies ^^the Catholic Church'' with "a//" of those ^^who profess a?id call themselves Christia?is," irrespective of their particular forms of Chiu-ch Government, thus further refuting the assumption of our "Catholic" brethren WHERE THE CHURCH STANDS 91 that the Revisers considered the Episcopate as essential to the existence of ''the Catholic Church." For it is self-evident that if "a// who profess and call themselves Christians" are members of "the Catho- lic Chiirch," and if again, all non-episcopal bodies "profess and call themselves Christians," then all non-episcopal bodies belong to the CathoHc Church. Corollary, Episcopacy is not essential to the being of the Catholic Church. We conclude then that the Revisers of 1662, so far from attempting to change the doctrinal position of the Church in the sixteenth century upon the subject of the Episcopate, and to introduce the idea that it was essential or necessary to the being of the Church, did everything they could to guard against this very misinterpretation of their labours. This will be evident from the following considerations: 1st. They take particular pains to state in the Preface to their new Prayer Book that they have carefully refrained from changing any doctrinal teaching of the Church. 2d. They introduce three new Rubrics into the Ordinal to stress the fact that in the opinion of the Reformers (whose doctrinal view they have changed in no particular) as well as in their own, only two out of the three Orders, so called, are really ''neces- sary ... in the Church of Christ," viz., the Diaconate and the Presbyterate. 3d. They are further careful to retain the appro- priate headings of the former Ordinal which em- phasize the fact that while Deacons and Priests are 92 WHERE THE CHURCH STANDS *' ordered" {i. c, differentiated into separate Orders or Classes), Bishops are not "ordered" or set apart from Presbyters in a higher Class or Category to themselves, but merely *' Consecrated'' to the per- formance of certain acts. 4th. They emphasize the fact that the restrictions which they place upon the practice of allowing non- episcopally ordained Ministers to officiate without re-ordination is a restriction only {not a prohibition) of a custom which though valid in principle is in- expedient in practice; — they do this by specially providing that the King might at his personal discre- tion CONTINUE THE PRACTICE IN SPECIFIC CASES. 5th. They officially recognize the non-episcopal organizations of their day as ^'Reformed Churches'* in the Act of Uniformity. 6th. They set forth a new Prayer officially iden- tifying ^'the Catholic Church" with ^'all who profess and call themselves Christians," thus clearly compre- hending all the non-episcopal bodies. Moreover, in addition to all this, they (we mean the Revisers them- selves, as well as their contemporaries) leave us numberless ww-official statements of their own personal belief {as individuals) in the validity of non- episcopal Orders, and of their recognition of these non-episcopal bodies as true Churches, to say nothing of many explicit declarations that such was also the official view of the Church itself in their day. Under these circumstances, we maintain that it is a feat of logical prestidigitation only that can possibly trans- form these facts into a justification of the "catholic" WHERE THE CHURCH STANDS 93 theory of the Episcopate, and its absolute necessity to the being of the Church and the Ministry, as the official view of this Church. When the Revisers' own amendments to the Ordinal significantly refrain from asserting the necessity of the Episcopate and as significantly go out of the way to emphasize the neces- sity of the Diaconate and the Presbyterate, and when, on top of all this, we find their individual writings to be full of admissions regarding the validity of Presbyterian ordination, and abounding with recognitions of these non-episcopal bodies as true Churches, the attempt to make it appear that they held the views of modem "Catholics" respect- ing the Episcopate, or that they "unchurched" their Protestant brethren, is not only idle, but simply preposterous. The only fact that, when viewed superficially, seems at first sight to render this assumption plausible, is the requirement of re- ordination, but closer examination removes even this impression. For whatever may be the popular opinion to-day as to the legitimacy of repeating ordinations, it is certain, not only that authorities have differed profoundly upon this subject, but that the Revisers in question held that it could be done. They held that a second ordination did not reflect upon the validity of the first. This is all we know or need to know concerning the matter here under discussion. For, be it remembered, we are not here discussing the abstract question. Can a valid ordina- tion be repeated? (any more than we are discussing the abstract question, Can Presbyters ordain?) but, 94 WHERE THE CHURCH STANDS What was and is the official attitude of the Church of England upon that subject? Right or wrong, in itself, we maintain that the Church of England officially assumed that a second ordination could be had ivithout impugning the validity of the first, and that right or wrong in itself, this was the view of the Revisers. Hence, right or wrong in itself, it is cer- tain that the re-ordination practiced by the Church of England was not intended to reflect upon the validity of the former Ordination. Leighton, Burnet, Bram- hall, and Bingham, as we have just seen, tell us this in so many words, the latter asserting that the same view was maintained even by Geneva, and could be justified by an appeal to antiquity. When we add to this the further fact that such an interpretation squares with all the other acts and utterances of the Revisers, both official and unofficial, whereas the contrary assumption cannot be made to fit in with them at all, but only renders all such acts and utter- ances contradictory and absurd, the conclusion here set forth is irresistible. In short, the whole thing was done as a measure of expediency only — not with the intention of reflecting upon the validity of Pres- byterian ordination which they had repeatedly recog- nized both officially, and unofficially, but simply to insure respect for Episcopal Government in the Church. They wished to provide against the repeti- tion of those acts of insubordination which their former leniency towards such Presbyterially ordained Ministers had brought about. But while this explan- ation should be satisfactory to any unbiassed mind, WHERE THE CHURCH STANDS 95 yet happily there is a quicker way of disposing of the whole problem. We can at once dispense with the whole "Catholic" argument, by merely saying that re-ordination is not absolutely necessary even to-day. That it was enacted as a measure of expediency only, and not as a doctrinal necessity, is proved by the fact that the very Act that enforced this provision of re- ordination, also provided that the King could dispense with it at his discretio7i, a prerogative which he still possesses to-day. We have already referred to this Proviso of XIV. Carol. H., which is so deftly ignored by those whose interests are not materially enhanced by it. We will make no further comment of our own, therefore, but will merely call attention to the follow- ing quotation. Says a certain writer, "Perhaps the most conclusive of all considerations as to the posi- tion which the English Church occupies in regard to this question is to be found in the facts that: (i) Up to the year 1820, i. e., the end of George IH.'s reign, a large proportion of the Clergy in the Channel Islands were not Episcopally ordained, although they ministered according to the formularies of the Church of England, and formed a part of the Clergy of the Diocese of Winchester; (2) That the Kings of England up to the same date constantly had attached to their households a Presbyterian Chaplain; (3) That the Queen to this day has the same in Scotland ; and (4) That the Act of Uniformity of Charles II., the very Act, and the first and only Act, which made it neces- sary, as a rule, that all persons thereafter to be admitted to the cure of souls in England should have 96 WHERE THE CHURCH STANDS been Episcopally ordained, contains also a clause" (here is appended the Proviso which we have quoted from the Act) ''specially permitting the King to admit persons not so ordained, who were foreigners and ordained in the foreign Protestant Churches, to pre- ferment in the English Church without re-ordination. This permission was acted upon by King Charles II. within a very few years after it was passed, and it would doubtless be within the power of her present Majesty'* (he refers to Queen Victoria) "to act upon it again if she should see fit to do so. This being the actual position of the English Church from the reign of Elizabeth to the present time, it is nothing less than an absurdity to talk of it as holding the 'doctrijie of the Apostolic Succession.*" {Romanism, Protestantism, Anglicanism, pub. by Prot. Epis. Soc. for Promotion of Evang. Knowledge, New York, 1883, pp. 44, 45.) This effectually dis- poses of the argument that the practice of re-ordina- tion by the Church of England was intended to reflect upon the validity of Presbyterian Ordination, as such, or that it was adopted as anything more than a mere measure of expediency. Before bringing this chapter to a close, it may, perhaps, be well to examine the utterances of some of the men who lived during the epoch in question, and who have incidentally thrown light upon the matter. As a sample of the opinion which prevailed even during the troublous period of the Interregnum, when prejudice against Presbyterianism was certainly strongest, we have only to quote these words of Arch- bishop Usher, the greatest scholar of his time: "I WHERE THE CHURCH STANDS 97 have ever declared my opinion to be, that Episcopus et Presbyter gradu tantmn differunt non ordine, and consequently that in places where Bishops cannot be had, the ordination by Presbyters standeth valid; yet, on the other hand, holding as I do that a Bishop hath superiority in degree above a Presbyter, you may easily judge that the Ordination made by such Presbyters as have severed themselves from those Bishops unto whom they had sworn canonical obed- ience, cannot possibly, by me, be excused from being schismatical. And howsoever I must needs think that the Churches which have no Bishops are thereby become very much defective in their government, and that the Churches in France, who living imder a Popish power, can not 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 a7id honour as true members of the Church Universal) I do profess that, with like affection, I shoidd receive the blessed Sacrament at the hands of the Dutch Ministers , if I were hi Holland, as I should do at the hands of the French Ministers if I were in Charentone. " {Judgment of the late Archbishop of Armagh, etc. By N. Bernard. Lond., 1657, 8 vo., pp. 125, 127.) ^ If now, we examine ' In addition to this explicit acknowledgment of the validity of Presbyterian Ordination on the part of this most distinguished scholar and prelate, we call attention to his no less explicit statement that a Bishop differs from a Presbyter merely in Grade or Office — not in Order. In fact, it is because they are one in "Order" that he asserts the ordination by Presbyters is valid, and the Sacraments adminis- tered at their hands efficacious. 98 WHERE THE CHURCH STANDS the works of the more exclusive Churchmen who wrote at the time of, and soon after the Restoration, we find that they, like their predecessors, held the same opinion as to the limits of the Holy Catholic Church, and the validity of non-episcopal ordination. Of all the members of the Committee to whom was entrusted the Revision of 1662, we are informed, by High Churchmen themselves, that none contributed more to the result than Cosin of Durham. Cosin, we are told, was "the most learned ritualist of the day," and was conspicuously the leader of those advocating a more stringent measure concerning submission to Episcopal authority, as Baxter was the leader of the Presbyterian party. It was because "Cosin had brought with him a copy of the Prayer Book as it stood after the Revision of James l.,with his ownnotes^ on which he had expended the labour of forty years^ as against the proposed Prayer Book of the Presbyter- ians on which Baxter had expended fourteen days/*^ that the Commission was able to proceed so rapidly with its work. If any one man, therefore, was com- petent to reflect the attitude of the Episcopal party in this matter, it was Cosin, to whose judgment upon disputed points with the Presbyterians, they were generally ready to defer. Yet, at that time, and to the very end of his life, Cosin recognized the non- ^ Here's Hist. Ch. of England, pp. 367, 368. He also tells us that: "At the Revision of 1662, as many as 600 alterations, mostly verbal, and of no importance from a doctrinal point of view, are said to have been made. " {Id., p. 368.) Wherever we look the evidence is the same, no doctrine or essential practice of the Church was touched by the Revisers of 1662. WHERE THE CHURCH STANDS 99 episcopal bodies as true Churches, admitted the validity of Presbyterian Ordination, and even went so far as to assert that this view was not his private opinion merely, but the official view of the Church of England. ' * Though we may safely say and maintain it," says he, "that their Ministers are not so duly and rightly ordained as they should be . . . yet that, by reason of this defect, there is a total nullity in their ordinations, or that they be therefore no Priests or Mijiisters of the Church at all, because they are ordained by those only who are no more but Priests and Ministers among them; for my part, I would be loath to affirm and deter- mine it against them. And I love not to be herein more wise or harder than our own Church is, which because it hath never publicly condemned and pronounced the ordinations of the other Reformed Churches to be void, as it doth not those of the unreformed Churches, neither among the Papists,^* etc. . . . I dare not take upon me to condemn or determine a nullity of their own ordinations against them .... Of this opinion and judgment in old time were (here follows a long list of authorities who support his view) . . . All which authors are of so great credit with you and me, that though we are not altogether of their mind, yet we would be loath to let the world see that we contradict them all, and condemn their judgment openly ; as needs we must, if we hold the contrary, and say that the Ministers of the Reformed French Churches for want of Episcopal Ordination, have no order at all. .... If the Church and Kingdom of England have acknowledged them (as they did in admitting them 100 WHERE THE CHURCH STANDS when they fled thither for refuge, and placing them hy public authority in divers of the most eminent cities among us without prohibition) why should we, that are but private persons, utterly disclaim their com- munion in their own country." (Letter to Cordel, 1650, who is protesting that the French Churches *'have no Priests.'^ The whole letter is given by Basire and Bishop Fleetwood, and is cited, in part, by Goode, who adds that ^^ similar statements are ex- pressed by him {Cosin) in a Letter published by Dr. R. Watson {1684) and ^also in his last Will inserted in the Preface to his Regni Atigliae Relig. et Gubern. Eccles. Lond. iy2Q, 410.' " Now if these words do not furnish conclusive proof of the truth of our position, we hardly think that any evidence would be sufficient to convert our "Catholic" brethren. The truth is we could hardly invent testimony that would be more favourable or that would more completely cover every disputed point. He testifies (a) to his own personal attitude toward the question of the validity of their Orders, (b) to the official attitude of the Church of England herself, both before his day, and in his day, (c) to the fact that these bodies are (not only Churches) but ^^ Reformed Churches" as op- posed to the " Z7iz-reformed Churches" of the Papists, (d) to what was the opinion of a long list of eminent authorities in ancient days on the question of the validity of non -episcopal ordination; and all this testimony, adduced in condemnation of the pri- vate opinion of Cordel (which was synonymous with the "Catholic" view of to-day) is first published in WHERE THE CHURCH STANDS loi 1650 — shortly before the Restoration, repeated again ajter the Restoration, and all by a man who was not only one of the Revisers, but, generally regarded as the leader of the Revisers, the brains of the Commis- sion. Again we find that Archbishop Sancroft, another member of the Committee on Revision (1662), whom Macaulay describes as "an honest, pious, narrow-minded man," we find that even he could exhort the Clergy of his Province (1688) to pray for "the universal blessed union of all Reformed Churches both at home and abroad against our com- mon enemies'* in order that "g// they who do confess the Holy Name of our dear Lord, and do agree in the truth of His Holy Word (that is to say — the whole Catholic Church] vide words of Prayer Book) may also meet in one Holy Communion, and live in per- fect unity and godly love. " (D'Oyly's Life of San- croft, i., p. 325.) Still more important is the testi- mony of Sherlock, Dean of St. Paul's, a non-juror like Sancroft, for not only is he still more explicit in voicing his own personal recognition of the non- episcopal Churches and their Orders, but he tells us in so many words that such was the view of the Church of England at the time he was writing, which was after the Restoration and the amendments of 1662. "I do allow Episcopacy," says he, "to be an Apostolical institution, and the truly ancient and Catholic government of the Church, of which more hereafter ; but yet in this very book I prove industri- ously and at large that, in case of necessity, when Bis- hops cannot be had, a Church may be a truly Catholic 102 WHERE THE CHURCH STANDS Church, and such as we may and ought to communicate with, without Bishops, i?t vindicatio?i of some Foreign Reformed Churches who have none; and therefore I do not make Episcopacy so absolutely necessary to Catholic communion as to unchurch all Churches that have it not. " So much for his personal view ; then he adds — ^'the Church of England does not deny but that, in case of necessity the ordination of Presbyters may be valid." {Vindic. of Some Prot. Principles, etc. Reprinted in Gibson's Preserv. Vol. iii., pp. 410, 432. Cited by Goode — On Orders.) Again, Dr. Claget, writing, like Sherlock, after the Restoration, affirms that "The Church of England doth not un- church those parts of Christendom that hold the unity of the Faith" {Brief Discourse Co?i. the Notes of the Church, pp. 166, 169) — a statement obviously referring to the non-episcopal Protestant Churches. Still later again {i. e., 1719) Archbishop Wake writes: "Although in certain matters they dissent from our Anglican Communion, I willingly embrace the Reformed Churches. I would desire indeed the Epis- copal Government. . . and that it had been re- tained by these .... Meanwhile as it is wanting, shoidd I be so iron-hearted, merely because of a defect of this khid {for malice alone would permit me to speak thus) that I should believe that some of them should be cut off from communion with us; or that with certain rabid writers among our own people, I should pronounce that they have no true and valid Sacraments, and even go so far as scarcely to regard them as Christians! ^^ {Vide Mosheim's Eccles. Hist., 4th Appendix.) WHERE THE CHURCH STANDS 103 But it is useless to continue such quotations. We merely ask how is it possible for our "Catholic" friends to reconcile these interpretations of the Church's official position made by men of the very highest authority within that Communion, some of them writing before the Revision of 1662, some of them members of the Committee on Revision itself, and writing anywhere from about the period in question till the beginning of the Eighteenth Cen- tury, with their own theory of a complete doctrinal change of front on this momentous question in the year 1662, and all this in the face of the clearest, official declaration of the Church herself that no changes whatever were made in any of her doctrines in that year, and the further abundant corroboration of this state- ment by numbers of the most emijient authorities oj that period — some of whom personally took part in the work of the Revision? The truth is, as we have said before, the whole theory is a groimdless fiction. It is one thing to say, therefore, that beginning about the time of the Restoration (and as a result of the suffering which the Church had undergone during the Interregnum at the hands of the Presbyterians) public sentiment began to change, and an attitude less liberal towards the claims of Presbyterianism began to assert itself, which was doubtless reflected in some individual cases in exclusive claims for the Episcopate (which we would not be disposed to question), but quite another to assert that the Church as a Church offi- cially repudiated at that time her former doctrinal position on the subject of the validity of Presbyterian 104 WHERE THE CHURCH STANDS Ordination. We do not deny the first proposition, but we emphatically detiy the second. In short, to prove the truth of their contention, our opponents must show either that the Church completely re- versed her former doctrinal position in the year 1662, or else that she had done so at some later period in her history. As the first alternative has been proved impossible, the second becomes their last resort. But where can they point to any subsequent doc- trinal revision? On the contrary, it is the consensus of opinion amongst all our ecclesiastical historians that no doctrinal or other alterations of any moment have been introduced since that epoch. Few author- ities, we presume, stand higher in the estimation of our American Chiirchmen generally, than the late Bishop Seymour of Springfield, who nevertheless tells us that "the Revision of 1662 may be justly called the lastf because no changes of any moment have been made since by the orders-in-council, which have necessarily been issued on the accession of successive sovereigns, and by the Amendment of the Act of Uniformity passed in the reign of Queen Victoria. The Church of 1662, therefore, has been from that date, and is to-day, the Ecclesia Docens of England. " And, he adds, as showing the bearing of the doctrinal position of the Church of England upon that of our own, — "When we took our departure as an independ- ent daughter Church, we brought our Mother's Prayer Book with us, and used it, as far as local cir- cumstances would allow, as our own. This fact we explicitly declare in the Preface of our Prayer WHERE THE CHURCH STANDS 105 Book, since we affirm in unmistakable language as follows: * This Church is far from ifitending to depart from the Church of England in any essential point of doctrine, discipline or worship, or further tha?i local circumstances require.'" (Art. by Bp. Seymour, Stevens's Genesis of American Prayer Book, pp. 67, 68.) To bring the matter still more cleariy before the mind of the reader, we here append a tabular synop- sis of some of the principal official acts of the Church from the beginning of the Reformation downward. While the reform movement was initiated under Henry VIH., it did not progress to any extent until the reign of Edward, nor did it reach its final form or completion until the reign of Elizabeth, so that the Prayer Book, Articles, and other formularies, under- went considerable changes before assuming (1559- 1563) what is substarttially so far as essential doctrinal matters are concerned, their present form. While, therefore, for our present purpose, it would be unfair to quote any acts or formularies made prior to the reign of Elizabeth, which were subsequently elim- inated or rescinded by lawful authority, as of any force to-day, yet it is of course self-evident that the sub- stance of any act or formulary promulgated prior to that reign, which was never subsequently reversed or aboHshed by authority, are all the more admissible as evidence, inasmuch as their promulgation in a period of transition, and at a time when the Church had by no means settled all its doctrinal problems, and their continued preservation through all the io6 WHERE THE CHURCH STANDS changes and alterations of a later period, bespeak the fact that upon these particular matters at least, there has never been any serious doubt even from the initial stage of the reform movement. Of such a nature, for example, is the Church's attitude toward the validity of Lay Baptism — a judgment formally expressed in the very 1st Prayer Book of Edward, 1549, and never since rescinded, and the obvious corollary deducible therefrom that even from the very beginning the Church has regarded all baptized persons (whether under Episcopal authority or not) as members of the Holy Catholic Church. Some Official Acts of the Church of England Unofficial Testimony that the Reformers and the Church itself recognized non-episcopal Churches and the validity of their ordinations. 1549 Church officially declares Bap- tism to be incorporation into the Catholic Church. Officially recognizes Lay Bap- tism as valid. Ergo — Church officially recog- nizes all baptized per- sons whether mem- bers of Episcopal or Non-Episcopal bodies as members of the Holy Catholic Church. ^ Prayer Book. "Nearly up to the time that Hooker wrote (1594) numbers had been admit- ted to the ministry of the Church of England, with no better than Presby- ter i an Ordination." — Keble. So also Hallam, Ma- caulay and many others. But better still is the witness of contempor- WHERE THE CHURCH STANDS 107 Patent granted by Edward VI. oflBcially recognizes "the Church of the Germans" and the validity of its Ministry and Sacraments. Church officially reaffirms po- ) Prayer sition of 1549 on Baptism, f Book. Church officially reaffirms po- ) Prayer sition of 1549-1552 on Bap- ) Book, tism. Act XIII. Elizabeth officially permits non-episcopally ordained Ministers to officiate and to enjoy benefice in Ch. of England without reordination — so recognizing validity of such Ordination, and confirming prior recognition of non-episcopal bodies as true Churches. Prayer set forth officially defines "Thy Church Universal dispersed throughout the whole world" as consisting of "all they that confesse Thy Holy Name,'* so including members of non-episcopal bodies. Prayer set forth officially recognizing "the Churches of France, Flanders, and of such of other places" as were then suffering persecution. Grindal, Archbishop of Canterbury, acting officially issues license to one John Morrison "to celebrate divine offices, to minister the Sacraments," etc., with- out reordination, assigning as the reason the validity of his Orders be- stowed "according to the laudable form and rite of the Reformed Church of Scotland," etc. N. B. Ch.of Scotland was non-episcopal. Both the Church and its Orders thus officially recognized. ary writers. See worki of the following: Cranmer, Ridley, Lati- mer, Hooper, Philpot, Bradford, Grindal, Whit- gift, Jewel, Pilkington, Calfhill, Hooker, Whit- taker, Fulke, Saravia. io8 WHERE THE CHURCH STANDS 1610, 1590 Prayer issued by authority recognizes "Thy servants our brethren in France " as constituting part of "Thy Church. " 1604 The Bidding Prayer, officially set forth by the Church, defines "Christ's Holy Catholic Church" as "the whole Congregation of Christian people dis- persed throughout the whole world," and Specifically mentions the Church of Scotland, by name, as a part thereof. '' Ch. of England officially recognizes valid- ity of the " Ordaining Presbytery" of the Kirk of Scotland, and on such recogni- tion Episcopacy is sanctioned by the latter. Archbishop Bancroft officially recognizes the Church of Scotland as a true Church, and its presbyterial ordinations as vaUd, when about to consecrate Bishops for Scotland. 1634 Official recognition of the "Reformed Churches of Helvetia, Belgia, Geneva, with others," and of their "true and lawful ministries," set forth "by the authority of His Majesty's royal letters- Patent" and "by the Lords the Reverend Bishops." This declaration was fur- ther endorsed by "both Universities" and "by all the learned, both of our Clergy and Laity, throughout our dominions." 1662 Official declaration of the Revisers that no doctrinal changes were introduced by them and that they endorsed the former attitude of the Church in all essentials — Preface — Pr. Book. Act of Uniformity — 14 Carol II. — offi- cially recognizes "the Foreign Reformed Churches," and while restricting the extent of the former practice, specifical- Fleetwood, Strype, Ban- croft (and even) Laud, Willet, Bilson, Sutcliffe, Mason, Field, Babington, Burnet, Fr. White, Thos. White, Davenant, Baxter, Rainolds, Hall, Cosin, Pri- deaux, Cudworth, Tindal, Stillingfleet, Usher, Brara- hall, Tillotson, Chilling, worth, etc. etc. WHERE THE CHURCH STANDS 109 ly provides (§ 15) for the continued admission of non-episcopally ordained ministers under certain conditions. New prayer officially set forth identifying "the Catholic Church'^ with "all who profess and call themselves Christians,^' so including non-episcopal bodies. Orders of Deacon and Priest only de- clared to be "necessary" . . . "in the Church of Christ" — Ordinal — Rubric. Generally admitted that no further amendments or changes have been made since 1662 and that our present Pro- testant Episcopal Prayer Book and formularies are based upon the Pr. Book and Formularies of the Restora- tion. The Protestant Episcopal Church officially asserts that She is "far from intending to depart from the Church of England in any essential point of doctrine, discipline, or worship." Pr. Book — Preface — referring to the doctrine, discipline and worship of the Church of England as set forth in 1662. The Protestant Episcopal Church form- ally recognizes "the different religious denominations of Christians in these States" as "Churches." IV OBJECTIONS CONSIDERED III IV OBJECTIONS CONSIDERED W E come now to consider certain objections which we know will be urged against the foregoing argument. Objection (j) In answer to a little work which the present writer published some years ago on this subject, ' the follow- ing criticism was made by several prominent clergy- men. We will admit, said they, that the Church of England has never formally pronounced non-epis- copal ordination invalid; but we will not admit that she has ever formally pronounced it valid. She has simply refused to pass jtidgment upon the matter one way or another. Our answer to this is brief. First — The assumption that she has refused to pass judgment one way or another is clearly at variance with historic fact; and Second — If it were true, it would he disastrous for the " Catholic'' party to make such an admission. Proof First Proposition. That this is manifestly untrue ^Apostolic Succession and the Problem oj Unity, University Press, Sewanee, Term. % 113 114 WHERE THE CHURCH STANDS will be evident from the following official acts already cited: (a) Archbishop Grindal's official license to John Morrison, April 6, 1582 — "approving and ratif^dng the form of his (your) Ordination . , . according to the laudable form and rite of the Reformed Church of Scotland," which Church was Presbyterian. (b) Formal recognition of the validity of the Presbyterian ordination of Scottish candidates for Episcopal Consecration given by Archbishop Ban- croft when acting for, and in the name of, the Church of England, and the subsequent ratification of his act by the actual Consecration administered by the Church of England on these terms. (c) Official acknowledgment of the inherent power of the Presbyterate to ordain formally made by the Church of England when subscribing to the 2d Resolution of the Assembly, by which the churches of England and Scotland were united. Other official acts already referred to (some of which will doubtless occur to our readers) might be cited, but these are sufficient to prove the falsity of the above assumption. Second Proposition. That it would be disastrous for the "Catholic" party to admit this, if it were true, is again easily established, since to say that the Church has never formally pronounced non-episcopal ordination to be invalid is synonymous with admit- ting that she has never pronounced Episcopal ordina- tion as alone or exclusively valid — ergo, it is to sa}^ that she has never asserted that Episcopal ordination is WHERE THE CHURCH STANDS 115 necessary or essential to the being of the Church, which is the whole point of their argument. It will not do to assert, therefore, that the Church has simply assumed this negative position, for that is, in itself, a fatal admission. There are some propositions towards which a negative attitude is simply impossible, where silence itself signifies a posi- tive attitude. It will be easily seen, therefore, that such an objection, even if it were true, is of absolutely no value whatever to our opponents, but is, on the contrary, a most complete, though unintentional, admission of the truth of our whole argument. Objection (2) Perhaps there is no greater commentary upon the logic employed by many of the writers of our ordin- ary Church Manuals in defending their view of the necessity of the Episcopate than the glib way in which they point to many passages in the writings of the Reformers, or in certain official utterances of the Church herself, which uphold the Divine Right of Episcopal Government, or the fact of an Historic Succession from the days of the Apostles. Yet who can be so blind as not to see that the mere right of the Church to perpetuate the Episcopate on the ground that it possesses Divine Authority and has come down to us from the days of the Apostles, is a proposition altogether distinct from the claim that it is the exclusive channel of such Divine Authority, and that no other form of Government can possess Ii6 WHERE THE CHURCH STANDS such authority. Yet whenever any one attacks the theory that the Church of England has ever claimed that the Episcopate is absolutely essential to the valid- ity of the Sacraments, and the being of the Church, he is immediately met with the triumphant retort that the Preface to the Ordinal plainly asserts the authority of the Episcopate, and its historic continuity from the days of the Apostles; that Cranmer's Sermon on the Keys contains a like defense of this most ancient and Catholic Institution; and that number- less passages can be adduced from the writings of the Reformers to the same effect. Why, what bear- ing have any of these facts upon the point at issue? Is it possible that our critics cannot see any distinc- tion between the claim that Episcopal Government is legitimate, and the further claim that it is the one and only form of government that is legitimate; or can honestly claim to refute our contention that the Church of England nowhere asserts the necessity of the Episcopate to the very being of the Church by merely pointing out the truism that she has unques- tionably defended the Episcopate as a legitimate institution — existing by Divine Right? Yet this is precisely the kind of logic with which our popular apologists vanquish the objections here urged. When we assert that the Church nowhere declares that the Episcopate is the exclusive channel through which the Divine Authority is transmitted, we are solemnly informed that the Ordinal itself explicitly asserts the Divine Authority of the Episcopate, the Reformers repeatedly maintain it as a fact, whence. WHERE THE CHURCH STANDS 117 of course, it follows inevitably that the Church has declared that no other form of Government exists by Divine Authority, and all non-episcopal bodies are nothing more than mere human societies. According ' to this logic, because all horses are animals, it should, of course, be obvious that there are no animals which are not horses. Now this kind of argument won't do. If the writer did not believe that Episcopal govern- ment was divinely sanctioned, he would not be a member of the Episcopal Church, to say nothing of being a clerg^'^man thereof, nor can he very well understand how any Episcopal Church can fail to defend or justify its episcopal form of government as valid, and its acts as possessing Divine Authority. It would be simply amazing if the Anglican Reformers should have taken such pains to preserve the Episco- pate, and not have defended it as of Divine Authority. It will not do to obscure the real issue before us in the present instance, by harping upon such well-known, self-evident, but wholly irrelevant facts. Of course Cranmer defended Episcopacy in his Catechism — defended it as an institution possessing Divine authority. Yet where does he assert therein (or anywhere else, for that matter,) that it is the one and only form of ecclesiastical government that has the sanction of our Lord and His Apostles? Not only, therefore, was it natural that the Reformers should defend the form of government which they had adopted, but when the Puritans in attacking the Church went so far as to say that Episcopacy was contrary to the Word of God, and that no form of Ii8 WHERE THE CHURCH STANDS government was justifiable in the sight of God but the Presbyterian, they were compelled to assert in no uncertain language the Divine Right of Episcopacy to exist. While they did this, while they asserted in clear and unmistakable terms that Episcopacy existed by Divi?ie Right, they never went so far as to assert that Presbyterianism did not. If fact, that was one of the striking differences between the broad liberality of the Anglican Reformer and the narrow- minded position of his opponent. While he insisted that his own form of government was as much sanc- tioned by God as the Presbyterian, he did not deny that the latter possessed Divine Authority. On the contrary, it was the Puritan, not the Anglican, that resorted to this "exclusive" hypothesis. As Keble himself tells us, "it is enough, with them [i. e. the Reformers] to show that the government by Archbishops and Bishpps is ancient and allowable; they never venture to urge its exclusive claim, or to con- nect the Succession with validity of the Holy Sacra- ments'' (Preface to Hooker's Works). It was left to the Tractarians and "Catholics" of a later age to apply the old "exclusive" argument of the Puritans regarding Presbyterianism in favor of Episcopacy. This is exactly what the Reformers did not do. It will be seen, therefore, that it is pure sophistry to quote these many passages in the works of the Reformers wherein Episcopacy is defended as an in- stitution possessing Divine Authority and Catholic pre- cedent, as evidence that the writers did not admit the validity of Presbyterian ordination and government. WHERE THE CHURCH STANDS 119 That will not do. Of course, the Church of England defends Episcopacy as of Divine Right, but where does she assert that it is absolutely necessary to the being of the Church and the Ministry ? On the con- trary, we read in the Ordinal that both the Diaconate and the Priesthood are '^necessary ... in the Church of Christ," but where do we read any- thing about the Episcopate being "necessary ?'' Nay, more — exclusively necessary? Why, the very fact that the Church here officially proclaims both the Diaconate and the Presbyterate to be "neces- sary," but has nothing to say about the "necessity" of the Episcopate, even if it proves nothing else, at least proves that the Episcopate is not exclusively necessary to the existence of the Church. This, in itself, settles the whole question. It will be seen, there- fore, that the mere fact that Cranmer, and the Reformers generally, have much to say regarding the Divine Authority of the Episcopate, and, in answer to the Puritan charge that Presbyterian government alone had the warrant of Holy Scripture, were ever ready to afBrm that the Episcopate had equal claims to Divine Authority, has no bearing whatever upon the issue before us. It is a far cry from such a modest, reasonable claim for the legitimacy of the Episcopate, to the modern exclusive assumption that it is not only legitimate, but the only legitimate form of ecclesiastical government — the 07ily one possessing Divine Authority. Cranmer, indeed, stood for the defence of the Episcopate, but he likewise stood for the fact that Bishop and Presbyter were one and the 120 WHERE THE CHURCH STANDS same Order, and were not even distinguishable *' offices" in the New Testament.^ It was for this very reason that he stoutly contended that both possessed Divine Authority, and the Episcopate could not be discriminated against by the Puritans. It was only against the bitter attacks of this latter party, who were as extreme for exclusive Presbyterianism, as our "Catholic" friends are to-day extreme for exclusive Episcopacy, that these claims for the Divine Right of Episcopacy were set forth. The fact is, both are legitimate, both possess Divine Authority, but neither one to the exclusion of the other. Episco- pacy, therefore, must be defended by us to-day, not upon the grounds of its absolute necessity to the being of the Church, as though it were the one and only form of Government that God is willing to recognize (so unchurching all our non-episcopal brethren) but upon the grounds of legitimacy and also expediency — upon the ground that it is the only form of Govern- ment that can really claim to have been practically universal or catholic for fifteen hundred years. It is the only form that is to-day recognized by the vast majority of the Christian world. It is the only form, therefore, that, for purely practical reasons, there is ' It is well known that Cranmer held this opinion in common with his fellow Reformers. It will suffice here, however, to cite but one passage in proof thereof. To the loth of the Seventeen Questions presented to the Commission of Divines (1540) to wit: "Whether Bishops or Priests were first," etc., he replies: "The Bishop and the Priest were at one time, and were not two things, but both one office, in the beginning of Christ's Religion." (Burnet's Hist. Reform., vol. iv., p. 114.) WHERE THE CHURCH STANDS 12 1 any likelihood that the Christian world would ulti- mately agree upon. It is the form, that because of its antiquity and universality, and as manifesting the continuity of the Church from the beginning, it would be not only unwise, but ivrong, to overthrow, save for the weightiest and the most necessary con- siderations. We conclude, then, by saying that it is utterly useless for our opponents to urge the many passages which occur in the writing of the Reformers, and even in the Ordinal and the official formularies of the Church herself, iipliolding the Divine Authority oj Bishops, and requiring all Clergy of this Church to submit to ordination at their hands. It is utterly useless to urge such passages as proving that the Reformers, and the Church which they reorganized, admitted therein and thereby that 110 other form of government or ordination was valid in the sight of God. Those who indulge in such arguments either do not understand the question at all, or else they are guilty of arrant sophistry, for it is simply im- possible for any one to argue logically that the one proposition implies the other. In short, we will dismiss the whole matter by merely saying that if there are any who are really conscientious in thinking that the admission that ''all horses are animals," carries with it, as a necessary corollary, the con- clusion that "there are no animals that are not horses," they are welcome to hold their opinions. We will certainly not endeavor to disturb them in the serenity of their faith. 122 WHERE THE CHURCH STANDS There is another argument which has been fre- quently urged of late in the hope of undermining that obvious difficulty which confronts "Catholics" in attempting to defend their theory of the limited extent of the Church Universal, which we must now consider. It is quite true, say they, that all who belong to these non-episcopal bodies are, as indivi- duals, to be regarded as members of the Catholic Church because of their Baptism (which is, itself, incorporation into the Body or Church of Christ), but nevertheless, their organizations as organizations are not to be considered parts of that Church, but are nothing more than mere human, or man-made societies. Thus, in an article entitled "The Holy Catholic Church" contained in the lasj: Living Church Annual, published for the year 1914, we meet with the following expressions regarding these Protestant "Sects." They are "composed in large part of persons who, being baptized, are members of the Catholic Church, hut whose organisations form 710 part of that Church and are in organized opposition to it. These bodies are termed Protestants; and when the name Church is applied to any group of them, it is to be understood only in a subordinate sense, these being voluntary organizations of men banded to- gether for religious purposes on a common platform or Confession of Faith, but not to he esteemed cor- porately as branches of the historic Catholic Church'* (p. 58). Again, "In so far as members of these Protestant denominations have been duly baptized, they are also comimonly reckoned to be members of WHERE THE CHURCH STANDS 123 the Holy Catholic Church, though not loyally render- ing obedience to it; but their various organizations, of which there are several hundred, are to be reckoned only as voluntary associations oj Christian people'' (p. 69). Of all the objections commonly met with, this is perhaps the most subtle, as the sophistry underlying it is not obvious on first inspection. It will be seen at the outset that the gist of the above objection is simply this: Protestant individuals are members of the Catholic Church, but Protestant bodies are not. We recognize the individuals, but not their organiza- tions as parts or brafiches of the Catholic Church. Very well then, the objection is against organizations, not individuals. That is to say, there is something in the form or type of organization which is vital or essential to its being regarded as a true Church, and those organizations which lack this particular form or type thus essential to the being of the Chiirch, are, of course, ipso facto excluded from the organized Chiirch Catholic. The issue, then, is clear-cut: either the particular form or type which is lacking to the Protestant Bodies is essential or not essential to the being of the Church. If it is not essential, then, of course, its omission by these bodies is of no par- ticular consequence, and it would be wholly un- necessary to mention it in the discussion. If, on the other hand, it is essential, then, of course, its omission by these bodies to-day is fraught with fear- ful consequences, consequences of a vital nature, and it is only right that the fact should be emphasized. Now, as this last position is the one assumed by our 124 WHERE THE CHURCH STANDS "Catholic" friends, we ask, Why is this particular form of organization vital or essential? It cannot be vital merely because it is historic. There are many features of the organization of the ancient Catholic Church whose omission to-day, though we doubtless deplore, we do not regard as vital or absolutely es- sential to the being of the Church. The use of vest- ments, a fixed ritual, a Church Year, etc., are all of them historic, characteristic features of the ancient Catholic Church, but the omission of these things in themselves does not deprive these bodies of member- ship in the Catholic Church. What form or feature, then, of ancient catholic organization is to be ac- counted vital or essential, and Jor what reason is it essejitial? Obviously, the only form or feature of catholic organization which can logically be claimed to be essential to the being of the Church (if any form or feature be essential at all) is that form or feature whose omission overthrows the fundamental object for which the Church exists, viz. : the salvation of hu- man souls through vital unio?i and communion with the Life-giving Head of the Church. If there is any form of organization, whose omission causes this fearful result, the cutting off of human souls from vital union and communion with Christ, that form of organization is unquestionably essential to the very being of the Church. On the other hand, if there be no form of mere organization that can effect this awful result, it is equally obvious that there is no form of organization, however important for practical purposes, however stimulating to the zt'e/Z-being of WHERE THE CHURCH STANDS 125 the Church, however ancient or however catholic that can possibly be regarded as essetitial to the being of the Church. Is the Episcopate then essential to the being of the Church, or is it not? Does its omis- sion debar any faithful soul from membership in the Catholic Church, from union and communion with the Divine Head of the Church, or from hope of Salvation in a world to come? Assuredly not, for we have just been told by the same writer that these Protestant individuals are, "being baptized . . . members of the Catholic Church" — i. e., members of Christ's Body, with the Eternal Life of that Divine Body in them. If by Baptism they have thus been made "members of Christ, " so by the same Baptism they have also been made "children of God, and inheritors of the Kingdom of Heaven," hence of Life Eternal. If then, secure in their membership in the Catholic Church, secure in their spiritual union with Christ, secure in their hope of Eternal Salvation, it is evident that all that is necessary for their security, all that is absolutely essential for their Spiritual Life and Salvation is already assured under the forms they now possess. Wherein, then, can this particular form which they do not possess, be regarded as essential? If it be not essential to tJie salvation of any individual Soul within the Church, how can it be essential to the Church itself? If this form of government or organ- ization be not essential to the salvation of the people living under it, to what is it essential? The only object of any form of government or organization is to secure certain ends, either necessary or desirable. 126 WHERE THE CHURCH STANDS for the existence of the people living under it. If, therefore, any one form can be said to be necessary or essential at all, it can only be because the end which it secures is absolutely necessary or essential to the existence of the people living under it. In short, if forms of government or organization be not necessary for the individuals that live under them, they are not necessary at all. No form is necessary merely for form's sake. We repeat, therefore, that if no one form of government can be shown to be absolutely necessary to secure what is alone absolutely neces- sary to the salvation of individual souls, viz. : their admission into the Church Catholic, their vital union and communion with the Divine Head and their con- sequent eternal existence in a world to come, it is perfectly clear that no one form of government or organization is necessary or essential in the Church at all. The utmost that can be said for this particu- lar form is that it possesses many advantages of an unessential, but, nevertheless, of a very desirable nature which, though not needed to insure the actual being or existence of the Church and its members, is none the less very important to insure their well- being, a proposition which, it is needless to say, we would be the very last to dispute. We affirm, there- fore, that if any one form of government or organiza- tion is necessary in the Catholic Church at all, it is necessary for this purpose, to secure the salvation of souls, the sole purpose for which the Church was established. Hence, if necessary to the Church at all, it is necessary to the existence of every Christian WHERE THE CHURCH STANDS 127 man, and vice versa, if not necessary to the existence of every Christian man, it is not necessary to the existence of the Church, There is no other possible position to be taken. Only those, therefore, who are prepared to show that the absence of the Episcopate invalidates the spiritual life and safety of the individ- ual men and women who worship in these non- episcopal bodies, can logically maintain that it is essential to the being of the Church. To those, there- fore, who are unwilling to take this extreme position, who shrink, very naturall}^, from the awful conse- quence involved, who, in other words, dare not assert that these persons are actually cut off from the hope of Salvation; for them to assert that the Episcopate is necessary to the being of the Church, is simply absurd. The two hypotheses are mutually exclusive. One may hold the one or the other, but he cannot hold both. As proof that this inference is unavoidable, and that the "Catholic" theory of the Episcopate implies this and nothing less than this, we have only to inform our readers that the great leaders of the movement recognized this fact years ago, and hesi- tated not to admit it. In short, it is only the unphilosophic " Catholic, " the man who does no think- ing for himself, but accepts the opinions of his party ready-made, and without question, that imagines that the High Chiu-ch view of the necessity of the Episcopate to the being of the Church can be made to harmonize with the liberal opinion that the mem- bers of non-episcopal bodies are, even as individuals, in true, spiritual union with Christ, and, thus, secure 128 WHERE THE CHURCH STANDS in the hope of Salvation. Their own leaders think nothing of the kind, for the real theologians of the movement have long ago told us, in so many words, that the conclusion is unavoidable that if necessary to the hemg of the Church, the Episcopate must be necessary to the existence of every Christian man, the Salvation of every individual Soul. To show that we are not misrepresenting them, we will here submit a few quotations from their works. "The main points, insisted on by them [the Tractarians], accord- ing to their own accounts, are the following: The doctrine of Apostolic Succession as a rule of practice ; that is. First, that the participation of the Body and Blood of Christ is essential to the maintenance of Christian life and hope in each individual. Second, that it is conveyed to individual Christians, 07ily hy the hands of the Successors of the Apostles and their delegates. Third, that the Successors of the Apostles are those who are descended in a direct line from them, by the imposition of hands ; and that the delegates of these are the respective Presbyters whom each has commissioned .... The following memorandum, drawn up by Mr. Newman, one of the most distin- guished members of the School, explains more fully the original intention and peculiar doctrines of the Tractarians : "(i) That the only way of Salvation is the par- taking of the Body and Blood of our sacrificed Redeemer. " (2) That the means, expressly authorized by Him for that purpose, is the Holy Sacrament of His Supper. WHERE THE CHURCH STANDS 129 "(3) That the security, by Him no less expressly authorized, for the continuance and due application of that Sacrament, is the Apostolical Commission of the Bishops, and, tmder them, the Presbyters of the Church, " etc. Again, '"A Church, ' says the British Critic, their principal organ in England, 'is such only by virtue of that from which it obtains its unity — and it obtains its unity only from that in which it centres, viz.: the Bishop. And, therefore, all its teaching must be through the medium of the Episcopate, as is beautifully expressed in the Act of the Synod of Bethlehem, which the Eastern Church transmitted to the non-juring Bishops. Therefore we declare that this hath ever been the doctrine of the Eastern Church, that the Episcopal dignity is so necessary in the Church that without a Bishop there cannot exist any Church, nor any Christian man; no, not so much as in name. For he is, as Successor of the Apostles, . . . the source of and fountain, as it were, of all those Mys- teries of the Catholic Church, through which we obtain Salvation (i. e., the Sacraments). And we hold the necessity of a Bishop to he as great in the Church as the breath of life is in man, or as the sun is in the system of creation,''' etc. (Schmucker's Hist, of All Religions, Art. Tractarians). From these quotations, it is perfectly plain that the great leaders of the Tracta- rian movement based their whole theory as to the necessity of the Episcopate to the being of the Church upon the ground that it was necessary to the Salvation of each individual Soul within the Church, and to any one who -easons at all on the subject it is perfectly 130 WHERE THE CHURCH STANDS clear that this is the only basis upon which the claim can be defended at all. If necessary at all, it is necessary for this reason. It cannot he necessary merely for Form's sake. It is a perfectly plain pro- position, then: Men, as individuals, depend upon the Life-giving Sacraments for their spiritual exist- ence or Salvation, and these Life-giving Sacraments depend for their validity, in turn, upon their adminis- tration under the authority of the Bishops, hence the Episcopate is absolutely essential to the being of the Church, because absolutely essential to the spiritual existence or Salvation of each individual in the Church. Now this may be true or untrue but one thing is absolutely certain. If true — the official position of this Church is false; or, if not true, the view of the Tractarians and their present day dis- ciples is false. For it is beyond all question that the Church of England, and the Protestant Episcopal Church after her, has officially declared in no uncertain terms that the individual members of the non-episco- pal bodies are not cut off from the Body of Christ (and so denied the hope of Salvation) because of their lack of the Episcopate, but on the contrary, are at this very moment, simply hy virtue of their Baptism, to say nothing more (for even Lay Baptism is valid, in the sight of this Church), in vital union and communion with the Divine Head of the Church, and so secure in the hope of Salvation in the Body or Church of Christ. The Church has officially declared, in other words, that they are by virtue of their valid Baptism (if nothing more) ''members of Christ, WHERE THE CHURCH STANDS 131 children of God, arid mheritors of the Kingdom of Heaven,'' that is inheritors of Salvation. Two con- clusions, then, follow inevitably from these facts: (i) That the true, logical position of the Trac- tarians which contends for the necessity of the Epis- copate upon the ground that it is necessary to the personal salvation of each individual Soul, is in plain, irreconcilable conflict with the official view of the Church, which has time and again recognized the individual baptized members of non-episcopal bodies, as living members of Christ's Body secure in the hope of Salvation, despite the absence of an Episcopate. And that (2) The illogical position of the average " Catholic" to-day which contends for the absolute necessity of the Episcopate to the being of the Church, while simultaneously admitting that the baptized individ- uals living under a wi " ordaining brings up another interesting point, for while the matter has never been definitely settled there is good reason to believe that these were orig- inally nothing more than Presbyters, and that, as such, they ordained and their ordinations were regarded valid. As in the case of these City Presbyters this privilege was in time withdrawn for motives of expediency only. For a list of those who hold this view, see Bing- ham's Antiquities. 252 WHERE THE CHURCH STANDS may still ordain" (Begin. Christ., pp. 551 et seq.). Epiphanius. (310-403.) Is said to have asserted the essential equality of Bishop and Presbyter (see Hatch, Organ. Early Chr. Churches, pp. 109, no). Hilary the Deacon. (Ambrose?) (4th Century.) Commenting on Ephesians iv., 2, this author writes as follows: "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 {or establish) , ii a Bishop be not present." This witnesses the writer's belief in the original identity of Bishops and Presbyters, and evi- dently, in its allusion to the custom "in Egypt, " refers to the Presbyterian ordinations attested by Jerome, Eutychius, and others which will be cited presently. Ambrose. (340-397.) " Episcopi et Presbyteri una ordinatio est; uterque enim sacerdos est, sed epis- copus primus est"^ (Op., vol. ii., p. 395; cited in Die. Chr. Antiq., Art. "Priest," p. 1703) — clear evidence that he regarded them as differing in Office only, not in Order. * "There is but one Ordination of a Bishop and of a Presbyter, for each of them is a Priest, but the Bishop is (or ranks) first." His meaning is precisely parallel to what might be said of Bishops and Archbishops to-day — viz: "There is but one Consecration of an Archbishop and of a Bishop (for each of them is a Bishop), but the Archbishop is (or ranks) first." WHERE THE CHURCH STANDS 253 Jerome. (340-420.) The words of this author when taken in connection with the circumstances under which they were written, appear so con- clusive both in regard to his behef in the original identity of Bishops and Presbyters, and the purely practical motives that led to a later attempt to differentiate the two, that it is exceedingly difficult to understand how any one can seriously question the plain common-sense purport of his statement. It seems that the occasion for this utterance was the attempt on the part of a certain Deacon to extol the impor- tance of his office at the expense of the Priest- hood. He writes: ^^ Audio quendam in tantam enipisse vecordiam, ut diaconas presbyteris, id est episcopis, anteferret. Nam, cum apostolus per- spiciie doceat eosdem esse preshyteros qiios episco- pos, quid patitur mensarum et viduarum minis- ter, ut supra eos, se tumidus efferat."^ Having * " I hear that a certain man into so great madness hath broken forth that he would place Deacons above Presbyters — that is to say, above Bishops. For since the Apostle clearly teaches that Pres- byters and Bishops are the same, how can it be allowed that a mere Minister of tables and of widows should behave himself so haughtily as to presume to be superior to these." This reference to Acts vi., 1-7, is further significant, as it reveals that Jerome regarded Apostles, Bishops, and Presbyters — all three as belonging to one and the same Order. It was to relieve the Apostles from "serving tables" and pro- viding for "the Widows" that Deacons were appointed. Yet Jerome uses the argument to prove the subordination of Deacons to Presbyters and Bishops. He must needs have regarded all three, therefore, as belonging to the same Order — a fact corroborated by the statement of the Apostles themselves that they were Elders or Presbyters, as already pointed out. 254 WHERE THE CHURCH STANDS plainly set forth this primitive identity of Pres- byters and Bishops, he later goes on to say, — ■ "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 A lexandria also , from Mark the Evangelist to the Bishops Heracles and Dionysius^ 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 ordi- nation, which a Presbyter may not do?'' (Epis. to Evangelus.) Moreover, that this was unques- tionably his meaning, and that he never regarded the existing superiority of Bishops in his own day, and their privilege of exclusive ordination, as any thing more than a dignity conferred upon, and a power delegated to, them by the Presbyterate itself, is still further evident from another statement elsewhere. Thus, in his Commentary on Titus i., 5, he says: "As the Presbyters, therefore, know 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 B Y CUSTOM THAN BY ANY REAL APPOINTMENT OF THE LORD, and that they ought to govern the Church ALONG WITH THE PRESBYTERS.'' The best way to answer those whose imagina- WHERE THE CHURCH STANDS 255 tions are sufficiently fertile to construe these words into a defence of the "Catholic" theory of the Episcopate, is to ask if they would have been thus construed, if they had been written at the present day. Culdees of Scot and. (363-430.) The Culdees or Priests of the early Church of Scotland for a long period followed the custom of the Church at Alexandria ordaining, through election and elevation to office their own Bishop. This fact, attested by Boethius and others, there is little reason to question. "The same Boeth out of ancient annals, reports that these Priests were wont for their better government to elect some one of their number, by common suffrage, to be chief and principal among them, without whose knowledge and consent nothing was done in any matter of importance; and that the person so elected was called Scotorum Episcopus, a Scottish Bishop, or a Bishop of Scotland. Neither had our Bishops any other title whereby they were distinguished before the days of Malcolm the Third," etc. (Spottiswoode, Hist. Ch. Scot., vol. i., pp. 6, 7.) "Neither is it any ways sufficient to say that those Presbyters did derive their authority from Bishops; for, however, we see here a Church governed without such, or if they had any, they were only chosen from their Culdei, much after the custom of the Church of Alexandria, as Hector Boethius doth imply." (Stillingfleet, 256 WHERE THE CHURCH STANDS Irenicum, p. 398. See also Carricks, WycUffe and the Lollards, pp. 37, 38.) Aerius. (c. 363.) "He maintained that, {jure divino) by Divine appointment, there was 710 difference between Bishops and Presbyters.''^ (Mosheim, Institutes Eccles. Hist., vol. i., p. 326.) Paphnutius. (c. 370.) ** Ordination by other than a Bishop has been allowed in cases where a Bishop was not available: e. g. in the solitudes of Egypt a Presbyter, Paphnutius, ordained a monk, Daniel, as successively Deacon and Priest (Cassian. CoUat. 4.1, ap. Migne, Patrol. Lat., vol. xlix., 585:" Hatch, Organ. Early Chr. Churches, p. no.) Chrysostom. (347-407.) Is said to have held the identity of Presbyter and Bishop in point of Order. {Vide Browne, Thirty-Nine Articles, P- 563; Jewel, Defence of Apology, Bk. iii., 439, et al. N.B. — While the writer has good reason to believe from circumstantial evidence that Chrysostom did hold this opinion, he confesses that he has never been able to see how the passages cited by the above mentioned authori- ties can be regarded as conclusive. He says merely: ^^ Inter Episcopum et Presbyterum in- terest ferme nihil.'' (I. Tim., Hom. 11, i. e.. Between Bishop and Presbyter the difference is almost nothing.) Augustine. (354-430.) Like Chrysostom, Augus- tine also maintained an identity of Order, re- WHERE THE CHURCH STANDS 257 garding the Bishop as merely the Chief Priest: '^ Quid est . . . Episcopiis, nisi primus Presbyter, hoc est, siimmus sacerdos?''^ (Op. Quasst. ex Utroq. mixt., Quaest. ci., Tom. iii.; Jewel, Dcj. of ApoL, Bk. iii., p. 439; Browne, Thirty-Nine Art., p. 563.) A.D. 400 TO 500 Pelagius (c. 400); Theodore of Mopsuestia (d. 428); Theodoret (390-457). It is asserted by- high authorities that all of these men maintained the primitive identity of Bishops and Presbyters. Says Bishop Lightfoot, "Chrysostom, Pelagius, Theodore of Mopsuestia, Theodoret, all ac- knowledge it. Thus in every one of the extant Commentaries on the Epistles containing the crucial passages, whether Greek or Latin, before the close of the fifth century, this identity is affirmed. {Com. on Philip.., p. 230.) Sedulius. (c. 434.) Maintained the identity of Bishop and Presbyter in point of Order. {Vide Browne, Thirty-Nine Articles, p. 563; Asserted also by Rainolds, see his testimony. Prim. Eiren., P-32.) Boethius. (470-524.) See his testimony in regard to Presbyterian ordination among the Culdees, cited above. A.D. 500 TO 600 Liberatus. (c. 534.) According to the Roman « "What is the Bishop, but the first Presbyter, that is, the Chief (or highest) Priest?" 17 258 WHERE THE CHURCH STANDS theologian, Morinus, the Breviarum of Liberatus testifies unequivocally, not only to the Presby- terian ordination of the Patriarch of Alexandria, but to the further fact alleged by many others, that both in Alexandria and elsewhere, the election was itself regarded as the essential ordina- tion, and was not followed hy any Laying on of Hands. He writes as follows: "It clearly follows from it (the Breviarum) that for at least two hundred years after Alexander, the Presby- ters of Alexandria, not the Bishops, elected the Patriarch; and that neither the Presbyters nor the Bishops, nor any other person, laid their hands on the person elected." What- ever may be said of the practice in this par- ticular place, there is at least much evidence from other sources to prove that in the early days of the Church the election was by no means invariably followed by the Laying on of Hands, although this last was the general rule.* Primasius. (c. 550.) Maintained original identity of Bishop and Presbyter in point of Order {vide Browne, Thirty-Nine Articles, p. 563; Testimony of Rainolds, quoted in Prim. Eiren., P- 32.) ' Not only so, but even where this latter rite has been preserved, it has in many quarters, been so modified and tampered with, that it is difficult to understand how "Catholics" or others who stress its literal importance — a true tactual transmission of Authority from the Apostles downward — can be satisfied with the validity of the Episco- pal succession in many of the Historic Churches, so-called. WHERE THE CHURCH STANDS 259 A.D. 600 TO 700 Theophylact (611-629); Isidore Hispalensis (d. 636);Bede (673-735). All three of these writers are said to have held that Bishops and Presbyters were of the same Order. {Vide Browne, Thirty-Nine Articles, p. 563; Testi- mony of Rainolds, quoted in Prim. Eiren., p. 32.) A.D. 700 TO 800 Alcuin. (735-804.) Likewise held the view that they were the same Order. {Vide Browne, Thirty-Nine Articles, p. 563.) WiUehad. (8th C en.) Luidger. (d. 807.) Accord- ing to Hatch, and other authorities, both these celebrated missionaries endorsed and practiced Presbyterian ordination. "The Presbyters who were sent as missionaries to the Teutonic races in the eighth century both ordained Presbyters, and exercised other Episcopal Junctions (Anskar. Vit. St.Willehad, c. 5, ap. Pertz, M. H. G. Scriptt., vol. ii., p. 381, 'servusDei Willehadus per Wig- modiam {Bremen) ecclesias coepit construere ac Presbyteros super eas or dinar e.' : so Altfrid. Vit. S. Liudger, c. 20, ap. Pertz, ibid., p. 411)" — i. e, "Willehad, the servant of God, began to estab- lish Churches throughout Wigmodia (Bremen) and to ordain Presbyters over them'' A.D. 800 TO 900 S3mod of Aix. (819.) Officially pronounced Bishops 260 WHERE THE CHURCH STANDS and Presbyters to he the same in point of Order. (Browne, Thirty-Nine Articles, p. 563.) Amalarius. (9th Cen.) According to Harrison, this writer not only held that they were identical in point of Order, but leaves no room for doubt as to his interpretation of the words of Jerome relating to the elevation of the Bishop of Alex- andria at the hands of his fellow Presbyters, comparing it to the similar elevation of an Arch- deacon by his brethren. "The consecration of an Archdeacon is well known to us. An Arch- deacon has the same consecration as the others have, but by the election of his brethren he is placed first." {Whose Are the Fathers? quoted in Prim. Eiren., p. 208.) A.D. 900 TO 1000 Eutychius. (loth Cen.) This writer, himself a Patriarch of Alexandria, and, therefore, of all others, the least likely to depreciate the impor- tance of his office or the honor due his see, fur- nishes the most explicit testimony of all with regard to the ancient custom of Presbyterian ordination, and his testimony alone should forever settle the meaning of Jerome's words (above quoted) if indeed there were any reason- able grounds for questioning his meaning. After voicing the usual tradition that St. Mark, the Evangelist (who, by the way, was himself a PRESBYTER only), had founded the Church WHERE THE CHURCH STANDS 261 at Alexandria, he goes on to relate its subsequent history as follows: "He (St. Mark) appointed twelve Presbyters with Hananias (his Succes- sor), who were to remain with the Patriarch, so that when the Patriarchate was vacant they might elect one of the twelve Presbyters, upon whose head the other eleven might place their hands and bless him and create him Patriarch, and then choose some excellent man and appoint him Presbyter with themselves in the place oj him who was thus made Patriarch, that thus there might always be twelve. Nor did this custom respect- ing the Presbyters, namely, that they should create their Patriarch 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 Patriarch for the future, and decreed that when the Pa- triarch was dead, the Bishops should meet together and ordain the Patriarch. Thus, that ancient custom, by which the Patriarch used to be created by Presbyters, disappeared, and in its place succeeded the ordinance for the creation of the Patriarch by the Bishops." (Annals, cited in Prim. Eiren., p. 20.) It would be hard to find any testimony that could be more unequivocal than this, Severus. (loth Cen.) As quoted by Renaudot, declares that "the Priests and people were collected together at Alexandria, and laid their 262 WHERE THE CHURCH STANDS hands on Peter, his son in the faith, and disciple, a Priest, and placed him in the patriarchal throne of Alexandria, according to the command of Theonas in the tenth year of the Emperor Diocletian. " Oecumenius. (loth Cen.) According to the testi- mony of Rainolds, he likewise maintained that Bishops and Priests were of the same Order. {Prim. Eiren., p. 32.) Canons of Aelfric. (996-1006.) "Seven degrees are established in the Church — the sixth Diaconus, the seventh {i. e., the highest) Presbyter.'^ (Thorpe's Ancient Laws and histitutes, vol. ii., p. 347; quoted by Maskell, Monumenta Ritualia.) Note. This evidence is unequivocal. The writer declares that there are only Seven Orders in the Church, the five Minor Orders, so called, and the two Major Orders, viz.: the Diaconate (the sixth), and the Priesthood, the Seventh, and highest. There is no eighth Order of Episcopate. This is again confirmed by \he following: Pastoral of Aelfric. (996-1006.) " Beloved, under- stand that both are of one Order, the Bishop and the Mass-Priest, that is of the Seventh Church Order, as holy books tell us. " {Id., p. 379.) A.D. 1000 TO 1 100 Anselm. (1033-1109.) Held the same opinion, according to the testimony of Rainolds, (quoted in Prim. Eiren., p. 32). A.D. 1 100 TO 1200 Hugo St. Victor. (1096-1140.) Held the same view. (Vide Browne, Thirty-Nine Articles, p. 563.) WHERE THE CHURCH STANDS 263 Gratian. (1151.) This famous Canonist is author- ity for the statement that the Chorepiscopi, who for many centuries exercised the function of ordination in the Church, were not Bishops at all, but Presbyters, and the validity of their acts was never called in question. According to Bingham, this was also the received opinion of many others, to wit: "Among the Schoolmen and Canonists, it is a received opinion, that they were only Presbyters; as may be seen in Turrian, Estius, Antonius Augustinus, and Gratian, who are followed not only by Salmasius, but by Spalatensis, Dr. Field, and Dr. Forbes, the last of which brings several arguments to prove that they were Presbyters, and never had any Episcopal ordination.'" (Bingham's Antiquities, vol. i., p. 56.) Peter Lombard, (d. 1 164.) Said to have maintained the identity of Order (Browne, Thirty-Nine Articles, p. 563); as also the Waldenses. (fl. 1170.) According to testimony of Rainolds, cited above. A. D. 1200 to 1300 Albertus Magnus. (1205-1280.) This writer is said to have maintained that Bishop and Presbyter were of the same Order. (Browne, Id.) Alexander Alensis. (1230 ?) Held that Bishop and Presbyter were the same Order. (Browne, Thirty-Nine Articles, p. 563.) 264 WHERE THE CHURCH STANDS George Elmacinus. (13th Cen.) An Egyptian writer, confirms the testimony of Eutychius respecting Presbyterian ordination in Alexan- dria. (See Prim. Eiren., p. 20.) Pope Celestine V. (1215-1296.) "He empowered one Francis of Apt, a Franciscan Friar, to confer Priest's Orders on Lodovico, son of Charles, King of Sicily, a fact which seems to have escaped the notice of Bingham, who says that such a thing was never done. " {Encyc. Brit.) Guilielmus Parisiensis. (d. 1249.) According to Maskell, this writer declares that the Episcopate depends on the Presbyterate, not the Presby- terate on the Episcopate: "The Episcopate presupposes the Priesthood, and depends upon it.'' {Mon. Rit., vol. iii., p. Ixxxiii.) Thus, like the Revisers of 1662 he emphasizes the fact that the Episcopate unlike the "Orders" of Presbyter and Deacon is not necessary in the Church of Christ. Bonaventura. (1221-1274.) His testimony, as well as that of his distinguished contemporary (which immediately follows), is clear and un- equivocal: "Episcopatus prout distinguitur contra Sacerdotum, non est proprie nomen Ordinis, nee novus character imprimitur, nee nova potestas datur, sed potestas data amplia- tur."' (Op., Tom. 5., p. 369.) • " The Episcopate as contrasted with the Priesthood, is not prop- erly the name of an Order, nor is there any new Character impressed, nor any new power given, but the power already bestowed is increased.'^ WHERE THE CHURCH STANDS 265 Thomas Aquinas. (1225-1274.) He says distinctly, "Episcopatus non est Ordo. " (In. 4. Sec. Dist. 24, q. 2. Art. 2.) ''The Episcopate is not an Order." A.D. 1300 TO 1400 Durandus. (d. 1332.) Held that they were identical in Order. (Browne, Id.) Peter Aureolus. (d. after 1345.) Bishop Cosin de- clares that he held the same opinion. (See his Letter to Cordel, cited by Goode, On Orders, p. 66.) Marsiglio of Padua. Among the several proposi- tions which he laid down, and for which he was condemned by the Pope (John XXH.) was the following: "All Priests, whether Pope or Arch- bishop or simple Priest, are, in accordance with the appointment of Christ, of equal authority and jurisdiction" Note. It was only the extension of the principle of their equality in point of Order, to include the Pope, that called forth his condemna- tion. (See Thatcher and McNeal, Source Book, p. 324.) Wyclif. (1324-1384.) It is well known that this great Reformer maintained the equality of Bishop and Presbyter in point of Order. "He believed in the universal priesthood of all believers, the fallibility of the Pope, the original equality of Bishop and Presbyter, and the neces- sity of all Christian Priests of a simple, humble life." (Carrick, WycUffe and the Lollards, p. 266 WHERE THE CHURCH STANDS 190.) Wyclif also believed in the principles of the Culdees, who maintained the validity of Presbyterian ordination. (See above.) "Co- lumban or Culdee Christianity was what the Roman Church displaced, and it was what Wycliffe wished revived again." {Id., p. 37.) The Lollards. It is needless to say that they main- tained the view of their founder. Pupilla Oculi. (1385.) In this work a recognized authority in its day, the same view is again set forth. "Episcopatus autem non est Ordo proprie sed dignitas, sive excellentia in ordine, tum quia non imprimit characterem, tum etiam quia omnis Ordo ordinatur ad Sacramentum Eucharisti^. " ' (Pars VII., Cap. I. C.) Manipulus Curatorum. ' ' De Episcopatu vero utrum sit spiritualis Ordo dubito. " (Lib. V., Cap. II.) "As to the Episcopate, I question whether it be truly a Spiritual Order y Huss. (1369-1415.) It is generally admitted that he held the same view. {Vide testimony of Rainolds, Prim. Eiren., p. 32.) A.D. 1400 TO 1500 Pope Eugenius. (1383-1447.) "In the definition ' "Moreover, the Episcopate is not, properly speaking, an Order, but a dignity, or excellency in Order; because further, it does not impress any character; and yet again, because all Order is designed for the Sacrament of the Eucharist. " — N. B. The prevalent mediaeval conception being that the prime or essential reason for ordering or setting apart a class of ministers above the Diaconate, was to bestow upon them the unique power of Consecrating the Elements — to perform the Miracle of transubstantiation. WHERE THE CHURCH STANDS 267 that Eugenlus has given of the Sacraments which is an authentical piece in the Roman Church, where he reckons Priests, Deacons, and Subdeacons, as belonging to the Sacrament of Orders, he does not name Bishops, though their being of Divine institution is not questioned in that Church." (Burnet, Thirty-Nine Articles, p. 340.) The above is cited, not in defense of the Roman view that the Subdiaconate constitutes an Order, but merely to show (as is verified by other official declarations of that Church, e. g., that of the Council of Trent) that the Episcopate was not at that time regarded as a separate Order even by them. Tostatus, Bishop of Avila. (15th Cen.) Held that the power of the Keys was given originally to the Church (as a Body) not to the Ministry, and that the former merely delegates what Orders she will to exercise said power. "For the power of a prelate does not take its origin from itself, but from the Church, by means of the election that it makes of him. The Church that chose him gives him that jurisdiction, but as for the Church, it receives it from nobody after its having once received it from Jesus Christ. The Church, therefore, has the Keys originally and virtually, and whensoever she gives them to a prelate, she does not give them to him after the manner she has them, to wit, originally and virtually, but she gives them to him only as to use."" (In 268 WHERE THE CHURCH STANDS "Numer.," cap. xv., quest. 48, 49. Quoted Prim. Eiren., p. 210.) Antonius de Rosellis. (d. 1467.) Cited by Bishop Cosin as one of those who held that Presbyters had the inherent power to ordain. (See Goode, On Orders, p. 66.) 15th Century Pontifical. This Pontifical in the Library of St. Genevieve at Paris, distinctly states: '' Episcopatus non est Or do sed sacerdotii culmen et apex atque tronus dignitatis ^ (See Die. Chr. Antiq., Art. "Orders," p. 1472.) "The Episcopate is not an Order, but the cul- mination and Apex of the Priesthood — even its throne of dignity." Cajetan. (1469-1534.) Held that Bishop and Pres- byter were identical in point of Order. (Browne, Thirty-Nine Articles, p. 563.) Pope Innocent VIII. (-1489.) "There is a privi- lege extant, of Pope Innocent VIII. in 1489, giving to some Cistercian Abbots power to ordain to the Diaconate. " (Maskell, Mon. Rit., vol. iii., p. Ixxxvii, note.) A.D. 1500 TO 1600 Malabar Christians. It is on record that the Chris- tians of Malabar, when discovered by the Portu- guese, knew only two Orders in their Ministry, viz.: (i) Bishops or Presbyters; (2) Deacons. They were later persecuted by the Roman missionaries, who accused them of the following WHERE THE CHURCH STANDS 269 practices and opinions: "that they (the clergy) had married wives, that they owned but two Sacraments, Baptism and the Lord's Supper; that they neither invoked Saints, nor wor- shipped images nor beHeved in Purgatory; and that they had no other Orders or names of dignity in the Church than Priest and Deacon.'' {Per- ranzabidoe, by C. T. C. Trelawny, p. 254.) The above statement is somewhat exaggerated. The author does not really mean that they had no names of dignity in the Church, for (as will be seen by those who consult the work) he himself affirms that they had Bishops, and the fact is well known. What he means, however, is that they did not account their Bishops as occupying a separate Order from the Priests. Erasmus. (1529.) Writes as follows: "I know not how Popes came by their authority. I suppose it was as Bishops came by theirs. Each Presby- tery chose one of its members as President to prevent divisions. Bishops similarly found it expedient to have a Chief Bishop to check rival- ries and defend the Church against the secular powers." (Letter, Louvain, Jan. 28, 1529. Cf. Brown, Level Plan, pp. 58, 59.) But we have now reached the period of the Refor- mation when the evidence still further substantiating our contention becomes too abundant to be dealt with within the limits of such a work as this. It is, in fact, due to the very rupture of the rest of the Christian world with Rome that questions relating 270 WHERE THE CHURCH STANDS to the constitution of the Ministry in ApostoHc days — the number of necessary or essential Orders in the Church, the validity of non-episcopal forms of government, and Presbyterian Ordination now, for the first time, come prominently to the front. In short, it is for the purpose of condemning the reform movement both on the Continent and in England that Rome begins to raise these questions of valid Minis- tries and Churches, of the necessity of an Apostolic Succession through the Episcopate alone, as a third Order ^ (in the present technical sense) and the in- validity even of this third Order when assuming to be independent of the Pope. Against these specious objections of Romanism we find not only Calvin, Luther, and the continental Reformers generally, but all the Reformers in England making unanimous and indignant protest. Even before the reform movement had attained completion in England, and while yet many Roman corruptions in doctrine and practice had not been eliminated, we find the Anglican divines in the work entitled the Institution of a Christian Man (1537) and A Necessary Doctrine and Erudition for Any Christian Man (1543) singular- ly at one with the Reformers on the Continent in condemning these pretensions of the Roman Church. ' Note well — It was because that, on the Continent particularly, ! so few Bishops could be induced to join the reform movement, that (a) most of the Reformed Churches were compelled to organize without them, and (b) Rome saw the advantage of making this lack of Bishops an issue. The idea of the absolute necessity of the Episcopate to the being of the Church was bom of this controversy; and though a novel argument, it was effective. WHERE THE CHURCH STANDS 271 Not only did they here (i. e., in the above mentioned works) officially assert, in no uncertain language, that the integrity and unity of the Catholic Church "is not conseroed by the Bishop of Rome's authority or doctrine'''' ; not only do they therein define the essen- tial marks of the Catholic Church, significantly omitting this so-called essential, the Episcopal Succession, but they further as clearly and as em- phatically point out that because the essential bond does not consist in matters of outward forms and polity, but only in Faith and Doctrine; that all the Reformed Bodies {which they mention by name) are valid parts of this said Catholic Church; that, in short, "the Church of Rome, being but a several Church challenging the name of catholic above all other, doeth great wrong to all other churches, and doeth only by force and maintenance support an unjust usurpation : for that Church hath no more right to that name than the Church of FRANCE, SPAIN, ENGLAND, or PORTUGAL, which be justly called Catholic Churches in THAT TIIEY DO PROFESS, CONSENT, AND AGREE IN ONE UNITY OF TRUE FAITH WITH OTHER CATHOLIC CHURCHES. " (A Necessary Doctrine, etc.. Ninth Article.) Moreover, not only do they thus recognize officially the non-episcopal bodies on the Continent as true branches of the Catholic Church, but they further, in these same works, effectually settle the question as to what the attitude of the Church in England then was (i.e., even at this early date — before the Reform movement was completed) on the 2-12 WHERE THE CHURCH STANDS subject of the number of "Orders" originally in- stituted by the Apostles, by again affirming (and that, not once, but repeatedly) that they were only "two, '* viz. : PRIESTS OR BISHOPS, and deacons or minis- ters. [E. g., "In the New Testament there is no mention made of any degrees or distinctions in Orders but only of deacons or ministers, and of PRIESTS OR bishops." {The Institution, etc., Art. " Orders. ")] This clear identification of Bishop and Priest as belonging to one and the same order, and (as a consequence of this, to say nothing of other reasons) the recognition of all Presbyterially governed Churches as true parts of the Catholic Church, was an undisputed point even at the very outset OF the reformation, that is to say, even when the Anglican Reformers had not yet got their bearings on many other matters, such for example, as the Mass, the Seven Sacraments, etc. Is it then a matter of any surprise that if before the Church had freed itself from all the taints of Romanism, it should be absolutely positive about this question, that later on, when the Reformation was completed, it should continue (as we have seen that it did) to maintain its attitude unchanged on this point to the very end? Moreover, what we see to have been thus undisputed from the very outset, in England (where Episcopacy was retained) we, of course, find emphasized every- where else. Thus, not only did Luther, Calvin, and all the Continental Reformers, along with Hooper, Latimer, Ridley, Cranmer, Jewel, etc., individually, maintain the identity of the Orders of Bishop and WHERE THE CHURCH STANDS 273 Priest, and so the validity of Presbyterial Ordination and government, but they proceeded, as we should expect, to incorporate these principles in the Con- stitutions and Formularies of their respective Churches. The identity of Bishop and Priest was officially enunciated and defended in the Danish Confession (1537), the Smalcald Articles (1537, signed by Luther, Melanchthon, Bugenhagen, Jonas, My- conius, Bucer, Fagius, et al.), Confession of Saxony (1551), of Wittenburg (1552), of Belgium (1556), of Bohemia (1573); in the second Helvetic Confession (1566) signed by the Churches of Geneva, Hungary, Savoy, Polonia, Scotland, etc. Why continue to cite evidence? Blunt himself is the honest, though unwilling witness that this idea of a difference of Order between Bishop and Presbyter was now for THE first time SERIOUSLY ALLEGED. He himself has told us that ''it was not until the CLOSE of the SIXTEENTH CENTURY that the DISTINCTION between the orders of bishop and priest was ASSERTED," which simply means that before the close of the SIXTEENTH CENTURY NO DISTINCTION BETWEEN BISHOP AND PRIEST WAS RECOGNIZED. Hence the Succession through the Episcopate alone, was not deemed necessary. Keble also, another high authority with "catholics," testifies, as we have seen, to the same effect, saying that it was "enough with them (the Anglican Reformers) to show that the government by Archbishops and Bishops is ancient and allowable; they never venture to urge its EXCLUSIVE CLAIM, OR TO CONNECT THE SUCCESSION IS 274 WHERE THE CHURCH STANDS WITH THE VALIDITY OF THE HOLY SACRAMENTS " (precisely the point at issue) and adding moreover that this fact is "notorious"; and finally, as corroborating yet further our own statement as well as that of Blunt, above cited, that this was the received opinion before the Reformation, we have the statement of another eminent ' ' Catholic ' ' authority, the Rev. W. Maskell, that "the balance of AUTHORITY, EVEN FROM THE EARLIEST AGES, CER- TAINLY inclines to consider the episcopate, as AN ORDER, TO BE IDENTICAL WITH THE PRIESTHOOD, BUT THE COMPLETION OF IT." [Mon Rit., vol. iii., p. Ixxxii et seq.) We are not saying anything more, therefore, than what some of the highest "Catholic'^ authorities have themselves asserted. There is nothing new or strange in any of it. It is only that under existing conditions, when so many of us are preaching a contrary doctrine, and seeking to revolutionize this ancient CATHOLIC view, to be reminded of these facts is embarrassing, and it is, to say the least, not very polite or considerate in one of our own clergy to be telling the world such things. It is true, of course, but you should not speak of it. But to proceed. Not only was this the catholic or generally received opinion, "from the earliest ages'* even till "the close of the Sixteenth Century/' but, as we have already seen from evidence that is incon- testable, the agitation which now, for the first time, begins to make itself felt in certain quarters, never gains sufficient momentum to bring about any doc- trinal change in the official teaching of the Church. WHERE THE CHURCH STANDS 275 Moreover, the cause or motive for this agitation is obvious to any one studying the histor}^ of the period. When facing only the persecution of Rome, and contending only with Papist controversialists, there was never a thought of anything else. When, however, an enemy within her own fold appeared, and Anglican Divines were forced to defend themselves from the attack of Puritanism, a movement contending that Episcopacy in any form was ''anti- Christ,'' and Presbyterianism and Presbyterianism alone, and exclusively could claim Divine Authority; when a serious and deliberate attempt was inaugurated to overthrow the existing Church of England, then human nature began to assert itself. By the ''close of the Sixteenth Century" it became apparent that something would have to be done, if Episcopacy was to be retained in England. The moderate, rational view of the Episcopate entertained by the Anglican Divines of this period, and which was so ably and tactfully defended by "the judicious Hooker," had failed to satisfy the Puritans, and in the heat of controversy, a few clergy of the Church of England began to take still higher ground in defending the established Order. What appears to have been the very first public expression of this novel theory was the sermon preached by Bancroft (afterwards Arch- bishop) at St. Paul's Cross, wherein he advocated for the Episcopate, which hitherto, as we have seen, had been regarded as a mere office or function of the Presbyterate, and not a "necessary" or essential "Order" in itself, a separate and distinct authority, 276 WHERE THE CHURCH STANDS divinely bestowed at the very beginning. Mark — this was the whole extent to which he ventured. Hitherto, the Episcopate, though not "nece55ar3' • • • in the Church of Christ" (Hke the Presbyterate and Diaconate, see Rubrics in the Ordinal), was unques- tionably "allowable'' (see Keble, cited above), justifiable, and of Divine Authority, the Puritans to the contrary notwithstanding. Now, it was more than this. It was just as "necessary ... in the Church of Christ" as the Presbyterate and Diaconate. Thus, while he made it a third Order, as necessary as either of the others, he did not presume to go so far as to say, on the other hand, that government and ordination by Presbyters, was not allowable, or VALID. This is proved by the action which, as Arch- bishop, he officially took a few years later, at the Consecration of the Scottish Bishops. But even this was going beyond the official attitude of the Churchy and the almost universal opinion of his fellow divines. Says Neale : ' ' This was new and strange doctrine to the Churchmen of these times. It had been always said that the superiority of the Order of Bishops above Presbyters, had been a politic human appointment, for the more orderly government of the Church begun about the third or fourth Century, but Ban- croft was one of the first, who by the Archbishop's directors, advanced it into a Divine Right. . . . Whitgift said, the Doctor's Sermon had done much good, THOUGH HE HIMSELF RATHER WISHED THAN BELIEVED IT TO BE TRUE : IT WAS NEW DOCTRINE AT THIS TIME." (Neale's Hist. Puritans, vol. i., pp. I WHERE THE CHURCH STANDS 277 262, 263.) While in our opinion, the above state- ment is somewhat misleading, being a statement of the matter from the Puritan point of view, yet after due allowance is made for this, it still portrays the gist of the Anglican position at that time. This idea of the Episcopate as a separate "Order" (in modem sense) from the Presbyterate was, indeed, novel and strange to the Churchmen of that day, and despite the fact that many, because of the aggressiveness of the Puritans, doubtless "wished," with the Arch- bishop, that it were true, few — very few — could follow Dr. Bancroft in asserting that it was true. They knew only too well, that the generally received opinion of the entire Church from the very earliest ages downward was totally opposed to this. The actual triumph of Presbyterianism and temporary overthrow of Episcopacy within the next century, however, unquestionably tempted many to make the most of these novel pretensions. When it was per- ceived that the crisis was inevitable. Laud deter- mined to meet arrogance with arrogance. He put forth the jure divino theory of the Episcopate in no uncertain language ; in the fervor of his zeal to main- tain the established order, he even went so far as to make the astounding assertion "nullus episcopus, nulla ecdesia.'' After all, this was a mere private OPINION (not an official declaration of his Church) and one, moreover, for which he was censured by high authority within the Church itself, and which he sub- sequently took the PAINS TO EXPLAIN WAS NOT INTENDED BY HIM TO SIGNIFY THAT THERE WERE NO 278 WHERE THE CHURCH STANDS VALID CHURCHES AMONG THE REMAINING PROTES- TANT BODIES. (The very thing "Catholics" are assuming to-day.) Like Bancroft before him, who despite his extreme views, maintained, as we have seen, that Presbyterian Ordination was valid (when about to Consecrate the Scottish Bishops), so Laud also answered his critics by saying that he only meant that "none but a Bishop can ordain, except IN CASES OF INEVITABLE NECESSITY." He further illustrates his position as regards the Lutherans and Calvinists by distinctly adding: "nor have i ab- solutely UNCHURCHED THEM." But in spite of this evident tendency, now manifest throughout the troublous period of the Seventeenth Century, to offset the prentensions of the Puritans by resorting to claims equally as presumptuous on the side of Episco- pacy, none of these utterances were ever set forth OFFICIALLY — BY AUTHORITY OF THE CHURCH. The idea had been expressed, and found support in the writings of certain individuals, but IT WAS NEVER RECOGNIZED OFFICIALLY BY THE CHURCH; and even so late as 1659, when Episcopacy had suffered most, such theories were current only with a Jew. Archbishop Bramhall himself, writing at this time, distinctly says : " I cannot assent to his minor proposition, that either all or any consider- able PART of the Episcopal divines in England do UNCHURCH either all or the most part of the Protes- tant Churches. . . . They do not unchurch the Swedish, Danish, Bohemian Churches," etc. . . . "Let him set his heart at rest. I will remove this WHERE THE CHURCH STANDS 279 scruple out of his mind, that he may sleep securely upon both ears. Episcopal divines do not deny THOSE CHURCHES TO BE TRUE CHURCHES WHEREIN SALVATION MAY BE HAD." (Passage cited above.) It is useless to go over ground which has already been thoroughly covered. We wish here merely to em- phasize the evidence which we have already adduced, which PROVES, beyond all question, that the agitation now begun, continued to be regarded as 7iovel by the majority of English Churchmen, and that it never ATTAINED OFFICIAL RECOGNITION. Not only did the Church of England offically recognize the validity of Presbyterian ordination, and the identity of Bishop and Priest, when conferring the Episcopate upon the Church of Scotland in 16 10 — but, again in 1661, when Episcopacy was restored, and the Prayer Book revised, the Church continued to maintain its FORMER DOCTRINAL POSITION ON THIS, AND ALL OTHER POINTS, INVIOLATE, To frustrate any future attempt to overthrow Episcopacy again in England, the Revisers now deemed it necessary to insist that from henceforth all presbyterially ordained ministers de- siring to enter the service of the Church of England should be required to give evidence of their good faith and loyalty to the established order by submitting to reordination at the hands of the Episcopate, and that none, who refused to submit to this condi- tion, should ever "be accounted or taken to be a lawful Bishop, Priest, or Deacon in the church OF ENGLAND"; but that they had no intention whatever of altering the former doctrinal 28o WHERE THE CHURCH STANDS POSITION of the Church on the general subject of the VALIDITY of other Ministries and Churches, by such restriction, is abundantly evident from the fact that in doing this, they formally certify in the Preface to the Revised Book, that they had taken pains not to alter or change anything that was material, either in the Doctrine or the Practice of the Church. They further reveal the official view of the Church on the subject of the number of "orders" which were to be regarded as essential, by now, for the first time, introducing Rubrics before the Ordination Services of Deacons and Priests, declaring these to be "necessary ... in the church of CHRIST," and as significantly omitting to place such a Rubric before the Service of the Consecration of a Bishop; thus reasserting the view, not only of their predecessors (the Sixteenth Century divines in England), but of the whole church catholic that the essential Orders were but two (Presbyterate and Diaconate) and that the Episcopate was not, strictly speaking an order, but an office of the Presbyter- ate. ^ Furthermore, to settle all misapprehension as regards the requirement of reordination, they give unmistakable evidence that this restriction was a mere expedient to insure the stability of the Episco- pal Government "in the Church of England" against any future Presbyterian attacks, and not intended ' For, as we have seen, both from the list of authorities cited in this chapter, as well as from the direct assertions of such eminent "CathoHc" writers as Blunt and Maskell, this was the Catholic view till "the close of the Sixteenth Century. " WHERE THE CHURCH STANDS 281 as any reflection upon the actual validity of other forms of Ordination, by enacting as a Proviso to Act XIV. Carol. II., that the King might still con- tinue, at his discretion, to admit such Presbyterian Clergy when he deemed it advisable. We know that the King did act upon this proviso a short time afterwards; we know that the same has never been revoked, and is still therefore the Law; we know, yet fur- ther, that this Revision of 1662 is the last of any im- portance that has been made; we know, in other words, that all the Doctrinal principles re-affirmed at that time are still the established teaching of the church OF ENGLAND and this PROTESTANT EPISCOPAL CHURCH. Hence we know to-day that it is still the official DOCTRINE, both of the Church of England and our own, (of which any one can satisfy himself in a mo- ment, who will glance at the Rubrics in the Ordinal) that only the "orders" of priest and deacon are regarded as "NECESSARY ... in the church OF CHRIST" — that Bishops are not "ordered," but only "consecrated." To quote the Ninth Edition of the Britannica once more, "The Church of England expressly recognizes the Diaconate and the Priesthood, B UT NO OTHERS, as distinct ORDERS. ' ' We know, finally, that the Church's teaching thus OFFICIALLY determined regarding the validity of Presbyterian Ordination, is still official at this very hour, and that her repeated recognition of the various Protestant Organizations as true churches, a recognition extending even to particular churches, indicated by name, precludes all possibility of "Cath- 282 WHERE THE CHURCH STANDS olic" views and theories of these matters being regarded as official in this Church. Not only did the "exclusive" view of the Episcopate advanced by Bancroft and Laud fail of obtaining official recogni- tion, but that it was not approved by Cosin, and the majority of the Revisers and other prominent church- men of that period, and of the ensuing century, is clearly indicated from numbers of passages in their private works and letters — many of which we have already cited. The truth is these "novel" opinions, after a certain period of agitation, were obscured and partially forgotten for the next hundred years or more, and it was fiot until the Oxford Movement of i8jj that they were resurrected and brought once more into prominence. Under the able leadership of New- man, Keble, Pusey, Manning, and others, these principles were not only reasserted, but they were developed far beyond the intent or even the imagina- tion of their Seventeenth Century originators, and even the genius of Newman, the real philosopher of the movement, was unable to gain for them official RECOGNITION. On the contrary, instead of being accepted as a legitimate interpretation of the position of the Church of England, the Tracts were condemned by A UTHORITY. It was this very official re- jection of the movement, that caused Newman, Manning, and a host of others, to leave the Church of England and enter the Church of Rome, where alone such doctrine coidd be vindicated. Yet, re- member it is these very principles thus officially condemned by the Church at that time, that are held WHERE THE CHURCH STANDvS 283 up now before us by "Catholics" as the official DOCTRINES of this Church. Ay, doctrines for which men, just one hundred years ago, felt constrained to leave the Church, are now proclaimed official and AUTHORITATIVE within it. A Bishop of the Church of England — a follower of the officially condemned opinions of Newman and Manning, has the temerity to challenge the Church to her face, publicly to admit that the authorized statements of her own Articles and other Formularies are official, and even pre- sumes to demand that a fellow Bishop, who has had the audacity to enforce one of these Articles (Art. XXn.) particularly, who has stood loyally by the authorized teaching of the Anglican Reformers and their successors as to ''the meafimg and value of Episcopacy'' {Eccles., Anglic, p. 20), and has, gener- ally, in the name of ''the true Protestant Religio7i es- tablished in the Church of England'' {Laud himself) or, if you prefer, in the name of "the Protestant epis- copal Church of ENGLAND and Ireland" (Act of ParHament, 1828) sought earnestly "to protestantize the world" (Ecces. Anglic, p. 29) — shall be brought to trial for "//£i?£57'7/ Finally, it is not only preposterous for "Catholics" to assume that they represent the true official at- titude of this Church on all these disputed points. It is not only impossible for them to maintain that their view of the Episcopate, with its consequent corollaries regarding the validity of other forms of ordination, and the nature and extent of the Church Catholic, etc., — was the generally received or catii- 284 WHERE THE CHURCH STANDS OLIC doctrine prior to "the close of the Sixteenth Century" (the best "Cathohc" authorities them- selves being witnesses to the contrary). It is equally as absurd for them to imagine that their view of the Episcopate can be justified as either primitive, apos- tolic, or historically Catholic, by appealing to the results of modern scholarship. On the contrary it is jtotorious that the well-nigh unanimous verdict of modern scholars is antagonistic to the ''catholic'' theory. What we mean to assert is that this view of the Anglican Reformers, and their colleagues on the continent, so far from being obsolete to-day, so far from being the opinion merely of a few old-fashioned, unprogressive, out-of-date. Low Churchmen, and "the mass of ignorant, unenlightened Protestants," is, on the contrary, one of the best established facts with modern critics and theologians. Not only is it the unanimous opinion of the best Protestant authorities, but by far the greater part of our own Anglican scholars, and not a few even of the foremost Roman Catholic historians and theologians, now freely admit that the Episcopate as we have it to-day, is not the Episcopate of the primitive Church, but the result of a long process of development. The exclu- sive claims and pretensions now commonly made for it by "Catholics" and others, were absolutely un- known in apostolic times, and even for a long period thereafter. Among the large number of modern authorities who deny the "Catholic" theory re- specting the origin of the Episcopate, its acceptance as a separate Order, etc., are the following: — WHERE THE CHURCH STANDS 285 Gieseler, Neandcr, Schaff, Herzog, Duchesne, Light- foot, Hort, Sanday, Briggs, Lindsay, Fairbairn, Hatch, A. V. G. Allen, Auguste Sabatier, McGiffert, Harnack, Ramsay, Arnold, Whateley, Dean Stanley, Westcott, Ellendorf, Moule, Perowne, Goode, Jacob, Geo. P. Fisher, Dean Hodges, etc. ^ In fact we might fill a volume with quotations from these modern authorities alone. We can not do more, however, than cite a few passages at random. Lightfoot, for example — by many regarded as the foremost of all Anglican scholars — after stating the well-known fact that in the apostolic age Bishop and Presbyter were identical, goes on to say — " Nor is it only in the apos- tolic writings that this identity is found. St. Clement wrote probably in the last decade of the first century, and in his language the terms are con- vertible. 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 examine 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 his con- temporaries and successors, Chrysostom, Pelagius, Theodore of INIopsuestia, Theodoret, all acknowledge it. Thus in every one of the extant Commentaries on the epistles containing the crucial passages, » We do not attempt to give them in chronological order. The names themselves are enough to show the consensus of opinion for the past two hundred years. 286 WHERE THE CHURCH STANDS whether Greek or Latin, before the close of the fifth century, this identity is affirmed." Again, "Even in the fourth and fifth century when the independence and power of the episcopate had reached its maxi- mum, it was still customary for a Bishop in writing to a Presbyter to address him as ^fellow Presbyter,'' thus hear- ing testimony to a substantial IDENTITY OF ORDER. NOR DOES IT APPEAR THAT THIS VIEW WAS EVER QUESTIONED UNTIL THE RE- FORM A TION. " (Comm. on Philipp., pp. 96, 230.) Thus we see that one of the greatest of modern scholars, a Bishop of the Church of England asserts emphatically that the Anglican Reformers of the Sixteenth Century were correct in maintaining that it had ever been the teaching of the Catholic Chtirch, that Bishop and Presbyter were one ORDER. He fully corroborates our contention (supported as we have seen by such " Catholics" as Blunt and Maskell) that this was the received view down to the Reforma- tion. This means again, that the present "catholic" theory which regards the Episcopate as a separate and superior order from the Presbyterate, with all its corollaries regarding the nature of a valid Ministry and Church, so far from being catholic doctrine, asserted "semper, uhigiie, et ab omnibus,'' is a recent invention — never heard of till the Reformation, never asserted, as Blunt admits, "till the close of the Sixteenth Century," Who then represents the official attitude of the Church of England, and the attitude of the catholic church on the subject of Episcopacy — Lightfoot or Zanzibar? Was Light- WHERE THE CHURCH STANDS 2S7 foot a heretic ? Gieseler, the well-known historian, bears precisely the same testimony — ''It is remarkable hoiu long this notion of the ORIGINAL SAMENESS of Bishops and Presbyters ivas retained .... // was not till AFTER THE REFORMATION that this view was attacked/' {Hist., vol. i., pp. 56-65.) So also Neander informs us that it was ^' soon after the Apostolic age, the standing office of president of the Presbytery must have been formed. . . . Thus the name (Episcopos) came to be applied exclusively to this Presbyter, while the name Presbyter continued at first to be common to all; FOR the bishops as PRESIDING PRESBYTERS, HAD NO OFFICIAL CHARACTER OTHER THAN THAT OF THE PRESBYTERS GENERALLY. THEY WERE ONLY primi tfiter pares.'' {Hist., vol. i., p. 190.) Herzog asserts that "the Bishop early acquired authority to appoint and ordain Elders. But even in this respect there was for several centuries no uniform rule; for whilst the Council of Ancyra (314) made ordination the duty of Bishops of the larger cities, and forbid country bishops or presbyters to or- dain, THE DISTINCTION WAS NOT STRICTL Y OBSERVED IN OTHER PARTS OF THE CHURCH." {Encyc. of TheoL, Art. "Bishop.") Even the Roman Catholic, Prof. Ellendorf of Berlin, does not hesitate to add his testimony to the same effect: — "The inquiry now is, whether there were such Bishops in the Apostolical Chiirch as a specially appointed institution given by Christ? After we have carefully examined and compared all the writings of the New Testament, and have likewise consiilted 288 WHERE THE CHURCH STANDS the oldest traditions after the time of the Apostles, we see ourselves 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 pre- sent sense; that from the beginning onward, Bishop and Priest formed one and the same rank and grade, one and the same dignity. . . , We draw the conclusion that in the Apostolic 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, there were as many Bishops as there were Priests who united in a college — the Presbytery — in COMMON ad- ministered the highest government in the Church.^' (Bib. Sacra., Jan., 1859 — cited by Gallagher.) Dr. Charles A. Briggs writes exhaustively on this subject in an article entitled The Historic Episcopate as a Basis of Reunion, from which we extract the following: "Recent historical research is very damaging to all jure divino theories of Church government. . . . There is agreement among recent historical critics of all parties that there is no record of the institution of the Diocesan Bishop in the New Testament. The only Bishops of the New Testament are Presbyter-Bishops, and these are ever associated in a college or Presby- tery. Nowhere do we find a Church under the guid- ance of ONE of these Presbyter-Bishops. Nowhere do we find more than one Church in one city. Hatch, Lightfoot, Gore, Sanday, Harnack, and Schaff are agreed as to this point. . . . The claim that Bishops are the Successors of the Apostles is no WHERE THE CHURCH STANDS 289 LONGER DEFENDED ON THE GROUND OF THE NEW TESTAiVIENT, BUT ON THE GROUND OF THE HISTORY OF THE SECOND CHRISTIAN CENTURY. . . . We are not on the ground of the Divine right of the New Testament. We have nothing more than very ancient historic right for the Historic Episcopate, hut no Divine right. . . . The claim that ordination by Diocesan Bishops has special grace, without which there is no VALID MINISTRY, is the most objectionable oj all the claims that are put forth on behalf of the Historic Episcopate at the present time. WE HOLD THAT THERE IS NO EVIDENCE FOR THIS IN THE NEW TESTA- MENT, OR IN THE SECOND CHRISTIAN CENTURY." Thomas Wymberly Mossman, Rector of Torrington, in his History of the Early Christian Church, tells us that "it has been too hastily assumed that Protest- ants 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 contrary." (Preface, p. xiv.) "All ancient writers are brought into perfect harmony with each other — the Apostles themselves, 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 har- moniously into the fair edifice of historical truth, all unite in testifying with accordant voice what the great doctor of the Church, St. Jerome, proclaims in the words quoted abovfe, that episcopacy was not 290 WHERE THE CHURCH STANDS OF THE lord's INSTITUTION, BUT WAS A CUSTOM WHICH GREW UP TO TAKE AWAY SCHISM. . . . How it is possible for any one, most of all that school which professes to glory in accepting 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." (p. 98 et seq.) In further comment upon the primitive identity of Bishop and Presbyter, and the fact that Presbyters did ordain at times, he makes this pertinent remark: "The fact that Mark himself (the reputed founder of the Church at Alex- andria) who certainly did not hold any higher rank in the Apostolic Church than that of one of the Seventy disciples, in other words, of Presbyter, 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. " Dr. G.A.Jacob, in his Ecclesiastical Polity, says: "The Episcopate in the modern acceptation of the term, and as a distinct clerical Order, does not appear in the New Testament, but was gradually introduced and extended throughout the Church at a later period. " Elsewhere, he writes: "Jerome expressly affirms that it was ecclesiastical custom, and the desire to WHERE THE CHURCH STANDS 291 prevent disputes and not any divine law that caused the distinction between Bishops and Pres- byters. . . . Long after the general estabHsh- ment of Episcopacy, and reaching even to the fourth century, traces are to be found of Presbyterian or- dinations still retaining their place in the Christian Church." (p. 67 et seq.) Dr. Henry A. Boardman, in his work on the Apos- tolic Succession, says: "I shall show in another connection, that it was the common judgment of the Reformers and the Reformed Churches, that BisJiops and Presbyters are by Divine institution ONE ORDER, and that the existing arrangements 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." Again, after examining the subject exhaustively, he says: "These extracts show that it is the common judgment of reformed CHRISTENDOM, a party in the Church of England and in the Episcopal Church in this country excepted, that Bishops and Presbyters are, according to the Word of God, of one order, and that presbyters, equally with Bishops, have a right to ordain. " Dr. George P. Fisher, the well known Church histo- rian gives precisely the same evidence. ' ' Gradually, ' ' says he, "in the Church, ordination came to be the peculiar prerogative of the Bishop ; but as late as the Council of Ancyra (a. d. 314), we find by the 13th Canon, that Presbyters, with the Bishop's consent, may still ordain. In the great Church of Alexandria, 292 WHERE THE CHURCH STANDS as we are told by Jerome, down to the middle of the third century, a vacancy in the Episcopal office was filled by the twelve Presbyters from their own num- ber, who, it would appear, if he received any new consecration, themselves advanced him to the higher office; as, indeed, Hilary Ambrosiaster, and Euty- chius. Patriarch of Alexandria in the Ninth Century, expressly state." He also refers to "the thoroughly learned and candid discussion of the whole subject" presented by Lightfoot (whose testimony we have already adduced), and sums up the general attitude of modern scholars upon the matter in these signifi- cant words : ' ' Respecting the rise of the Episcopate, there is, at the present day, a near approach to a CONSENSUS among scholars in the various Protestant Churches." (See his Beginnings of Christianity.) But strong as all this evidence is, it is as nothing, beside that which Dr. Edwin Hatch has presented. In fact, we have up to this point adduced only the testimony of the more conservative modern authori- ties. If we should accept the views of Dr. Hatch, whose work on the Organization of the Early Chris- tian Churches is considered by many scholars to be the ablest discussion of the subject that has yet appeared, as it certainly is the most radical, we should be driven into a position still more extreme. It is not our purpose, however, to enter here and now into the merits or demerits of this author's theory on the subject, and we mention it here only to show that the tendency of the latest scholarship is still more radical, that so far from favouring "catholic" opinions as WHERE THE CHURCH STANDS 293 to the origin of Episcopacy, and the related questions concerning ordination and government in the primi- tive Church, the present tendency is to go even be- yond the views regarded as "orthodox" by most non-Episcopal bodies themselves. This means that whatever may be the real truth of the matter, recent scholars are at least very generally agreed that it is 7iot embodied in the doctrines of "Catholics." As Prof. Fisher has expressed it, there is "a near ap- proach to a CONSENSUS among scholars" on this point. Again, as Principal Fairbairn (himself an eminent authority) has told us, in commenting upon this very work of Dr. Hatch: "English scholarship, 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 NEW TESTAiiENT. " (Quotcd in The True Hist. Epis., p. 288.) But finally, whatever may be said in criticism of the picture which Dr. Hatch has por- trayed of the early organization of the Christian Churches, and the gradual development of the Min- istry, there is, at least, no reasonable ground for doubting the general conclusion to which it leads, viz : that in the last analysis of the matter, the ulti- mate SOURCE OF POWER, the RESERVOIR OF DIVINE GRACE AND AUTHORITY is not any one Order of the T^Iinistry, but the entire body of the Church. In fact, all theories which make the Church to depend 294 WHERE THE CHURCH STANDS for its very being or existence either upon the Episco- pate or any other grade of the Ministry, completely reverse the true logical order. The Church is not a function of the Ministry, but the Ministry is a function of the Church — it is that arm of the Church which ministers or administers, as through a channel, the Divine Grace. This Grace or Power so administered is unquestionably Divine — that is, considered in itself, per se, it is not from below, but from above — it is not of Man but of God — it is not of either the Minis- try or the Church, but of Christ. Nevertheless through the incarnation Christ has deposited this Power in the Body of all believers — the Church — as a reservoir, which body or church possesses the power to provide what human agencies or channels it may see fit, for its proper distribution or administration. It would have been perfectly possible for Christ to have instituted or ordained some particular form or pattern of Ministry, to be perpetuated, had he so desired, but the significant fact is that there is no ONE FORM OR PATTERN PRESCRIBED ANYWHERE IN THE NEW TESTAMENT. This was the imanimous opinion of the Anglican Reformers and is the gener- ally accepted view of modern scholars. As an actual matter of fact, the New Testament reveals not three, but many orders of Ministers — no one set of which are anywhere prescribed as absolutely essential, and it is only in post-Apostolic times that two out of all the original, and one not mentioned at all in the New Testament {i. e. as a separate Order), gradually emerge as predominant. The best that can be said. WHERE THE CHURCH STANDS 295 then, is that, while no one form of the Ministry is actually commanded, yet while it is always a duty to adhere as strictly as possible to whatever example was set by the Apostles, and to whatever has come down from the very beginning with but little change, it is incumbent upon us to preserve these three Orders as being, obviously, those which adherence to the principles of antiquity and catholicity most particu- larly demands that we should preserve. Even these three, our Anglican divines were most careful to point out, w^ere not of equal importance; for while the Episcopate was undoubtedly ancient and catholic it was only the Presbyterate and the Diaconate that could actually be found in the New Testament itself, and which were unquestionably of Apostolic origin.* While, therefore, it was highly expedient that the Episcopate should be preserved, it was more than merely "expedient" that the other two should be maintained. It was really "necessary" to maintain them, if the Church desired to hold to Apostolic pre- cedent and example. While, therefore, not intending to insist upon either of these two as "necessary" to the actual BEING of the Church {for this was the whole point of her controversy with the Puritans, see Hooker), she did regard it as ''necessary'' to the ''well-being' thereof, and accordingly took pains to emphasize ' Here again we must remind our readers that the High Church assumption that Bishops succeeded to the rank then called Apostles, is pure assumption. There is absolutely no proof of this. Even Lightfoot says, "the opinion . . . that the same oflficers who were first called Apostles came afterwards to be designated Bishops, is baseless.'' {Christian Ministry, p. 30.) 296 WHERE THE CHURCH STANDS this fact in the Rubrics of the Ordinal (to which we have already referred) . ' We see, therefore, that back of all her insistence upon the "necessity" {in the above sense) of preserving the Presbyterate and the Diaconate, and the wisdom of preserving the ancient and catholic office of Bishop — if she were really to represent the Primitive, Catholic and Apostolic Church — back of all that, we repeat, she took the utmost pains to point out, to her Puritan assailants on the one hand, and her Roman opponents on the other, that no one form of ministry or govern- ment WAS ever divinely authorized as abso- lutely ESSENTIAL TO THE BEING OF THE CHURCH. This is, as we have shown, repeatedly affirmed by the Anglican divines both of the sixteenth and of the seventeenth centuries. In a word, then, this conclu- sion to which the investigations of Dr. Hatch lead us — viz: that the source or reservoir of the Divine Power is the entire body of the Church, and not any one Order of the Ministry — is, after all is said and done, nothing more than what all our own Anglican Reformers taught — the position briefly summarized by the judicious Hooker himself as follows: "the WHOLE CHURCH VISIBLE BEING THE TRUE ORIGINAL 'Please observe that whenever we speak of the "Necessity" of these two "Orders," we do so only in this sense (the sense in which it was used by the Revisers of 1662) — necessary if the Church would preserve a precedent actually inaugurated by the Apostles and clearly revealed in the New Testament (which cannot be said of the Episco- pate) — necessary, in the sense that no Ancient Custom or Tradi- tion should be abandoned, save for weighty reasons — least of all an Apostolic Custom. See Art. XXXIV. WHERE THE CHURCH STANDS 297 SUBJECT OF ALL POWER, it hath not ORDINARILY allowed any other than Bishops alone to ordain: howbeit as the ordinary course is ordinarily in all things to be observed, so it may be in some cases NOT unnecessary THAT WE DECLINE FROM THE ORDI- NARY WAYS." {Eccles. Polity, Bk. vii., Ch. xiv., 11.) Again, this opinion of the Anglican Reformers' was likewise the opinion held by Tertullian, who dis- tinctly affirms that " The authority of the Church and the honor sanctified through the establishment of the Order {of the Clergy) has constituted the difference between the Order and the people. Accordingly, where there is no establishment of the ecclesiastical Order, you offer, and baptize and are Priest alone for yourself. But where there are three,'' there is the Church, THOUGH THE Y BE LA YMEN. ' ' Therefore, if you have the right of a Priest in your own person, iji case of neces- sity, it behooves you to have also the discipline of a Priest. ' ' {De Exh. Cast. 7 .) But why be shocked at such a statement? If Tertullian's opinions are not to be trusted, and if » We might quote any number of passages bearing out the fact that this view of Hooker was the common opinion of the Anglican Reformers, but space forbids. However, if the reader will consult the following passages, he will find enough to convince him that this view was by no means peculiar to Hooker. See Whitgift, Works, vol. i., p. 184; Dr. John Bridges, Defence of Gov't Estab. in Ch. Eng., pp. 319, 320; Bishop Thos. Cooper, Admon. to People of Eng., p. 163; Dr. Richard Cosin, Answer to an Abstract, p. 58. ^ "Where two or three are gathered together in My Name, there am I in the midst of them" (Matt, xviii., 20). This is the basis of the Church, for wherever the Divine Presence is, there is likewise the Divine Autlwrity. 298 WHERE THE CHURCH STANDS even the views of the vast majority of the Anglican Divines who themselves formulated the official doctrines of our Church are no longer to be regarded as official in said Church (whatever the explanation of such inscrutable contradiction), has the name of the "judicious Hooker" ceased altogether to be revered among us? Or to come down to our own time, must Lightfoot, too, be banished from the ranks of ortho- dox Anglican Divines for venturing to make the same audacious declaration as Tertullian and Hooker — ^viz : that the authority of the whole Body of the Church was superior to that of the Episcopate, that the latter was, in reality, merely a function of the former? Yet if he did not likewise hold this opinion, what is the meaning of the following : " It may be a general rule, it may be under ordinary circumstances a practically universal law, that the highest acts of congregational worship shall be performed through the principal officers of the Congregation. But an emergency may arise when the Spirit and not the letter must decide. The Christian ideal will then interpose and interpret our duty. The higher ordinance of the universal priest- hood will overrule all special limitations. THE LA Y- MAN WILL ASSUME FUNCTIONS WHICH ARE OTHERWISE RESTRICTED TO THE ORDAINED MINISTER. " Then, as further justi- fying this opinion, he refers again to the self -same passage in Tertullian, which we have just cited, only quoting it at greater length. (See Epis. to Philippians, p. 268.) IMoreover, Dean Alford, and a number of other modern scholars {e. g., Hammond, Geikie, Lind- WHERE THE CHURCH STANDS 299 say, etc.) arc all unanimous in the opinion that the Commission given by our Lord in Matt, xxviii., 19, and which our High Church brethren have always assumed, as a matter of course, was addressed to the Twelve Apostles alone, was, in reality, ad- dressed to all the disciples— the ENTIRE BODY OF THE CHURCH. Says he (Alford) : "We are there- fore obliged to conclude that otliers were present {i. e., besides the Eleven). Whether these others were the 'five hundred brethren at once,' of whom Paul speaks, does not appear." (See Commentary.) Even Westcott, in commenting upon the Commission bestowed in John xx., 19-23, tells us the same thing; — "The commission and promise were given, like the Pentecostal blessing, which they prefigure, to the CHRISTIAN SOCIETY, AND NOT TO ANY SPECIAL ORDER IN IT." {The Revelation of the Risen Lord, pp. 81, 82.) So also Plummer testifies to the same effect: "The Commission, therefore, in the first instance, is to the CHRISTIAN COMMUNITY AS A WHOLE, NOT TO THE MINISTRY ALONE." {Cambridge Bible, p. 363.) This view that the sovereign power to authorize a valid Ministry, and establish what form of Ecclesi- astical Government it may see fit, rests ultimately with THE ENTIRE BODY OF THE CONGREGATION is, of course, the official view of the Church itself as set forth in Article XXHI., in the Preface to the Prayer Book, and elsewhere, but to those who have not the desire to see it, it is almost impossible to make it evident. The mere fact that a Church, which is alleged to maintain that Episcopal ordination and 300 WHERE THE CHURCH STANDS Government are absolutely essential to its very BE- ING, should have been so remiss as to make that statement nowhere in any of her official acts and formu- laries, but on the contrary should have told us that all were to be accounted lawful Ministers, in any Church, provided they had been ' ' called to this work by men who had public authority given unto them in the Congregation,'' and this, too, knowing full well that such a declaration, so far as it possesses any meaning at all, fully covers the Ministry of Non-Episcopal Churches, is a matter which, of course, presents no difficulties whatever to such minds; the mere fact that they further (as is well attested by numerous of- ficial acts and utterances) , recognized such Churches and Ministries, again has no bearing whatever for such persons upon this interpretation of said Article; the further fact that Bishop Hooper, one of the very company who framed the said Article, has himself given this very interpretation of it (alleging that it was drawn up thus, or so worded, ''lest that any man should be seduced, believing himself to be bound unto any ordinary Succession of Bishops and Priests"), (quoted by Hardwick, Hist. Articles, Append, p. 276, note), is, likewise of course, of no consequence (said Hooper being a "miscreant," a "Traitor" etc.); the further fact that numberless passages can be ad- duced from the writings of the English Divines, covering a period of nigh two hundred years, all directly or indirectly, justifying such an interpreta- tion; or, finally, that such a scholar as Burnet, Bishop of Sarum, in a work devoted to an 'Exposition of the WHERE THE CHURCH STANDS 301 Thirty-nine Articles, should have gone exhaustively into the significance of this very Article, and have given precisely the same interpretation'' — all these, of course, are idle objections. But however impotent to affect the opinions of "Catholics," we venture to assert that with those who have not already pre- ' " If a company of Christians find the public worship where they live to be so defiled that they cannot with a good conscience join in it, and if they do not know of any place to which they can conveniently go, where they may worship God purely, and in a regular way; — if, I say, such a body, finding some that have been ordained, though to the lower Junctions, should submit itself entirely to their conduct, or, finding none of those, should by a common consent desire some of their own numbers to minister to them in holy things, and should upon that beginning grow up to a regulated Constitution, — though we are very sure that this is quite out of all rule, and could not be done without a very great sin, unless the necessity were great and apparent, yet, if the necessity is real and not feigned, this is not condemned or annulled by the Article (i. e.. Art. XXIII.) — for when this grows to a Constitution, and when it was begun by consent of a body who are supposed to liave an A uthority in such an extraordinary case, whatever some hotter spirits have thought of this since that time; yet we are very sure, that not only those who penned the A rticles, hut the body of this Church for above half an age after, did, notwithstanding those irregu- larities, 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 (viz.: Art. XXIII. — the one in question) is framed, seem to have been designed on purpose not to exclude tliem. " He adds also on next page (what is attested everywhere in the writings of Anglican Divines for 200 years): "Neither our Reformers, nor tlieir Successors for near eighty years after those Articles were published, did ever question the Constitu- tion of such Churches." {Expos. Thirty-nine Articles. See Art. XXIII.) Nor since that day have those who questioned it ever been able to embody their opinions in the official formularies of the Church. "Catholics" are still attempting it. The proposed Name — if adopted — will be the final official recognition of their principles. 302 WHERE THE CHURCH STANDS judged the case, they will possess no little weight and importance. The simple, unvarnished truth is that this view of the Source of Authority held, as we have seen, not only by some of the most eminent scholars and theologians of the present day, but also by Tertullian, and by the Anglican Reformers (whose opinion is cogently summed up in the above quota- tion from Hooker) was, and is, the established view of the Church. Herein lies the answer to all the common-place objections urged by "Catholics" against the possibility of any organized body of Christians legitimately authorizing a Ministry ac- cording to whatever pattern or plan it may see fit. For example, when we are informed by Mr. F. N. Westcott (whose statement may be taken as repre- sentative of the general view of "Catholics") that no Congregation can give Ministerial Authority, "because laymen cannot possibly give that which they never had .... A stream cannot rise higher than its source," etc. (Catholic Principles, pp. 266, 267), the fallacy should be obvious. "A stream can- not rise higher than its source" — quite true! But, what is higher than the Authority of the Church or Congregation AS A WHOLE? The Ministry, we repeat, is a functio?t of the Church, not the Church of the Ministry. It is simply the arm or organ which ''ministers'' or ''administers'' the Sovereign Power, placed by God Himself in "the body" or "church" as a reservoir. The collective Body of Laymen and Clergy combined (if there be Clergy) or otherwise of Laymen alone, 75 the SOURCE of the stream — than WHERE THE CHURCH STANDS 303 which there is nothing ''higher'' — and that this is the OFFICIAL view of the Church herself will be seen in a moment by referring to any of the official formu- laries of the Church, which are all authorized, or set forth authoritatively, by the etitire body of "the Bishops the Clergy, and the Laity. " To be more specific — the Preface to the Ordinal itself, the very instrument which sets forth what kind of Ministry and of Govern- ment shall exist in this Church, the very instrument which determines the kind of Ordination which shall obtain within this Communion, is authoritative only because it was "established by the Bishops, the Clergy, and Laity of said Church, in General Coiivention in the mo?ith of September, A. D. 1792.'" (See Ordinal.) This Convention, in turn, was only com- petent to "establish'' this Episcopal form of Govern- ment and Ordination, because authorized or EMPOWERED SO to do by the whole BOD Y of the people in all the Dioceses, the entire BODY OF THE CHURCH. Of course what is true of the Preface to the Ordinal is true likewise of the entire Ordinal it- self — is true also of the entire Prayer Book — of all the Rites and Ceremonies contained therein — all are "established" by the will of the entire church or CONGREGATION, not by any particular order of MINISTERS therein.^ Wherever in any Rubric it is written that the Bishop, the Priest, or the Deacon "shall" do this or that, the order is authorized ' Any one familiar with the historic authorization of our Praj^er Book knows this to be true. In illustration see Dalcho, Hist. Church in South Carolina, Appendix II. 304 WHERE THE CHURCH STANDS self-evidently by the entire body, not by any one Order of its Ministry — it is the whole church that thus COMMANDS. The mistake is in supposing that any rite or ceremony of the Church, including even the particular rites and ceremonies authorized in the ordaining of Deacons, Priests, and bishops is of the same fundamental importance as the essential doctrines of the faith (and so unalterable) and not, as we are distinctly told by the same authority which established them "things i?i their own nature INDIFFERENT and alterable and so acknowl- edged. " (See Preface to Prayer Book.) We are here, of course, contrasting the Authority of the Church with that of Its Ministry only. It is by no means implied by these assertions that the Power of the Church is, per se, arbitrary and unlimited. It is, of course, of the very essence of the Church to witness to the Truth of Christ as manifest in the Gospel — hence to administer the Power entrusted to it in accordance with THE WRITTEN WORD. Even the Authority of the Church then is limited, but it is limited only by Holy Scripture. So far from nullifying our argument, however, it is this very supremacy of Holy Scripture (so much emphasized by the Reformers) that gives it point and meaning. The mistake, commonly made, is in supposing that any RITE or ceremony not so explicitly com- manded in holy scripture as to be beyond all doubt a divine ordinance is to be fastened upon men as a necessary observance. That Baptism, Holy Communion, and Government, in ge?ieral, WHERE THE CHURCH STANDS 305 have been authorized of Holy Scripture, no one seri- ously doubts; but that of the many forms of admin- istration, or of the many interpretations of the inner meaning and significance of these institutions which have been advocated from time to time, any one can be proved beyond all doubt to be expressly COMMANDED OF HOLY SCRIPTURE, is quite another proposition. Whenever it came to matters of this kind, whether Doctrines or Usages, howsoever great their Antiquity or CathoUcity, the Reformers as- serted that none could be insisted upon as absolutely essential, and that, as a consequence, each particular or national Church had the right to adopt, abolish, alter, or amend such things as they saw fit, provided nothing be done contrary to the teaching of Scripture. That Baptism is necessary and divinely ordained, is one thing ; but that any one method of administer- ing it, as for example, by sprinkling, or by pouring, or by immersion, was specifically ordained of Christ as necessary, and that, consequently, no other form is valid, is quite another. That Holy Communion is likewise necessarily to be observed, will generally be admitted as a proposition resting upon the author- ity of Holy Scripture; but that the necessity of re- ceiving it fasting, or after Confession to a Priest, or that it is only valid when the mixed chalice is used, etc. — these are propositions which can never be demonstrated out of the statements of Holy Scrip- ture alone. So, in precisely the same manner, the Reformers regarded the Episcopal Form of Gov- ernment. That Bishops are mentioned in Holy 2o 3o6 WHERE THE CHURCH STANDS Scripture as ordained of the Apostles is absolutely undeniable ; but that Bishops succeeded to an alleged "Order'' of Apostles, or that it can be demonstrated upon the authority of the New Testament alone that they were a distinct ORDER, over and above Presbyters, and not a mere OFFICE of the Presby- terate ; or that to them was bequeathed the exclusive prerogative of Ordination, or that any one ORDER was so set apart by express Divine Command, so that the very existence of the Church, the Sacraments, and even of individual Christians de- pended upon it; all these were conclusions which they insisted possessed no warrant of holy writ, and hence were "not to be required of any man, that they (it) should be believed. " We repeat, therefore, that the particular kind of Ecclesiastical Govern- ment, and the particular Forms of Ordination, pre- scribed in the Ordinal for this Church — even like the particular methods of Baptizing (see Rubric as to "dipping" or "pouring"), and of administering and receiving the Communion (compare our Liturgi- cal Form with that of Greek or Roman) are binding and authoritative only because "established" by THE WHOLE BODY of this ''particular'' Church. In short, matters of "discipline" or "church govern- ment" (see Preface to Prayer Book), even like such "rites and ceremonies" (see Preface, and Art. XXXIV.) are matters upon which Holy Scripture has set forth NO clear, certain, and unequivocal STATEMENTS OR COMMANDS (as is evident from the simple fact that after centuries of discussion Chris- WHERE THE CHURCH STANDS 307 tians are still disagreed as to its testimony). For that very reason, the only authority that can "es- tablish" any one form or method to be observed in these things is that of the entire body of "each par- ticular or natio7ial Church.'' In a word, wherever disagreement among Christians exists regarding the attitude of Holy Scripture upon any matter, there each particidar or National Church must decide for itself, and its authority can {obviously) extend only to its members. To sum it all up, if nothing is "to be required of any man, that it should be believed as an article of the Faith, or be thought requisite or necessary to Salvation," unless it can be "read'' in "Holy Scripture, " or "may be PROVED thereby" (Art. VI.), it is perfectly obvious that before the proposition that Episcopal Government is absolutely essential to the BEING of the Church and to the VALIDITY of its Ministry and Sacraments can be "required of any man that it shoidd be believed," etc., it must be clearly pointed out as an actual statement of Scrip- ture, or else must be "proved" or demonstrated as an unavoidable logical inference from actual statements therein. But again, if with regard to the proposition in question, neither of these alterna- tives is possible, while it is obvious that no part of the Christian world can insist upon the Episcopal, the Presbyterian, or any other one form of Govern- ment as EXCLUSIVELY legitimate, or absolutely essential, it nevertheless falls to each particular or National Church to decide for itself what kind of Government it shall recognize, and when once such a 3o8 WHERE THE CHURCH STANDS Government shall have been so "established" by ITS OWN AUTHORITY, the same must, of necessity, be recognized as legitimate and allowable under HOLY scripture, even though it be not absolutely required thereby. In other words, because under the DIVINE CHARTER of HOLY SCRIPTURE no One form is necessary, and each "particular or National Church" is left free to ordain what form of Government it will, it follows that whatever form any one establishes BY ITS OWN AUTHORITY, is thereby divinely sanc- tioned. There is no contradiction involved, then, in the assertion that the episcopal form is "estab- lished" here in our midst, only by authority of this particular church or congregation, and yet is therein and thereby divinely authorized. The same can also be said of Presbyterian Govern- ment in a Presbyterian Church. We repeat, there- fore, without fear of successful contradiction, that the Episcopal Government is authoritative in this Protestant Episcopal Church, not because it can be "proved" or DEMONSTRATED out of the Scripturcs, as the ONE and only form of government or- dained OF CHRIST HIMSELF (an assumption which is simply preposterous) but because it has been *^ estab- lished'' by the will and authority of the entire Body of this Congregation acting through their chosen repre- sentatives in Convention assembled. It is because then this particular Form of Gov- ernment has been "established" by the Sovereign Power of the entire Church or Congregation that it is authoritative, and had the entire Body seen fit to I WHERE THE CHURCH STANDS 309 "establish'' some other Form, this other Form would be authoritative, and Bishops would have no jurisdic- tion whatever. This fact our American Revisers further justify in the Preface to the Prayer Book (again set forth by the Entire Body of the Church) wherein, as we have already shown, they stress the fact that matters of Disciplirie or Ecclesiastical Govern- ment were matters that could be altered or changed by particular Churches or Congregations as circum- stances required, and that because the result of the American Revolution had been the establishment of ecclesiastical as well as civil independence, "the different religious denominations of Christians in these States {N. B.) were left at full and equal liberty to MODEL AND ORGANIZE THEIR RESPECTIVE CHURCHES, and forms of Worship, and DISCI- PLINE, ' in such manner as they might judge most convenient for their future prosperity," etc. More- over, it is ridiculous to argue that such a view under- mines all the authority of the Episcopate. Who is it that denies that the Sovereign Power of these United States is vested in the people — i. e. the entire mass of citizens? Yet does that fact in any wise diminish the legitimate authority of the President and other Officers, or in any sense, even the most remote, ab- solve any one of us from sincere obedience to their official proclamations and commands. It is unneces- sary to enlarge upon this. We take it that any unbiassed mind will perceive at a glance that such a view no more undermines the respect and reverence ' See meaning of "Discipline" before explained. 310 WHERE THE CHURCH STANDS due from every churchman to his Bishop, than it undermines the respect and reverence which every citizen of these United States owes his President. It no more justifies the conclusion that any individual who imagines that he is called to the office and work of a Minister in the Church of God, has therefore the right to take upon himself the administration of its rites and Sacraments, unauthorized, than the like principle justifies the conclusion that any man who imagines that he is called to civil office, has for that reason any right to assume such office and to exer- cise the functions thereof, before he has been legiti- mately admitted thereto by "those to whom public authority has been given" in the State to admit or authorize such persons. Nor again, is anything gained by attempting to muddy the waters by insinu- ating that the principle which applies to the Civil Government cannot be applied to the Ecclesiastical; that, in the one case, the power which is exercised is a purely Human power, latent in the people, whereas in the other, it is a Divine Power — potential not in Man at all, but in God. This again is sophistical; for, in the first place, the premisses themselves are untrue. The ultimate Source of all power, whether Civil or Ecclesiastical, is Diviyie. "The powers that be {i. e. the Civil Powers) are ordained of God'* — all rulers are ''Ministers of God'' (Romans xiii.) and exercise the power and authority of God, and if the Divine Power can be committed to the entire Body of the People in the one case, it can be likewise so committed in the other. Furthermore, whether WHERE THE CHURCH STANDS 311 looked at from the Protestant or from the " Catholic" point of view, the Divine Power exercised by the Ministry of the Church is, in either case, committed to earthen vessels, entrusted to a body or group of mere men as its reservoir. It is just as easy for God to place His Divine Power in the entire Body of His people as in any particular ^' Order'' or Group of that Congregation {i. e. Ministers). If He has placed it in the Body of the Church, the Bishops and other Ministers appointed by the Body or Congregation, administer this Divine Power, and act with the Authority of God Himself, just as truly and as cer- tainly as they would do, had the other method of administration been really established. But enough of this! The facts above presented we believe are quite sufBcient to convince any unprejudiced mind of the truth of our statement that the attitude which modern scholarship has assumed toward the whole problem of the Episcopate is one which is utterly antagonistic to that which is assumed by "Catholics," and, mirahile dictuf — is in further substantial agree- ment with that maintained by Cranmer, Latimer, Ridley, Hooper, Jewel. It is in agreement, in fact, with all those "ignorant and fanatical Reformers" of the sixteenth century who framed our Prayer Book, Articles, and other unfortunate ordinances, those "base traitors" and "miscreants," the "mis- takes" of whose "Reformation" so called, we would now "correct," and whose "heretical Protestantism," we would now expunge from our Church. What claim, then, can these "CathoHc" principles 312 WHERE THE CHURCH STANDS have upon the members of this Communion ? These principles are neither primitive, nor cathoHc, nor true. We have shown them to have been unknown to the Apostles and the early Christians, unknown to the Catholic Church for sixteen centuries. They were emphatically repudiated by the Anglican Re- formers and the men who framed our Prayer Book and other formularies. Though frequently proposed for adoption, since the days of the Reformation, they have always hitherto been consistently re- jected by Lawful Authority. These principles are wholly incompatible with the OFFICIAL doctrines of this Church. Modern scholars, out of every quarter of the Christian world, have, with singular unanimity, declared them to be contrary to all the facts which historical criticism has brought to light. The simple truth is that this "exclusive" theory of the Episcopate with its corollaries regarding the validity of non-episcopal Ordination, the nature and limits of the Catholic Church, etc., is popular ONLY BECAUSE OF ITS WEAKNESS, SeductivC Only because so flattering to the vanity of Bishops. It is popular because it is so alluring to the false pride of many others, Clergy and Laymen alike, who bow to the idol of ecclesiastical aristocracy. These men would regard the mere outer Succession of names and persons, as of more value than the inner Suc- cession of Faith and Doctrine. They, in short, would make the essence or "BEING" of a Church to consist in its pedigree rather than in its faith. Shall we allow ourselves to be controlled by senti- WHERE THE CHURCH STANDS 313 ments such as these? Will the Bishops of this Angli- can Communion, — the first to agitate the cause of Christian Reunion, the first to arouse the conscience of the Church in regard to the sinfulness of our existing divisions, the first to impress the entire Christian world with the solemn duty of rising above the spirit of narrowness, exclusiveness, and intoler- ance, of nobly and heroically sacrificing all mere worldly and denominational interests for the sake of realizing this one supreme end and ideal, will they be the very first to stultify the cause by yielding to the spirit of selfishness, illiberality, denomination- alism? Will they, of all others, be the first to insist upon the adoption of a certain principle, not an official doctrine of our communion, remember, but the mere shibboleth of a party within it, as an absolute ESSENTIAL, a sine qua non to such reunion? For one, I refuse to believe it. Be assured, O Reader, he who writes these words is no enemy of Episcopacy. He who writes thus, writes not in bitterness, but in sorrow, as one who has been reared from his youth up in the Church. He has known and loved no other communion, aye, he is one who knows our Episcopate too well to believe that any considerable portion of it will be permanently misled by this present agita- tion. He is one who, because of long personal in- timacy with many of our American Bishops, has too much admiration and respect for the personnel of that body, to believe that any great number of them would be enticed by such unworthy motives. It is not that the Bishops of this communion are 314 WHERE THE CHURCH STANDS really actuated by such motives, but nevertheless, when a particular conception of the episcopal office is honestly believed to be correct, and such impression is further fostered and increased by the encourage- ment of many clergy and laity alike — and when, in addition to all this, it happens that such a conception is, simultaneously, flattering to worldly pride and vanity, it stands to reason that it will not be easily surrendered. This is precisely what we find to be the case. The facts which we have presented in the foregoing pages are perfectly clear to any unbiassed mind. The fact that the Episcopate is not a separate "Order" from the Presbyterate, the fact, attested even by "Catholic" writers, that it was never so regarded until "the close of the Sixteenth Century, " with all that that view involves regarding the valid- ity of non-episcopal Ministries, and the nature and extent of the Church Catholic, would never be seri- ously questioned, were it not that it further entailed the sacrifice of many worldly pretensions, and the virtual loss of much of that peculiar glamour that so enshrouds the name and title of a Bishop. This may sound a little harsh, but we all know that it is true. Nor is it, after all, our Bishops who are to blame. They would never accept these honors, were they not largely thrust upon them by numbers of our Church people, clergy and laity. It is we, ourselves, who while proclaiming to be democratic, find it exceedingly difficult to curb these aristocratic tend- encies within the Church, that are chiefly to blame. The "exclusive" theory of the Episcopate, the theory WHERE THE CHURCH STANDS 315 that maintains that Episcopal ordination and no other is valid, and acceptable in God's sight, the theory that maintains (as a consequence) that no non-episcopal communions, no Protestant Bodies, are real parts of the Catholic Church, the theory which would, accordingly, compel us to assert, by a fundamental change in our official title, that we are the only real branch of the Church Catholic that is native to America — that theory, we assert, is one that can never be defended logically upon purely theological grounds, and is the outcome of a spirit whose character is only too obvious to those who have the eyes to see. While, therefore, we have attacked the doctrines of the "Catholic" party generally, it is only their doctrine of the Episcopate, with the theories naturally resulting from it, that we are peculiarly concerned with here. While the actual number of those who hold all the characteristic dog- mas of the "Catholic" party is, perhaps, compara- tively small, yet it so happens that those who are disposed to hold more or less extravagant views on the subject of the Episcopate, are by no means con- find to this small coterie, but represent a very large number of churchmen. True, the typical Low Churchman, and even the typical Broad Churchman, will have none of it. With very few exceptions the entire mass of Anglican scholars are at one with the rest of the scholars of Christendom in repudiating its underlying principles. In spite of all this, it is undeniably true that quite a large number of the more moderate High Churchmen, men very far fronr 3i6 WHERE THE CHURCH STANDS representing the remaining principles of the "Cath- olic" party, are wedded to this fiction. It is this large element who merely by their failure to take a decisive stand against the agitation for a change of name, are, unintentionally, encouraging and pro- moting it. In fact, the vast majority of our clergy have really never studied the question at all. They have simply taken for granted that a certain theory of the Episcopate and the Church which is popular at the present hour, and which is being assiduously exploited, is both official and true. Acting upon this assumption, they proceed to preach the dogma of "exclusive" episcopacy, and to vote for a change of name, without ever once stopping to consider the real consequences which flow from these assump- tions. Ask the average Churchman, for example, if he believes in the Mass, the Confessional, Prayers to the Virgin, etc., and he will answer promptly and decisively — "No!" Ask him, generally, if he be- lieves in the necessity of Episcopal ordination to the validity of the Ministry of a Church, he will again answer, ' ' Yes ! " Ask him yet further, if such a view, then, does not entirely cut off all non-episcopal churches from the one true Catholic Church of Christ, and if the adoption of the title American Catholic Church would not mean the condemnation of all these bodies here in America, and nothing else than this, his only answer will be an uncertain — " Ye-es, No-o ! Well, I don't know. " The truth is, we repeat, very few, even of the clergy, stop to reason out the consequences of this doctrine they so WHERE THE CHURCH STANDS 317 thoughtlessly accept, and so glibly proclaim. They have never stopped to think about it seriously, at all. Deep down in their hearts they have a feeling (and we wish to say here and now, a very commend- able feeling it is) of the greatest veneration and respect for that degree of the Ministry which, aside from its just claims to antiquity and universality, has done more to insure the unity of Christendom, and to guarantee continuity of principles within the Church than any other. Deep in their hearts also is the feeling that great injury has been done the Church by the abandonment of the Episcopate in many quarters. Neither can they forget the fact that many harsh, unkind, and unjust things have been said about it by those who have repudiated it. All these things conspire together to impress them with the necessity of rising in its defence the moment anything wJiata'er is said against it, whether true or untrue. While the present writer yields to no one in reverence and respect for this grand old in- stitution OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH, and has long since pledged himself to defend it against all the false aspersions and calumniations of its enemies, yet he cannot stoop to unreasonable idolatry, or attempt to justify all the extravagant claims and pretensions which are made from time to time in its behalf. Particularly when he sees that such extravagant pretensions form the one and only serious barrier to Christian reunion to-day, whereas a moderate and reasonable view of the matter cannot be seriously objected to by any denomination in Christendom. 3i8 WHERE THE CHURCH STANDS Considered purely from a practical point of view, the Episcopate is the only form of Church Government that the entire Christian world can be reasonably expected to agree upon. This was admitted by Dr. Briggs and others, when replying to the overtures for Church Unity set forth by the Anglican bishops some years ago in the so-called Quadrilateral. They expressed their pleasure at the moderation displayed by the English Bishops in urging the adoption of the Historic Episcopate only as a basis of organization, without stipulating the acceptance of any objection- able theories respecting it as the exclusive channel of Divine Grace. In short, the utterance was note- worthy in that instead of demanding the acceptance of any doctrine of an Apostolic Succession through the Episcopate alone as essential (because necessary to the very being of the Church) they merely asked for the adoption of the Episcopate as the Form of Government for united Christendom without further comment. This measure was eminently expedient for purely practical reasons. That this, moreover, was the real intention of the framers of that much debated clause, is evident, inasmuch as, aside from the fact that no Doctrine of an Apostolic Succession through the Episcopate alone had ever been set forth by the Church, ^ the proposition made by Bishop Charles ' It is singular with what persistency the idea is maintained that the Church has authorized such a doctrine, when even the expression "Apostolic Succession" occurs nowhere, so far as we have been able to ascertain, in any of the formularies of the Church of England, and but once only in our American Prayer Book, and then with a meaning the very reverse of that which " Catholics" attach to it. It is the " Min- WHERE THE CHURCH STANDS 319 Wordsworth to the Conference, that in view of the above measure, "we should now recognize the full ministerial standing of clergymen presbyterially ordained, providing that hereafter all their ordina- tions should be by Bishops," was agreed to by "ten out of the twelve members of the Committee," the Archbishop of Canterbury adding his "very full and hearty sympathy with it." The Conference refrained only from actually taking this last step because "being only a Conference, it had no author- ity so to act."' Moreover Dr. Vincent, the Assist- ant Bishop of Southern Ohio, who appears to have titers" — not the Bishops — "of Apostolic Succession" referred to in the Office of Institution — the one office of the Prayer Book, by the way, which has not been imposed upon the Church as obligatory (vide Canon XXIX, Conven. 1808). It was only after an attempt made by the Connecticut Churchmen to introduce the "Catholic" doc- trine of an Apostolic Succession through the Episcopate alone had been signally defeated (by rejection of Art. XI. of Proposed "Seventeen Articles") that the same men who defeated it subsequently allowed the use of the expression "Apostolic Succession" in the Office of Institution provided it were modified by the words "Ministers of," instead of "Bishops of." This was wholly acceptable to the Low Churchmen, who with their leader — Bishop White — openly stood for the then current Anglican opinion that all Ministers who were faithful to the true teaching of the Apostles were the Successors of the Apostles, whether Episcopally ordained or not. It was the very men who stood for the validity of Presbyterian Ordination (c. Bp. 'UHiite's Case of the American Churches) who permitted this phrase. For a full account of the matter, the reader is referred to a work by the author entitled Apostolic Succession and the Problem of Unity. ' The last Pan- Anglican Conference gave further approval to what was substantially the same proposition regarding the union of the Anglican and Presbyterian Churches in Australia. How can 'Catholics" reconcile such utterances with their theories of the Episcopate and Apostolic Succession? 320 WHERE THE CHURCH STANDS been In a position to know the mind of the Committee, openly assured the pubHc shortly after that this was the intent of the clause. Says he: "Nothing is said here of Episcopacy as of Divine institution or necessity, nothing of "Apostolic Succession," noth- ing of a Scriptural origin or a doctrinal nature in the institution. It is expressly proposed here only in its ' historical character ' and as ' locally adapted to the varying needs of God's people.' All else, unless it be its Scripturalness, is a matter of opinion, to which this Church HAS never formally committed HERSELF. Her position here is the same broad and generous one taken in the Preface to her Ordinal. That phrase, ' the Historic Episcopate, ' was de- liberately CHOSEN AS DECLARING NOT A DOCTRINE BUT A FACT, AND AS BEING GENERAL ENOUGH FOR ALL VARIANTS." (Cited in Church Reunion on Basis of Lambeth Conference Propositions, p. 48.) There can be no doubt whatever, therefore, that this was the meaning of the phrase, and the cordial response of Dr. Briggs and other prominent divines to the pro- position on this understanding, fully evidences what was, and is, the attitude of Protestant leaders, to- wards a rational and sane conception of the Episco- pate. Had it not been for the agitation immediately aroused in "Catholic" circles lest this broad and com- prehensive view of the matter should be allowed to pass, it Is quite safe to say the effect of the famous Quadrilateral would have been far reaching. As it was, the Protestant Churches, generally, dropped all further consideration of the matter, until the WHERE THE CHURCH STANDS 321 Episcopal Church could give official assurance that nothing further was demanded than what the plain wording of the clause implied. In short, Brethren of the Anglican Communion, you hold the key to the solution of one of the most difficult as well as one of the most important problems confronting the Church Catholic to-day. Only exercise a little common- sense moderation, and commendable Christian liber- ahty, a Hberality, remember, which involves the sacrifice of no principle whatever, the surrender of no essential dogma of the Faith, nor even a single OFFICIAL doctrine of your Church. Only exercise such a commendable spirit and, with the probable exception of the Roman Communion, you may ulti- mately bring the whole Christian World into one common organization. Whereas, once lose your heads, and be led away by vain dreams of "exclusive " authority and catholicity, and all hope of organic unity is lost. The one view makes for Church Unity, because, while sacrificing no essential PRINCIPLE, it simultaneously recognizes every de- nomination as a part of the Church Catholic which it seeks to unite. The other places an insuperable obstacle in the way of such Unity by insisting upon a principle as indispensable, which can never be shown such, and which simultaneously excludes at least one fourth of those "who profess and call them- selves Christians" from membership in the Church Catholic. We repeat: to consider these pages an attack upon Episcopacy per se, is wholly to misunder- stand, or else intentionally to misrepresent us. We 323 WHERE THE CHURCH STANDS are not attacking anything that is really true and valuable in this institution, but only the_false and superficial accretions which have been from time to time added to it. In fact, we are not attacking Episcopacy but Prelacy, not attacking the reasonable and just claims that it has a right to offer, but only those unjust pretensions too often made in its behalf, which can never be substantiated. The Episcopate proper is of too great value and importance to the Church, possesses far too much genuine worth, ever to need to be bolstered up by such unscholarly and utterly indefensible pretensions. Indeed, it is these very false, superfluous, and unnecessary claims that have created the present antipathy towards it upon the part of the Protestant Churches generally. Such EXAGGERATIONS are not going to secure victory for it, but only ruin — simply because they are ex- aggerations — simply because they are narrow, intoler- ant, exclusive, and are further well known to be UNTRUE. On the other hand, a moderate, rational, common-sense view of the Episcopate, such as the English Reformers maintained, and such as this Church has ever officially recognized, is impreg- nable. To put it squarely, if you are going to insist that the Episcopate is, by Divine appointment, an absolute essential to the very being or existence of the Church so that all those bodies that are without it are entirely cut off from the catholic church, and cannot be recognized as parts of it, you are going to make a claim: which (i) You can never demonstrate to be true; which (2) Is contrary to the official WHERE THE CHURCH STANDS 323 teaching of your own Church; which (3) Will never be admitted by Protestants generally, because satis- fied that it is wholly false; and which (4) Because of the obstacle it presents to Christian Unity, will largely place upon you the awful responsibility of continuing the spirit of schism in the Church Uni- versal. On the other hand, if you will defend the Episcopate upon the reasonable ground: that (i) No matter what view may be taken of its origin, it unquestionably possesses divine authority; that (2) It is that form of Government which is historic and was prevalent down to the Reformation; that (3) It continues still to be the prevailing form of Government in the Christian world; that (4) This antiquity and universality naturally demand a con- sideration and respect, to which no other form of government can lay claim; that (5) Experience has proved it to be the most expedient for insuring stabil- ity, order, unity, and continuity in the Church; that (6) The further fact that it is even at this day the form under which the majority of Christian people are living, makes it the only form of government that it can reasonably be expected the Christian World can agree upon. If you will defend it upon these grounds asking Protestant Churches to adopt it, not because it is a sine qua non, and their own forms with- out validity, but because it is the only form that has prevailed, that is really Historic, that has, speaking generally, been characteristic of the Church Universal throughout its entire History, and because it is for many other reasons the best and the most expedient. 324 WHERE THE CHURCH STANDS and the only one that, from a practical standpoint, can be agreed upon, you will disarm prejudice, will win commendation, and whether successful or not will at least remove any charge of narrowness and ex- clusiveness from us, and place the responsibility of further schism elsewhere. On the other hand, to advocate a change of Name, and the adoption of the title "The American Catholic Church," on the ground that the latter Is ''comprehensive'' — and will ''make for unity," etc., is simply ridiculous. Think of it! The title which unchurches more than one hundred millions of our fellow Christians, lauded as ' ' comprehensive, ' ' exploited as an eirenicon! Nor could the immense loss sustained upon this side be compensated by any gain upon the other. For such action would be as useless in its overtures to Rome, as it would be insulting to our Protestant brethren. For be it remembered by all who are beguiled by such visions, that reunion with Rome can never be at- tained by any mere abandonment of our Protestant title, but only by complete submission to all her pre- tensions — in short, only by unconditional surrender. lie who does not know this, simply does not know Rome. Right here, we venture to make a prediction, which we sincerely hope may not be true, but which we can- not persuade ourselves to believe is false. Brethren of the Anglican Communion, it may be that before these words are printed the principles for which the martyrs of England laid down their lives, those beacon-fires of the Reformation which old Hugh Latimer asserted even with his dying breath should WHERE THE CHURCH STANDS 325 never be extinguished, — those Protestant ideals and doctrines then stamped upon the Church of England, and ever since official in this Communion — Ay! Those Protestant Principles now falsely de- nounced as uncatholic, illiberal, obsolete, will be abundantly vindicated to a shocked and startled world. We say no more. He who hath the eyes to see, will see and comprehend. We speak here only our convictions. We make no pretension to pro- phetic vision. It may be that we are mistaken. If so, we believe we are mistaken only as to the time, not as to the fact. Be this as it may, the realization or non-realization of such an event in no wise affects the argument set forth in these pages. Under any circumstances, the truth of these principles remains unchanged, and the importance of their enunciation continues imperative. In a word, then. Brethren of the Protestant Episcopal Church, we have reached the parting of the ways. The principles of the Re- formation and the principles of the "Catholic" party are admitted upon all sides to be mutually exclusive. The former are official in this Church, the latter are not ; though their adherents are seeking earnestly to substitute them for the former, to have them recognized as official. We cannot longer defer the issue. You are compelled, this day, to choose between the two. There is no straddling a contradic- tion. You must choose between Protestantism and pseudo-catholicism ; between the creed of the English Reformers and the creed of John Henry Newman; between the ideal which led the former out of Rome, 326 WHERE THE CHURCH STANDS and the ideal which led the latter into Rome ; between the doctrines which have been official and authorita- tive in this Church from the beginning, and those which were officially and authoritatively condemned by your Church at the time of the Oxford Movement ; between a view of the Episcopate which is reasonable, defensible, and liberal, and one which is unreasonable, indefensible, and intolerant; between one which is comprehensive enough to recognize all Christian Bodies (the Roman included) as valid branches of the Catholic Church, and the other which is narrow enough to "unchurch" all that have not the Historic Episcopate; between an existing title which, because it is protestant only against all illiberal, intolerant, and exclusive theories respecting the limits of the Church Universal, is, for that reason, protestant only that it may be liberal, broad, and truly catholic in its conception of the Church, and a proposed title which, on the other hand, would be "Catholic" only that it might narrow the confines of the Church Universal, and exclude one fourth the Christian World from membership therein. In short, you have to choose between denominational pride and Church Unity, between bearing the arrogant title of an ex- clusive ecclesiastical set (The American Catholic Church) and becoming the peacemakers for universal Christendom. INDEX Act XIII. Elizabeth, 90, 107 Act of Uniformity (XIV. Carol. II.) recog. For. Ref. Churches and their Ministries, 85-96; 108-109; Acted upon by Charles II., 96 Admission of For. Ref. Clergy without re-ordination, 85-96; 106,107 i^lfric, Canons of, include Bishop and Presbyter in same Order, 262; Pastoral of, includes Bishop and Presbyter in same Order, 262 Aerius, on identity of Bishop and Presbyter, 256 Aix, Synod of, pronounces Bishop and Presbyter one Order, 259, 260 Albertus Magnus, declares Bish- op and Priest same Order, 263 Alcuin, on identity Bishop and Presbyter, 259 Alexander Alensis, on identity Bishop and Presbyter, 263 Alexandria, Church of, practised Presbyterian Ordination, 248, 249, 254, 258 Alford, Dean, on Commission given Matt, xxviii., 19, 298, 299 Allen, A. V. G., on Episcopate, 285 _ Amalarius, substantiates Je- rome 's Statement as to Alex. Ordination, 260 Ambrose, on identity Bishop and Presbyter, 252 American Cathohc, Signif. of title, 6 ei seq., 324 Ancyra, Council of, Canon on Ordination, 250, 251, 287, 291 Andrews, Bishop, raises objec- tion at Consec. Scot. Bishops, 47 ; recog. non-episcopal Churches, 56; 80, 8r, 82 Anselm, on identity Bishop and Presbyter, 262 Antonius de Rosellis, believed in Presbyt. Ordination, 268 Apostles, professed themselves Presbyters, 234-238; ordained in conjunc. with Presbyters, 236-238; A. so called, 240, note Aquinas, Thomas, decl. Episco- pate not an Order, 265 Arnold, opposes "cathohc" the- ory, 285 Articles of Religion, Thirty- Nine, their authority, 177 et seq.; seventeen proposed, 319, note Assembly, Second Resolution of, 108, 114 Augustine, St., on identity of Bishop and Presbyter, 256, 257 Augustinus, Antonius, views' respec. Chorepiscopi, 263 Authority, Sovereign, vested in entire body of the Church (See Congregation) Babington, Bishop, recog, non- episcopal Churches, 56, 108 Bacon, Lord, on Church Govern- ment, 216, 217 Bancroft, Archb., pronounces Presbyt. Ordination valid, 47, 56, 59, 80, 81, 108, 114; final 327 328 INDEX Bancroft, Archb. — Continued att. towards Episc. explained, 275, 277 Baptism, admission into Catho- lic Church, 14 ei seq.; 106; Lay, authorities quoted, 18 et seq.; 106 Baxter, remarks on Church Government, 49 Bede, Bishop and Presb3rter one Order, 259 Bidding Prayer, 31, 32; refers to Church of Scotland, 40 et seq, Bilson, recog. non-episcopal churches, 56, 108 Bingham, on re-ordination, 88, 89, 94; on Chorepiscopi, 257, note; 263, 264 Bishop and Presbjrter, same Order, 61, 234-238; testimony of Ordinal, 64-80; B. as Sue. Apos. 288, 289; 295, note. (See also, Episcopacy, Episco- pate, Order, and Concluding Chapter, 240-326) Blunt, J. H., on Lay Baptism, 18-21; on Ch. of Scotland, 41 et seq.; Consec. Scot. Bishops, 48; on iden. Order Bish. and Pr., 51 et seq.; 239, 273 Boardman, Dr. Henry A., testi- fies as to view of Reformers, 291 ; Episcopacy an evolution, 291 Boethius, remarks on Culdees of Scotland, 255, 257 Bonaventura, declares Episco- pate not an Order, 264 Bradford, John, recog. non- episcopal churches, 56, 107 Bramhall, Archb., his recog. non-epis. churches, 56; tes. as to official attitude Ch. England, 81, 82; 108, 278; on re-ordination, 87, 88, 94 Bridges, Dr. John, recog. non- epis. churches, 56 ; on Church Government, 213, 214; Ch. as reservoir of Divine Power, 297, note Briggs, Dr. Charles A., on recog. Presbyt. Ordination, 36, 37; origin of Episcopate, 78, note, 285, 288, 289; remarks on Lambeth Quadrilateral, 318 British Critic, on necessity of Episcopate, 9, 129 Brown, Bishop W. M., cited, 269 Browne, on Thirty-Nine Articles, cited, 247, 248, 256, 257, 258, 259, 260, 262, 263 Bucer, on ident. Bishop and Presbyter, 273 Bugenhagen, on ident. Bishop and Presbyter, 273 Bull, Unam Sanctum, 207 Burnet, Bishop, Admission of non-epis. clergy, 34; recog. non-epis. churches, 56, 108; on re-ordination, 87, 94; re- ference to Pope Eugenius, 267; his interpretation Art XXIIL, 300, 301, note Cajetan, Cardinal, Bishop and Presbyt. same Order, 268 Calderwood, on estab. Episco- pacy in Scotland, 47 Calfhill, recog. non-epis. churches, 56, 107 Calvin, on ident. Bishop and Presbyter, 272, 273 Canon, 30; Ch. of England, 38 Canons Ecclesiastical, 189; on Church Government, 224 Carrick, J. C, Culdees of Scot- land, 256; Wychf, 265 "Catholic" Movement, real purpose of, 146-154; Prin- ciples, condemned by author- ity, 282, et seq.; View of Epis- copate in conflict w. Modern Scholarship, 284, et seq. Catholicity, true, necessarily Protestant, 161; C. of Church of Eng., 180, et seq. and Pro- testantism, not antithetical, 184 "Catholics" vs. Anglican Re- formers, 184, et seq. INDEX 329 Celestine V., Pope, empowers a Friar to ordain, 264 Channel Islands, clergy of, not episcopally ordained, 95 Cliillingworth, on recog. non- epis. churches, 108 Chorepiscopi, probably Presby- ters, 251, note; 263 Chrysostom, on Bishop and Priest, 256, 285, 289 Church, a, object of, 124 et seq. Church Catholic, the, declara- tions concerning, 29 et seq.; 90; Visible and Invisible, 133-137 Churches, the Protestant, re- cog, by name, 107, 108, 271 Claget, Dr., 102 Clemens Alexandrinus, on ident. Bishop and Presbyter, 247 Clemens Romanus, on ident. Bishop and Presbyter, 240, 285, 289 Commission (Matt, xxvni., 19) given to entire body of Church, 299 Communion, with non-epis. churches, sanctioned, 163- 165; Archb. Usher on, 164; Cosin on, 164, 165 Conference, the Pan-Anglican, on recog. Pres. Ordination, 319, note Confessions, of Protestant Churches, 273 Congregation the, the reservoir of Divine Power, 247, 267, 293-311; P. E. Church on, 299-311; C. not a function of the Ministry, 294; 302 et seq. Cooper, Bishop, recog, non-epis. churches, 60; on Church Gov- ernment, 214; Church the reser\'oir of Divine Power, 297 Cosin, Bishop, recog. non-epis. churches, 56, 98-101; their Sacraments valid, 164, 165 Cosin, Dr. Richard, Admission of non-epis. clergy, 34, 108 ; integrity of Protestant Churches,39 ; Ch. Government, 214; Church the reservoir of Divine Power, 297, ftote Cranmer, Archb., validity of non-epis. churches and their Orders, 56, 107; Sermon on the Keys, 116, 117; on ident. Bishop and Presbyter, 119, 120, note Cudworth, on recog. non-epis. churches, 108 Culdecs, practised Presbyterian Ordination, 255, 266 Cyprian, docs not question valid- ity of Presbyt. ordination, 250; his testimony opposed to "catholic" theory, 289 Dalcho, Rev. Frederick, his Hist. Church in South Carolina cited, 303, note Davenant, Bishop, recog. non- epis. churches, 56^ 108 Development in Theology, 195 et seq.; false ideas concerning, 198-205; Newman's theory of, 200, 202, 203 Discipline, signifies Church Gov- ernment, and is alterable, 218- 225; Preface to Pr. Book on, 217-219; 306-31 1; Canons of Church of England on, 224. {See also, Congregation, The, as Reservoir of Power) Dix, Dr., on necessity of the Episcopate, 10 Doctrinal attitude of Ch. of Eng. not changed at Restora- tion {see Revisers 1662, and Revision of 1662) nor subse- quently, 279 et seq. Doctrines, necess. to be believed, 207, 208; no d. of exclus. Episc, 208 Downham, Dr. George, recog. non-epis. churches, 56 Duchesne, Mgr., views regard- ing the Episcopate, 285 Durandus, on ident. Bishop and Presbyter, 265 330 INDEX Ecclesia Anglicana, a Protestant Church, 1 66 et seq., true catho- licity of, 1 80 Ecumenical Councils, how re- garded by Anglican Reform- ers, 187, 188 Ede, Dr., Dean of Worcester, respec. Church of Scotland in 1604, 40 EUendorf, opposes "catholic" theory, 285, 287, 288 Elmacinus, George, confirms statement of Eutychius, re- spect. Alex. Ordin., 264 Encyclopcedia Britannica on "Or- ders in Church of England," 51,281 Epiphanius, on equality of Bishop and Presbyter, 252 Episcopacy, its estab. in Scot- land, 40 et seq.; terms of estab., 47 ; how it should be defended, 120; if essential at all, essen- tial to personal salvation, 124 et seq.; not essential to validity of Sacraments, 60, 118, 165; exclus. pretensions of, indefensible, 206-209; de- velopment argument concern- ing, 209, 210; testimony of Fathers, concerning, 211; in the light of mod. scholarship, 284 et seq.; unanimity of schol- ars as to its origin, 292, 293. (See also, Bishop, Episcopate) Episcopate, an Office, not an Order, 231 et seq.; 273, 274 et seq.; "catholic" view of, vs. view of Anglic. Reformers, Fathers, and Schoolmen, 231; E. in the New Testament, 232; theory of its necessity, origin of, 270; never regarded as an Order till i6th Cent., 61, 239, 262, 264, 268, 273, 274, 286, 314; mod. scholars agreed as to its origin, 292, 293; mod. scholars agree with Anglic. Ref., 311; Historic E. vs. Apos. Sue, 318 e^ seq., 320 Erasmus, respect, origin of Epis- copate, 269 Estius, views regarding Chor- episcopi, 263 Eugenius, Pope, views respect. Orders, 266, 267 Eutychius, respect, ordination at Alexandria, 260, 261, 292 Exclusiveness, "cathoUc" vs. Puritan, 117, iiS Fagius, on ident. Order, Bishop and Priest, 273 Fairbaim, view of Episcopate, 285 Field, Dean, recog. non-epis. churches, 56, 108; concerning Chorepiscopi, 263 FirmiHan, Bishop of Cassarea, on ident. Order, 248 Fisher, George P., on origin of Episcopate, 78, note; 251; opposes "catholic" theory, 285 Fleetwood, admission of non- epis. clergy, 34, 35; 108 Forbes, Dr., respect. Chorepis- copi, 257 Forms, of organization, why essential?, 123 Fulke, Dr., recog. non-epis. churches, 56, 107 Gallagher, Mason, his work Prim. Eiren. cited, 257, 258, 259, 260, 261, 262, 264, 266, 268, 287, 288 Geikie, on commission of Matt, xxviii., v. 19, 298, 299 German Protestants, acknowl- edged a branch of Cathol. Church, 32 Gieseler, respect, the Episco- pate, 285, 287 Goode, On Orders, quoted, 40, 56, note; 265, 268 Gore, Canon Chas. his criticism of Jerome, 249; on origin of Episc, 288 Government, ecclesiastical, no one form prescribed in Holy INDEX 331 Government — Continued Scripture, 212-217; 295 et scq.; Puritan view of, 216; 295, 296; and Discipline, 217-225 Gratian, asserts Chorepiscopi were Presbyters, 263 Grindal, Archb., recog. Presby- terian Church and Orders, 33, 107, 114, 163 Guihelmus Parisiensis, asserts that Episcopate depends on Presbytcrate, 264 Gwynne, Rev, Walker, on Pro- testant "'Sects," II Halifax, Lord, mistakes of the Reformation, 147 Hall, Bishop, Joseph, on admis- sion of non-epis. clergy, 34, 36; 56, 89, 90, 108 Hallam, on admission of non- epis. clergy, 34, 106 Hammond, respect, the Com- mission in Matt, xxviii., v. 19, 298, 299 Handbook of Information, A , on title "American Catholic," 7 Hardwick, Hist, of the Articles, quoted, 300 Harnack, on origin of the Episco- pate, 78, note; opposes "catho- lic" theory, 285, 288 Hatch, on origin of Episcopate, 78, note; 285, 292, 293; re- marks on Cyprian, 250; on Presbyterian C)rdination, 250, 252, 256, 288; Church as the reservoir of Divine Power, 296 Herzog, on the Episcopate, 285, 287 Hilary, the Deacon, on identity of Bishop and Presbyter, 252, 285, 292 Hippolytus, Canons of, reveal original identity of Order, 247, 248 Hobart, Bishop, on necessity of Episcopate, 10, 141 Hodges, Dean, opposes "catho- lic" theory, 285 Holy Catholic Church, the official utterances regarding it, 14 et seg. Hooker, on Lay Baptism, 18; recog. non-epis. churches, 56, 107; asserts no one form of Government necessary, 215, 216; the Church as reservoir of Divine Power, 296, 297 Hooper, Bishop, recog. non- epis. churches, 56. 107; inter- pretation of Art. XXin., 300 Hore, A. H., the Revision of 1662, 98, note Hort, on the Episcopate, 285 Hugo, St. Victor, on ident. of Orders, 262 Hunter, Rev. E. W., on the Holy Catholic Church, 1 1 Huss, denies that Episcopate is an Order, 266 Ignalian Epistles, their testi- mony respect. Bishops and Presbyters, 240-243; authen- ticity of, 243, note; contain no evid. for exclusive theory of Episcopate, 244, note Ignatius, his writings antago- nistic to "catholic" theory, 289 Innocent VIII., Pope, permits Abbots to ordain, 268 Institution of a Christian Man, the, on identity of Bishop and Presbyter, 78, note; 185; Epis- copacy not essential, 270, 271 Invocation, of our Lady, 158; of Saints, 158 et seq., 187 _ Irenaeus, his testimony misun- derstood, 245; assumes iden- tity Bishops and Presbyters, 246, 247 Isidore Hispalensis, said to have asserted ident. of Orders, 259 Jacob, Dr. G. A., opposes "catholic" theory, 285; Epis- copate an evolution, 290 332 INDEX Jerome, on identity of Bishop and Presbyter, 253-255; Pres- byterian ordination at Alex- andria, _ 254, 292; opposes "catholic" theory, 289; quoted by Jacob, 290, 291 Jewel, Bishop, recog. non-epis. churches, 56, 60; on signif. term "Order," 67 et seq., 107; Catholicity of Church of Eng- land, 180; Defence of Apology quoted, 256, 257 Jonas, Justus, opposes "catho- lic" theory, as to Bishops and Presbyters, 273 Keble, Rev. John, on admission of non-epis. clergy, 34, 37, 106; testifies as to practice of Re- formers, 60, 118, 273, 274; and Oxford Movement, 282 Kikuyu Conference, 157 et seq. Latimer, Bishop, respect, non- epis. churches, 56 Laud, Archb., recog. validity non-epis. ordination, 57, 108; recog. integrity non-epis. Churches, 57, 108; reproved by Univ. of Oxford, 58, 277, 279 Laying on of Hands, the, Rite not invariably practised, 258. See also, note Leighton, Archb., views on Episcopacy, 48-50; on re- ordination, 8y, 94 Liberatus, Breviarum of, cited on Ordination at Alexandria, .258 Lightfoot, Bishop, on origin of Episcopate, 78, note; 257, 285, 292; opposes "catholic" theory, 285; identity of Bishop and Priest, 285, 286; 288; identity never questioned till Reformation, 2 86, L. versus Zanzibar, 2S6; 287; Church as reservoir of Power, 298 Lindsay, on Episcopate, 285; on Commission in Matt, xxviii., V. 19, 298, 299 Littledale, Dr., his denunciation of the Anglican Reformers, .147 Living Church, The, Art. on. "Bidding Prayer " and "Ch. of Scotland," 40, ei seq; Annual, Art. on the " Catholic Church, " 122, 123 Lollards, the, endorsed Presby- terian Ordination, 266 Lombard, Peter, on identity of Orders, 263 Luidger, practised Presbyterian Ordination, 259 Luther, on identity of Order, 272, 273 Macaulay, on admission of non- epis. clergy, 34, 36, 106 Malabar Christians, held Bishop and Priest same Order, 268, 269 Manipulus Curatorum, declares Episcopate not an Order, 266 Manning, Cardinal, and Oxford Movement, 282, 283 Manning, Dr. W. T., on the proposed title, 9 Mark, St., a Presbyter only, ordains, 290 Marsiglio of Padua, Bishop and Presbyter one Order, 265 Maskell, Rev. William, on ident. Bishop and Priest, 239, 262, 264, 268, 274 Mason, Archdeacon Francis, re- cog. non-epis. churches, 56, 108 McGiffert, attitude toward Epis- copacy, 285 McNeal (see Thatcher) Melanchthon, on identity of Order, 273 Ministry, the, a function of the Church, 294, 302 et seq. Mombasa, Bishop of, accused of heresy, 162 et seq. Morrison, John, his orders re- cognized, 33, 114 Mosheim, quoted, 256 Mossman, Thos. W., Episco- pacy an evolution, 289, 290 INDEX 333 Moule, opposes "catholic" theory, 285 Myconius, on identity of Order, 273 Name, the proposed, 3-14; its signif., 151-154. 324 . Neale, on Prcsbytcrianism in Scotland, 44; Bancroft's ser- mon, 276 Neander, view of Episcopate, 285, 287 Necessary Doctrine and Erudi- tion, the, identifies Bishop and Priest, 78, note; Episco- pacy not essential, 270, 271 Newman, J. H., on necessity of Episcopate, 128, 129; claims E. rests on same basis as Papacy, 211; his theory of doc. development, 200, 202, 203; relat. to Oxford Move- ment, 282, 283 Novatus, a Presbyter, ordains a Deacon, 249, 250 CEcumenius.on identity of Bishop and Presbyter, 262 "Ordain" w. "order," signif. of terms, 71 et seq. Ordaining Presbytery, of Eark, recog., 108, 114 Order, vs. Office, technical use of terms, 229-231; mediaeval conception of, 266, note; Epis- copate an Office, not an, 231, et seq.; Episcopate and Pres- byterate, the same, 239-269; Clemens Romanus, 240; Teach- ing of Twelve Apostles, 240; Ignatian Epistles, 240-243 ; Polycarp, 244; Papias, 244; Irenasus, 245-247; Clemens Alexandrinus, 247; Tertul- lian, 247; Hippolytus, 247, 248; Firmilian, 248; Alexan- dria, Church of, 248, 249; Novatus, 249, 250; Cyprian, 250; Ancyra, Council of, 250, 251; Epiphanius, 252; Hilary, Deacon, 252; Ambrose, 252; Jerome, 253; Culdees, the, 255; Aerius, 256; Paphnutius, 256; Chrysostom, 256; Augus- tine, 256, 257; Pelagius, 257; Theodore, of Mopsuestia, 257; Theodoret, 257; Sedulius, 257; Boethius, 257; Liberatus, 257, 258; Primasius, 258; Theo- phylact, 259; Isidore Hispa- lensis, 259; Bede, 259; Alcuin, 259; Willchad, 259; Luidgar, 259; Aix, Synod of, 259, 260; Amalarius, 260; Eutychius, 260, 261; Severus, 261, 262; Oecumenius, 262 ; Aclfric, Canons of, 262; Aclfric, Pasto- ral of, 262; Anselm, 262; Hugo St. Victor, 262; Gratian, 263; Peter Lombard, 263; Waldenscs, the, 263; AlbertuS Magnus, 263 ; Alexander Alen- sis, 263; George Ehnacinus, 264; Celestine V., Pope, 264; Guilielmus, Parisiensis, 264; Bonaventura, 264; Thomas Aquinas, 265; Durandus, 265; Peter Aureolus, 265; Mar- siglio of Padua, 265; Wyclif, 265, 266; Lollards, the, 266; Pupilla Oculi, 266; Manipulus Ciiratorum, 266; Huss, 266; Eugenius, Pope, 266, 267; Tostatus, 267; Antonius de Rosellis, 268; Pontifical, 15th Cent., 268; Cajetan, 268; Innocent VIII., Pope, 268; Malabar Christians, 268, 269; Erasmus, 269; Continental Reformers, the, 273; Danish Confession, 273; . Smalcald, Art., 273; Confession of Sax- ony, 273; Confession of Wit- tenberg, 273; Confession of Belgium, 273; Confession of Bohemia, 273; Helvetic Con- fession, 273 Ordinal, its evidence respect. Orders, 64-80; 83 et seq.; of Church of Scotland, 49, 50 Ordination, Presbyterian,_ never pronounced invalid, objection answered, 113-115 / 334 INDEX Organizations, Protestant, not parts of Catholic Church, ob- jection answered, 115 et seq. Oxford Movement, condemned by authority, 282, 326 Papacy, and Prelacy rest upon same basis, 205-207; New- man's remarks upon, 211 Paphnutius, on validity of Pres- byterian Ordination, 256 Papias, fragments of, testify as to ident. Apostles and Presby- ters, 244 Patent, of Edward VI., recog. the Church of the Germans, 107, 109; recog. validity of Protestant Sacraments, 163 Pelagius, said to have asserted equality Bishop and Presby- ter, 257, 285 Perowne, opposes "catholic" theory, 285 Peter Aureolus, on ident. Bishop a^nd Presbyter, 265 Philpot, Archdeacon, recog. non- epis. Churches, 56, 107 Pilkington, Bishop, recog. non- epis. churches, 56, 107 Plummer, on commission Matt, xxviii., V. 19, 299 Polycarp, evidence con. identity of Bishop and Presbyter, 244 Pontifical, A 15th Cent., declares Episcopate not an Order, 268 Prayers, officially set forth, for the Catholic Church, 107; officially set forth, for indi- vidual Churches, 107, 108 Prelacy, not Episcopacy, con- demned, 322 et seq. Presbyters, still ordain, 236-238 Prideaux, on recog. non-epis. churches, 108 Primasius, on ident. Bishop and Presbyter, 258 Proctor, on Prayer for the Churches of France, 38 Protestant Bodies, excluded from Catholic Church, 7 et seq. Protestant Episcopal Church, branch of Catholic Church, 3 ; relat. to Church of England, 104, 105, 108 Pupilla Oculi, on Lay Baptism, 20; Episcopate not an Order, 266 Puritans, the, views respect. Church Government, 216, 295, 296 Pusey, and the Oxford Move- ment, 282 Quadrilateral, the Lambeth, 318 et seq. Rainolds, Dr., recog, non-epis. churches, 56, 108 Ramsay, opposes "catholic" theory, 285 Reformation, in Church of Eng- land, when completed, 105, 106; mistakes of, 146, 147, 149; Lord Halifax on, 147 Reformers, Anglican, appealed to antiquity and Catholic usage, 189-190; denounced by "catholics," 147; their opinions vs. opin. of "catho- lics," 184-188; 205, 206; view of Church as reservoir of Divine Power, 296, 297, note Re-ordination, its meaning mis- understood, 86 et seq., 94-96 Revisers of 1662, the, ratify position of Anglican Reform- ers, 183, 279 et seq. Revision of 1662, the, involved no doctrinal changes, 62, 63, 83 et seq., 103, 108, 165, 279, et seq.; Hore's testimony con., 98, note; Bp. Seymour on, 104 Ridley, Bishop, his attitude toward non-epis, churches, 56, 107 Rogers, Thomas, on recog, non- epis. churches, 40 Romanism, a constant menace, 324. 325 Sabatier, Augusts, attitude to- wards Episcopacy, 285 INDEX 335 Sacrament, of Confirmation, Penance, etc., Anglican vs. "Catholic" view, i86; of the Lord's Supper, Reformers' view of, 1 86, 187; Reserva- tion of the, 187 Sacraments, of the Protestant Churches, valid, 163, et seq., 1 86. {See also Patent Edward VI., Grindal, Usher, Cosin) Salmasius, views respect. Chor- episcopi, 263 Salvation, personal, dep. on Episcopate ace. "Cath." the- ory, 124, 134; 141-145 Sancroft, Archb., recog. the Reformed Churches, loi Sanday, on origin of Episcopate, 78, note; 285, 288 Sara via, Dr., on episcopal ordi- nation, 56, 107 Sarum Manual, on Lay Bap- tism, 19 Savoy Conference Commission- ers, appeal to antiquity, 189 Schaff, on origin of Episcopate, 78, note; 285, 288 Schoolmen, opinions respect. Chorepiscopi, 263 Scotland, the Reformed Church of, 33; a Presbyterian Church, . 40, et seq., 107, 108; on Episco- pacy, 49; see also, 137, 138 Seeker, Archb., recog. non-epis. churches, 56 Sedulius, maintained ident. Bishop and Presbyter, 257 Severus, on ordination at Alex- andria, 261, 262 Seymour, Bishop of Springfield, on Revision of 1662, 104; on relat. P. E. Church to Church of England, 105 Sherlock, Dean of St. Paul's, re- cog. Reformed Churches, loi, 102 Spalatensis, views respect. Chor- episcopi, 263 Spottiswoode, on estab. Episco- pacy in Scotland, 47; on the Culdees, 255 St. Albans, the Bishop of, ac- cused by Zanzibar, 158 Stanley, Dean, opposes "catho- lic" theory, 285 Stillingfleet, recog. non-epis. churches, 56, 108; on the Culdees, 255 Strype, on ordination of Mor- rison, 33; on admission of non-episcopal clergy into Church of England, 34, 108 Succession, the Apostolic, 318- 320; not to be confused with Historic Episcopate, 318; "catholic" theory of, never authorized by the Church, 318, note Sutcliffe, on recog. non-epis. churches, 108 Synopsis Papismi, quoted re- spect, the Foreign Reformed Churches, 38, 39 Taylor, Bishop Jeremy, on signif. of word "Order," 66 Teaching of the Twelve Apostles, The, its evid. respect, ident. Bishop and Presbyter, 240 TertuUian, on ident. Bishop and Presbyter, 247; on Church as the reservoir of Divine Power 247, 297; opposed to "catho- lic" theory, 289 Thatcher and McNeal's Source Book, quoted, 265 Theodore of Mopsuestia, regard- ing ident. Bishop and Presby- ter, 257, 285 Theodoret, regardmg ident. Bishop and Presbyter, 257, 285 Thcophylact, said to have held the identity of Order, 239 Thorpe's Ancient Laws and Institutes, quoted, 262 Tillotson, on recog. non-epis. churches, 108 Tindal, on recog. non-epis. churches, 108 Tomline, Bishop, recog. non- epis. churches, 56 336 INDEX Tostatus, Bishop of Avila, on Church as reservoir of Divine Power, 267 Trelawney, C. T. C, respect, the Malabar Christians, 268, 269 Trent, Council of, respect. Bap- tism, 20 "Tulchan Bishops," 41 Turrian, on the Chorepiscopi, 263 Uganda, Bishop of, accused of heresy, 162 et seq. Usher, Archb., recog. non-epis. churches, 56, 96, 97, 108; on identity of Bishop and Presby- ter, 97; receiving Communion at hands of Protestant Clergy, 97 Vincent, Bishop, on the Angli- can Quadrilateral, 319-320 Vincentian Formula, 182 Virgin, the, Worship of, 203 Wake, Archb., recog. non-epis. churches, 56, 102 Walcott, his Canons Ecclesiasti- cal, quoted, 189 Waldenses, the, asserted the ident. Bishop and Presbyter, 263 Westcott, Canon B. F,, opposes "catholic" theory, 285; re- garding the Commission of Matt, xxviii., v. 19, 299 Westcott, F. N., respect, "catho- lic" theory of Authority, 302, 303 Whateley, opposed to "catholic" theory, 285 White, Bishop Francis, recog. non-epis. churches, 56, 108 White, Thomas, recog. non- epis. churches, 56, 108 White, Bishop William, on Apos- tolic Succession, 319 note Whitgift, Archb., recog. non- epis. churches, 56, 60, 107; asserts no one form of Govern- ment necessary, 213; com- ments on Bancroft's sermon, 276; respect, the Church as reservoir of Divine Power, 297, note Whittaker, Dr., recog. non-epis. churches, 56, 107 Willehad, endorsed and practised Presbyterian Ordination, 259 Willet, Dr. Andrew, on recog. of Protestant Churches, 38, 39, 56, 108 Wordsworth, Bishop Charles, on Lambeth Quadrilateral, 318,319 . Wyclif, maintained equality of Bishop and Presbyter, 256, 266 Zanzibar, Bishop of, prefers charges of heresy, 157 et seq.; a follower of Newman and Manning, 283; Z. vs. Light- foot et al., 286 Date Due FE4-1 5? - ^